From: James Hansen

An essay (The People vs. Cap-and-Tax), delivered to the Chairperson of the Carbon Trading Summit in New York on 12 January 2010, is available at http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/mailings/2…

The People vs. Cap?and?Tax.

The public is largely unaware of a momentous battle about to be fought in Washington.  The
stakes are enormous.  Yet the public has not been well informed.

Ignorance of the matter derives in part from the fact that the conflict was initiated via the
highly charged issue of climate change.  Climate is complex.  People have different opinions
about the extent to which humans are causing climate change.  Fundamental belief systems are
involved and discussion can be emotional.

Yet the core issue can be defined independent of climate.  It concerns how society can phase
out its addictive use of fossil fuels and move on, in the most economically efficient and
equitable way, to a clean energy future.  Conservatives, independents and liberals should be
united in this fight.

Washington could define a path that would lead the world toward a clean energy future. And,
incidentally, it would solve the climate problem – without requiring anyone to agree that there
even is a climate problem.

Yet Washington appears intent on choosing a path defined by corporate greed.  Unless the
public gets engaged, the present Administration may jam down the public’s throat just such an
approach, which, it can be shown, is not a solution at all.

The frustrating thing to me is my inability to communicate these alternatives to the public.  This
feeling is consuming, because I believe with all my mind and heart that the well?being of my
children and grandchildren (and yours) depends upon whether the public becomes informed
and interested.  So far, it isn’t.

I had an opportunity on a recent David Letterman Show  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KiJJgC7B_…),
where I said that, for the sake of the people and the planet, the public must understand the
difference between “cap?and?trade” and “fee?and?dividend”.  Of course, I could not continue
with that topic there.  But it is the heart of the matter.  So how to proceed?

I decided to write an op?ed for the New York Times.  I got city?slickered by the editors, as I will
relate here.  Perhaps this story can help people understand – it is not necessary to be a
physicist or economist to understand the basic issues – it is mostly common sense.

My op?ed, which I submitted to the Times in early December, just prior to the UN climate
meeting in Copenhagen, excoriated “cap?and?trade?with?offsets”.  As I will explain, cap?and?
trade with offsets is the approach taken in the Waxman?Markey bill that narrowly passed the
House of Representatives last June and the Kerry?Boxer bill that is currently languishing in the
Senate.

The four legislators whose names adorn those bills have been stalwart environmentalists for
their entire long and honorable careers.  Yet cap?and?trade, which is ostensibly designed to
reduce carbon dioxide emissions and preserve global climate, has been a proven loser in
Europe.  And the cap?and?trade bills, which also have the support of the White House and its
environmentalist allies, are even worse.

Cap?and?trade?with?offsets would benefit a handful of wealthy people, while consigning our
children to a downhill slide toward a lower standard of living – on a planet whose wondrous life
forms are being decimated.  So how can it be the basis of legislation being pushed by the
Democratic Administration in both the House and Senate?

Easy.  The proposed bills in Congress are loaded with goodies for special financial and corporate
interests.  These bills would cheat the American public – again.  Cap?and?trade was designed in
part by Wall Street, which is eager to exploit a trading market expected to grow to two trillion
dollars.  The revolving door between Washington and Wall Street helped bring the scheme
about.

My op?ed  http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/07/opinio… is the published
version; http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/mailings/2… is a
saltier version] proposed an alternative approach, fee?and?dividend, designed to benefit the
public rather than Wall Street.  A carbon fee would be collected from the fossil fuel companies
on the first sale of oil, gas and coal at the mine, wellhead or port of entry.  One hundred
percent of the collected fee would be given to the public monthly, deposited electronically in
people’s bank accounts or debit cards, an equal amount to each household.

I titled my op?ed “Sack Goldman Sachs’ Cap?and?Trade”. But editors can distort articles with
titles of their choosing – and I know the Times tends to favor mainstream environmentalist
ideology.  So I asked the editors if they would retain my title.  They refused to tell me.  For good
reason.  If I had known their plans, I would have withdrawn the op?ed.

Their published title: “Cap and Fade”.  Not one person has offered a sensible explanation of
that title.  Worse, the editors added a subtitle indicating that “fee?and?dividend” was a tax,
implying that cap?and?trade was not a tax.  This is a case of calling black white and white black.

Cap?and?trade is a hidden tax. An accurate name would be cap?and?tax, because cap?and?trade
increases the cost of energy for the public, as utilities and other industries purchase the right to
pollute with one hand, adding it to fuel prices, while with the other hand they take back most of
the permit revenues from the government.  Costs and profits of the trading infrastructure are
also added to the public’s energy bill.

Fee?and?dividend, in contrast, is a non?tax.  The fee collected at the first sale of oil, gas and coal
in the country does increase the price of fossil fuel energy.  But 100 percent of the fee is
distributed monthly to the public as electronic deposits to the bank account or debit card of all
legal residents, with half shares for children, up to two children per family.

The dividend keeps families whole while providing an economic stimulus to boot.  By the time
the fee reaches $115 per ton of carbon dioxide (equivalent to $1 per gallon of gasoline) the
dividend will be $2,000?$3,000 per legal resident per year ?? $6000?$9,000 for a family with two
or more children.

People who keep their carbon footprint smaller than average will make money.  The fee will
rise gradually so people have a chance to choose more efficient vehicles, insulate their homes,
and so on.  The dividend will help people afford these investments.  Jobs will be created as
society retools the economy from high?carbon to low.

Perhaps coincidentally, the Times published alongside my op?ed an article by their columnist
Paul Krugman  http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/07/opinio…) extolling the
merits of cap?and?trade.  Krugman asserted that cap?and?trade provided the basis for a
successful international agreement at Copenhagen on climate.

This one?two punch, evisceration of my article via a nonsensical title and an opposing piece
 http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/12…) by Nobel Prize winning
Krugman, was not enough.  By the time readers were ready for their second cup of coffee, at
10:45 AM, an article “Unhelpful Hansen” appeared on Krugman’s heavily trafficked blog.

Krugman is one of my favorite columnists.  I am amazed at his productivity, and I agree with
most of his opinions.  I am not suggesting that he was given prior knowledge of my piece by
Times editors – I assume that he just works fast.  My hope is that he is open to persuasion.  Our
aims are similar, and this matter is so important that it deserves careful reanalysis.

I also think the public can distinguish the forest from the trees.  This topic is not rocket science.
It is mostly a matter of common sense.  And, contrary to Krugman’s insinuation, most
economists are in closer agreement with my perspective than with his.

First we must recognize one basic fact.  Then I will describe the three main issues on which
Krugman and I disagree.  Then you can make up your own mind.

Basic fact.  As long as fossil fuels are the cheapest form of energy their use will continue and
even increase.

Consider the Kyoto Protocol, which was negotiated at a prior UN climate meeting in 1997.
National emissions of signatory countries were capped at some agreed levels.  Nations evaded
these limits by purchasing “offsets” – putative but often illusory reduction in greenhouse gas
emissions from developing countries.  Offsets destroy the effectiveness of the agreement,
because the scientific requirement for stabilizing climate is that the fossil fuel emissions are
phased down rapidly.  And some nations just ignored the limits, because there was no realistic
way to enforce them.  However, the fundamental problem was that “Kyoto” did not increase
the price of fossil fuels relative to non?carbon energies.

The handful of nations that claimed to have reduced their carbon emissions were joshing their
citizens and everybody else.  They were just pretending to be “green”.  Manufacture of
products based heavily on fossil fuels simply moved to developing countries, which had no cap.
Then the products were flown to the developed countries, while burning aircraft fuel that is
untaxed because of a 1940s agreement to support the fledgling airline industry.

Prior to “Kyoto” global fossil fuel emissions were increasing 11?2 percent per year.  Afterwards,
they increased 3 percent per year.  Kyoto may not have caused the increase (although shifting
production to developing countries, often by coal?fired inefficient industries, with shipping to
developed countries, did not help), but it certainly did not stop it.

Now let’s address the three main arguments of Krugman, common arguments wielded by
proponents of cap?and?trade.

Krugman Argument #1.   Cap?and?trade is the only way to get an effective agreement rapidly.
That is a myth.  In fact, every cap?and?trade regime has taken many years to hammer out.
Kyoto negotiations dragged on a decade and were not completed.  Individual countries had to
be bribed to participate, yet some still would not.  And the result was not successful, as we
have seen.

Proposed cap?and?trade within the United States would be even more complex than “Kyoto.”
The Waxman?Markey and Boxer?Kerry cap?and?trade bills in Congress are larded with 2,000
pages of give?aways to special interests, soaking the public who must pay higher energy prices.

Fee?and?dividend, in contrast, is defined by a single number: the fee (tax) rate that the fossil
fuel companies must hand over at the first sale of oil, gas or coal.  All the government must do
is divide this collected revenue by the number of legal residents and punch a button monthly to
deliver the dividend to the public.

What is the chance that a United States cap?and?trade law could be a precursor for a global
agreement?  Zero.  There is no chance that China will accept a cap.  Nor should they.  They are
still in the early phase of their economic development.

But would China be willing to place a carbon fee on their fossil fuels?  Yes, for many reasons.
First, China wants to avoid, or at least minimize, the problems of fossil fuel addiction that
plague the United States, such as the need for military protection of global supply lines.
Second, China would be hit hardest by climate change, with several hundred million people
living close to sea level and a still?enormous agrarian population.  Third, air and water pollution
from fossil fuels are a huge problem in China.

China is taking the right steps.  They are investing heavily in energy efficiency, renewable
energy, and nuclear power, threatening to take over technical and economic leadership as the
United States continues to dawdle.  The Chinese government knows that replacement of fossil
fuels with energy efficiency, renewable energies, and non?carbon energies requires a price
signal (in addition to other more?targeted policies and investments).

Compare the difficulty of negotiating national carbon fee (tax) rates with the difficulty of
convincing China that they should have Waxman?Markey?like cap?and?trade.  Because of our
historical energy profligacy, versus China’s energy penury, a U.S. cap — even expressed as a
percentage reduction — has no moral standing in China.  On the other hand, the Chinese
leadership appears to be smart enough to realize that a rising carbon price is just what their
country needs as the underpinning to policies aimed at a clean energy future.

International agreement requires principally that the United States and China agree to apply
such internal fees across the board on fossil fuels at the mine or port of entry.   Agreement on
such action is in the best interests of both nations, making it far easier to reach than
agreements on caps.

With the United States and China acting in concert on a carbon fee, Europe, Japan and other
nations would surely follow.  Import duties based on standard amounts of fossil fuels used in
production could be applied to products from countries that did not have a carbon fee,
removing any competitive disadvantage from the fee and providing strong incentive for
participation in the carbon fee.

Krugman Argument #2.  Cap?and?trade and fee?and?dividend are really equivalent.
Krugman says that the fee?and?dividend I propose is “essentially equivalent” to cap?and?trade.
Here I may not have been clear.  I do not dispute the economic theory that a cap and a fee are,
in principle, equivalent.  But cap?and?trade’s complexity allows special interests to take over,
killing its effectiveness.

The devil is in the implementations, as I discuss in my book “Storms of My Grandchildren”.  I
believe lay people can appreciate the differences.  Cap?and?trade’s complexity provides a
breeding ground for special interests.  A fee at the mine, wellhead or port of entry, with
distribution of proceeds to the public, has a great advantage in simplicity.  Let me note here its
superiority in transparency and fairness.

One can appreciate the difference in transparency by comparing the 2,000?page Waxman?
Markey cap?and?trade bill with the simplicity of a single fee (tax) rate on fossil fuels.  With fee?
and?dividend we know who gets the money – equal amounts to all legal residents.  But try
reading the Waxman?Markey 2,000?page bill to figure out who would get the money!  Why do
those special interests deserve it anyhow?

Regarding fairness, I should note that there is a variant of fee?and?dividend preferred by Al
Gore.  He would use the money collected by the fee to reduce payroll taxes, rather than give
U.S. residents a dividend.  It seems to me that a payroll tax deduction fails the fairness test,
because half of adults are not on payrolls, being either retired or out of work involuntarily.

However, some economists also prefer a payroll tax deduction.  Their argument is that reducing
taxes on employment creates jobs and stimulates the economy.  It seems to me that dividends
do the same, but I suppose that using half of the collected fee to reduce payroll taxes would be
an acceptable compromise.  However, it would be important to be certain that the payroll tax
deduction is real and matches the fee collection.  With a dividend it is easier to be sure that the
government is coughing up the full amount.

