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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

“It sounds awfully dazzling,” Stahl remarked.

“It is real. It works,” he replied.

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

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

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

“Absolutely,” Sridhar replied.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

But according to Doerr that was okay.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

He told Stahl the first customer was Google.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

“I have some famous failures,” he acknowledged.

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

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

He joined Bloom’s board of directors last year.

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

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

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

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

“You are an idealist,” Stahl remarked.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Patricia Murphy, Columnist

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

- – - -
Here are the full results:

Rep. Ron Paul- 31 percent

Mitt Romney- 22 percent

Sarah Palin- 7 percent.

Gov. Tim Pawlenty – 6 percent

Rep. Mike Pence- 5 percent

Mike Huckabee- 4 percent

Newt Gingrich- 4 percent

Gov. Mitch Daniels- 2 percent

Rick Santorum- 2 percent

Sen. John Thune- 2 percent

Gov. Haley Barbour- 1 percent.

———

The highest rated comments that represent best that meeting were:

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

RATE THIS COMMENT: (150)

—

from: fmtflf
11:53PM Feb 20th 2010

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

RATE THIS COMMENT: (166)

——————–

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

———

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

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

———

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

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

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

Dr. ElBaradei was born in Cairo, Egypt, in 1942, son of the late Mostafa ElBaradei, a lawyer and former President of the Egyptian Bar Association. His father often found himself at odds with the regime of Egyptian President Gamal Abdel Nasser. ElBaradei’s father was also a supporter of democratic rights in Egypt, supporting a free press and a legal system that was independent.

The son gained a Bachelor’s degree in Law in 1962 at the University of Cairo, and a Doctorate in International Law at the New York University School of Law in 1974. He began his career in the Egyptian Diplomatic Service in 1964, serving on two occasions in the Permanent Missions of Egypt to the United Nations in New York and Geneva, in charge of political, legal and arms control issues. From 1974 to 1978 he was a special assistant to the Foreign Minister of Egypt.

In 1980 he left the Egyptian Diplomatic Service for work at the United Nations, and became a senior fellow in charge of the International Law Program at the United Nations Institute for Training and Research (UNITAR). From 1981 to 1987 he was also an Adjunct Professor of International Law at the New York University School of Law.

From 1984, Dr. ElBaradei has moved to a substantial senior staff member position of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) Secretariat, in Vienna, holding a number of high-level policy positions, including Agency’s Legal Adviser and subsequently Assistant Director General for External Relations under  former Swedish Foreign Minister Hans Blix as Director General. The IAEA was set up by suggestions in 1953 from U.S. President Dwight D. Eisenhower as the world´s sleepy “Atoms for Peace” organization in 1957. It was set up as a UN affiliate that eventually had to become the UN watchdog on nuclear proliferation matters. The first Director General was American, W. Sterling Cole, 1957–1961 – followed by two Swedes 1961-1997 as nuclear issues meant arbitrating between the US ans the Soviet Union.

ElBaradei under UN Secretary-General Boutros Boutros-Ghali (1992-1996), another Egyptian, and it was assumed that this is an opening to what the UN called the Third World, he was then appointed to the office of the Director General of the IAEA effective 1 December 1997, and reappointed to a third term in September 2005 under UNSG Kofi Annan (1997-2006). In November 2009 he retired from that position after three terms of four years, and was succeeded by the Japanese Yukiya Amano defeating Abdul Samad Minty of South Africa and Luis E. Echávarri? of Spain.

Elbaradei’s tenure has been marked by high profile non-proliferation issues including the inspections in Iraq preceding the March 2003 invasion and tensions over the nuclear program of Iran – one could say that a main issue of the IAEA in his time was the ongoing activities to create an Islamic bomb.

In 2005, The United States initially voiced opposition to his election to a third four-year term. In a May 2005 interview with the staff of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Lawrence Wilkerson, the chief of staff to former Secretary of State Colin Powell, charged former Undersecretary of State for Arms Control and International Security John Bolton with an underhanded campaign to unseat ElBaradei. “Mr. Bolton overstepped his bounds in his moves and gyrations to try to keep [ElBaradei] from being reappointed as [IAEA] head,” Wilkerson said. The Washington Post reported in December 2004 that the Bush administration had intercepted dozens of ElBaradei’s phone calls with Iranian diplomats and was scrutinizing them for evidence they could use to force him out. IAEA spokesman Mark Gwozdecky said the agency worked on “the assumption that one or more entities may be listening to our conversations”. “It’s not how we would prefer to work, but it is the reality. At the end of the day, we have nothing to hide,” he said. Iran responded to the Washington Post reports by accusing the United States of violating international law in intercepting the communications. We guesthe deeds were illegal but iran’s actions were worse. What about ElBaradei?

The United States was the only country to oppose ElBaradei’s reappointment and eventually failed to win enough support from other countries to oust ElBaradei. On 9 June 2005, after a meeting between US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and ElBaradei, the United States dropped its objections. Among countries that supported ElBaradei were China, Russia, Germany and France. China praised his leadership and objectivity and supported him for doing “substantial fruitful work, which has maintained the agency’s role and credit in international non-proliferation and promoted the development of peaceful use of nuclear energy.”  France, Germany, and some developing countries, have made clear their support for ElBaradei as well, Russia issued a strong statement in favor of re-electing him as soon as possible, and ElBaradei was unanimously re-appointed by the IAEA Board on 13 June 2005. In 2008 ElBaradei said he would not be seeking a fourth term as Director General. One could say that the squirmish with the US because of the US false alegation regarding the Iraqi bomb, had much to do with El Baradei and the IAEA under his leadership, getting the Nobel Prize for Peace. It seems that this was rather a reaction to US high-handedness. Whatever – not much love was lost between the US last two Administrations and ElBaradei.

The current Board members of the IAEA are: Afghanistan, Argentina, Australia, Azerbaijan, Brazil, Burkina Faso, Cameroon, Canada, China, Cuba, Denmark, Egypt, France, Germany, India, Japan, Kenya, the Republic of Korea (South Korea), Malaysia, Mongolia, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Pakistan, Peru, Romania, Russian Federation, South Africa, Spain, Switzerland, Turkey, Ukraine, the UK, and the USA, Uruguay, and the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela (Venezuela) 2009–2010).

