|
Posted on Sustainabilitank.info on March 18th, 2010 http://www.grist.org/article/2010-03-17-… IT’S A DOME DEAL If it does matter where CO2 is released, cities are in trouble.There’s some fascinating new research about “CO2 domes,” invisible clouds of carbon pollution that hover above urban areas. Bradford Plumer at The New Republic does a great job setting the context:
The new finding:
Mark Jacobson, professor of civil and environmental engineering and director of the Atmosphere/Energy Program at Stanford, has been vocal about the need for a complete clean-energy transformation. This week, with the political world consumed by health care, his work offers a reminder that carbon pollution is a serious health problem. It makes traditional air pollution—such as particulates and ozone—more harmful, so it poses particular threats to the places with the worst air pollution—cities. Here’s a map of CO2 released from fossil fuels (with red and yellow marking the biggest pollution points), compiled from 2002 data by the Vulcan Project at Purdue University. It’s a map of emissions, which isn’t quite the same as airborne concentrations, but it gives a sense of where pollution happens:
Map courtesy of Purdue University Department of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences Jacobson’s urban-dome research presents two implications worth teasing out: Trouble for cap-and-trade? The new evidence adds a wrinkle to cap-and-trade plans by suggesting that it matters where pollution happens. Cap-and-trade rests on the assumption that a ton of carbon has the same impact regardless of where it’s emitted, so it doesn’t matter if a factory in Nashville and a power plant in Phoenix trade emission permits. It only matters where emissions can be reduced most cheaply. But, says Jacobson, “This study contradicts that assumption.” Stanford’s press release on the research plays up the contradiction; “Urban CO2 domes increase deaths, poke hole in cap-and-trade proposal,” blares the headline. If the research proves correct, it doesn’t argue against cap-and-trade so much as highlight the need for a multi-pronged approach to CO2 regulation. The Clean Air Act can set plant-by-plant performance standards while a declining cap covers the broader economy. (That’s the approach taken by the Kerry/Boxer Clean Energy Jobs & American Power Act.) So the study shouldn’t be used to entirely discount the idea of cap-and-trade plans–but that doesn’t mean it won’t be. Urban vs. rural. Jacobson’s research also pits the interests of rural and urban communities against each other. Cities could stand to suffer more under climate change, but the senators representing large urban areas already have proportionately less power to push through legislation that would curb CO2 pollution. California, with its 37 million residents and numerous polluted urban areas, has two senators who want to enact climate legislation; Wyoming, with 540,000 residents and vast expanses of rural land, has two senators who oppose climate legislation. Urban and rural areas have already been at odds over climate policy—and that was before we had any evidence that cities might really get the short end of the stick. The “domes” research provides more fodder for the fight. It underscores the essential unfairness of the effects of carbon pollution, and raises the question of just how much Wyoming should have to say about the health of Californians. Permalink |
| ### |
|
Posted on Sustainabilitank.info on March 18th, 2010 BSR Conference November 2-5, 2010, Grand Hyatt, New York Regularly ranked by analysts as a top sustainability conference, the annual BSR Conference is one of the world’s largest events devoted to corporate responsibility. Now entering its 18th year, the Conference features expert speakers, a creative program, and a global audience of senior business executives, entrepreneurs, and distinguished leaders from the public sector and civil society, giving participants opportunities to engage with sustainability leaders and practitioners. In the post-Copenhagen era, and just before the Cancun meeting that is expected to emphasize country goals on the climate issue,there is no wonder that BSR has just released the BSR Report, “Communicating on Climate Policy Engagement: A Guide to Sustainability Reporting,” http://www.bsr.org/reports/BSR_Communica…). There is also a press release at CSRwire http://www.csrwire.com/press/press_relea…) and short article in ClimateBiz http://www.climatebiz.com/blog/2010/03/1…). Key messages of this short report: 1. Climate policy engagement has become a critical aspect of climate-related sustainability reporting, joining 1) impacts and 2) risks and opportunities as a key climate communication topic (p 5) 2. Stakeholders want companies to lead in policy-driven climate solutions and discuss their efforts—and they no longer need to “reduce first” (p 12) 3. In response to patchy advice about communicating efforts, we examine 150+ companies’ materials to show reporting in 5 mechanisms and 3 themes (p 5-7; and Appendix 1 and 2) 4. “Engagement” means more than lobbying and political spending. It includes calling-to-action more generally, plus informing, enabling, and stage-setting, which we summarize in a detailed framework (p 8) 5. Communicating on climate policy engagement should include governance, strategy, and activities integrated together. This enhances credibility, promotes meaningful dialogue, and fulfills multiple reporting needs (pp 13-17) Further they say: As we look towards COP16 and beyond, BSR hopes this guide will help companies that are not yet engaged in promoting strong climate policy the confidence they need to do so, while enabling more meaningful discussion about the proper role of business in the climate policy process—and movement towards climate stability in general. BSR ### |
|
Posted on Sustainabilitank.info on March 17th, 2010 We were in a state of confusion when posting that James A. Goldston, the founding executive director of the Open Society Justice Initiative, an operational program of the Open Society Institute that promotes rights-based law reform and the development of legal capacity worldwide, was the same as Judge Goldstone of South Africa. The event last night dealt with racial profiling in Spain. It was an important case that involves a black American artist originally from San Francisco, Rosalind Williams, that moved to Spain in 1968, is Spanish citizen, and was singled out in 1995 to identify because of her color. It took 15 years to win this case and the resulting verdict is yet to be made public. ============= Europe’s Highest Court Rules Roma School Segregation by Language Illegal. The Oršuš case involved 14 children attending mainstream primary schools in three different Croatian villages who were placed in segregated Roma-only classes due to alleged language difficulties. The applicants argued that actually, placement in these Roma-only classes stemmed from blatant discrimination based on ethnicity. The schools’ policies were reinforced by the local majority population’s anti-Romani sentiments. Represented by the