Krugman Argument #3.  Wall Street will not be involved in carbon trading
Krugman says that my suggestion that carbon trading will be an open invitation to Wall Street
to again pillage the financial system “is bizarre.”  What is bizarre, in my opinion, is his implicit
presumption that government regulators can outwit Wall Street executives.

Congress can write a cap?and?trade bill that tries to exclude Wall Street.  But to think that Wall
Street will not get involved in carbon profits, directly or indirectly, is naïve.  This is a free
country.  Wall Street banks can buy the companies most affected by carbon price.

Notice what happened after we bailed out the big banks?  They decided the chump?change in
loans to home?owners wasn’t worth their trouble.  Instead they went to trading – in the stock
market – making billions.  Their secretive trading units are good – very good – there is a reason
that they get big bonuses.

Wall Street and the big banks took us to the cleaners once – shame on them.  If we allow
Congress to pass cap?and?trade, letting the banks do it to us again – shame on us.

Trading schemes make sense only when they provide added value.  Carbon trading provides
mostly added cost.  What we need is a transparent, honest approach that benefits the public.

The Fundamental Requirement
We can cure our fossil fuel addiction and in the process reduce emissions that cause climate
change.  It requires that we take actions for the public interest, not for special interests.

What we need is an approach that addresses the fundamental fact that keeps us addicted to
fossil fuels: they are the cheapest form of energy, provided their prices do not have to include
the damage they do to human health, the environment, and the future of our children.

For the sake of the people, especially young people, there should be a rising price on carbon
emissions.  The price should rise at a known economically sensible rate, so that businesses have
time to plan their investments accordingly.  The money collected should be put in the hands of
the public, so they are able to make the purchases necessary to reduce their carbon footprint.

The money collected should not be used by Congress to invest in energy R&D.  It has been
shown time and again that Congress does not invest efficiently, and certainly not compared to
the private sector.  Private sector investments will be made if a rising price of carbon emissions
is legislated through a carbon fee that makes the rising price explicit.  The government already
has resources to support research – it should not steal fee?and?dividend money from the public.

Contrary to claims of mainstream environmental groups and others politically invested in cap?
and?trade, the legislative train has not left the station.  There is time to negotiate and pass a
simple transparent bill that is in the interest of the public.  It should be a bi?partisan bill that can
be supported by conservatives.

Congress is accustomed to working with special interests.  There is a revolving door between
Congress and lobbyists.  Ex?members know the Washington ropes.  The lobbyists wrote most of
the pages in the 2,000?page bills in Congress.

We, the public, cannot allow politics?as?usual to steamroll this topic.  It is too important for the
health of our economy, our children, and the other life on the planet.  Fortunately, there are
members of Congress who are beginning to understand the problem and move in the direction
to address it.

Congressman Larson’s bill, with a rising carbon fee, addresses half of the task.  The rate at
which the fee rises in this bill is perhaps too slow, but the important point is to provide the
business community and the public some certainty that carbon prices will rise so they can make
decisions and investments accordingly.

Senator Cantwell’s cap?and?dividend bill also addresses half of the solution – distributing 100
percent of the proceeds to the public as a dividend.  However, it is just as important to dispense
with the “cap” approach, still present in the Cantwell bill, as it is with the “trade” aspect.

A cap is more complex than a fee (dollars per ton of CO2, applied uniformly at the source), so a
cap is more subject to jerry?rigging by special interests.  But the fundamental reasons to remain
dead?set against the cap approach are these:

(1) Caps inherently cause prices to fluctuate wildly.  Even if legislators attempt to outsmart the
market by building in limits on the fluctuations, there is still uncertainty in the impact on energy
prices.  Business people need to have confidence about how prices will change in the future.
Ditto, the public. If they expect prices to be fluctuating they are not as likely to make the
lifestyle decisions that are needed to move us toward the cleaner future beyond fossil fuels.

(2) A cap?and?dividend approach is not a route to a global agreement.  There is no way that
developing countries such as China can accept a cap, given their state of development.  The
United States should be a global leader.  The way to do that is to demonstrate an
understanding of the global problem and provide a leadership example in solving it.

Postscript:
One of the economists I consult with suggested alternative ways to address Krugman’s
arguments.  These suggestions are so extensive that I cannot incorporate them as if they were
my own – but they provide additional insight.  So I edited them a bit and put on my web site at
 http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/mailings/2… This discussion
refers to two of arguments listed above, and to an addition argument (Cap?and?trade worked
for acid rain, so it will work for climate change).

Letter
The letter delivered to the chairperson of the Carbon Trading Summit is at
  Permalink | |  Email This Article
Posted in Copenhagen COP15, Global Warming issues, Green is Possible, Obama Styling, Policy Lessons from Mad Cow Disease, Real World's News, Reporting from Washington DC, The US States

The Holocaust is not over and the Jewish people as a whole ought to embrace tragedies visited on peoples like the Native Americans, Armenians, and Rwandans  as their own. Israel should make the  Holocaust the basis for a new universalism that respects the human  rights of all peoples and treats atrocities inflicted on anyone as  atrocities inflicted on all.

As our title shows, we believe that having been at the short end of the experience of inhumanity of man to man, Israel and World Jewry are best placed in figuring out what is not acceptable human behavior. As such, as much as we sympatise with Avraham Burg’s frustration with his fellow Israelis, we nevertheless find unacceptable the conclusion that “The Holocaust is Over.”

The reality is that the Holocaust is with us daily – Just listen to Ahmedi-Nejad’s ranting.

But, having said that, we are ready to cross the line and ask from Israel and World Jewry to do more and make sure that we always raise the flag for good causes – this without looking side-wise at what others do or not do. A case in point – very prominent on our web – we were asking for years from Israel to move towards the front of the line on Climate Change Activism.

Climate Change / Global Warming are issues that cause great misery and world wide deaths. The reliance on fossil carbon including the petroleum source causes deaths, but it took Israel years to go beyond short sighted economic calculations – that like in any other capitalist country – this even that they actually stood much more to gain by taking the right positions.

So, we believe that having experienced the Holocaust, Israel and World Jewry can use the experience distilled into the “Light to the World” as per the Biblical texts that Avraham Burg and his father before him, are known for keeping very close to their hearts.

The original article we received follows:
“The Holocaust is Over”

by Roberto Savio of “Other News” www.other-net.info
“The Holocaust Is Over, We Must Rise From Its Ashes” is the title of Avraham’s Burg controversial book, which has been published in Israel in Hebrew and is about to come out in the United States. The book is a brave and groundbreaking rethinking of the most basic tenets of  Zionism and Israeli identity by a pillar of Israel`s political  establishment.

Burg is a longtime Israeli politician and former Speaker of the Knesset whose father, Yosef Burg, was a prominent
founding father of the Jewish state. But in recent years he has caused an uproar within Israel with his increasingly heterodox views about  Zionism, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and the legacy of the  Holocaust. His book, originally published in Hebrew in 2007, marks the culmination of a political and ideological odyssey that has carried  him far from the Israel`s political mainstream — but which may hold  the key to a better future for the country and its neighbors.

Central to Burg`s reinterpretation of Zionism is his belief that  Israel has become imprisoned by the legacy of the Holocaust. To this  day, Burg argues, the Holocaust remains the central theme of Israeli  identity, with debilitating effects on the country`s political life.

The first stop for every prominent visitor is Yad Vashem, the Holocaust memorial, and Israeli teenagers travel to the death camps  upon their high school graduations, just before their induction into  the army. Israelis are taught to view their enemies as reincarnations  of the Nazis, unable to be reasoned with and dead-set on their  destruction. The constant fear of a second Shoah, Burg claims, is  crippling Israeli cultural life and destroying the possibility of a  normal Israeli politics.

More controversially, Burg argues that Israeli society in the early  twenty-first century bears a marked similarity to German society in  the early twentieth century. He does not, to be sure, compare Israel  to Nazi Germany, but he notes a strong resemblance to Wilhelmine  Germany — the state whose collapse paved the way first for the Weimar Republic and then for the Third Reich. Like early-twentieth century  Germany, Israel is a state dominated by the military and infused with  an ethos that prizes martial superiority above all else. Describing  the growing fear and hatred of Arabs and the increasingly aggressive  nationalism that has taken root in Israeli society, Burg expresses his  fear that Israel, like Wilhelmine Germany, will descend into darker times.

The Jewish people had a chance to make the catastrophe of the Holocaust the basis of an inclusive and universalist ethos, Burg  argues, but instead they have chosen exclusivity and sought to  denigrate the tragedies of others.

Rather than insisting on the historical uniqueness of the Shoah, and in the process downplaying the horrors visited on peoples like the Native Americans, Armenians, and Rwandans, he suggests that Israel and the Jewish people as a whole should embrace these tragedies as their own. Israel should make the  Holocaust the basis for a new universalism that respects the human  rights of all peoples and treats atrocities inflicted on anyone as  atrocities inflicted on all.

Only by transcending the particularistic and the ethnocentric, he  argues, can Israel move forward from domination by the memory of the  Holocaust and attain a more optimistic future. And it is only by doing  so that Israel can finally resolve its own lingering conflicts with  the Palestinians and with its Arab neighbors. Once Israel escapes from a form of militaristic ethnic nationalism stemming from the Holocaust, Burg suggests, it will finally be able to end its occupation of  Palestinian lands and achieve a truly democratic polity that  enfranchises its Palestinian citizens.

From a man who came from the very center of the Israeli establishment, Burg`s book is a courageous  plea for human rights universalism that offers a way forward in bleak  times.
—————————————————————————————————————
*Roberto Savio has founded numerous news and information projects, always with an emphasis on the developing world: Inter Press Service (IPS) news agency. He is now IPS President Emeritus.He is co-founder of Media Watch International, based in Paris, of which he is Secretary General, and founded the Internet service, Othernews, which distributes daily analysis on international issues, particularly the themes of global governance and multilateralism, to several thousand of policy-makers, and leaders of civil society.

This and all “other news” issues can be found at http://www.other-net.info/index.php

Statement from Google: A new approach to China.
Tuesday, January 12, 2010.
Google described the Chinese cyberattacks and explained its resulting decision to stop censoring Chinese search results in this statement from its chief legal officer, released to news outlets Tuesday evening.

THIS STORY
Google may pull out of China over cyber attacks – Statement from Google: A new approach to China.
Like many other well-known organizations, we face cyber attacks of varying degrees on a regular basis. In mid-December, we detected a highly sophisticated and targeted attack on our corporate infrastructure originating from China that resulted in the theft of intellectual property from Google. However, it soon became clear that what at first appeared to be solely a security incident–albeit a significant one–was something quite different.

First, this attack was not just on Google. As part of our investigation we have discovered that at least twenty other large companies from a wide range of businesses–including the Internet, finance, technology, media and chemical sectors–have been similarly targeted. We are currently in the process of notifying those companies, and we are also working with the relevant U.S. authorities.

Second, we have evidence to suggest that a primary goal of the attackers was accessing the Gmail accounts of Chinese human rights activists. Based on our investigation to date we believe their attack did not achieve that objective. Only two Gmail accounts appear to have been accessed, and that activity was limited to account information (such as the date the account was created) and subject line, rather than the content of emails themselves.

Third, as part of this investigation but independent of the attack on Google, we have discovered that the accounts of dozens of US-, China- and Europe-based Gmail users who are advocates of human rights in China appear to have been routinely accessed by third parties. These accounts have not been accessed through any security breach at Google, but most likely via phishing scams or malware placed on the users’ computers.

We have already used information gained from this attack to make infrastructure and architectural improvements that enhance security for Google and for our users. In terms of individual users, we would advise people to deploy reputable anti-virus and anti-spyware programs on their computers, to install patches for their operating systems and to update their web browsers. Always be cautious when clicking on links appearing in instant messages and emails, or when asked to share personal information like passwords online. You can read more here about our cyber-security recommendations. People interested wanting to learn more about these kinds of attacks, can read this U.S. government report, Nart Villeneuve’s blog and this presentation on the GhostNet spying incident.

We have taken the unusual step of sharing information about these attacks with a broad audience not just because of the security and human rights implications of what we have unearthed, but also because this information goes to the heart of a much bigger global debate about freedom of speech. In the last two decades, China’s economic reform programs and its citizens’ entrepreneurial flair have lifted hundreds of millions of Chinese people out of poverty. Indeed, this great nation is at the heart of much economic progress and development in the world today.