ElBaradei’s two children live and work in London.

ElBaradei’s name has been circulated recently by opposition groups as a possible candidate to succeed President Hosny Mubarak to Egypt’s highest executive position. ElBaradei demanded that certain conditions have to be met to ensure fair elections accompanied by changes to the constitution that will allow more freedom for independent candidates before he would actually consider running for presidency. Several opposition groups and parties have endorsed him, considering him a neutral figure who could transition the country to greater democracy.

—————-

Mr. Ahmad Fawzi, currently News and Media Division Director under the UN USG for Communications and Public Information, has held this position for quite a while and was thus able to shape also the roster of who is allowed to participate at UN Press conferences.

His activities at the UN Headquarters in New York started with his  serving as Deputy Spokesman for UN Secretary-General Boutros Boutros-Ghali from 1992 through 1996 or during the whole time that Mr. Boutros-Ghali held that job.It was thus Mr. Butros Ghali who brought him to the Headquarters.

Born in Cairo on 28 March 1948, Mr. Fawzi has a Bachelor of Arts degree in English literature and Language from Cairo University. He pursued post- graduate studies at the Newhouse School of Communications of Syracuse University, New York.

Before joining the United Nations, he worked for many years in broadcast journalism, as a news editor, reporter and regional news operations manager. Much of his work was in the Middle East and much of it with Reuters. We assume that his contacts with Mr. Boutros-Ghali started in the Middle East and Egypt – perhaps back to interviews at time Mr. Boutros Ghali was part of the Government of Egypt.

After the Boutros-Ghali years, during the Kofi Annan Years at the UN, and until now, Mr. Fawzi continued to work with the UN Department of Public Information and had various stints like his being spokesman for Lakhdar Brahimi the UN special envoy to Iraq.

—————

Boutros Boutros-Ghali, Born the 14 November 1922 in Cairo (Egypt) into a most distinguished Coptic Christian family, Mr Boutros-Ghali received a bachelor’s degree from Cairo University (1946) and a Ph.D. in international law from the University of Paris (1949). He then held a professorship at Cairo University and lectured in international law and international affairs at various universities and institutes in the United States, Europe, India, the Middle East.

From 1960 to about 1975, Boutros-Ghali founded, edited, and wrote for Al-Ahram Iqtisadi, where his beat was regional and international law, diplomacy and political science. He was a member of Parliament in Egypt, and helped negotiate the 1978 Camp David accords, bringing peace between Egypt and Israel. He worked with President Sadat’s foreign service, was known to oppose originally Sadat’s trip to Jerusalem but later was involved in furthering the succes of that mission. He was sort of an odd man in Cairo. His wife – the former Leia Maria Nadler was Jewish.

Hosni Mubarak was appointed Vice President in 1975, and assumed the presidency on 14 October 1981, following the assassination of President Anwar el-Sadat. He really was not interested in keeping Mr. Boutros Ghali in Egypt, and was quite happy to volunteer his services to the UN when that opportunity arose. So he was instrumental in getting Mr. Boutros-Ghali elected UN Secretary- General in 1992 where he lasted till 1996.

Looking back – Mr. Boutros Ghali was the former Secretary-General of the United Nations (1992-1996) and Secretary-General of the International Organization of Francophonie (1997-2002). Currently he is president of the National Council of Human Rights of Egypt, he also chairs the International Panel on Democracy and Development (IPDD), set up by UNESCO in 1998. He is also a member of the Support Committee of the Russell Tribunal on Palestine. From his work at the UN – really nothing positive to be remembered. Basically, our present posting argues that his two appointments – those he made possible to Messrs. ElBaradei and Fawzi – perhapse were his longest lasting legacies he left behind at the UN. Also, some other people he introduced to the UN, including members of his wife’s family, turned up as reasons for the UN blunder that was discovered, under his successor’s time at the UN helm, in what becanme the oil-for-food scandal. The Paul Volker investigation of that affair has left stained both named UNSGs.

—————-

Having introduced the actors – let us now look at the latest news:

Hosni Mubarak is now in his 30th year of his Presidency – that is he is ending his 5-th consecutive six year term. There will be elections, probably in a year – in 2011, but there are no candidates because of the way Mubarak kept out of site any budding opposition. Even what was supposed to be the opening for democratization – the 2005 constitutional amendment that established multi-candidate presidential elections in Egypt came with rules designed to ensure that no independents could easily enter  the race, helping to stifle challenges to Mr. Mubarak’s rule. In fact, even discussing who would replace Hosni Mubaraq was not tolerated. The feeling is that Hosni Mubaraq has full intent to stay on and then pass the mantle to his son – Gamal Mubarak – we think named so after Gamal Nasser – the previous big Chief that run Egypt as if it were still in  the Pharaohnic days – and the whole Arab world was just larger Egypt.

Anwar Sadat (Muhammad Anwar El Sadat, or Anwar El Sadat  was the third President of Egypt, serving from 15 October 1970 until his assassination by Islamists on 6 October 1981 – he was indeed different and he paid with his life for having tried to do something for his country. He also did not ask for a parliament’s permission but at least did not put himself at the center of is world.

And the press? That is all government owned – what is written is the word that comes from Mubarak – that is the kind of Journalism that conquered the UN thanks to Ahmad Fawzi – a good disciple of his Egyptian friends – you get a Press Release and don’t ask questions – you write it down because that is what you are there for. The notion that there is something like a Media Think-Tank, or Media Independent Thinking that does not serve a cause – is unheard off on the shores of the Nile.

But then, Egypt’s people are proud people indeed. They are proud that one of theirs has gotten the Nobel Prize, they also are tired of the face of the old Pharaoh – they are ready to induct ElBaredei to run for the Presidency. He is free and available – but what about those rules/ he asks Egypt to change the rules so that there is an open election and he is ready to run – he seems to be the kind of person that is saying up-front that he is not blind to the barriers that Mubarak encircled himself – something like the security wall of the Israelis.