European Roma Rights Centre (ERRC), the Croatian Helsinki Committee, and local attorney Lovorka Kusan, the case went to the European Court in 2004. After a negative judgment in 2008, it reached the Grand Chamber upon appeal. “The Grand Chamber’s decision is of great importance to the applicants and other Romani children in Croatia, as it acknowledges that they have suffered unlawful discrimination,” said Ms Kusan. “It is now up to the government to ensure that these illegal practices stop and that remedies are offered to affected Romani children.” The Court awarded the applicants 4,500 Euros each in non-pecuniary damages, plus a total of 10,000 Euros for costs and expenses. “Today’s judgment rounds out the European Court’s jurisprudence concerning the most common grounds of segregation experienced by Romani children in education across Europe,” said ERRC managing director Robert Kushen. “National governments must now take decisive action to end segregated education in all its forms and truly integrate their school systems.” The Grand Chamber decision builds on the Court’s groundbreaking judgments in D.H. and Others v. the Czech Republic and Sampanis v. Greece, which rejected the segregation of Romani students into special schools for children with mental disabilities or within mainstream schools on the basis of ethnicity. “Oršuš makes clear that language deficiency cannot serve as a pretext for racial segregation,” said ERRC board member and Open Society Justice Initiative executive director James A. Goldston, who helped argue the case. “Segregation remains all too common in Europe, and it is time to end this deeply degrading practice.” The positive judgment by the Grand Chamber marks great progress for the advancement of Roma rights in general, as well as the right to quality education on equal terms for Roma and other marginalized groups. —————— Challenging Ethnic Profiling in Europe On a brisk winter day in 1992, Rosalind Williams—an African-American woman and naturalized Spanish citizen—stepped off the train at a railway station in Valladolid and was immediately asked to produce her identity document. It was December 6, a national holiday celebrating Spain’s new constitution—one of the most modern in Europe. Yet when asked why Williams was the only person on the platform to be stopped, the police officer explained that he was following orders: it was because of the color of her skin. Williams produced her identity document, and took the number of his badge. Eighteen years later, after winning a landmark ruling from the UN Human Rights Committee on her case, Williams is still waiting for the Spanish government to issue a public apology and end ethnic profiling by police. Today, racial and ethnic profiling remains a pervasive—and ineffective—practice across Europe. With security concerns heightened, the debate on profiling has only intensified. At this Open Society Institute forum, Rosalind Williams will discuss her personal experience challenging racial profiling in Europe, and what impact she hopes the Human Rights Committee’s landmark judgment will have in her adopted homeland. Rachel Neild of the Open Society Justice Initiative will talk more broadly about the prevalence of ethnic profiling throughout the European Union, and its ineffectiveness. Neild will discuss the steps being taken to document and eradicate ethnic profiling, including innovative projects being carried out in cooperation with Spanish police. Jim Goldston, executive director of the Open Society Justice Initiative—which helped bring Williams’ case to the UN Human Rights Committee—will moderate. Speakers Permalink |
| ### |
|
Posted on Sustainabilitank.info on March 11th, 2010 We have posted several articles on yesterday’s UN attempt at staging a non- event. It really starts with the announcement of a meeting at UN Headquarters in New York, 11:30 am to 1 pm, today, March 11, 2010, with the Permanent Mission of Mexico to the UN. THIS IS A CLOSED MEETING and the announcement in the Journal of the United Nations of yesterday, March 10, 2010, that says having that meeting there it does not imply any opinion or endorsement by the Secretariat of the UN. The meeting is a Briefing on the sixteenth session of the Conference of the Parties of the UNFCCC – or the COP 16 of December 2010, that the UN thinks should help it extricate itself from the situation left behind by the Copenhagen COP 15. Mexico is the host and it does not want to be the home of a disaster. So that is why the UN hauled in to New York also Dr. Rajendra Pachauri, Chair of the IPCC, and Professor Robert Dijkgraaf who as head of the InterAcademy Council (IAC) was asked to arrange for a review of the IPCC scientific procedures – a step very much in need now after the fact that the UN decided to cave in to the criticism from the deniers of the idea that there is soundness in the scientific evidence that CO2 emissions are not good for the health of the planet. At least they want to be able to say that damages have not been caused by humans – so why bother with this climate change effort at all? OK – now step 2 the Journal announces for March 10, 2010, an official UN Press Conference with Mr. Rajendra Pachauri and Profesor Robbert Dijkgraaf. This announcement sounded to me quite insane. What would be the credibility of the reviewer if he lines up at what could have become in a free society at a hearing on the side of the head of the organization he is suppose to review? This really deserved two question marks. The Netherlands is an advanced State to the attention of the UN. I was tipped off and decided to call in to Ms. Isabelle Broyer, Chief of the Media Accreditation and Liaison Unit, as I wanted to get a pass to this Press Conference in order to be able to ask some good questions. As the readers of our website know, I do not hold a Press Pass to the UN since the changes in UN Administration that brought in Mr. Ban Ki-moon who replaced Mr. Sashi Tharoor with Mr. Kiyotaka Akasaka as Under-Secretary-General for Communications and Public Information - a move that allowed Mr. Ahmad Fawzi, the Director of News and Media Division, to revoke our pass because we did not follow his ways of thinking when it comes to reliance on oil and the essence of sustainable development and problems of global warming/climate change. That was when the job Ms. Broyer holds now was in the hands of Mr. Gary Fowlie who was moved since to another job, and Mr. Fawzi is about to retire at the end of this month also. I thought that Ms. Broyer would show now the courage to correct an evil, but she was not up to this. This caused me to make sure I get the information I was after and I knew that I was on an interesting something when I got the e-mail from Geneva, which I posted, that clearly proved to me that folks from at least two outside agencies do not want to be seen as fall guys for the New York Headquarters. OK – now step 3 – the Appointments of the Secretary-General for March 10, 2010 include a private meeting at 12:00 pm with Dr. Pachauri followed by a 12:30 pm joint “stake-out” for the benefit of the UN correspondents. A