We launched Google.cn in January 2006 in the belief that the benefits of increased access to information for people in China and a more open Internet outweighed our discomfort in agreeing to censor some results. At the time we made clear that “we will carefully monitor conditions in China, including new laws and other restrictions on our services. If we determine that we are unable to achieve the objectives outlined we will not hesitate to reconsider our approach to China.”

These attacks and the surveillance they have uncovered–combined with the attempts over the past year to further limit free speech on the web–have led us to conclude that we should review the feasibility of our business operations in China. We have decided we are no longer willing to continue censoring our results on Google.cn, and so over the next few weeks we will be discussing with the Chinese government the basis on which we could operate an unfiltered search engine within the law, if at all. We recognize that this may well mean having to shut down Google.cn, and potentially our offices in China.

The decision to review our business operations in China has been incredibly hard, and we know that it will have potentially far-reaching consequences. We want to make clear that this move was driven by our executives in the United States, without the knowledge or involvement of our employees in China who have worked incredibly hard to make Google.cn the success it is today. We are committed to working responsibly to resolve the very difficult issues raised.

– David Drummond, SVP, Corporate Development and Chief Legal Officer

Electric Cars Shine at the 2010 Detroit Auto Show.
By Jeff Siegel, Green Chip Review, Monday, January 11th, 2010
In 1986, I bought my very first car. It was a red 1980 Chevy Chevette. And I loved that thing.

I drove it everywhere — from to Boston to DC to Atlanta, that little red Chevette gave me a sense of freedom that I had never before experienced. And I treasured that freedom.

Sure, I had to work a lot of overtime at the pizza shop to afford it ($600 seemed like a fortune back then). And insurance is never cheap for a 16-year-old kid…

But none of that mattered. Because as long as I had my car, I could go anywhere at anytime. And it’s that sense of freedom that I believe every 16-year-old feels the first time he gets behind the wheel of his very first car.

As an adult, little has changed for me.

Sure, these days I take the light rail to work. (Why pay for gas and parking if you don’t have to?) But I still love taking those long road trips from time to time. And I still love checking out all the new cars coming to market.

Especially the latest electric and plug-in hybrid electric vehicles. And there’s certainly no shortage of them this year at the 2010 North American Auto Show.

* * *

GM’s Voltage Continues:

At this year’s 2010 North American Auto Show, a number of new electric, plug-in hybrid electric, and other fuel efficient offerings are being unveiled.

In fact, we’re even seeing the debut of a 37,000-square-foot feature called the Electric Avenue. It is here, on the main floor, where more than a dozen new electrified vehicles will be showcased.

Of course, everyone knows about the Chevy Volt, which is expected to roll out later this year. But GM Vice President Bob Lutz did announce yesterday that GM is now making a Cadillac version of the Chevy Volt.

Using technology developed for the Volt, the Cadillac Converj is expected to hit showrooms in 2013.

The Converj originally debuted as a concept car at last year’s Detroit Auto Show.

Nissan Electrifies:

Also expected to hit showrooms this year is the Nissan Leaf.

This is Nissan’s electric hatchback that boasts a 100-mile all-electric range, with a top speed of about 76 mpg.

While I’m definitely excited to see the LEAF zipping through the streets of Baltimore, it should be noted that this is an all-electric vehicle — not an extended range electric vehicle, like the Chevy Volt. So cost comparisons should be taken lightly when read in press releases.

Yes, the Nissan will likely cost about $15,000-$20,000 less than the Chevy Volt. But it is not really meant for trips longer than 100 miles… unless you have a few hours to stop each time and charge up.

The Chevy Volt, on the other hand, can road trip with the best of them; once the initial charge on the Volt is depleted, the gas engine kicks in.

That being said, if you’re not looking for anything more than local driving, certainly the LEAF could be an excellent vehicle.

A few other exciting vehicles on display in Detroit this week include:

An electric version of the Fiat 500 minicar boasting 150 miles per charge (according to British magazine AutoExpress.)

The Volvo C30 Electric Car — 90 miles per charge

BMW Concept ActiveE — 100 miles per charge

Mitsubishi MiEV — 80 miles per charge

Think City — 100 miles per charge.

In Another 10 Years…

Ten years ago, highlights at the 2000 Detroit Auto Show included gas hogs like the Chevrolet SSR and the Hummer H2.

There was only one electric offering back then, and that was the Think City.

As an interesting side note, the Think City was originally owned by Ford at the time of the 2000 Detroit Auto Show. But in 2003, the company sold it to a Swiss company called Kamkorp Microelectronics. Then in 2006, Norwegian investment group InSpire bought it.

Now, just last week, Think announced it would build its first car for the U.S. market in Indiana starting in 2011. The company plans on selling its vehicle in the U.S. in late 2011 by importing vehicles assembled in Finland. The import sales will arrive before U.S. production starts.

While it’s great to see these things built and sold in the U.S. — finally! — that was one hell of a runaround to get from point A to point B.

Nonetheless, here we are today at the North American Auto Show, and there are nearly 20 electric offerings.

So just imagine where we’re going to be in another 10 years…

According to research firm CSM Worldwide, nearly half of all vehicle nameplates sold around the world (about 20 million vehicles) will offer some form of electrified propulsion technology by 2020.

Now, only one million are expected to be built with electrified propulsion systems in the U.S. — and most of those will be mild or full hybrids. But in Japan and Korea, electrified vehicles will account for about 3 million; in Europe, about 15 million!

Of course, the folks in Europe also have the unfamiliar burden of paying a more realistic price for their gasoline and diesel. And to be honest, until we start paying a more realistic price for our gasoline, the U.S. will likely lag and continue to hand off progress to other parts of the world.

As a U.S. citizen who loves to drive, this is certainly a point of frustration. However, as an investor, we know that borders don’t present obstacles for us when it comes to profiting from the electric car revolution.

From high-performance battery manufacturers in China to electric propulsion system companies in Canada, we will continue to profit from this movement every step of the way.

In fact, my colleague Sam Hopkins is heading to Peru tomorrow to investigate a new lead for us. I can’t wait to see how this one pans out. He’ll have an update for all of us from Lima later this week.

To a new way of life, and a new generation of wealth. . . Jeff

from:  mkuttan at yahoo.com

As we pick up our lives and work in the aftermath of Copenhagen, many of us are trying to distill the impact and implications of the conference.  While a number of you have contributed thoughtful pieces on COP 15 through your organizations, we at the Journal of Environmental Law and Policy (JELP) at the UCLA School of Law would like to put out a call for post-Copenhagen submissions for our Spring 2010 issue.  JELP is a premiere legal journal covering a variety of timely environmental policy and legal issues.  Our Spring 2009 issue focused on US state climate policy and included articles from leading policy-makers in the field.  In light of the world’s attention to Copenhagen and the uncertain impacts and opportunities resulting from the conference, we would like to open the forum for thoughtful examination of the challenges, failures, successes and future direction of climate policy.  Articles should be between 20-40 pages in length and include footnotes, but we are open to a variety of disciplines and formats.

Please submit your article to  jelp at lawnet.ucla.edu with the subject “Post-Copenhagen” and include your contact information and CV if possible.

Thank you for your engagement and best of luck with your work.

Sincerely,

Alexa Engelman & Maya Kuttan
Chief Articles Editors
 jelp at lawnet.ucla.edu
Journal of Environmental Law & Policy
UCLA School of Law

From the latest news coming from Washington – “Under the new airport
rules, all citizens of Afghanistan, Algeria, Lebanon, Libya, Iraq,
Nigeria, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Somalia and Yemen must receive a pat
down and an extra check of their carry-on bags before boarding a plane
bound for the United States, officials said. Citizens of Cuba, Iran,
Sudan and Syria — nations considered ’state sponsors of terrorism’ —
face the same requirement.”

That means Cuba and thirteen Muslim states: Afghanistan, Algeria,
Lebanon, Libya, Iraq, Iran, Nigeria, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Somalia,
Sudan, Syria, and Yemen.

These news caused a lot of comments, but we think the wrong comments.

We assume obviously that Washington is ready finally to address the
terrorism issue. Airplane terrorism, as we learned on 9/11, is not
about transport of weapons but about terrorists – to be specific since
9/11 – we speak here about Islamic terrorists. If you want to catch
terrorists you must look for terrorists. Looking for baby formula is
not the answer – but looking for those passengers whose profiles are
suspicious might be a better bet. Sure, obviously, not all Muslims are
terrorists, and profiling is terrible – even illegal, but if you want
to catch terrorists you start with the profile that most fits Islamic
terrorists, and you bet – they are Muslims of any color. Even though
they may be traveling with documents issued by non-Islamic States,
i.e. the UK, Sweden, Denmark, Norway, France, Switzerland, or even the
US.

So, it is not easy to define exactly what papers are carried by the
terrorists, but you can have some guidelines to increase your chance
of catching them. looking for a profile of an Asian or African Muslim.
Then, learn from the Israelis how to talk to them – you may even find
out that they are so convinced that their cause is the right one, that
they will lower their guard and just plainly disclose that what you
see is all they got.

There may be a Jamaican convert to Islam who preached terrorism in the UK
and resides now in Kenya – a case in point. Kenya does want him either and
he will be sent back to Jamaica a second time. yes, this is a problem if you
are American and Jamaica does not cooperate – but he is a Muslim and no
Anti-Defamation league is enrtitled to tell you Mr. President that he should
not be stripped and searched if he wants to travel via the US to Jamaica.
This is simple.

But what about Cuba? Fidel Castro is more atheist then Catholic, surely
no Muslim. Whatever went on in the past is history to me and I do not believe
prologue to Mr. Castro. So why mix him and his country up with 13 Islamic
States involved in Islamic Terrorism? That is unless someone in the US longs
to see him give cover to such terrorists in the future so they get new reasons
to be after him? If the Jamaica case has anything to teach us – it is that the
US is better off reinsuring its rear parts from anger caused by mistreatment
and friendship is not achieved by mulling over past grief. Specially, as several
hundred former sugar baron families living in Florida should not be allowed to
hold hostage the US when it comes to real US interests.

Mr. President, I watched Bolivia and Venezuela leaders speak in Copenhagen,
they fumed and brimmed with words – no stones or missiles. Their ALBA is,
I think, the natural ally of a US that manages to disengage from the Islamic
world of oil. So, it is the US self interest that calls for you, Mr. President, to
invite Fidel Castro to Washington for a tete-a-tete and start on a way that
eventually will give the US the wall of safety it needs when addressing the 21st
Century centers of terror – the Islamists’ terror cancer that will continue to ooze
as long as we use oil.

Please start by taking him of that list!

The thirteen on that list include the obvious Iran – Syria – Lebanon
trio of the Shii’a Islam, it includes the Afghanistan/Pakistan US
theater of operations and Iraq, as well as the other US theater Saudi
Arabia, Yemen, Somalia, Sudan that misses Egypt and the Gaza strip. A
fourth historic region includes Libya and Algeria, then with Nigeria,
these are newer sources of oil for the US, and as such clear potential
sources of unhappy Islamists who complain about the changes in their
countries as fueled by oil money. In very few countries terrorism
against the US was actually started by rulers decree. Libya, Iran,
Syria, Sudan, Somalia may be the exceptions, but Saudi Arabia and
Yemen may have seen rulers who deflected anger against themselves into
anger against foreigners. In the majority of cases the terrorist is a
person of convictions and the situation could have been avoided had
the US and the rest of the Western World, tried to be less squanderous
with the oil we got addicted to.

Having said the above – let us get now to the point – MR PRESIDENT -
PLEASE – TAKE CUBA OFF THAT LIST BECAUSE THEY DO NOT BELONG ON THAT
LIST IN 2010.

* * * *

Please look – I am posting here four reference – links to news
articles of today’s New York Times.
 http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/05/us/05t…

New Air Security Checks From 14 Nations to U.S. Draw Criticism
 http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/05/world/…

In Yemen, U.S. Faces Leader Who Puts Family First
 http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/05/world/…

Behind Afghan Bombing, an Agent With Many Loyalties
 http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/05/world/…

Kenya Seeks to Deport Muslim Cleric to Jamaica

————————

THE UPDATE:

We have received a comment on this post and it presents a very valid point supposedly made at the UN General Assembly by the Foreign Minister of Cuba: “I mean if they were going to include us, then they should have at least thrown in North Korea.”