The Muslim Brotherhood, the basic resistance that was connected in the past with those that Killed Anwar Sadat, or helped foot the Al Kaeda in its infancy, religious nationalistic fanatics that are afraid of nothing – they are still there and sort of tolerated by Mubarak who remembers that they made it all possible for him 30 year ago, they say now: “The question is, can ElBaradei, who lived most of his life – 30 years – working in Europe, can he lead a new Egyptian revolution for change?

El Baradei came for a 10 day visit last week and there were 1,000 people waiting for him at the airport for six hours. his Facebook numbers 60,000 Egyptians – they feel that for the first time there is a viable option besides Mubarak and his son – his actual persona is the symbol that there can be an alternative because some Egyptians speak up now and say – it is our right to chose the person who will represent us. Even the Muslim brotherhood agrees to see in El Baradei the transition to a new Egypt.

Considering the high level of corruption in Egypt, the fact that El Baradei came from outside, so he is not sullied by the home-grown stagnation of Egyptian politics, he has a terrific advantage of being that fresh face they would like to induct.

OK – that is ElBaradei – what about Fawzi? He is retiring next month and we suggest he can be available to be thrown into this new Egyptian brew. He is not a new face, but he knows how to look as media while backing a cause he has in mind. I really do not think that what he had in mind was Mubarak, I rather think he remembers Boutros-Ghali and other Arab interests – be it oil or culture. We do not think that ElBaradei either has fully absorbed Western liberalism and Egypt might not be ready for this either, what seems to be needed is the kind of spokesperson that knows to dress up the concerns of the Middle East environment, and Egypt,  with a good race-horse like ElBaradei, can concoct the public winning formula. So – here for a step of loosing up the frozen major States of the Middle East – Egypt and Saudi Arabia.

The first wave of reporting was only  a rewrite of the UNFCCC Press release. Then came some further wording from an AP interview. Now we see the start of thinking journalism.

The bottom line seems to be: “Bickering at Copenhagen convinced many countries that the UN negotiating process must be reformed, and that agreement might be sought in other forums.” So, here goes that proverbial 192 UN Member States list or the 193 figure that appears when the UNFCCC is mentioned. We never understood why that discrepancy and assumed the fault is with us for not knowing where to put the EU, Taiwan, the Vatican, Puerto Rico, Palestine … and some other such preferred UN preoccupations.

Fiona Harvey of the Financial Times quotes an official of a developed country: "You have to wonder whether you could get moremovement by working in smaller groups." If you want to get results indeed – you must bring together the World’s biggest GHG emitters.

The New York City newspapers – The New York Times and The Wall Street Journal went over to the UN and got hold of Janos Pasztor, the potentially homeless head of the “in-Headquarter-house” climate-change team-head for UNSG Ban Ki-moon.

{On “homeless” – As we reported earlier: “The UN’s and Ban’s climate unit under Janos Pasztor, which was told there was no room for it in the UN’s Temporary North Lawn Conference Building where Ban has his office, is now looking at space in the Alcoa Building on 48th Street, Inner City Press is told. For now, they are left behind in the nearly empty UN skyscraper where asbestos removal has already begun.”}

According to the WSJ – Janos Pasztor said: “It does not matter what a senior UN civil servant does, ultimately – if governments are not ready to sign off on an agreement, then they will not sign off on an agreement;” Mr. Pasztor said that Mr. de Boer called Mr. Ban “two days ago;” to inform him of the decision. Mr. de Boer’s four-years appointment was going till September and he could have asked Mr. Ban to appoint him for another term, but we never came to that point, he said. Asked whether Mr. Ban would have reappointed Mr. de Boer, Mr. Pasztor said: ‘That we don’t know.”

Mr. Pasztor said further that Mr. Ban will begin looking for a successor for Mr. de Boer “extremely quickly;” he does not know who might be considered.

Neil MacFarquhar and John M. Broder ot the NYT did some further inquiries outside the UN.

Mark Kenber, the policy director for the Climate Group, an international organization involving industry that wants to see a climate agreement, said that it is probably the right time to get a fresh face in. It was a grueling two years of negotiations and a new face would re-spark the process.

Michael A. Levi, the climate change expert at the Council on Foreign Relations said that Yvo de Boer has put in a lot of time towards a very well-defined end, and the fact he resigns means that he did not see potential success on the horizon of COP 16, this year. Had he seen the possibility that there might be a positive outcome before the end of the year, he would have stuck with it so he would get credit for his work.

Others faulted the UN team for not having moved faster to find areas where agreement among those 190+ participating member states at Copenhagen, such as the preservation of rainforests, could have been agreed upon in smaller fora first. Another such topic could have been the taxing of livestock emissions that is being described in today’s FT that says FAO is ready to help review the meat industry.

So, after 48 hours since Yvo de Boer’s resignation, provided that the UN does not rush in with a Ban Ki-moon new appointment, but is ready to listen to possible new opportunities, this might turn out as a blessing in disguise – an opening for change – an actual new opportunity.

Some question the UNFCCC process itself – but we think that this is rather too much. It does not remember that the UNFCCC was born in Rio de Janeiro in the 1992 UNCED Conference – just because there was no agreement to have a full convention like it was the case with Biodiversity and in regard to Arid and Semi-Arid lands and Desertification.

Decreasing the size of the negotiation table, by bringing the number of participants down to those that are the most serious polluters, with delegations present from groups most seriously affected, could be more fit to help bring about the needed agreements.

————-

And From Canada – the host for the 2010 meetings of the G8 and G20:

from Shawn McCarthy, Ottawa — From Friday’s Globe and Mail reporting.
Published on Thursday, Feb. 18, 2010
Mr. de Boer – who had worked tirelessly to reach a consensus at Copenhagen – said he was depressed for weeks after the summit ended with a vague, non-binding agreement among major emitters known as the Copenhagen Accord. Angry recriminations resulted from Copenhagen’s failure to produce a more substantial document, and the refusal of the participants to unanimously endorse even the more modest pact.

Mr. de Boer’s successor – to be appointed by UN secretary general Ban Ki-moon – will not only have to reinvigorate the effort to achieve a treaty, he will need to revisit the UN process itself. The requirement for consensus may make it impossible to reach an accord in Mexico, even in the unlikely event that an agreement can be achieved among major emitters. Some critics suggest Mr. de Boer was part of the problem – bringing a rigid, bureaucratic approach to the international talks.