stake-out is a stand-up event where usually the correspondents are allowed to ask questions. In this case – please no questions – just be used as props – please. The event is described in full in the article by Matthew Russell Lee we posted. As I was at the UN anyway – for a different event – I also learned that there was an adjustment to the Briefings to the Press schedule for the day. Seemingly Professor Dijkgraaf is no push-over to his large credit – he clearly pulled away from joint appearances with those he will be called to investigate, and did not appear at that stake-out, but as the UN is in terrible need to do something on this so called “climate-gate” was given separate Press meeting time at 1 pm. OK – now step 4 – the output from the Press events of March 10, 2010 include the self-serving “Remarks to Media on IPCC” from the UN Secretary-General that had not the courtesy of allowing questions, and a not-easy-to-get two page document by the uninitiated – “PRESS CONFERENCE ON REVIEW OF INTERGOVERNMENTAL PANEL ON CLIMATE CHANGE.” This was the document used by Jeffrey Ball in his evaluation for the Wall Street Journal that we also presented. —————- The material follows: http://www.un.org/News/briefings/docs//2…
Press Conference on Review of Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change – March 10, 2010The aim of an independent review of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) was to ensure the quality of its future reports, the co-chair of the scientific institute charged with that task said today. “Our goal will be to assure nations around the world that they will receive sound scientific advice on which Governments and citizens alike can make informed decisions,” Robbert H. Dijkgraaf of the InterAcademy Council said at a Headquarters press conference. Created by the world’s science academies in 2000, the Council aims to mobilize top scientists and engineers to provide evidence-based advice to international bodies. IPCC Chairman Rajendra Pachauri announced the review’s establishment amid growing attacks by sceptics following the disclosure that the Panel’s fourth assessment report, which confirmed human responsibility for global warming, contained errors in respect of the pace of the phenomenon. Mr. Pachauri and United Nations Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon had then asked the InterAcademy Council to lead the independent review. “Our task is forward-looking,” Mr. Dijkgraaf stressed, explaining that the Council had been asked to form a group that could recommend improved practices and procedures so as to ensure the quality of reports in time to impact the Panel’s fifth assessment, already under way. That meant that the review and recommendations were required by the end of August 2010, “a very tight schedule”, he said. Specifically, the review would examine quality control and guidelines for the types of literature appropriate for use in assessments, with special attention to non-peer review literature. It would also look at the Panel’s procedures for Government review of IPCC materials, its handling of the full range of scientific views and its procedures for correcting errors. Reviewers had been asked to analyse the entire IPCC process, including management, administration, transparency and the way in which the Panel handled possible errors and communicated them to policymakers and the public, he said. They would also look at how the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), World Meteorological Association (WMA), the overall United Nations system and other stakeholders related to the Panel, with a view to strengthening assessments and ensuring consistent application of IPCC procedures. Finally, they would analyse the Panel’s communication strategies to ensure that the public was kept informed of its activities. Emphasizing the independence of the review, which would be conducted in accordance with the InterAcademy Council’s own procedures, he said neither the IPCC, UNEP, WMA, nor any related bodies, would exercise control over or oversee the review process or the final report. The international group of experts to be assembled by the Council would serve on an unpaid, voluntary basis in all cases where the group was asked to provide advice on a particular issue, he said, adding that the United Nations would provide funds for travel and other expenses. All draft reports of the InterAcademy Council underwent an intensive peer-review process by international experts, he said, stressing that a final report was only released to the public when the Council’s Board was satisfied that the subsequent feedback had been thoughtfully considered and incorporated. In addition, all efforts were made to ensure that reports were free of national or regional biases. Responding to questions, Mr. Dijkgraaf declined to comment on Mr. Pachauri’s chairmanship of the IPCC or give his own views on climate change and the Panel’s current structure, only reiterating the forward-looking nature of the review to be conducted, and pointing out that continual review was part of all scientific procedures. Asked how he hoped to find enough scientists for an independent review when the IPCC counted thousands of the world’s top climate scientists in its ranks, he said it would be a delicate task to find the necessary diversity of scientific disciplines and people with experience of large-scale organizations. It was also important that all involved maintain objective distance from the Panel’s work. In response to a question as to whether the opinions of climate change sceptics would be included, he said: “By nature every scientist is a sceptic.” As for alleged manipulation of data at East Anglia University and various consultancy agreements that had been the subject of controversy, he said certain case studies might be part of the investigations, but the reviewers would certainly look at management and organizational issues. Questioned further, Mr. Dijkgraaf said the number of experts to be appointed had not yet been determined, though a substantial number was needed to provide diverse expertise. Hopefully, there would have been progress in determining the Board’s composition by a 22 March meeting. * *** * Further, considering that Professor Dijkgraaf expects to have his panel ready by March 22nd, we would like to point out the added importance of the full day meeting at the Earth Institute of Columbia University on March 25th – we posted. The meeting gets added interest as the UNSG is part of that meeting, and he will be there at the home of serious scientists that may not treat him as kindly as the UN Department of Public Information. We look thus forward to further disclosures specifically that there are scientists that think the IPCC under the Pachauri ledership erred rather on the low side and not on the high side. Others may even be less kind by saying something like that both men – the UNSG and the head of the IPCC – were choices of the G.W. Bush US Administration. Permalink |
| ### |
|
Posted on Sustainabilitank.info on March 11th, 2010 State of the Planet, March 25, 2010.