Even if the e-mail we received from ajay -   akazif at gmail.com  as presented by www. eggplantpost.com in http://eggplantpost.com/2010/01/05/cuba-… were a made up story, the argument holds water nevertheless. DID THE US INCLUDE CUBA ON THAT LIST BECAUSE IT WANTED TO AVOID BEING SEEN AS GOING AFTER A RAG-TAG OF ISLANIC COUNTRIES? Now, we believe that US security should be spoken here – not again US appeasement-for-oil please!

“Full-body scanners on display at Reagan National Airport: Many experts say the full-body scanners would have detected the explosives carried aboard Northwest Airlines Flight 253 on Christmas Day, but the
machines have also raised privacy concerns over the detailed body image that is displayed as part of the screening.”

TSA – Transportation and Security Administration – tries to assuage privacy concerns about full-body scans.

By Philip Rucker
Washington Post Staff Writer
Monday, January 4, 2010
It has come to this.

Already shoeless, beltless and waterless, more beleaguered air passengers will be holding their legs apart, raising their arms and effectively baring it all as they pass through U.S. airport security
checkpoints.

Add the “full-body scan” to the list of indignities that some travelers are confronting in the post-Sept. 11, 2001, era of vigilance.

Federal authorities, working to close security gaps exposed by the thwarted Christmas Day terrorist attack on a Detroit-bound airliner, are multiplying the number of imaging machines at the nation’s biggest
airports. The devices scan passengers’ bodies and produce X-ray-like images that can reveal objects concealed beneath clothes…….

- – - – - -

now add the “me-au” from the American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee, ADC Legal Director   nshora at adc.org

Washington, D.C. | January 5, 2010 | www.adc.org |

The American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee (ADC) is deeply concerned by the new Transportation and Security Administration (TSA) directives, which went into effect on January 4th at midnight.  According to news sources, these directives will require citizens from 14 countries, all Arab or Muslim countries, with the exception of Cuba, to go through enhanced security screening. Such screening can include full pat-downs, scans, delays, and anything associated with secondary screening – an extra search of the passenger’s carry-on luggage may also be required.  News sources also stated that the directives are applicable to any travelers, including US CITIZENS, who have passed through one of these 14 countries, or who have taken flights that have originated from these 14 countries.

ADC is very troubled as such directives will have negative ramifications on Arab-Americans, citizens of the 14 countries, and all Americans who visit these countries. A disparate segment of the Arab-American community will be scrutinized because of these new guidelines. The blanket labeling of hundreds of millions of civilians based solely on their country of citizenship or travel is not only unfairly discriminatory based on national origin, but also improperly labels millions of innocent people as somehow suspect or possible terrorists.

The new directives came following the Christmas Day attempted airline attack that threatened our national security, and which ADC has strongly condemned. Implementing an effective and productive counterterrorism tool is paramount. However, casting a wide net against individuals based on their country of origin, race or religion is not an effective counterterrorism tool. During the past decade, similar racial, ethnic and religious profiling tactics and practices have time and again misdirected precious counterterrorism resources, damaged foreign relations with key allies, fueled the fires of extremists by giving them an excuse, stigmatized communities, and most importantly did not have any discernible impact on security. Based on precedent, these new directives will be no different than these past practices and their adverse consequences; and while such directives may appear to make us feel safer, the reality is that they discriminate against innocent persons and divert attention from real threats.

Resources must instead be focused on high-risk individuals based on proper intelligence, better coordination and communication between different governmental agencies. In addition, continued engagement with the Arab, Muslim, Sikh, and South Asian community groups must be strengthened, and must not be discouraged by ethnic profiling tactics.

ADC has been in contact with TSA and the Department Homeland Security (DHS) and is planning to file a complaint and request for additional information with the Department.  ADC urges all travelers affected by these new guidelines to always comply with the Transportation Security Officer’s (TSO’s) request.  In the event of any abuse or misuse of authority, please request the TSO’s name and badge number, and file a complaint with ADC’s Legal Department at  legal at adc.org.

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

Honestly, I feel the pain of decent members of the ADC, but am appalled at the chutzpah to announce the complaints of that organization without a single word attached saying that as loyal citizens to this country they are ready to organize themselves in units of informers when it comes to transgressions by people from their country of birth, that are endangering the security of the country that gave to the ADC members the privilege of life under a secular democracy.

Yes, I know that the ADC has members that are Muslim, Christian or atheists. I know they have no Jews in ADC, but that is not the issue. The Arab countries, other Asian countries, and the African Arabized countries, on the list of 13, are all Islamic countries – in all of them Christians and Jews face very serious difficulties. Further, I know of good Muslims in the US and overseas, that participate with enlightened Jews in order to build bridges between communities. in Copenhagen I actually participated during the Climate conference at a pilgrimage that took us to places of worship that were Jewish, Buddhist, Christian, and Muslim (that last meeting was held in the rooms of a Danish humanist society) – in this time sequence. Yes – good relationships are possible, but that will happen only when, and if, there is a clear understanding, and voiced recognition, that Islamic terrorism originates with Muslim individuals, and that in order to safeguard ourselves, profiling in search of instruments of terror is not a dirty word, but a means of self defense.

Also, in order to avoid needless friction, I suggest that the ADC moves front and center in the global effort to disengage from the addiction to oil.

And one more item – this website does speak up for Cuba as they surely are not part of the group of countries responsible for Islamicists performing acts of terror. So, they do not belong on that list of 14.

THE DEATH OF THEOCRACY – TEHRAN’S THUGS CANNOT LAST
3 January 2010
BY CHRISTOPHER HITCHENS
Newsweek

The term “theocracy” trips readily enough off the tongue and is an accurate description of a system where mortals claim the right to dominate other mortals in the name of God. But it is also a word that has uncomfortable implications for those who hope to stay out of the “internal affairs” of other societies. The Iranian theocracy, and the crisis of its regime, is a near-perfect illustration of this dilemma.

By the rule laid down by the mullahs, the Iranian people are not even allowed to meddle in their own internal affairs. They are counted as wards of the state, as children in the care of a paternal priesthood. (It’s for this reason that the humiliation of dictatorship is felt with especial and stinging keenness by the rising generation of young Iranian adults.) The immediate result of theocratic policy when measured by the standard of repression is pretty clear and getting ever clearer: any government that imagines it has a divine warrant will perforce deal with its critics as if they were profane and thus illegitimate by definition.

But now see how this plays out in the ordinary human world, and watch what happens to a state or society that forbids itself the secular catharsis of self-criticism. In 1988 a certain Mr. Rafsanjani paid an urgent call on a certain Mr. Khomeini in order to tell him that Iran had no serious choice but to sign a U.N.-sponsored peace deal with Saddam Hussein. Not even the consecrated martyrs of the Revolutionary Guards could go on taking the catastrophic casualties of the war. Khomeini had resisted Rafsanjani’s “realism” for a long time, claiming that God was on the side of Iran and that his will would therefore prevail. But he was obliged to sign.

Then, desperate to recover religious credibility and honor, and noticing that there were angry protests against an Indian-born novelist living in England, Khomeini doubled and quadrupled the cultural stakes and pronounced a death sentence on Salman Rushdie. Thus the West came to hear and understand the words ÒfatwaÓ and “jihad,” as exported to non-Muslim societies by bribery and force. To this day—as evidenced by the Danish cartoon controversy and other crises—there is a palpable fear of printing or broadcasting anything that may offend Islamic extremist “sensibilities.”

My colleague and friend Fareed Zakaria wrote not long ago in these pages that there was a significant difference between, say, the Taliban takeover of the Swat Valley and the launching of suicide attacks on the non-Muslim world. I said to him then and I say once more that in the long run this is a distinction without very much difference. A country that attempts to govern itself from a holy book will immediately find itself in decline: the talents of its females repressed and squandered, its children stultified by rote learning in madrassas, and its qualified and educated people in exile or in prison. There are no exceptions to this rule: Afghanistan under the Taliban was the worst single example of beggary-cum-terrorism, and even the Iranians were forced to denounce it—because of its massacre of the Shia—without seeing the irony.

But when the crops fail and the cities rot and the children’s teeth decay and nothing works except the ever-enthusiastic and illiterate young lads of the morality police, who will the clerics blame? They are not allowed to blame themselves, except for being insufficiently zealous. Obviously it must be because the Jews, the Crusaders, the Freemasons have been at their customary insidious work. Thus, holy war must be waged on happier and more prosperous lands.

If you think I exaggerate even slightly, consult the Web sites of the Iranian theocracy and of its Hamas and Hizbullah surrogates and proxies.

These exhorting leaders are not content to inflict their doctrines only on their “own” people. A failed state that cannot allow any grown-up internal debate, or any appeal against the divine edict, will swiftly become an even more failed state and then a rogue one because its limitless paranoia and self-pity must be projected outward. Thus we have a very direct interest in having the Iranian people permitted to interfere in their own internal affairs, and a very immediate reason to insist that the regime’s thugs not make their next appearance on the historical stage with nuclear weapons with which to undergird their claim of unfailing righteousness and conviction that they alone know what it is to be a victim.

GLOBAL WARMING IGNITES BORDERS AS WELL

By Manuel Manonelles, BARCELONA, (IPS) Posted by Other News January 3, 2009.

Little by little, it is being confirmed that the melting of the polar ice caps, whether in Antarctica or the Arctic, is happening significantly faster than initially predicted. The consequences of this for peace, one of the main victims of climate change, are enormous.

Glaciers and areas of high-altitude mountains that were previously considered zones of perpetual snow are now melting. A paradigmatic case is that of the alpine border between Switzerland and Italy where during a recent routine verification, certain sections of ice or perennial snow that had been on the map since 1861 were found to be missing. In this case, the two countries have enjoyed long periods of peaceful coexistence and are approaching the problem in a logical and cordial fashion, forming a commission to find a technical solution.

However, the possible implications of cases like this in other geographical areas are very worrisome. The destabilising potential of a similar development on the India-Pakistan border would be enormous, particularly in the zone of Kashmir or the Siachen glacier, where more than 3000 soldiers of both countries have died since 1984. The same is true of the tense China-India border, or the deeply problematic border between Afghanistan and Pakistan, which will grow increasingly porous with melting, contributing to a rise in destabilisation in what are already two of the most unstable countries on the earth.

Another major effect of global warming is the gradual opening of major global shipping lanes in areas that had previously been impassable because of ice. The Northeast Passage along the north of Russia, used recently for the first time in history, shortens travel between the ports of China, Japan, and Korea and Hamburg, Rotterdam, and South Hampton by 4,000 kilometres. With the Northwest Passage along northern Canada, travel between the China and the ports of the eastern United States is similarly shortened.

The opening of these new routes will completely change the dynamics of intercontinental trade and might render irrelevant places that until now were considered geostrategically essential, such as the Panama and the Suez Canal.

Add to this the draw of massive reserves of raw materials expected to be present in the Arctic, ever more accessible as the ice recedes, which is provoking a race for control of the area – including an arms race – and is stoking tensions particularly between Russia, Norway, Denmark, the United Kingdom, Canada, and the United States. The Russian news agency TASS has calculated oil reserves in the area at over 10 billion tonnes. Last year Canada approved an extraordinary 6.9 billion dollar arms bill to strengthen its military presence in its arctic zone, while Russia has resumed tactical flights of nuclear bombers in its polar region, triggering the protests of numerous countries.

This also explains, in part, the speed with which the European Union is processing the application for EU membership of bankrupt Iceland, which would place the body in the best possible position for future negotiations and territorial claims in the area with regard to future access to the “Arctic banquet”.

The melting of the ice caps is also the major cause of rising sea levels, which have other irreversible territorial, social, and economic consequences, such as the physical disappearance -partial or total- of certain small island states of the Pacific likely to occur within a few years -the Maldives, Samoa, Kiribati, among others. Obviously the implications are vast, including – in addition to the personal, environmental, cultural, and national trauma – the political and legal status of future states that have no territory. The principal components of the global infrastructure, from ports and refineries to airports and nuclear plants, are also seriously at risk, and will find themselves near or at or even below sea level.

It is important to note in this context that the majority of the global population lives in areas close to the sea, starting with megacities like Mumbai, London, New York, Shanghai, Tokyo, and Buenos Aires, and densely-populated areas like the Ganges delta in Bangladesh, where rising sea levels are already wreaking havoc in the form of water pollution and related effects. Recent studies indicate the possibility of some 200 million new environmental refugees in coming years -refugees who would only increase the already considerable humanitarian pressures and tensions in these areas and exacerbate existing or latent conflict.