“I never had the sense that we were dealing with a person of vision, a person who could see the changes that were necessary in the international system to get a climate-change agreement,” said Robert Page, chairman of Canada’s National Round Table on the Environment and the Economy.

Mr. Robert Page suggested the new UNFCCC executive director will likely have to come from a major developing country – such as Brazil – and be committed to reforming the UN process.

In Denmark, a small group of countries blocked the conference as a whole from adopting the Copenhagen Accord, which had been brokered at the 11th hour by U.S. President Barack Obama.

Mexican President Felipe Calderon is urging a reform that would see agreement based on a 75-per-cent majority, rather than unanimity. The Catch-22: The UN requires consensus to change the voting rules.

“As far as the process goes, we’re in a lot of trouble,” said John Drexhage, climate-change director for the Winnipeg-based International Institute for Sustainable Development and former Canadian negotiator.

“We need to have very realistic expectations for Mexico. I think it would be a mistake to push for a legally binding comprehensive agreement by Mexico. That’s just not going to happen with the current state of affairs.”

Indeed, Mr. Drexhage said Mr. de Boer’s successor faces a convergence of factors that will make it extremely difficult to regain momentum for the international talks.

Public skepticism about the dangers posed by climate change has risen, fuelled by incidents in which a few researchers manipulated data to get desired results, and the inclusion of non-scientific information in the report of the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

Emerging economies like Brazil, South Africa, India and China – the so-called BASIC group – have made clear they will not subject their emission-reduction policies to international verification. Any commitments they have made are conditional on the developed world – notably the United States – taking strong action, and delivering promised financing to the developing world.

Mr. Obama faces major hurdles in getting a climate bill passed in Congress this year, raising questions about his administration’s commitment to reduce emissions by 17 per cent from 2005 levels by 2020. And as the United States goes, so goes Canada.

World leaders have a couple of opportunities to advance the broad commitments of the Copenhagen Accord into a more robust agreement, including a May meeting in Bonn, Germany, and the Group of Eight/Group of 20 summits to be hosted by Prime Minister Stephen Harper this summer.

The G8 and G20 can deliver progress – especially the G20, which includes China, India, Brazil and Mexico. But it remains unclear whether Mr. Harper, who is hosting the meetings and influences the agendas, will make climate change a priority.

———–
 http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/20…

Yvo de Boer’s successor has big footprints to fill: The former head of the UN’s climate body commanded great respect in a near-impossible job, but in the end, he failed. His successor must not.

Because De Boer took over from another Dutchman in 2006, there will be strong pressure on the UN to choose his successor from a developing country. “I would like to see someone from a developing country who can negotiate with those countries,” Seb Walhain, the head of environmental markets at Fortis Netherlands, told Reuters. Because so much is at stake and the talks are at such an advanced stage, the appointment is likely to be fiercely contested.

Get it right, and the new head of the UNFCCC will be celebrated as the man or woman who steered the whole world to a historic agreement that could save the planet from calamitous climate change. Get it wrong, and negotiations could be set back a decade.

Cold truths about the Northeast’s harsh winter

Friday, February 19, 2010

Mail received from a foreign country
Betreff: FW: Bill Gates & General Motors.

How funny but, yet unfortunately, true!

Please share this with your friends who love – but sometimes hate – their computer!

For all of us who feel only the deepest love and affection for the way computers have enhanced our lives, read on.

At a recent computer expo (COMDEX), Bill Gates reportedly compared the computer industry with the auto industry and stated:
“If GM had kept up with technology like the computer industry has, we would all be driving $25 cars that got 1,000 miles to the gallon..”

In  response to Bill’s comments, General Motors issued a press release as follows:

If  GM had developed technology like Microsoft, we would all be driving cars with the following characteristics…..

1. For no reason whatsoever, your car would crash………Twice a day.

2. Every time they repainted the lines in the road, you would have to buy a new car.

3. Occasionally your car would die on the freeway for no reason. You would have to pull to the side of the road, close all of the    windows, shut off the car, restart it, and reopen the windows before you could continue. For some reason you would simply accept this.

4. Occasionally, executing a maneuver such as a left turn would cause your car to shut down and refuse to restart, in which case    you would have to reinstall the engine.

5. Macintosh would make a car that was powered by the sun, was reliable, five times as fast and twice as easy to drive – but would run on only five percent of the roads.

6. The oil, water temperature, and alternator warning lights would all be replaced by a single
‘This Car Has Performed An Illegal Operation’ warning light.

7. The airbag system would ask ‘Are you sure?’ before deploying.

8. Occasionally, for no reason whatsoever, your car would lock you out and refuse to let you in until you simultaneously lifted the door handle, turned the key and grabbed hold of the radio antenna.

9. Every time a new car was introduced car buyers would have to learn how to drive all over again because none of the controls would operate in the same manner as the old car.

10. You’d have to press the  ‘Start’ button to turn the engine off.

PS – I ‘d like to add that when all else fails, you could call ‘customer service’ in some foreign country and be instructed in some foreign language how to fix your car yourself.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Insisting on Compliance

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

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

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

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

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

No Constitution

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

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

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

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

Not Allowed for Arabs

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

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

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

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

Then He Shoots

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

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

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

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

‘Illegal to Attack the Courts’

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

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

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

If not for Stepping up as Guardians of Human Rights – What Else Is The UN There For?

Human Rights Watch at the UN – HRW Press

UN: Council Review Highlights Iran’s Poor Record – Members Should Recommend Reforms for Tehran.

(New York, February 16, 2010) – The Iranian government’s dismissal of international criticism of its human rights record underscores the need for the UN Human Rights Council to closely monitor Iran, Human Rights Watch said today. On February 15, 2010, council members in Geneva considered Iran’s record during the Universal Periodic Review (UPR) of human rights to which all UN members are subject.