From The Earth Institute, COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY Thursday, March 25, 2010 - 8:30am-5:30pm EDT Beijing, London, Nairobi, New Delhi, New York, via live links/webcast New York site: Lerner Hall, Columbia University, 115 St/Broadway —————–
Webcast/event site: http://www.stateoftheplanet.org/ —————
The State of the Planet conference, held every two years, brings together insights on critical issues from the world’s most influential thinkers and leaders. This year, the Earth Institute, The Economist and Ericsson join forces to bring the conversation to the global community. With broadband access enabled by Ericsson, live events in five cities will be brought together in real time, moderated by Economist journalists. Viewers at home can participate via interactive online tools and discussion boards. Four major topics are on the table: the science and politics of climate change; healing the world economy in an environmentally sustainable way; the ongoing challenge of ending extreme poverty; and how we can build and strengthen international systems able to deal with continuing crises that span borders. Speakers include: UN secretary-general Ban Ki-moon; President Felipe Calderón Hinojosa of Mexico; Prince Albert II of Monaco; Sanjeev Chadha, CEO of Pepsico India; Achim Steiner, executive director of the UN Environment Programme; Xu Jintao, head of the environmental economics program, Peking University; and many others. Moderator: Al Jazeera journalist Riz Khan. Hosts of the event are: Earth Institute director Jeffrey D. Sachs; Ericsson president and CEO Hans Vestberg; and Matthew Bishop, American business editor and New York bureau chief of The Economist.
New York press registration/info: Kevin Krajick kkrajick@ei.columbia.edu 212-854-9729 Beijing: brookings@tsinghua.edu.cn Nairobi: Nick Nuttall nick.nuttall@unep.org New Delhi: Abhijit Sinha Abhijit.sinha@teri.res.in
———————————————————————————————————————————————–
DRAFT AGENDA – New York, NY March 25, 2010 8:30 a.m. EDT Video Introduction Welcome and Introduction by Event Hosts:
Introduction of Global Sites: Riz Khan, Al Jazeera English (Master of Ceremonies). 8:55 a.m. EDT SESSION I: CLIMATE CHANGE – What Would It Take to Complete the Climate Deal? In recent months, the world saw failed negotiations in Copenhagen, attacks on the validity of reports by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, and calls from politicians to open criminal investigations into climate science. In this context, discussion is likely to go beyond “completion” of a climate deal to delve into the true state of our knowledge; how the world perceives it; and whether, and how, the world can move forward toward real action on climate change. New York Event Site Host: The Earth Institute, Columbia University Moderator: Matthew Bishop, American Business Editor and New York Bureau Chief, The Economist
Beijing Event Site Host: Brookings Institution, Tshingua University Moderator: James Miles, China Correspondent, The Economist Panelists:
Monaco – HSH Prince Albert II of Monaco New Delhi – Event Site Host: The Energy and Resources Institute (TERI) Moderator: Simon Cox, Correspondent, The Economist Panelist:
10:30 a.m. EDT Break ——————- 10:45 a.m. EDT SESSION II: POVERTY – How Do We Achieve the Millennium Development Goals? Only five years remain until the 2015 deadline to achieve the Millennium Development Goals, the world’s agreed-upon targets to end extreme poverty and fight hunger and disease. This year is pivotal. UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon has called on world leaders to attend a summit in New York September 20-22, to boost progress toward the MDGs and agree on a plan of action to achieve them. The prospect of falling short of the goals due to lack of commitment is real, but achieving the MDGs remains feasible with adequate commitment, policies, resources and effort. New York Event Site Host: The Earth Institute, Columbia University Moderator: Matthew Bishop, American Business Editor and New York Bureau Chief, The Economist Panelists:
Nairobi (Special Focus: Is Green Growth the Answer for Africa?) Event Site Host: United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) Moderator: Jonathan Ledgard, Correspondent, The Economist Panelists:
—————— 12:15 p.m. EDT Lunch 1:30 p.m. EDT Keynote Address President Felipe Calderón Hinojosa, Mexico (speaking from Mexico City) —————- 1:58 p.m. EDT SESSION III: ECONOMIC RECOVERY – What Does a Green Recovery Look Like? This session will deal with two colliding questions. First: How do we haul the world out of the current economic recession? Second: Given that economic activity helps drive environmental degradation, how do we make a recovery environmentally sustainable? Discussion may start with shorter-term questions of money and finance, but will quickly move on to longer-term ones on how the world economy fits in with the usage or conservation of natural resources; systems of energy generation, old and new; and the survival or fall of natural ecosystems. New York Event Site Host: The Earth Institute, Columbia University Moderator: Riz Khan, Host of the Riz Khan Show, Al Jazeera English
London Event Site Host: The Economist Moderator: John Micklethwait, Editor-in-Chief, The Economist, London —————- 3:55 p.m. EDT SESSION IV: How Can an International System Be Built To Deal with Transnational Issues?
4:00 p.m. EDT Keynote Address Ban Ki-moon, UN Secretary-General The challenges of sustainable development—whether heading off climate change, fighting extreme poverty, stabilizing populations, or ensuring adequate water supplies for human use and crops—must all harness actions from a wide array of institutions. Gaining cooperation among the many stakeholders involved is the toughest challenge of all. In the countdown to achieving the MDGs by 2015, and in the midst of a global economic crisis, the need to strengthen global cooperation has become an emergency rather than simply a matter of urgency. Strengthening global partnerships in the areas of aid, trade, debt relief, and access to affordable medicines and new technologies is critical to prevent a decline in development. New York Event Site Host: The Earth Institute, Columbia University Moderator: Riz Khan, Host of the Riz Khan Show, Al Jazeera English Panelists:
——————- 5:17 p.m. EDT Wrap-Up: Jeffrey D. Sachs, Hans Vestberg and Matthew Bishop ———————————————————————————————————————————————– MORE INFORMATION:
Kevin Krajick, The Earth Institute Dayna De Simone, The Economist Ericsson Corporate Public & Media Relations Phone: +46 10 719 69 92 The Earth Institute, Columbia University mobilizes the sciences, education and public policy to achieve a sustainable earth. Through interdisciplinary research among more than 500 scientists in diverse fields, the Institute is adding to the knowledge necessary for addressing the challenges of the 21st century and beyond. With over two dozen associated degree curricula and a vibrant fellowship program, the Earth Institute is educating new leaders to become professionals and scholars in the growing field of sustainable development. We work alongside governments, businesses, nonprofit organizations and individuals to devise innovative strategies to protect the future of our planet.