The Global Humanitarian Fund issued a report this year that shows unequivocally that climate change today is responsible for some 300,000 deaths per year. Numbers for the medium and long-term are even higher. In this context, the urgency of fighting climate is a pre-condition for a peaceful future. Therefore, the international community has no other option, specially after the fiasco in Copenhagen, to spring into action as soon as possible. It is about climate, but also about peace and human lives.

—————-

This and all “other news” issues edited by Roberto Savio can be found at http://www.other-net.info/index.php

About five years ago I asked at a meeting organized in New York by The Century Foundation, the Iranian Ambassador to the UN – why in these days of awareness of the need for Sustainable Development and the impact of fossil carbon emissions, and with Iran having knowledge, and people with knowledge, in the areas of renewable energy as I could see at events held at the UN, they insist on developing nuclear power while they could effectively become leaders in renewable energy and sustainable development?

The Ambassador gave me a long answer built on enlarging what I just said about potential positive aspects of Iranian policy, but then went into saying that SOVEREIGNTY was what drives Iran on the nuclear issue – plain and simple – nobody from the outside can tell Iran what to do as a sovereign nation.

OK – now the Iranians themselves are trying to tell their government to go to hell. Mind you – the GREEN of the movement, on its face value,  is the green of the Islamic religion. It is the same green as we see on the Saudi flag – the green of the Prophet Muhammad – not of our forces of renewable energy; but then, is it possible that under the one layer of green there is also another layer of green that says – enough is enough – we can be a normal people – normal as we see on foreign TV – wear short dresses and speak freely our minds/ Normal like in a democracy led by young people who are technology wise – rather then being led by old bearded men that are 500 years old in their minds and behavior?

Yes, my question to the Ambassador was an honest question. Iran is not Saudi Arabia. Iran is a country based on old real culture. The fact that they became in the 21st century the miserable state they did, has more to do with what was imposed on them by the Yalta meeting of 1945 between Roosevelt, Churchill, and Stalin, then by their own doing. To top that meeting’s result that turned Iran from Nation into Oil-Source, later on, when the Iranians tried for democracy under President Mossadegh, the US CIA killed him and injured the soul of Iran driving the people to true insanity. Yes, Ahmedi-Nejad behaves like a madman, and his Ambassador hid behind that call of Sovereignty, but the young people want to change green for green and the one binding connection between the those two greens makes it clear that they also have no use for the American green dollar.

Will Washington understand that it is not the CIA that can help change in Iran – but it rather calls for massive involvement of friendly NGOs intent to help in the democratization of the Iranian people, while helping shove aside the religious top layer of the bearded green? Look at our articles by Trita Parsi and the other Iranians living in the US. The intellectuals are not followers of the Shah but of the Nobel Prize winner Shirin Ebadi.

—————

“Iran’s turning point.“ Tuesday, December 29, 2009, a Washington Post Editorial.
ONE WAY or another, Sunday’s Ashura holiday in Iran probably will be a turning point in the struggle between an extremist regime and an increasingly radical opposition. At least eight people were killed when hundreds of thousands of Iranians turned out in cities across the country to face police and militia forces, who fired into some crowds and in turn were attacked and in some cases overwhelmed by the protesters. These were the largest demonstrations in six months, and they provoked another escalation of repression: The nephew of one opposition leader, Mir Hossein Mousavi, was murdered Sunday, and 10 more senior opposition figures were arrested Monday.

Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei clearly is betting he can defeat the opposition Green Movement with brute force. In the past week, security forces have attacked peaceful mourners at the funeral of dissident Ayatollah Ali Montazeri and violated the tradition of restraint associated with the Ashura holiday. The predominant chant in the streets, meanwhile, has shifted to “death to Khamenei” or “death to the dictator.” More street protests can be expected when the movement’s new martyr, Ali HabibiMousavi Khamene, is commemorated.

In short, Iran’s political crisis now looks like a battle to the death between the regime and its opposition. No one on either side in Tehran is talking about compromise. Nor does it seem likely that there will be a sustained respite from domestic turmoil until one side triumphs. That in turn means that, more than ever, the Obama administration and other Western governments must tailor their policies toward Iran to reflect the centrality of the Green Movement’s fight for freedom. While diplomatic contact with the regime need not be broken off entirely, by now it should be obvious that it cannot produce significant results — and might serve to shore up a tottering dictatorship.

President Obama shifted U.S. policy partway in the right direction when, during his Nobel Prize speech this month, he departed from his prepared text to say that “it is the responsibility of all free people and free nations to make clear that” the Iranian protesters “have us on their side.” He went further Monday with an admirably strong statement that condemned “the violent and unjust suppression of innocent Iranian citizens” and called for “the immediate release of all who have been unjustly detained.”

There is, however, more that could be done to help the Green Movement. Russia and non-Western nations should be pressed to join in condemning the regime’s violence. Sanctions aimed at the Revolutionary Guard and its extensive business and financial network should be accelerated; action must not be delayed by months of haggling at the U.N. Security Council. More should be done, now, to facilitate Iranian use of the Internet for uncensored communication. The State Department continues to drag its feet on using money appropriated by Congress to fund firewall-busting operations and to deny support to groups with a proven record of success, like the Global Internet Freedom Consortium.

The administration has worried excessively that open U.S. support might damage the Green Movement. Now President Obama has publicly taken sides, and the battle inside Iran has reached a critical juncture. It’s time for the United States to do whatever it can, in public and covertly, to help those Iranians fighting for freedom.

The problem began with the military dictatorship in the 1960s and 1970s, which invited settlers to occupy the Amazon but required them to clear forests to gain access to land and credit. In effect, during those years, my mentor at the Hudson Institute, at Croton-on-the-Hudson, New York, Mr. Herman Kahn, and researcher William (Bill) Overholt, now with the Rand Corporation,  looked at the Amazon and wrote that this is the future “Granary of the World.” You know – the kind of global land-reserve that Brazil was holding for the world. Obviously, those were pre-environment days and in effect days when economic policy think tanks all over the world were busy taking on the neo-Malthusians, and thought nothing  of biodiversity or climate change. All what we were about was independence of centrally held resources in unfriendly places like the Middle East, and we were quite sure that we can produce ourselves out of any foreign imposed economic straights – even if we have to ask for help from friendly nations like Brazil. I am sure that some of my friends from those days will sharply disagree with my mentioning old childhood misconceptions. In some respects, much more visionary those days was Barry Commoner, but then, he was regarded as a socialist, and because of that a doctrinaire. (Please, do not think that I am turning my back to Herman Kahn – after all – he was the man that tought us how to live with the bomb – he also said that we will have enough energy resources but the day may come we will not be able to use them.)

Then came the 1972 Stockholm UN Conference on the Environment and Development led by Maurice Strong, and we started to see that there are also other very tangible reasons we cannot manage nature as if we were given a gift to despoil.

Growing criticism of Brazil’s Amazon policies pushed the new civilian government of Brazil, in the 1980s, to develop laws that, on paper at least, were among the world’s most protective of forests. But with scant presence of authorities to enforce them, the laws did little to stop the widespread grabbing of land.

“The chaos of legal insecurity of land-ownership was the most important basis for the perverse incentives in the Amazon to pillage, rather than to preserve or to develop, and constant incitement to violence,” said now Roberto Mangabeira Unger, the former Brazilian federal minister for strategic affairs, who helped develop the new land law of 2009.

São Félix do Xingu and Vila dos Crentes, Brazil, have drawn ranchers and others seeking cheap land. But lawlessness has prevailed as per an article by Alexei Barrionuevo in The New York Times of December 26, 2009. Those locations, on land of the Xingu people of the Amazon, in what is now the Brazilian Estado do Para,

From a New York Times, December 26, 2009 reporting from Villa Dos Crentes, and Sao Paulo do Xingu, the lost land of the Xingu Amazonian people,  Estado Para, Brazil, according to  Alexei Berrionuevo, we learn quite a lot about the new Brazil of President Lula.

The main point of the article is that the particular county, the size of Austria, the correspondent visited in the State of Pará, is the worst place for forest destruction in Brazil, and environmentalists say they hope that a new law, approved by Brazil’s Congress in June 2009, will help the government finally enforce its official limits on clearing land.


Yes, Brazil had laws on the books before that, but nobody bothered enforcing them. and land ownership was being established by the private operation of the barrel of a gun.

Using the new law, Brazil’s government is trying to impose order on this often lawless territory, and in the process, possibly nip away at a broader global concern: deforestation and the threat of climate change that comes with it.

For the first time, the Brazilian government is formally establishing who owns tens of millions of acres across the Amazon, enabling it to track who is responsible for clearing forests for logging and cattle — and who should be held accountable when it is done illegally.

“The government will finally know whose land it is, and who is responsible for what goes on there,” said Thomas E. Lovejoy, the biodiversity chair for the Heinz Center for Science, Economics and the Environment in Washington – this is the foundation established by the wife of the US Senator John Karry of Massachusetts.

This county in the state of Pará is the worst place for forest destruction in Brazil, and environmentalists, in Brazil and in the US, hope that the new law, approved by Brazil’s Congress will help the government finally enforce its official limits on clearing land.

Under the law, which applies to more than 150 million acres, the government will award plots up to 250 acres free to settlers. Bigger plots will be sold at varying prices, with or without public auctions, depending on their size. Those larger than about 6,000 acres cannot be sold without an explicit act of Congress. So far, settlers have registered only about 4 percent of the land singled out under the law, according to government officials.

Since the days of the dictatorship, this huge county in Pará State, known as São Félix do Xingu, has drawn hardy settlers and prospectors in search of cheap land, good soil, a rich array of minerals and rare Amazon fruits.

But notorious criminals have also found refuge. Leonardo Dias Mendonça ran a vast criminal enterprise from São Félix, which included a fleet of planes used to deliver weapons to the Colombian rebels in exchange for drugs, before being convicted in 2003.

Disputes in São Félix were traditionally settled with “a lot of death,” said Waldemir de Oliveira, the leader of the São Félix agricultural association. “It was the law of the strongest,” Mr. de Oliveira said. “Farmers put guards on the perimeter of their land and no one went in. Those that did were told to ‘Get out or die.’ ”

Mr. de Oliveira and other residents say the violence is diminishing but is still a major worry. In November, a local bar owner turned the tables on four men who came to kill him in broad daylight, killing all of them, said João Gross, an architect in the area.

In Vila dos Crentes, the loud roar of a generator nearly drowned out a recent meeting of residents gathered in a church. “We are beginning to understand that we have to get engaged in reforestation and stop deforestation,” Mr. de Souza said.

But those goals are clouded by the constant threat of violence. Residents said workers on a nearby farm had been carrying out a campaign of violence and intimidation to try to force them out, and even dumped a poisonous chemical from a plane over the area, killing fish and animals.

But it is a huge and messy undertaking. Clear ownership records exist for less than 4 percent of the land in private hands throughout the Brazilian Amazon, government officials said. In Pará, officials have discovered false titles for about 320 million acres, almost double the amount of land that actually exists, according to federal officials.

And while small farmers like Mr. de Souza, the man in the Barrionuevo story, are pinning their hopes on the law, many larger-scale land holders say they have sacrificed too much blood and sweat for bureaucrats in Brasília, the capital, to force new rules upon them.

“Everything we have today was built from our own desire to work,” said Jorgiano Alves de Oliveira, 68, who raises cattle and grows cocoa on about 600 acres.

“The chaos of legal insecurity was the most important basis for the perverse incentives in the Amazon to pillage rather than to preserve or to develop, and constant incitement to violence,” said Roberto Mangabeira Unger, the former minister for strategic affairs who helped develop the new land law.

Under the law, which applies to more than 150 million acres, the government will award plots up to 250 acres free to settlers. Bigger plots will be sold at varying prices, with or without public auctions, depending on their size. Those larger than about 6,000 acres cannot be sold without an explicit act of Congress. So far, settlers have registered about 4 percent of the land singled out under the law, according to government officials.

In May 2007, residents found Mr. de Souza’s stepson dead in the road, shot multiple times.

“No one should make enemies here,” said Eder Rodrigues de Oliveira, 26, who said he grew up with Mr. de Souza’s stepson. “Everyone here must be humble.”

At the closest police station, more than 100 miles away, Chief Álvaro Ikeda said killing was common here, touching a stack of files containing information about 11 suspected homicides under investigation.

Witnesses often are too afraid to come forward. “I cannot guarantee the witnesses’ life,” Chief Ikeda said. “I cannot even guarantee my own life.”

To that end, the police chief decided to live in the police station. He keeps a 12-gauge shotgun and an assault rifle at the ready.