Human Rights Watch pointed to numerous recommendations made by other states during the review, many of which addressed the Iranian government’s crackdown against peaceful protesters and members of Iran’s civil society following the country’s disputed June 12 presidential elections. Human Rights Watch called on Iranian officials to immediately accept these recommendations to end the current human rights crisis.

“The Human Rights Council should insist that Tehran tells us what actually happened during and after the crackdown,” said Sarah Leah Whitson, Middle East director at Human Rights Watch. “How many people were killed or arrested, what are their names, and where are the detainees? The council should demand the government holds officials to account for their abuses instead of just denying everything.”

During the UPR, council members raised numerous concerns regarding the Iranian authorities’ violent and systematic attacks against demonstrators and opposition members during the past eight months, including the lack of accountability for abuses. In response, an Iranian government representative said that “all cases were duly addressed in competent courts openly and the defendants had access to their chosen lawyers,” and claimed that the Iranian Judiciary “meticulously examined all allegations pertaining to the breach of citizenry rights and most scrupulously heard the complaints lodged with them for even the alleged minor illegal treatments against the detainees.”

In fact, these statements are wholly inconsistent with evidence of thousands of arbitrary arrests, prolonged detentions, torture of detainees, and mass show trials conducted by the Iranian Judiciary during the past eight months. These have resulted in little or no official investigations or accountability for the alleged abuses. The remarks were made days after security forces violently suppressed peaceful demonstrators on February 11, the 31st anniversary of the Islamic Revolution in Iran.

Despite numerous warnings by high-ranking members of Iran’s military and security forces designed to intimidate citizens and discourage them from joining street protests, thousands of Iranians participated last week in largely peaceful demonstrations in Tehran, Esfahan, Shiraz, Ahvaz, and other urban centers. Numerous media reports indicate that demonstrators were met by anti-riot police using tear gas, clubs, and other hand-held weapons used to attack and disperse crowds. Media reports also indicate that many peaceful demonstrators have been arrested.

“Tehran’s response to the UPR session contradicts the reality facing thousands of Iranians wishing to exercise their fundamental rights,” said Whitson. “The government’s denials show that without strong international pressure on Tehran, human rights abuses will continue.”

On February 17, the Human Rights Council’s UPR Working Group will submit its report to Iran, including a list of recommendations put forth by various delegations during the February 15 plenary session. The Iranian government will have an opportunity to accept or reject some or all of the recommendations submitted by the UPR Working Group, or offer to provide an answer before the council’s general session in June.

Human Rights Watch, which submitted a report on Iran to the UPR process, urged the council to call on the government to conduct an impartial, transparent, and comprehensive investigation into the killings, arrests, and detentions of thousands of demonstrators and civil society advocates affected by the post-election crisis in Iran; to investigate, prosecute, and punish government officials involved in the unlawful killing, arrest, detention, and abuse of thousands of demonstrators, opposition members, and civil society advocates; and to provide due process protections, including prompt charge under the law, access to a lawyer, and a hearing before a judge, for all detained individuals.

Human Rights Watch also called on Tehran to immediately accept these recommendations instead of waiting to respond to them before the June session.

Background
The UPR Review of Iran’s human rights record during the past four years comes only days after security forces violently suppressed peaceful demonstrators on February 11, the 31st anniversary of Iran’s Islamic Revolution. According to media reports, leading opposition figures and presidential candidates Mir Hossein Mousavi and Mehdi Karrubi were among those attacked by pro-government forces and prevented from joining demonstrators in Tehran. Zahra Rahnavard, Mousavi’s wife, also sustained injuries as a result of an attack by pro-government militia, and one of Karrubi’s sons was arrested and taken to an unknown location. He was released a day later, with his body showing signs of physical abuse at the hands of pro-government forces. Former President Mohamed Khatami’s convoy was similarly attacked, and his brother, and sister-in-law were briefly detained by security forces before being released later in the day.

On February 14, Ali Karrubi’s mother, Fatemeh Karrubi, published an open letter to Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei requesting that he order an end to physical and psychological abuses carried out against those detained by Iran’s security forces during the past eight months.

The government’s February 11 crackdown follows weeks of devastating raids, many of them conducted at night, targeting journalists, human rights defenders, students, and political dissidents. This month, the Committee to Protect Journalists announced that Iran had detained 47 journalists since June 2009, more than any other country. Security forces have supplemented their campaign of arrests with cyber attacks on news and information websites, stepped up blocking of email accounts, and slowed internet access. These measures are designed to stifle the free flow of information and block the few remaining channels of communication available to the Iranian people.

To read a June 19 press release about the government crackdown on protesters in Iran, please visit:
 http://www.hrw.org/en/news/2009/06/19/ir…

For more Human Rights Watch reporting on Iran, please visit:
 http://www.hrw.org/en/middle-eastn-afric…

For more information, please contact:
In New York, Sarah Leah Whitson (English): +1-718-362-0172 (mobile)
In Washington D.C., Joe Stork (English): +1-202-209-2945 (mobile)
In New York, Faraz Sanei (English, Farsi): +1-212-216-1290

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What Barack Can Learn From George.
By Annie Lowrey, Newsweek
Wednesday, 10 February 2010 17:00

President Bush didn’t let Senate obstructionism keep him from filling important administration posts.         So why does President Obama?

During his State of the Union address, Obama slammed Republicans over delays in confirming his appointees, one week after the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) nominee Erroll Southers withdrew his name from consideration. Southers was tired of the politicking over his confirmation to the airport security agency; some Republicans feared that he would let employees bargain collectively, and there was also a controversy over a background check of his ex-wife’s boyfriend. “The confirmation of well-qualified public servants should not be held hostage to the pet projects or grudges of a few individual senators,” Obama said.

But eight years ago, Obama’s predecessor was doing a lot more than talking in the face of a recalcitrant Congress. In the summer of 2001, President George W. Bush was gearing up for a fight with the Democratic Senate over his labor and judicial nominees. Some Democrats were placing holds on Bush nominees to judgeships, slowing down the entire confirmation process. By August, the president lost his patience. The term of the only Republican on the National Labor Relations Board, Peter J. Hurtgen, had expired. With members of Congress back at home for the August break, Bush put him to work for the rest of the congressional session using a “recess appointment”. The president can name appointees directly into positions during Senate breaks, and presidents since George Washington have done so. The option is written into the Constitution – unlike the hold, which is nothing more than a Senate formality.