The Economist, edited in London since 1843, is a weekly international news and business publication offering clear reporting, commentary and analysis on world politics, business, finance, science, technology, culture, society, media and the arts. The Economist has a North American circulation of 813,000, a global circulation of more than 1.4 million and 4 million monthly unique visitors at The Economist online. Because of its international editorial perspective, it is read by more of the world’s political and business leaders than any other magazine. Ericsson is a world-leading provider of telecommunications equipment and related services to mobile and fixed network operators globally. Over 1,000 networks in more than 175 countries utilize its network equipment, and 40 percent of all mobile calls are made through its systems. It is one of the few companies worldwide that can offer end-to-end solutions for all major mobile communication standards. Ericsson is advancing its vision of being the “prime driver in an all-communicating world” through innovation, technology and sustainable business solutions. More than 80,000 employees around the world generated revenue of SEK 206.5 billion (USD 27.1 billion) in 2009. Founded in 1876, with the headquarters in Stockholm, Sweden, Ericsson is listed on OMX NASDAQ, Stockholm and NASD Permalink |
| ### |
|
Americas Society gets funding from the Ford Foundation to promote Social Inclusion in Latin America. Posted on Sustainabilitank.info on March 9th, 2010
Visit AS/COA at www.as-coa.org
New York, March 9, 2010—Americas Society is honored to announce the Ford Foundation’s generous award of a one-year grant of $132,700 for Americas Society’s program to promote research, policy debate, and policy change on social inclusion. The Americas Society’s Social Inclusion Program aims to strengthen the economic and political representation of previously marginalized groups, coordinate new research on expanding access to markets and social services, and highlight how government and business can address the systemic problem of social exclusion throughout the Western Hemisphere. “Drawing on new research and our unique partnerships with local and international business, our goal is to foster public/private partnerships to increase market access, support the integration of workers and influence public policy to reduce social, economic and political exclusion throughout the Americas,” says Christopher Sabatini, Senior Director of Policy for Americas Society and Editor-in-Chief of Americas Quarterly. Through the AS’s policy journal, Americas Quarterly and the Americas Society website (www.as-coa.org), the program will also highlight Ford Foundation initiatives that advance social inclusion in the region and will aggregate research to provide a comparative regional perspective on topics such as land rights, access to public services, crime and insecurity, human rights, market access, and political representation. “We are deeply grateful to the Ford Foundation for its generous support and look forward to expanding our activities to promote greater social inclusion in the Americas,” says Americas Society President and CEO Susan Segal. For further information about the Americas Society’s work on social inclusion, please contact Americas Society Communications Manager Alex Andrews at aandrews@as-coa.org or (212) 277-8384. Permalink |
| ### | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Posted on Sustainabilitank.info on March 8th, 2010 
Freedom for Sale: Why the World Is Trading Democracy for Security
When the Soviet Union collapsed in 1991, Western commentators were quick to assert that liberal democracy and capitalism had won the day. The truth was more complex. Authoritarian governments in China, Singapore, and later, Russia, deftly separated democracy from capitalism, offering their citizens a choice. They could embrace all the comforts of a consumerist society, so long as they surrendered their civil liberties. Freedom for Sale (Basic Books) is a portrait of a new paradigm of authoritarian capitalism, which is making inroads not just in the East, but in America as well. At this Open Society Institute event, author John Kampfner will discuss his argument that this model represents a “pact” between governments and their middle class subjects. As long as citizens consent to stay out of politics and keep to themselves, in return they receive all the creature comforts they desire. The cost is small, insofar as the average citizen is concerned—but as soon as activists and journalists get involved, the pact has swift, deadly consequences. Crackdowns on journalists in China, detentions of political dissidents in Singapore, and thuggish intimidation and assassinations in Russia are all part and parcel of this system, but even so, the pact seems more popular, and more successful than ever. Speakers
http://www.soros.org/resources/events/freedom-for-sale-20100318?utm_source=Open+Society+Institute&utm_campaign=ef3298ed63-upcoming_events_2010308&utm_medium=email
Permalink |
| ### | |||||||||||
|
Posted on Sustainabilitank.info on March 8th, 2010 We picked up some ideas from Katie McCaskey of an aol blog – http://www.housingwatch.com/2010/02/19/kill-your-lawn-earn-some-green/ Katie pointed out that Southern California residents have now further good financial reasons for doing sane things and rip out their water-wasting turf – did you hear that they will get even a check in the mail? These programs were instituted by Southern California utilities because of water shortage and above triggered my memory of things past that occured when I tried to do sane things in New York State and found that one must bow to the conventional narrow minds running the system. Cyberhomes blogger Marcie Geffner writes: Permalink |
| ### |
|
Posted on Sustainabilitank.info on March 8th, 2010 Why the euro will continue to weaken.By Wolfgang Münchau Published in The Financial Times, March 7, 2010. If you want to unnerve a European, the revelation of a secret dinner of New York-based hedge funds conspiring against the euro is hard to beat. Europeans are right to worry – but not about the collusion itself. They should be much more concerned that some of the world’s smartest investors are convinced the euro has only one way to go: deep down. At first sight, this flies in the face of a previous consensus. In Europe, in particular, the predominant view has been that the infidels at the Federal Reserve and the Bank of England will ultimately inflate themselves out of their debt, while the European Central Bank will hold firm. That scenario would be consistent with an overvalued euro. So what has prompted some sophisticated investors to think the opposite? Greece? Probably not. This is a story about what will happen to the eurozone beyond Greece. Without political and legal constraints, this would be much easier. The eurozone would prescribe itself a crisis resolution mechanism, a procedure to manage internal imbalances, and perhaps move towards a common eurozone bond. Several economists have made concrete proposals: Daniel Gros, director of the Centre for European Policy Studies, and Thomas Mayer, chief economist of Deutsche Bank, have argued the case for a European