“Here we do not let go of our guns,” he said.

UNSG Ban Ki-moon bemoans the departure of the Meat Industry Washington Lobbyist, that when caught hiding information about Mad-Cow Disease was moved by the Bush Administration to become Executive Director of UNICEF – at UN-USG level being the highest ranking US citizen at the UN.

BAN HAILS WORK OF UNICEF CHIEF AFTER SHE ANNOUNCES PLAN TO STEP DOWN

Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon paid tribute today to Ann Veneman, the Executive Director of the United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF), after she announced that she will not be seeking a second five-year term in the top post at the UN agency.

Mr. Ban learned “with great regret” that Ms. Veneman does not plan to pursue a second term next spring, the Secretary-General said in a statement issued this afternoon at UN Headquarters in New York.

Ms. Veneman, a former United States agriculture secretary who has been Executive Director since May 2005, will be leaving a legacy of “an organization that is financially and intellectually strong and well-equipped to meet the challenges children face in the 21st century,” according to the statement.

“She has fulfilled her mandate with immense dedication, and I have been impressed by her extraordinary energy and determination to improve children’s health, education and well-being around the world,” Mr. Ban said.

“Under her leadership, UNICEF has become a catalyst for global action to help children reach their full potential, promoting collaborations that deliver the best possible results for children based on expert knowledge, sound evidence and data.

“She has been a champion of UN coherence and a strong voice for children as well as MDG implementation,” Mr. Ban added, referring to the eight Millennium Development Goals – such as slashing poverty and hunger, improving maternal health and boosting environmental sustainability – which world leaders have agreed to strive to achieve by 2015.

AND THE INSIDE STORY:  
 http://www.innercitypress.com/unicef2ven…

At UNICEF, Embattled Veneman Won’t Run for Second Term, Here’s Why

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, December 23 — Past five p.m. on the day before Christmas Eve, the UN released a comment on UNICEF chief Ann Veneman not seeking a second term. The news was hardly shocking. As Inner City Press analyzed less than a month ago, many child advocates did not favor her remaining in the post. But one wondered if the UN Secretary General jumped the gun with his press release. There was still no public news of Ms. Veneman’s decision. For now we offer last month’s analysis to explain today’s development

In UNICEF, Critique of Veneman Is Only Half Answered, Second Term Questioned

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, November 27 — As Ann Veneman’s term as UNICEF Executive Director comes to a close, whether she should get a second term is a rising topic of discussion, particularly within the agency.

The publication The Lancet, acknowledging that it “has good reason to thank Ann Veneman,” nevertheless recommended that “UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon should announce that the next Executive Director of UNICEF will be selected through a transparent, merit-based appointment process. Candidates… should have to declare themselves, publish manifestos, and be available for public scrutiny and questioning.”

Since the UN increasing refuses to name short lists for its top posts, or as in the case of the contested Associate Administrator position at the UN Development Program, even who makes the decision, Inner City Press has decided to do what it can in terms of making these processes transparent to the public.

Whistleblowers inside UNICEF forwarded Inner City Press a detailed critique of Veneman’s tenure. In fairness, Inner City Press asked, with partial success, UNICEF’s chief of media for the Executive

“Director’s responses to each of the following critiques from long time UNICEF staff / whistleblowers, so that the responses can be included in the article along with the critiques. Please provide Ms. Veneman’s responses asap the statements by UNICEF staff that ‘more serious charges can be leveled against Ms. Veneman on:

- her continuing to use Bush administration “Secretary of Agriculture” stationery even after becoming head of UNICEF;

- but her total failure to do any effective policy-based lobbying or even fund-raising with the U.S. Congess and U.S. administration;

- her frequent, unannounced, mysterious trips to Washington, DC and failure and unwillingness to visit even nearby Canada, a major donor;

- her reluctance to cultivate other key donors, e.g. Japan;

- but her strange willingness to go out of her way to cultivate San Marino and Gucci

- her failure to turn up and provide leadership during major humanitarian emergencies – e.g. in Lebanon during the huge Israeli attack and massive damage and destruction, in Myanmar / Burma during Cyclone Nargis, in China during the massive earthquake, etc.

- her early reluctance to travel to ” hot and humid countries”;

- the totally useless, unnecessary, expensive and counter-productive organizational review and attempt to reorganize UNICEF that had to be largely abandoned later;

- her lack of humility, and pretense of seemingly knowing many things, dismissing the views of many truly knowledgeable and competent staff;

- her lack of engagement and leadership with UNICEF national committees in industrialized countries who are among UNICEF’s greatest assets;

- her neglect of major developing and emerging economy countries like the BRICs (Brazil, Russia, India, China);

- her total lack of engagement and imagination in dealing effectively with middle income countries, e.g. in cee/cis

- her glaring lack of support for the convention on the rights of the child or for rights-based approach to development as such in the early years of her tenure;

- her opportunistic jumping into certain aspects of u.n. “reform” agenda completely ignoring the considered views and advice of most of her seasoned senior staff;

- her failure to connect with field offices and staff to the point that even after 4 years, many UNICEF staff in the field do not feel they know who their leader is and what she really wants or stands for.

UNICEF’s chief of media Chris de Bono answered some but not all of the questions. We have decided to run his response in full, as well as the initial questions, to highlight which questions were ignored.

UN’s Ban and Ann Veneman, second term not shown

UNICEF’s de Bono wrote:

Subj: Response
From: [Chris de Bono at] unicef.org
To: Inner City Press
Sent: 11/24/2009 6:27:30 P.M. Eastern Standard Time

Matthew, The statements are unsourced opinion and contain a number of factual errors. Here is my response:

On leadership in humanitarian crisis and travel to difficult regions:

UNICEF stands by its excellent record of providing leadership during humanitarian crises, including through visits by members of the senior management team. The Executive Director herself travelled to Sri Lanka almost soon after taking up her position to see first-hand the Tsunami humanitarian relief operation. She was the first UN agency head into the Philippines after the recent floods. In October 2005, she went to Pakistan soon after the earthquake. Earlier this year, she was in Gaza and in Zimbabwe following the cholera outbreak. She has also travelled to the DRC twice, Darfur and Northern Uganda.

Convention on the Rights of the Child: The Executive Director regularly speaks out on violations of children’s rights. The work of UNICEF is anchored in the Convention on the Rights of the Child. As you know, last week, UNICEF convened a major commemoration of the 20th anniversary of the CRC with partner NGOs  http://www.unicef.org/media/media_51843….). UNICEF produced a special edition of its flagship State of the World’s Children report focused on the CRC – looking at achievements and challenges of the child-rights agenda  http://www.unicef.org/media/media_51803….)

On staff relations: Staff meetings and teleconferences with senior staff in the field are held on a weekly basis. Staff surveys conducted in 2008 and 2009 revealed that 93% say they are proud to work for UNICEF. Eighty-four per cent said they are clear about the goals that UNICEF is seeking to achieve. The Executive Director always meets with UNICEF staff when she travels to programme countries, and wherever possible also meets with the UN Country team.

On the organizational review: It is the responsibility of every organization to regularly reexamine its activities and to seek continuous improvement. UNICEF’s organizational review was initiated after meetings of senior management concluded that such a process would help UNICEF adapt to the changing world in which it operates. As a result, management changes are being implemented to more efficiently deliver on our mission and mandate.

On UN coherence: UNICEF has a longstanding commitment to improving the efficiency and effectiveness of the UN system, as it is critical to enhancing results for the most vulnerable.

On visits to donor countries: Meetings with donors are a constant part of the activities of the UNICEF Executive Director and senior management. She recently returned from her fourth trip to Japan, during which she was the first UN head of agency to meet with the incoming Japanese government. She regularly meets with donor governments in capitals, at UN headquarters and at conferences. This includes Washington where the Executive Director meets with Government officials, the World Bank and other key partners.

Relations with National Committees: The Executive Director attends the global meeting of annual National Committees every year. She has also personally visited National Committees in 18 countries. National Committees are very important to UNICEF and their chiefs play a key role in UNICEF’s global leadership team meetings.

Emerging economies and Middle Income Countries: Strengthening engagement with middle income countries is an ongoing focus at all levels of the organization and with UNICEF’s Executive Board. The Executive Director has been to all the BRIC countries; Brazil, Russia, India and China, as well as a number of other middle income countries.

While we have run the response in full, several of the questions remain unanswered. Ms. Veneman, after months without appearing in UN briefing room 226 to take questions, is scheduled to appear on November 30. At press time, UN Secretariat sources say she will not appear, since Eric Goosby, US Global AIDS Coordinator, is no longer coming, they say. Watch this site.

* * *

UNICEF Has “No Position” on China’s One Child Policy, Lucy Liu Calls It Tradition, of Stealth MOUs and Re-election Worries

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, November 19 — What is UNICEF’s position on China’s One Child Policy? It doesn’t have one.

In the run up to a UN children’s agency event featuring Lucy Liu commemorating the Convention on the Rights of the Child’s twentieth anniversary, Inner City Press asked UNICEF to “please state UNICEF’s / Ms. Veneman’s position on China’s one child policy.”

Inner City Press also requested a copy of UNICEF’s memorandum of understanding with the Chinese government’s state media organization Xinhua, which has recently been publicizing the UN’s “child protection” work.

On the eve of the event, UNICEF refused to provide a copy of the MOU with Xinhua — it pointed instead to a press release — and responded to Inner City Press in writing that:

“UNICEF does not work in China on either population or family planning issues.This relationship is managed by another UN agency, UNFPA, which works with China’s National Population and Family Planning Commission. UNICEF works only in maternal and child health with the Ministry of Health. We are not involved in the Government’s Family Planning and Population policies or programmes and as such, we have no official position on the issue.”

Given UNICEF’s rhetoric about its uncompromising protection of children, to hide behind UNFPA or say it takes no position on policies until it work with them seemed puzzling. Inner City Press went to UNICEF’s headquarters on November 19, hoping to ask Executive Director Ann Veneman directly for her position.

Ms. Veneman was appointed by then-President George W. Bush, and many have speculated that the Obama administration may have someone else in mind for the post. If this is indeed the dynamic, how would Ms. Veneman’s silence on this issue of human rights in China play?

UNICEF’s Ann Veneman, at left, Gucci but no policy. UNICEF has many good staff, but glitz and politics are beneath it

At the press conference, at which Inner City Press despite raised hand was not called on to ask a question, Ms. Veneman and Lucy Liu were asked indirectly about the policy. An intrepid reporter from Xinhua asked about the disparity between male and female children in rural China, which is how UNICEF’s relatd “State of the World’s Children” report, at page 22, couched the issue.

Ms. Veneman replied that “it is not only China” but that “we need to speak out.” But why then does UNICEF not have a position — that is, why does UNICEF not speak out?

Lucy Liu, a UNICEF Goodwill Ambassador, said that it is important for UNICEF to respect countries’ “traditions.” Whether the current Chinese government’s one child policy can be construed as a tradition is unclear. Ms. Liu also said that China’s greater number of males may lead to sexual violence and rape, equating a “room full of men” with “endorphins.” Ms. Veneman laughed, seeming uncomfortable.

The U.S. Congress recently heard testimony about China’s One Child Policy. Ms. Veneman is known to micro-manage UNICEF’s public communications on such topics, for example by insisting to see and personally approve any press release about countries such as Iraq or Afghanistan. In further micro management, UNICEF sources tell Inner City Press that when interviewed by her stealth partner Xinhua, Ms. Veneman gave stage direction such as to only film her from the “third button up.” Xinhua, despite having at the UN several energetic or respected journalists, apparently complied.

Whether such careful management, of camera shots and policy positions, leads to a second term for Ms. Veneman at UNICEF is not yet known. Watch this site.

* * *

Washington digs out from near-record snow.

16.5 inches of snow fell over Washington DC in two days – making it the sixth-highest two-days figure on record.
The 14 inches for Saturday alone made it the 3rd highest one day figure figure on record.

We post this because of the announcement: The Washington area struggled to return to normal Monday after a snow-drenched weekend, with most students and many workers enjoying an unexpected day off, and panicked holiday travelers struggling to rebook canceled flights at area airports.

And you know what?

Crush of holiday travelers chokes airports;
Metrorail open and most buses are running.

And – what this did – according to a news alert?

U.S. imposing limit on how long airline passengers can be kept waiting on tarmacs.
The U.S. government is imposing a 3-hour limit on how long airline passengers can be kept waiting on airport tarmacs.