Democrats were none too pleased with the recess appointment, but it galvanized Bush’s base. The Journal of Commerce, for instance, applauded the decision, writing in an opinion piece: “Sen. Edward Kennedy, who chairs the Senate Labor Committee, would do well to confirm such a package [of nominees] quickly, lest he face recess appointments far less to his liking.”

One year into the Bush administration, there were 70 appointees pending. One year into the Obama administration, there are more than 200. Bush had used the recess appointment 10 times. Obama has not yet even mentioned the tactic.

(Newsweek Update: On Tuesday afternoon, Obama indicated he might use recess appointments, during next week’s recess: “If the Senate does not act, and I made this very clear, I will consider making several recess appointments during the upcoming recess because we can’t afford to let politics stand in the way of a well functioning government.”){our update – WHY DOES HE NOT USE THE “WHITE OUT RECESS” RIGHT NOW – WASHINGTON IS SNOWED OUT ANYWAY}

With Republicans holding up more nominees, Democrats are now calling loudly for Obama to get into the scrum – and wondering where he has been for the past 12 months.

Indeed, the Southers affair was just the tip of the iceberg. Now, Republicans are threatening to filibuster Craig Becker, an Obama nominee to the National Labor Relations Board. With its Senate supermajority gone, the Democrats will likely give up on Becker. And, most extraordinarily, last week, Sen. Richard Shelby (R-Ala.) slapped a blanket hold on every pending Obama nominee in Congress, over two pork-barrel projects he wants approved: a multibillion-dollar contract for air-to-air refueling and an improvised explosive device laboratory for the Federal Bureau of Investigation. White House spokesperson Robert Gibbs called it “silliness,” and Republican leadership distanced itself from the blanket hold – so Shelby quietly lifted it on Monday.

Democratic senators – most notably Majority Leader Harry Reid – have criticized Republican obstructionism all year. And in recent days, Democrats have said privately that Obama simply has not done enough to get his nominees confirmed. They contend the White House has failed to communicate with relevant agencies and Hill figures regarding nominees. “I became a political football in a game that had nothing to do with increasing our security posture. It needed to stop,” said Southers in an interview after withdrawing his name. “Every week it seemed like I was getting knocked back on my heels, with no protection.”

Department of Homeland Security staffers, who asked not to be quoted criticizing the administration, describe dismay at watching as the administration failed to counter false or overblown concerns about his nomination and failed to publicly throw its weight behind its nominee. The nonresponse disconcerted Southers and earned the Obama administration vocal opprobrium from the left, from labor leaders to Rachel Maddow. A spokesperson from the American Federation of Government Employees described it as “incredibly disappointing,” particularly for a “perfect candidate” such as Southers. “The first responders to 9/11 were unionized,” the spokesperson said, referring to New York’s police and firefighters, among other agencies. “But, of course, we didn’t hear about that.”

On the Hill, Democratic staffers also express dismay over the lack of pushback. “We’re all wondering, where are they?” one Senate staffer without permission to speak on the record tells NEWSWEEK. Remembering how George W. Bush’s administration fought for its prized nominees, another staffer adds, “It’s like a bad dream coming back to me.”

Meanwhile, the White House has come under criticism for months now for lagging in putting important candidates up: no nominees, no confirmations, and no confirmations, no leadership. The Obama administration took eight months to nominate Southers to head the TSA and eight months to nominate Alan Bersin to lead the Customs and Border Protection Agency.

Finally, the Obama administration has failed to use its trump card – the recess appointment – or even mention it as a possible political tool up until now. Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano pushed for a recess appointment for Southers, which would have let him work until December 2011, at least. But, from the White House, silence. (Assistant press secretary Nicholas Shapiro declined to respond directly to critics, but directed NEWSWEEK to two prereleased statements on Southers.)

Still, there is opportunity in this procedural crisis. The blanket hold over pork-barrel projects, particularly given Obama’s commitment to deficit-cutting measures, provides the Democrats with a cudgel. And if Republicans won’t compromise, then it might be time for Obama to follow in Bush’s footsteps, loathe though he may be to do so, and exercise some executive power – for the next recess is only days away.

Iran to shut down Google email service: report.

Wed Feb 10, 2010
SAN FRANCISCO (Reuters) – The Iranian government plans to permanently suspend Google Inc’s email service in the country, the Wall Street Journal reported on its website on Wednesday.

Google said it experienced a sharp drop in email traffic in Iran, and that some users in the country were having trouble accessing Gmail, but said its networks were working properly.

The report comes as Iran braces for new opposition protests on Thursday during rallies marking the 1979 Islamic revolution. Protesters made use of modern networking tools such as Twitter and Gmail instant messaging last June after a disputed election plunged Iran into crisis.

Google is already at loggerheads with China’s government after it threatened to withdraw from the country last month over claims of online attacks and issues over censorship.

Iran’s telecommunications agency announced the suspension and said a national email service for Iranian citizens would soon be rolled out, the Wall Street Journal reported.

Google reported a drop in email traffic, but did not confirm the Journal report.

“We have heard from users in Iran that they are having trouble accessing Gmail,” a Google spokesman wrote in an e-mail to Reuters. “We can confirm a sharp drop in traffic, and we have looked at our own networks and found that they are working properly.”

He added that Google supported free online communication, but “sometimes it is not within our control.”

There was no immediate comment from Tehran, where it was after midnight when the news broke. Opposition leaders have called on supporters to take to the streets on Thursday, raising the risk of renewed violence.

The U.S. State Department could not confirm the report, but said any efforts to keep information from Iranians would fail. “While information technologies are enabling people around the world to communicate … like never before, the Iranian government seems determined to deny its citizens access to information, the ability to express themselves freely, network and share ideas,” State Department spokesman P.J. Crowley said.

“Virtual walls won’t work in the 21st century any better than physical walls worked in the 20th century.”

Israel’s top ten water technology companies that help keep the world liquid.