Monetary Fund. Yves Leterme, the Belgian prime minister, has proposed a European debt agency. While all of this sounds sensible, none of it may ever happen because of political and legal constraints. Some member states would argue that a new European treaty would be needed to implement such proposals. The route to getting the Lisbon treaty ratified was so tortuous that Brussels would rather go to hell and back than negotiate and ratify another treaty. In any case, German constitutional law imposes such tight constraints that any dilution of the no bail-out clause in the Maastricht treaty or the price stability target of the ECB might trigger a forced German exit. The most one can hope for during the next 10 years is improved voluntary co-ordination in the European Council. So the question then becomes: what economic adjustment mechanisms are feasible against this political and constitutional backdrop? The options are limited. The one policy response we can almost take for granted will be an attempt to reduce budget deficits back towards the Maastricht treaty’s upper ceiling of 3 per cent of gross domestic product. This will be achieved, if not by 2012, then a year or two later. Meanwhile, Germany has unilaterally prescribed itself a deficit-to-GDP ceiling of 0.35 per cent from 2016. There will be some slippage here as well. But there can be no doubt that the eurozone will try – and probably succeed – to consolidate its fiscal position. The budget committee of the German Bundestag started last Friday, in fact, by cutting the finance minister’s 2010 budget by almost €6bn ($8.2bn, £5.4bn). If we assume further budgetary consolidation as a given, how then will the eurozone economy adjust? It is an economic fact that the sum of public and private sector balances must equal the current account balance. So forcing up public sector balances implies either an offsetting fall in private sector balances, an offsetting improvement in the current account balance, or some combination of the two. In scenario one, the eurozone’s current account balance remains broadly unchanged, and all the adjustment comes through a fall in private sector balances. In a similar way, Greece last week solved its fiscal problem by creating a private sector problem of identical size. The Greek state – the sum of its public and private sectors – is just as bankrupt today as it was a week ago. This means that, by following the fiscal policy rules, the eurozone would risk a private sector depression, which would almost certainly be concentrated heavily in Europe’s south. This scenario would greatly increase the probability of a eurozone break-up at some point in the future. Investors who believe in this scenario would be very afraid to hold euros. In scenario two, all the adjustment comes through the eurozone’s current account balance, which would turn from slightly negative to strongly positive. It is difficult to see how this could be done without a significant further devaluation of the euro. The euro would join the long list of currencies that have seen their problems solved through competitive devaluation. So the consequences would be a significant devaluation of the euro against the dollar and a reversal of its appreciation against sterling. It would make life more difficult for the British. But, most importantly, it would contribute to a resurgence in global imbalances. Whichever scenario you choose, the euro is going to be weak. Even if the eurozone were to allow more serious slippage in budgetary consolidation than I have suggested, that would probably not help the euro either, as markets would start to doubt the longevity of the currency union for political reasons. We have always known that a monetary union cannot exist without political union in the long run. Those smart New York investors are betting that the long run is closer than we thought. Permalink |
| ### |
|
Posted on Sustainabilitank.info on March 2nd, 2010 ———- Forwarded message ———-
From: Stephen Wise Free Synagogue
Date: Tue, Mar 2, 2010 Subject: Shabbat Dinner and Mitzvah Day This Weekend
Permalink |
| ### |
Off-site Activities:|
Posted on Sustainabilitank.info on March 2nd, 2010 The New York Times Co.’s stock was surging today, March 1st, up 6.3%. It reached greater heights earlier in the day, spiking an astounding 11% on rumors that a billionaire shareholder – the Mexican Carlos Slim – would buy the whole company. A representative for Mr. Slim has told CNBC that Slim won’t be buying The New York Times. For its part, the Times Co. has said it doesn’t comment on rumors. Trading volume in New York Times shares is about four times as much as average today. Slim bought a 6.9% stake in the Times in 2008. In January 2010 he invested an additional $250 million. Over the weekend, New York Magazine reported that Rupert Murdoch’s Wall Street Journal was mooting a $15 million initiative to take on The New York Times with a new New York metro section, in hopes of cut into the Times’ advertising base. The Times needs money even though it actually returned last week the salaries of some of its employees that were cut because of the recession. Does the NYT try to retain some of the staff so that its writing does not suffer further? Are Murdoch – Salim fighting matches on New York’s horizon? We think the beneficiary of this will continue to be The Financial Times. Permalink |
| ### |
|
Posted on Sustainabilitank.info on March 2nd, 2010 HRW Press – HUMAN RIGHTS WATCH AT THE UN. Egypt: Student Wrote About Corruption in Military Academy and was put before Military Court Trial. (New York, March 1, 2010) – The Egyptian authorities should drop all charges against Ahmad Mostafa, a 20-year-old engineering student charged with writing about corruption in the military academy on his blog, Human Rights Watch said today. Security officials are prosecuting Mostafa before a military court in a trial that began March 1, 2010. Military intelligence officers arrested Mostafa on February 25, 2010, while he was on his way to the Faculty of Engineering at Kafr El Sheikh University, and the prosecutor ordered his detention pending trial, based on a Military Academy complaint about the 2009 posting. Gamal Eid, director of the Arab Network for Human Rights Information, told Human Rights Watch that military intelligence officers questioned Mostafa on January 17 about his blogging, demanded his password, and then changed his password to keep him from accessing the blog before releasing him that same day. The blog post appears to have come to their attention after Mostafa discussed plans to hold a demonstration during a January visit by President Hosni Mubarak to Kafr el Sheikh with other April 6 members. The prosecutor charged Mostafa under Law 113 of 1956 and the Penal Code which prohibit “the publication of information considered a secret of the armed forces, spreading false information with the goal of causing harm and insulting officials responsible for admission of students into the military academy.” The only evidence presented is the post on Mustafa’s blog. Egypt has arrested and detained other bloggers for acts protected by freedom of expression. Kareem Amer, whose real name is `Abd al-Karim Nabil Suleiman, has been in Borg El Arab prison, in