WOW! Washington is finding that you must REGULATE IF YOU ARE A GOVERNMENT THAT CARES!

This we think is just in time for a President who came back from snowy Copenhagen to a Washington DC that was just about to keep him out from landing home, but with airports clogged by airlines that without regulation would just not give a damn about their passengers – snow or no snow.

AHA! talking airlines, some NGOs were saying in Copenhagen that with good electric rail and electric busses, the domestic flights be forbidden in order to save on GHG emissions. Will the EPA accept that flying for instance Washington DC – New York City Shuttle does really make no sense whatsoever, and  stop the practice by regulation?

If not now then when?

ON THIS DAY – On Dec. 21, 1988, a terrorist bomb exploded aboard a Pan Am Boeing 747 over Lockerbie, Scotland, killing 270 people; now, 21 years later, remembering what addiction to oil can do to us, the New York Times starts to discern a path to a better future for the planet.

NEW YORK TIMES EDITORIAL OF December 21, 2009
Copenhagen, and Beyond.

The global climate negotiations in Copenhagen produced neither a grand success nor the complete meltdown that seemed almost certain as late as Friday afternoon. Despite two years of advance work, the meeting failed to convert a rare gathering of world leaders into an ambitious, legally binding action plan for reducing greenhouse gas emissions. It produced instead a softer interim accord that, at least in principle, would curb greenhouses gases, provide ways to verify countries’ emissions, save rain forests, shield vulnerable nations from the impacts of climate change, and share the costs.

The hard work has only begun, in Washington and elsewhere. But Copenhagen’s achievements are not trivial, given the complexity of the issue and the differences among rich and poor countries. President Obama deserves much of the credit. He arrived as the talks were collapsing, spent 13 hours in nonstop negotiations and played hardball with the Chinese. With time running out — and with the help of China, India, Brazil and South Africa — he forged an agreement that all but a handful of the 193 nations on hand accepted.

Mr. Obama aside, there were two keys to the deal. One was a dramatic offer of $100 billion in aid from the industrialized nations to poorer countries to help them move to less-polluting sources of energy and to deal with drought and other consequences of warming. The offer had an instant soothing effect on many poorer nations that had been threatening to walk out all week.

The other was China’s willingness to submit to a verification system under which all countries would agree to report on their actions and — assuming details could be worked out — open their books to inspection. Transparency is a huge issue in Congress, and Mr. Obama made clear in his opening remarks on Friday that he would not agree to a deal unless China gave ground.

An enormous amount of work lies ahead, both for the president and for the other signatories to what is now being called the Copenhagen Accord. In order to deliver on his promises to reduce America’s greenhouse gas emissions by 17 percent by 2020 and provide a chunk of that $100 billion in aid, Mr. Obama must persuade the Senate to approve a cap-and-trade bill — a huge task.

Meanwhile, there can be no letup by the rest of the world’s negotiators, no matter how tired and beat up they may be. These talks have been so chaotic and contentious that some people believe the United Nations machinery has outlived its usefulness, and real progress will henceforth be made in smaller gatherings of the big players.

There may be some truth to this, but at the moment it is hard to see how many of the arrangements agreed to in principle at Copenhagen — the verification system, for instance — can be made to work without detailed agreements. There must also be some mechanism that holds all countries responsible for doing everything they can to tackle climate change. As it is, the pledges now on the table, from both rich and poor countries, are nowhere near enough to keep atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide from rising above dangerous levels.

But for the moment it is worth savoring the steps forward. China is now a player in the effort to combat climate change in a way it has never been, putting measurable emissions reductions targets on the table and accepting verification. And the United States is very much back in the game too. After eight years of playing the spoiler, it is now a leader with a president who seems to embrace the role.

NEW YORK TIMES RECENT FURTHER ARTICLES ABOUT THE UN FRAMEWORK CONVENTION ON CLIMATE CHANGE

Mixed Bag for Obama on Climate Change Deal Amid the Recession

By JOHN HARWOOD

A victory for President Obama in Copenhagen will not necessarily help his popularity at home.

December 21, 2009

MORE ON THE UNFCCC AND: FOREIGN AID, GLOBAL WARMING, UNITED STATES ECONOMY, GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS, PELOSI, NANCY, OBAMA, BARACK, KERRY, JOHN

An Air of Frustration for Europe at Climate Talks

By JAMES KANTER

Caught off guard by the Copenhagen accord, European leaders felt pressure to back it even though they thought it did not go far enough and had a process in which they had little influence.

December 21, 2009

MORE ON THE UNFCCC AND: GLOBAL WARMING, COPENHAGEN (DENMARK),EUROPEAN COMMISSION

Copenhagen’s One Real Accomplishment: Getting Some Money Flowing

By JAMES KANTER

The accord in Copenhagen was “a big step forward” after previous talks offered no financial support mechanisms, Ban Ki-moon, the U.N. secretary general, said.

December 21, 2009

MORE ON THE UNFCCC AND: GLOBAL WARMING, ENERGY AND POWER,COPENHAGEN (DENMARK)

Compromising on 2 Issues, Obama Gets Partial Wins

By PETER BAKER

From Copenhagen to Capitol Hill, the president determined the outer limits of what he could accomplish on climate change and health care and decided that was enough, for now.

December 20, 2009

MORE ON THE UNFCCC AND: GLOBAL WARMING, HEALTH INSURANCE AND MANAGED CARE, REFORM AND REORGANIZATION, OBAMA, BARACK

A Grudging Accord in Climate Talks

By ANDREW C. REVKIN and JOHN M. BRODER

After delays, theatrics and deal-making, climate talks ended with an agreement to “take note” of a pact shaped by five nations.

December 20, 2009

MORE ON THE UNFCCC AND: GLOBAL WARMING, TREATIES

• Science and Politics of Climate Change
• Who’s at the Climate Talks, and What Do They Seek?
• Climate Change Conversations

U.N. Climate Talks ‘Take Note’ of Accord Backed by U.S.

By ANDREW C. REVKIN and JOHN M. BRODER

The agreement left open the question of whether the accord would gain the full support of the countries involved in the talks on limiting the risks of climate change.

December 20, 2009

MORE ON THE UNFCCC AND: COPENHAGEN (DENMARK)

• Science and Politics of Climate Change
• Who’s at the Climate Talks, and What Do They Seek?
• Climate Change Conversations

———————————————————————————————————-

Off to the Races

By THOMAS L. FRIEDMAN

A competitive Earth Race led by America can be a more self-sustaining way to reduce carbon emissions than a festival of nonbinding commitments at a U.N. conference.

December 20, 2009

MORE ON THE UNFCCC AND: GLOBAL WARMING, GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS, UNITED STATES, UNITED NATIONS

———————————————————————————————————

Updated Dec. 18, 2009

Representatives of 192 nations gathered in Copenhagen to seek a consensus on an international strategy for fighting global warming, in a series of meetings between Dec. 7 and Dec. 18, 2009.

Leaders concluded a climate change deal the Obama administration called “meaningful” but which fell short of even the modest expectations for the summit. The maneuvering that characterized the final week of the talks was a sign of their seriousness; never before have global leaders come so close to a significant agreement to reduce the greenhouse gases linked to warming the planet.

President Obama injected himself into a multilayered negotiation that was far more chaotic and contentious than anticipated – frozen by longstanding divisions between rich and poor nations and a legacy of mistrust of the United States, which has long refused to accept any binding limits on its greenhouse gas emissions.

The accord drops what had been the expected goal of concluding a binding international treaty by the end of 2010, which leaves the implementation of its provisions uncertain. It is likely to undergo many months, perhaps years, of additional negotiation before it emerges in any internationally enforceable form.

Read More…

WASHINGTON (Reuters), December 14, 2009. Two more U.S. Senators jumped into the climate bill debate on Friday, offering a proposal that would cap planet-warming emissions but reduce the role of Wall Street in carbon markets.

Unlike the climate bill passed by the House of Representatives earlier this year, financial speculators would be shut out of carbon markets created under this legislation, introduced by moderate Senators Maria Cantwell, a Democrat, and Susan Collins, a Republican.

Instead of placing carbon limits on most major polluters, the bill would focus only on producers and importers of fossil fuels such as coal mining companies and not power plants and manufacturers.

The companies covered by their legislation would be required to buy permits for their carbon emissions in monthly auctions.

The majority of the revenue from the auctions would be refunded back to consumers to offset higher energy costs, with the remaining 25 percent going to clean energy development.

This market, known as “cap and dividend”, would be more streamlined than the House’s cap and trade scheme.

This bill “provides businesses and investors with a simple, predictable mechanism that will open the way to clean energy expansion while achieving America’s goals of reducing carbon emissions,” Cantwell said in statement.

The new legislation further muddles the landscape for climate regulation in the Senate, where lawmakers are trying to reach a consensus to overcome the regional and economic concerns that have stalled action so far.

On Thursday, a bipartisan trio of Senators unveiled their own framework for addressing global warming, which would marry a cap and trade system limiting carbon emissions with incentives for more domestic energy production.

The Senators John Kerry, Lindsey Graham, and Joe Lieberman have been working to win votes from climate fence sitters in both parties. The White House hailed their framework as a “positive development” toward reaching a bipartisan agreement in the Senate.

The three Senators signaled their climate control system would likely follow the same contours of the House-passed bill, which covered most major polluters.

Under the House bill, major emitters such as refiners and utilities would be required to acquire carbon permits. Initially, most permits would be allocated to industries for free with the rest auctioned off.

Critics of the House bill and previous Senate proposals have complained they are too broad in scope and that complex carbon and offset markets would invite manipulation and abuse from financial speculators.

PAYBACK TIME

Many See the VAT Option as a Cure for Deficits.

By CATHERINE RAMPELL, The New York Times, December 10, 2009.

Our website dealt already with the topics brought forward and the persona of Bjorn Lomborg, a Danish idol of the American right. We keep wondering who actually supports his activities – could it be that the support comes just from pay by lobbying-for-business-interests media like The Wall Street Journal, that hired him for an Opinion Column? Could it be that this paid-for Opinion Column actually stands in for the previous paid-advertisement quarter-page by Mobil Oil, then ExxonMobil, that used to be part of that page?

It is quite interesting how Professor Lomborg manages to support philanthropy ideas as long as he manages to extricate corporations from public scrutiny. He is ready to have the world throw money at the poorest part of humanity as long as the richest corporations can avoid scrutiny for the full impact of their ways of doing business. He never considers full costing effects that include what business used to call externalities – the punishment on all of us for letting them make their huge profits, and then give away those profits to their own management, to the politicians that do not investigate them, and eventually, from their tax-deductions, some small change to the poor.

As the argument goes, instead of spending money on new technologies that are less polluting and have less of an impact that results in climate change, we should rather keep the old technologies in place and spend money – government money that is – on the direct needs of the poor – feed them, help them build schools and sanitation systems.

We post the attached article from today’s WSJ as a good example of the Bjorn Lomborg argument. It is important to read this right this coming week, right before the start of the Copenhagen Conference, as we might find soon that many country leaders, recipients of Foreign Aid funding, will also argue – “gimme direct support money” because our private banking accounts, where we put those funds we took from you, have lost in value in the latest series of crises. The people of the valley Lomborg wants to help, benefited practically very little from the system that did not speak of global warming, while not minding damage to the environment – local and global -  and we believe that the poor could get out more from our addressing global issues directly.

We worry about the eventual Copenhagen Consensus concept, and would not like to see Professor Lomborg monopolize or even copyright those words.

——————-

Climate Change and Melting Glaciers: Nepal’s poor have more pressing problems.
 http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424…

By BJØRN LOMBORG, IN OPINION, THE WALL STREET JOURNAL, NOVEMBER 30, 2009

Global warming has captured the attention of politicians around the world. The following article is part of a series leading up to the December United Nations conference in Copenhagen on how ordinary people in different countries view the issue:

Nine years ago, Maya Bishwokarma moved with her family to Kathmandu from Trisuli, a remote village in the hilly Nepal countryside. Their search for a better life has proved elusive. She and her husband and two sons live in a small, two-room house with her brother-in-law’s family, near the bank of a small stream that has been converted into an open sewer.

“The life of the poor is more miserable here [than in the countryside],” Mrs. Bishwokarma told a Copenhagen Consensus researcher in June. “Our kids are suffering.” The family cannot afford to send their children to a good school.

One of the visible signs of this family’s hardship is the lack of basic amenities. Their hut has electricity, but rolling blackouts mean there is no power for as much as 16 hours a day. Even during the wet season, Mrs. Bishwokarma must line up with other local residents to collect water handed out every six days by government officials. Due to a long drought, the price of vegetables and food has soared.