By Karin Kloosterman
February 04, 2010
 http://www.israel21c.org/environment/isr…

A serious lack of potable water has forced Israel to create a flourishing water technology industry. ISRAEL21c brings you the country’s top 10 water companies.

It makes you think of the famous line from Samuel Taylor Coleridge’s The Rime of the Ancient Mariner, “Water, water everywhere, nor any drop to drink.” – Israel is bordered by the Red Sea and the Mediterranean Sea; is home to the freshwater Sea of Galilee and the saltiest sea on earth, the Dead Sea. Rivers and springs run through the country.

And yet, despite all this water, Israel has been battling a severe shortage of potable water since its inception in 1948. To survive, policy and government incentives have contributed to the creation of a new and flourishing industry of water technologies.

From drip irrigation, to water recycling, reclamation, wastewater reuse and desalination, Israel has become a pioneering force worldwide, nicknamed by some as the ‘Silicon Valley’ of water technologies. As more and more countries around the world face similar water shortages, Israel’s expertise and industry are growing fast.

While young companies like Aqwise, which treats wastewater, and Atlantium, which uses ultraviolet to clean water, enhance Israel’s impressive water reputation and are on investors’ hit lists, ISRAEL21c brings you a list of the companies that form the backbone of the country’s water industry – tried, tested and true, these companies are the source of the local water technology industry’s claim to fame and were responsible for a large chunk of the country’s $1.4 billion in exports in 2008.

1. Mekorot Group

Mekorot, Israel’s national water company, is responsible for today’s thriving water export market. It is wholly owned by the government and for the past 70 years has managed the country’s environmental and security challenges in the area of water.

A powerhouse in desalination, water reclamation, water project engineering, cloud seeding, water safety and water quality, Mekorot supplies 90 percent of Israel’s drinking water and manages about 80% of its water supplies. Its subsidiary EMS Mekorot Projects supplies solutions in water works planning, installation, testing, sewage treatment, desalination, rain enhancement and more.

Mekorot’s second subsidiary Mekorot Development and Enterprise offers water solutions in design, feasibility studies, project management, and construction, operation and maintenance of treatment facilities. It recently signed an MOU agreement with a company in California and plans to provide desalination solutions for southern California.

2. Netafim

When every drop counts, why not deliver water straight to the roots where the water is needed; nothing more and nothing less? Israeli company Netafim invented drip irrigation – possibly one of the most significant developments in agrotechnology today – when an engineer discovered that an abnormally large tree growing in the desert was fed by a drip in a water pipe.

The company is a global leader in drip irrigation, supplying both low and high tech solutions in developed and developing nations. The company is also looking to new sustainable solutions to help to grow biofuel crops more efficiently.

3. Arad Group

If you live in the US or Canada, there’s a good chance that your water meter was made by Arad Group. The kibbutz-owned company specializes in the design, development and manufacture of precision water meters for domestic use, waterworks, irrigation and water management companies around the world.

The company just purchased a Spanish water meter company for about $10 million, and it recently developed a new drone plane aims to pinpoint water leaks on the ground from up in the sky.

4. IDE Technologies

IDE is the company that makes Israel a world leader in desalination technology, having built some 400 desalination plants around the world. It runs one of the world’s largest desalination facilities off Israel’s coast in the town of Ashkelon, and also at Hadera. Recently, the company also won a tender to build and operate a new desalination plant in Soreq, which will be the largest of its kind in the world.

The industrial company has been in business since 1965 when it was founded by the government. Today it specializes in more than desalination, also working with wastewater treatment, heat pumps and in producing ice and snow machines. IDE is now privately owned by Israel Chemical and the Delek Group.

5. Tahal Consulting Engineers

Israel’s largest firm of water engineering consultants, Tahal Consulting Engineers is ranked as the top of its kind in the world. In the business since 1961, Tahal runs projects with private and municipal clients both locally and abroad.

The company maintains close ties with leading international institutions including the World Bank, the Inter-American Development Bank and United Nations agencies. Tahal specializes in water resource management, agricultural development, sewage and sanitation, environmental protection, roads and highways, marine engineering, industrial parks and more.

6. Amiad Filtration Systems

A company that specializes in drinking water filtration, Amiad Filtration Systems prides itself on using no chemicals and no polymers in an efficient process.

Founded in 1962, the company maintains a North American office in California and provides environmentally sound water filtration technologies on every continent from Antarctica to Australia. It also provides special solutions for offshore installations and the automotive industry.

7. Bermad

Bermad specializes in pipes, valves and how to control them. Serving its customers globally, the company offers a number of solutions for the control and management of water supplies anywhere, based on its control-valve technology.

Working in high-rise buildings, water works plants in municipalities, at power stations and in the private sector, Bermad’s impressive range of activity includes drip irrigation technology, sprinklers, micro-jets and greenhouse irrigation, as well as tools for commercial and residential gardening irrigation needs. The company also applies itself to fire protection and water metering and was instrumental in creating snow for the 2006 Winter Olympics.

8. Arkal

Efficient cleaning and filtering of water is the name of the game in water management and Arkal is fast becoming a world leader in the field, working with countries like Argentina, Turkey and Spain.

The company is active in plastics plants and in aquaculture and fisheries industries, and is providing sprinkler solutions to increase the effectiveness of irrigation.

9. Global Environmental Solutions (GES)

GES designs water and wastewater plants and can also build and operate them in industrial areas, in cities and for agriculture.
GES was created by a merger of three veteran Israeli water companies: Italchem Ayalon, Aniam, and Chemitaas. The company acquired Texma, a firm specializing in industrial adhesives, lubricants and chemicals for treating metals and Argad, a wastewater treatment company.

The super-company GES offers a full repertoire of water solutions for chemical companies, factories and municipalities and specializes in the food, beverage and hospitality industries.

10. Miya

While it has yet to prove itself, Miya is an ambitious business venture founded by Israeli billionaire Shari Arison.

The $100 million initiative, which was set up in 2006, aims to tackle the problem of urban water loss around the world. Miya is acquiring a base of companies and consultants to offer turnkey solutions, services and consulting to manage and fix leaky pipes and save billions of dollars annually.

“THE WINTER OF THEIR DISCONTENT: PYONGYANG ATTACKS THE MARKET.”