Alexandria, since November 7, 2006, for writing about sectarian tensions in Alexandria and criticizing President Mubarak and the Al-Azhar religious institution on his blog. On February 22, 2007, a court sentenced him to four years in prison for “insulting the president,” “spreading information disruptive of public order,” and “incitement to hate Muslims.” Hany Nazeer, another blogger, is being detained without charge in Borg El Arab prison, under the country’s emergency law. State Security officers arrested him at his home in Naga Hammadi, Qena, on October 3, 2008, after he expressed opinions critical of Christianity and Islam on his blog. Mostafa Hanafy, vice president of the Egyptian Council of State and a member of the Egyptian delegation to the United Nations Human Rights Council, told the human rights body on February 17 that the Egyptian government had “made a commitment before parliament to use the emergency law only for terrorism and drug-related crimes and it has only implemented the rules of the emergency law in these cases.” Musad Abul Fagr, a novelist and rights defender who had been outspokenly critical of violation of the rights of Sinai Bedouin, remains in prison under an emergency law order despite several court orders for his release. On July 17, prison officials transferred him to Borg El Arab prison under the 13th emergency law order extending his detention. Human Rights Watch strongly opposes any trials of civilians before military courts, whose proceedings do not protect due process rights. The African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights, in interpreting the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights, has said that military courts “should not, in any circumstances whatsoever, have jurisdiction over civilians.” The Human Rights Committee, the expert body that monitors compliance with the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), expressed concern in 2002 that Egypt’s “military courts and state security courts have jurisdiction to try civilians accused of terrorism although there are no guarantees of those courts’ independence and their decisions are not subject to appeal before a higher court,” as required by the ICCPR. In a 2009 report following his visit to Egypt, Martin Scheinin, UN Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms while countering terrorism, reiterated that “the trial of civilian terrorist suspects in military and Emergency Supreme State Security Courts raises concerns about the impartial and independent administration of justice and furthermore does not comply with the right to have a conviction and sentence fully reviewed by a higher court.” During the review of Egypt’s record by the UN Human Rights Council, several countries recommended that Egypt stop detaining bloggers under the emergency law and stop trying civilians before military courts. Hanafy, the Egyptian delegation member, told the Council on February 17 that “there are very few cases of [civilians tried before military courts]; the decision [to refer a civilian to a military court] is an administrative one that can be appealed against in all cases.” “The Egyptian government says one thing in Geneva and then immediately makes a mockery of the Human Rights Council’s review process,” Stork said. “No civilian should be tried before a military court, and no government that claims to respect human rights should be prosecuting someone solely for writing about corruption.” For more Human Rights Watch reporting on Egypt, please visit: For more information please contact: Permalink |
| ### |
|
Posted on Sustainabilitank.info on March 1st, 2010 Better than sliced bread?{Now please – do not be sarcastic – this Bloom: Thinking inside the box – { a new meaning for this – please! }
### | |||||||||||||||
|
Posted on Sustainabilitank.info on February 27th, 2010 Women’s Network For a Sustainable Future (WNSF) Provided us with a pink invitation to an event for which we were supposed to pay $55 for this “generously hosted by PricewaterCoopers event.” There was also an early bird option for $40. When I wrote that I would like to cover the event for the Sustainable Development website – the PriceWaterhouseCoopers lady of my correspondence first did not react to our e-mail then it was a nope. The Advertised pink sheet said: http://www.eventbrite.com/event/55129493… Cordially invites you to its New York Luncheon Panel
Including speakers from: A discussion of business risks and opportunities post-Copenhagen: What’s in store for companies nationally and internationally–and how to plan for it–with tips from those who were there. Wednesday February 24, 2010 Generously hosted by BOARD OF DIRECTORS Kathy Robb Marlys E. Appleton Dianne Dillon-Ridgley Shelly M. Esque Karen Flanders Joanne Fox-Przeworski. Ph.D Ann Goodman. Ph.D Sarah C. Howell Michele Kahane Clair Krizov Joyce LaValle ———- ADVISORY COUNCIL Ray Anderson Jo Ivey Boufford Paula Di Perna Eileen Fisher Joyce Haboucha Noreen Harrington Stuart Hart Terri Ludwig ———– SPONSORSHIP INFORMATION WNSF welcomes support from companies, foundations and individuals to help us spread the word to as many businesswomen as possible on how corporate responsibility can foster sustainability. If you are interested in sponsorship opportunities, please contact: WNSF is a 501(c)3 not-for-profit organization. Recent Sponsors Alcoa Foundation, AT&T, BP, Cola-Cola Co., Con Edison, Eileen Fisher Participation WNSF believes that integrating responsible, sustainable practices throughout organizations is key to building sustainable enterprises — and a sustainable future. That’s why WNSF welcomes participation from women in all parts of business including marketing, communications, legal affairs, human resources, finance, strategy, philanthropy, corporate citizenship and environment, health and safety. There are no formal membership requirements. To get regular email updates on WNSF activities, send your contact information to:info@wnsf.org WNSF Leadership Circle Founding Members: Recent WNSF sponsors include: Adobe Initial web site design and hosting provided by Netting Solutions =============== OK – without an invitation to those sandwiches, I found it convenient to stop by at 2:15 pm after an event on Kazakhstan at the George Soros Institute. Actually, I found that things, might actually be better then the initial impression. True, I have seen before high power corporate women barging into topics of social interest at the fringes of the UN that were rather a celebration of “We have Arrived” and we are ready to impress our sisters, but at least the most recent additions to this organization seem to understand the political importance of the subject beyond the potential of a corporate gain for their employing firm, and the lady I was in e-mail contact with, I was told was a complete novice employee of the organization. Anyway, I seem to remember having already run into the Corporate Ladies of WNSF previously at an event at the outskirts of the UN Headquarters at the time of a Women’s Conference, but this time got really intrigued by the post Copenhagen and how to benefit from Copenhagen concept. I understand that Dianne Dillon-Ridgley of Iowa City gave an inspirational description of the