The lack of water in the shadow of the Himalayas may seem like a strong argument for drastic, short-term reductions in carbon emissions. Indeed, the plight of people like the Bishwokarmas has been used by Al Gore and other campaigners to argue for just such cuts. Climate activists argue that there is a link between melting glaciers in the Himalayas and water shortages elsewhere.

On the surface, this makes sense. But when we dig deeper, we find that the Himalaya glaciers are difficult even for scientists to understand. Most suggestions of rapid melting are based on observations of a small handful of India’s 10,000 or so Himalayan glaciers. A comprehensive report in November by senior glaciologist Vijay Kumar Raina, released by the Indian government, looked more broadly and found that many of these glaciers are stable or have even advanced, and that the rate of retreat for many others has slowed recently.

Jeffrey S. Kargel, a glaciologist at the University of Arizona, declared in the Nov. 13 issue of Science that these “extremely provocative” findings were “consistent with what I have learned independently,” while in the same issue of the magazine Kenneth Hewitt, a glaciologist at Wilfrid Laurier University, agreed that “there is no evidence” to support the suggestion that the glaciers are disappearing quickly.

When glaciers thicken and expand, the summer runoff into rivers decreases. In other words, when climate change does increase glacial melting, the flow of water to poor people like the Bishwokarmas will increase for several decades.

This does not mean that we should cheer on climate change, which will affect the planet in a myriad of complex and challenging ways. It does cast new light on one argument for drastic, short-term carbon cuts. It is important, after all, that we base our response to global warming on the most solid scientific expectations.

What did Mrs. Bishwokarma have to say about such questions? Several times, she asked the Copenhagen Consensus researcher to explain what “climate change” was. When it was explained, she agreed that it was a concern.

But she added that the government of Nepal and others should spend money “first on our everyday problems, then on global warming.” To her, with the perspective of living in a slum and unable to send her children to good schools, that prescription makes a lot of sense.

Mr. Lomborg is director of the Copenhagen Consensus Center, a think tank, and author of “Cool It: The Skeptical Environmentalist’s Guide to Global Warming” (Knopf, 2007).

China on Reducing Its Carbon Footprint: Why Should We Have to? They’ve got a point. Per capita, China only produces 20 percent of America’s carbon emissions. Post Tools.

Posted by Robert Dreyfuss, The Nation at 3:29 PM on November 24, 2009.

BEIJING — Ambassador Yu Qingtai is China’s point man on global warming. As special representative to the climate change talks for China’s ministry of foreign affairs, Yu is a forceful advocate for China’s view that while his country will do its part, the primary responsibility for fixing the problem rests squarely on the shoulders of the United States and other industrialized countries. And he bristles when reminded that many US experts put on the onus on China’s rapidly growing economy and industrial might.

“There were those who came to China years ago and described us as a kingdom of bicycles,” he says, when I mention some of that criticism. We’re sitting in a conference room at the foreign ministry, where Yu has come to be questioned by a small group of journalists invited to Beijing by the Chinese People’s Institute for Foreign Affairs. As China modernizes, he says, every Chinese citizen has the right to all of the modern industrial and transportation options enjoyed by, say, Americans – including the right to own a car. “We should not be expected to stay forever as a kingdom of bicycles!” he says.

He has a point. BUT…

“The environmental problems we face today are not the making of China and India,” he says. The accumulation of carbon in the atmosphere has been growing for the past two centuries, during which Europe and the United States emerged as industrial powers. “Eighty percent of the gases in the atmosphere are the result of emissions by the developed countries, and on a per capita basis it is even more,” he says. That’s a view that has been widely accepted during worldwide climate-change talks through the United Nations and elsewhere, resulting in an international convention that calls upon the developed countries to take major steps to reduce carbon emissions while providing financial assistance and technology to less developed countries such as China and India. So far, however, no accord has been struck, and it isn’t likely that a breakthrough will occur next month at the Copenhagen summit, either. The fund set up to provide financial aid to the Third World on climate change is virtually empty. How much is in it? I asked Yu. “Nothing,” he answers.

“The International Energy Agency estimates that China’s energy-related CO2 emissions will be twice that of the United States by 2030 … China is on track to overwhelm the global effort to address climate change.
“The United States and the world need China to do more than any other country in terms of deviating from business as usual. This will not be cheap.”

Economy admits that it’s impossible, practically speaking, to require China (and India) to cut back on carbon dioxide emissions as dramatically as the United States and Europe must do. In fact, China is doing a lot – perhaps, in part, because it doesn’t have to push legislation through a recalcitrant, filibuster-ridden.  {Senate she must have meant but did not say} Quite apart from the international talks, China is taking steps of its own to reduce its emissions. From 2000 through 2008, China installed an enormous number of non-coal-burning power plants, increasing its wind energy capacity thirtyfold, doubling its hydroelectric capacity, and increasing its nuclear power generating capacity more than fourfold. China has planted billions of trees, raising the percent of its forested land from 12 percent to 18 percent of China’s territory. They’ve set a series of ambitious goals for 2010, 2015 and 2020 for increasing energy efficiency, phasing out old and inefficient iron, steel and cement plants, eliminating subsidies to high-energy businesses, and investing heavily in hybrid cars, efficient lighting, and more.

Still, China gets about 70 percent of its electricity from coal-burning power plants, the chief culprits in CO2 emissions, and it’s building more coal plants quickly. (Over the past 5 years, China has built more new coal plants than the entire existing, installed capacity of coal plants in the United States.)

But as Ambassador Yu points out, the West cannot expect China not to increase both its energy production and, thus, its emissions, as its economy (currently growing at roughly 8 percent per year, despite the after-effects of the financial crisis worldwide) skyrockets. “China currently is responsible for 20 percent of carbon emissions as the United States, on a per capita basis. Suppose we grow our economy by 100 percent. We’ll still be at only 40 percent of the US level,” he says. “You can’t expect China to accept the idea that each Chinese citizen has only 20 percent of the right of an American.”

Yu says that China has accepted that climate change is a serious challenge, posing grave threats to low-lying and coastal areas in China and threatening to decimate food production in agricultural areas.

Despite the measures being taken by China, however, the Chinese government is unlikely to put the brakes on development in order to reduce carbon emissions. While some environment-focused Chinese agencies are accelerating their efforts to deal with the problem, they often meet resistance from ministries responsible for commerce, industrial development, and trade. Some in China see Western demands that China reduce emissions as an under-handed way by the United States and its allies to weaken the Chinese economy. A January 2009 report from the Brookings Institution noted a Chinese perception in some quarters that the United States is using talk about climate change and clean energy “as a way to put obstacles in the path of China’s rise.”

Yet, across China, there are more and more signs that China is taking the problem seriously, right down to the solar-powered traffic signals that dot intersections. Driven in part by its realization that China’s international standing can be affected if it ignores the problem, and in part by the fact that greater energy efficiency can reduce China’s strategic dependence on expensive imports of oil and natural gas, China is investing billions of dollars in green technology, research, and high-tech solutions.

Meanwhile, the Copenhagen summit is drawing near, and Ambassador Yu says that he is “cautiously optimistic.” The reason, he says: “It’s too important to fail.”

Robert Dreyfuss, a Nation contributing editor, is an investigative journalist in Alexandria, Virginia, specializing in politics and national security. He is the author of Devil’s Game: How the United States Helped Unleash Fundamentalist Islam and is a frequent contributor to Rolling Stone, The American Prospect, and Mother Jones.

Norway is a shipping world power – so -  despite all the positive elements in the country – the masters of shipping do not want to be told to improve their fleet. We know what we say because we were involved years ago in the effort to see the UN make some sort of recommendation to have oil tankers obligated to be built with double hulls and compartments, so that in the case of a spill, not all the oil from a mega-barrel size ocean going monster end up on the beaches, on the fish, and the birds.

Brazil suggested the double hulls and compartments, Benin seconded, the G77 did not object in the UN Second Committee, but when it came to be added to the text – it was Norway that said NO! – and that was the end of it.

Now we see the following analysis of a very similar situation – the cleaning up of health endangering emissions from the burning of bunker fuel by ships and emissions of sulfur compounds – and we see that some scientists will say that the goo spewed out from the chimney of the ships is good for us because it helped in rejecting some sun rays after creating clouds. Other scientists will even tell us that there is the possibility of geo-engineering rains – just ask the Chinese that a couple of weeks ago managed to see destruction from floods they produced in ways suggested by these folks.

We wrote before, we love Norway but watch out when you step on their oil interests – that is when you find that they can be an OPEC auxiliary.

————–

Curbs To Ship Pollution Would Stoke Global Warming, Study Says.

reported by Alister Doyle, Environment Correspondent, Reuters

November 23, 2009
OSLO – Shipping is slowing climate change by spewing out sunlight-dimming pollution but a clean-up needed to safeguard human health will stoke global warming, experts said Friday.

“So far shipping has caused a cooling effect that has slowed down global warming,” Jan Fuglestvedt, of the Center for International Climate and Environmental Research Oslo (CICERO), told Reuters.

“After some decades the net climate effect of shipping will shift from cooling to warming” because of cleaner fuels, he and colleagues in Germany, Britain and Norway wrote in this week’s edition of the journal Environmental Science and Technology.

Toxic sulphur dioxide emitted by burning bunker fuel accounted for the deaths of an estimated 60,000 people worldwide in 2001 through cancer and heart and lung disease, according to a previous study. A clean-up would save thousands of lives.

But sulphur pollution from the fast-growing shipping industry also helps create clouds by providing tiny seeds around which droplets form. Clouds have a cooling effect since sunlight bounces off their white tops.

The scientists argued against deliberate use of pollution from ships as part of possible schemes to shield the planet from sunlight, saying it was too risky and outweighed by the impact on human health.

—————–

CLIMATE COOLING

“The available evidence suggests that ‘climate cooling’ by continued shipping emissions of sulphur dioxide would not be advisable,” they wrote.

A clean-up of sulphur from ships will have a “double warming” effect — there will be more sunlight with less pollution and there will be ever more carbon dioxide, the non-toxic greenhouse gas emitted by burning fuel.

Shipping accounts for about 3.3 percent of world carbon dioxide emissions from human sources, emissions the U.N. Climate Panel says will cause more droughts, floods, heatwaves, rising sea levels and disease.

Some scientists, such as Nobel Prize winner Paul Crutzen, have suggested dumping sulphur in the upper atmosphere to slow global warming, one of several proposals for deliberate “geoengineering” to alter the climate system.

A U.N. climate summit in Copenhagen next month will consider new measures to penalize carbon dioxide emissions by both international shipping and aviation — both are outside the existing Kyoto Protocol for slowing emissions until 2012.

Fuglestvedt’s study estimated that it would take roughly 70 years for shipping to become a net contributor to global warming if sulphur dioxide emissions were quickly cut by 90 percent and all other fuel-related emissions stayed at 2000 levels.

The International Maritime Organization is seeking cuts in the sulphur content of bunker fuel to a maximum of 3.5 percent by 2012 and then to 0.5 percent by 2020.

OPEC chief calls for climate talks compensation.
by Avril Ormsby on Sunday, 22 November 2009
 http://www.arabianbusiness.com/574191-op…

OIL USE: OPEC Secretary-General Abdallah al-Badri told a UK newspaper – The Times – poorer oil-producing countries should be compensated for lost revenues after climate talks.

The Kyoto Protocol, the precursor to Copenhagen, had included the pledge of financial assistance, and failure to comply could be fatal for next month’s talks in the Danish capital, the paper reported him as saying.

Badri said it was the richer oil-consuming countries that needed to acknowledge their responsibility for most of the carbon dioxide emitted to date.

They should not block poorer countries from raising living standards for their own people.

“We are not emitting,” he was quoted as saying from OPEC’s headquarters in Vienna. “Historically, it is the developed countries. The responsibility is on their shoulders.

Badri was also quoted as saying a watchdog should be created to monitor excessive speculation in the oil market.

He accused City speculators of causing a recent surge in oil prices by holding 130 million barrels in tankers at sea, waiting for prices to rise.

Paper trading of oil futures contracts were also contributing to this speculation, he added.

Badri said he did not see a peak in oil production “now or for the foreseeable future.”

“There is plenty of oil and technology is advancing very rapidly.” (Reuters)

Related: World oil demand to grow 700,000 bpd in 2010 – OPEC