history of climate change policy. She has experience with the Sustainable Development concept since her appointment by President Bush Senior’s White House to go to the Rio convention, as per http://www.wnsf.org/index.php?com=static… Ann Godman is the Executive Director of the WNSF which she co-founded in 2002. She is now adjunct professor of corporate responsibility at the Center for Global Affairs at New York University, and affiliate professor at the graduate Center for Environmental Policy at Bard College. http://www.wnsf.org/index.php?com=static… Helle Bank Jorgensen was the moderator of the panel, and the hostess of the panel, as she is Partner, PricewaterhouseCoopers Denmark. Member of the PwC Global Sustainability Leadership Council. She gave me a PriceWaterhouseCoopers two page “Sustainable growth strategies” sheet with indication that PwC is sponsoring “Sustainability & Climate Change Thought Leadership.” I learned that PwC is promoting literature with titles like: A point of view series that covers the EPA new rules on GHG registration requirements and their regulation under the Clean Air Act. www.pwc.com Also – “Sustainability: Are consumers buying it?” and “Going Green: Sustainable growth strategies.” Capitalizing on a climate of change” seems to be a good introductory booklet - www.pwc.com and if you want to learn about the tax implications - www.pwc.com . Above all it seems that what PwC wants you to remember is that CSR is in vogue – “A comprehensive survey of corporate social responsibility reporting trends, benchmark and best practices” is something the consulting firm can help you with. The company distributed also booklets of “Rethink” as in Vision, Visibility and Strategy resulting in improved performance for your company. Obviously – there is nothing wrong in using greed to help achieve important societal goals – or who knows – the knowledge to avoid having to comply. http://www.accaglobal.com/documents/denm… Rebecca Craft was there to speak of Energy Efficiency at Con Edison, and I am sure Alison Taylor had things to add to this from the Siemens Corporation performance that we know well from what we were shown in Copenhagen, at the Siemens Denmark headquarters. Then there was James Fuschetti, the only man that was still in the room when I arrived, and the only man on the panel, a Managing Director at JP Morgan Chase, a banking corporation that has female executives, but has also the sense to deal with Sustainability and Climate Change to the subject and not as a matter of female representation. James Fuschetti is the Managing Director of the Office of Environmental Affairs at JP Morgan Chase and is responsible for its overall management and direction. Mr. Fuschetti spent 26 years as a banker and product specialist at JP Morgan Securities, Inc. During that time he lived in New York, Sao Paulo and London and worked with corporate and government clients in Latin America, Europe, the Middle East and Asia. In 1999 Mr. Fuschetti left JP Morgan to join the World Wildlife Fund (“WWF”) in Washington DC where he co-founded the Center for Conservation Finance. During his 7 years at WWF he helped develop financing solutions for large scale conservation projects in Asia and Latin America. In February 2008 Mr. Fuschetti returned to JP Morgan Chase to assume responsibility for the Office of Environmental Affairs. Mr. Fuschetti reports to William Daley. The Program was mainly about “REFLECTING ON COPENHAGEN” and Ms. Jorgensen posed questions to the panelists: - What are the risks and opportunities you see for your company after Copenhagen? - Do you see a different reaction nationally vs. internationally? - How do you successfully plan for the future in a time of such uncertainty? - While there is no current federal regulation – there is state/regional regulation – how do you address this in your company? - Any last questions – or tips? That all sounds good and I hope she got good answers, but for the life of me I do not understand why these topics had to be in pink format? Our website will fight for full equality for women when climbing the corporate ladder but we do not think that this sort of plain business talk ought to be segregated by sex. I was glad I went to look at this congregation as I walked away with the feeling that indeed it was not a Sarah Palin tea party, but rather a joint learning experience that actually could have an impact if the ladies in the audience felt more comfortable in hearing about the misery of our environment and our governing system from a woman, rather then in a more mixed setting. Permalink |
| ### |
|
Posted on Sustainabilitank.info on February 21st, 2010 As Received from Arthur Plum – thanks for sending this. Joe Stack, The IRS and the T-word. If someone flew an airplane into a building full of people to protest the Afghan war, it would be called an act of terrorism. However, when Mr. Joe Stack flew his plane into an IRS building and killed people, the news media calls it. “the accident,” and “the incident.” The local Texas prosecutor declared that Mr. Stack was not a terrorist. But what should you call it when a man pens a manifesto proclaiming, “violence is the only answer,” then kills people because they work for the government? Mr. Stack’s wife apologized on the news to “everyone affected by the incident,” but was careful not to use the term “victim,” when referring to the people her husband murdered. Regardless of the media’s politically correct posturing, the simple fact is this: Joe Stack was a suicide bomber. Even though his name was Joe, and not Mohammed, and even though he was protesting taxes, not Israeli foreign policy, Mr. Stack was, a murderer of the innocent. So why does the media avoid the T-word when referring to him? Because anti-tax politicians are powerful. When Massachusetts’s new Senator was asked about the plane attack, he yawned, “No one likes paying taxes.” That sentiment is quite popular, as so few news outlets see fit to interview the families of Mr. Stack’s victims, or even print their names. Apparently, if you are killed because you work for the IRS, your name is not even worthy of a line in the newspaper. Many have forgotten the violent Tea Party rallies of last summer, the buses full of anti-tax activists appearing at congressional offices around the country with their clubs and fists and foul mouths. Many have forgotten the Sarah Palin rallies of 2008, events that attracted characters similar to the murderous Mr. Stack. But the media has not forgotten those events, because they know that if they refer to Mr. Stack as a terrorist, as a man who killed innocent people to make a point, they’ll wind up in the crosshairs themselves. Permalink |
| ### |
|
Posted on Sustainabilitank.info on February 15th, 2010 ———- Forwarded message ———-
Permalink |
| ### | |||||||||||||||
|
Posted on Sustainabilitank.info on February 11th, 2010 ———- Forwarded message ———-
Permalink |
| ### |
|
Posted on Sustainabilitank.info on February 11th, 2010 ———- Forwarded message ———-
From: Global Change Associates <lists@global-change.com>
Date: Thu, Feb 11, 2010 Subject: The Wall Street Green Trading Summit – Save The Date March 23+24
Permalink |
| ### | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