That was the title of a lunch event at The Korea Society Forum on Wedneday, January 27, 2010, and the speaker was Mr. Marcus Noland, Deputy Director at the Peterson Institute for International Economics in Washington DC, and  Senior Fellow at the East-West Institute.He has held academic positions at Yale, Johns Hopkins, USC, Tokyo U, Saitama U, The U. of Ghana, and the Korea Development Institute. He was also a senior economist at the Council of Economic Advisers to the President of the USA.

The event was chaired by Mr. Evans Revere, President and CEO of the Korea Society. Both of them also old hands of the US Department of State – former Ambassadors with deep knowledge of Korea.

The paper that was presented was co-authored by Mr. Noland with Stephan Haggard with whom he also co-authored a book titled:  “Famine in North Korea: Markets, Aid, and Reform.” Other books he wrote are “Pacific Basin Developing Countries: Prospects for the Future and Korea after Kim Jong-il,” and he edited “Economic Integration of the Korean Peninsula.” His book “Avoiding the Apocalypse: the future of the Two Koreas,” won the Ohira Memorial prize.

The reason for having this meeting was the North Korea’s recent currency reform of November 30, 2009, that literally threw North Korea back to Stalinistic Days of unbelievable economy these days of the 21st century.

North Korea also declared a ban on the use of foreign currencies on top of having declared useless their own National currency account. The net result was a clear blow o the market – so there is literally no market – thus no real economy – only a barter system.

History: In the last 15-20 years there was a bottom up marketization of the North Korean economy. It started with households and local government offices. It somehow evolved in the 1990s into a highly distorted market economy and the State was not comfortable with this because of the private origin of this up-swell – it was outside the State Control. There was also some intrusion of foreign companies – such as an Egyptian Telecoms that provided for individuals and businesses a cellphone network. The recent currency reform is simply the outcome – a clamp down on private initiative – and as there are no civil society institutions there is also no way to channel the peoples unhappiness. What we have now said Noland – is a revival of the Stalinist economy of the 1950s.

There have been conventional currency reforms in many countries – Turkey, Romania, Ghana … usually you cut off three zeros from the currency and you get it exchanged – but not in North Korea. Here, on November 30, 2009, North Korea announced a reform to replace all currency in circulation with new bills and coins. You had to declare all what you have and you could only exchange a small part of what you had – so the rest became useless paper. It was thus a confiscatory measure. Businesses operated in cash – so this destroyed the financial basis of the economy that operated outside the government controlled system. Call it the return to State socialism for those that tried to make a living for themselves. The Chinese never entered this North Korean world – they just do not operate in this sort of environment anymore.

The inflation was spiralling out of control before this sort of reform, now people did not even know how to price their products – it did not make sense to obtain this new currency – so how do you run a market under these conditions?

Things even sound worse when you realize that most North Koreans are government employees. – People join the government system so they can participate in the corruption cycle. If you ask in North Korea someone -Have you ever been detained? Most likely the answer will be yes. Even in this case – the currency exchange law – it was several days before it happened and you felt there was a dollarization of the system. Many knew it is coming and did buy dollars for their soon to be devalued money.

Some information became available when mid January a North Korean defected from the Embassy in Ethiopia.

Look at the difference between North Korea and Vietnam. Both were hit by withdrawal of Soviet assistance in the 1980s. While Vietnam changed and took off – North Korea stagnated and rolled back.

China started its reforms in the 1970s – Vietnam in the 1980s – both started from a high agriculture society. They had parades of improvement and everybody participated and took advantage of the changes. THey did freeze State Planning and people improved. Now North Korea did the opposite – they froze the market and demonetized the economy and the society. There is no lending – there is no banking – nothing. NORTH KOREA IS A FAILED STATE! What about the nukes? {as we shall see this was only the last question and came from a Japanese Government official.}

Before November 30, 2009, if you had some drive – you did push yourself up, or you left for China. What now? If there is no market you cannot sell even if you make something.

It amounts to a militarized workers party regime. Being a conscript in the lower ranks of the army is no big deal – but then the further down the ladder you go in North Korea – the more sensible the people are! The closer you are to Pyongyang – the more ideological and worse people get.

Interesting – the word nuclear was not uttered by the speaker or by people asking questions – this until the last question that came from a Japanese Consulate person. Mr. Noland pointed out that he was already hoping, against his expectations, that nobody will touch upon this. Then he stressed that development assistance is important – but you must make sure that like food assistance, it goes for good purpose to the right people. Such efforts are fungible and might produce no results if you are not careful.

———–

At the end of the Forum, I stayed around to discuss issues with some of the people present – it was a roomful – maybe 40 people. My cklear question was about reunification of the Koreas and I got quite a few skeptical answers. It is obvious they thought that a united Korea will be nuclear and the Japanese official just had no interest in this. Others just did not trust the North Korean leadership of being ready to give up the reins for an unsafe future – that is as if today their future is safe.

What about the real huge internal market that would open up by reunification? Why not do it in such a way that some leadership position is left in the hands of the present leaders of the North, in the hope that an Angela Merkel type will emerge from among them also? It will be no big thing to award penssions and guarantee the condition of those that will have to give up power? No tribunals please – just future well behavior can be the link. Part of this generation will be non-productive, but the young people from the North will show talents that can help all of Korea.

The capital region is not accustomed to this much snow. The average annual snowfall for Washington is 15 inches. But the 2009-10 winter has been far from average. A major storm just before Christmas dumped up to 20 inches in some areas, and the city has seen smaller snow accumulations already twice this week.

The record snowfall for D.C. was 28 inches in 1922.This weekend alone will surpass that amount.

The snow was expected to become particularly heavy after nightfall and continue through Saturday. The Washington DC district’s director of transportation, Gabe Klein, said the snow could pile up at a rate of four inches an hour during parts of the storm, with winds gusting up to 25 miles an hour.

For district officials, the latest blizzard seemed a bit old hat. “We’re pretty much going to handle it in the same way we handled the last storm,” said William Howland Jr., director of D.C.’s Department of Public Works. In the spirit of the season, city press advisories referred to the storm as the “super snow bowl.”  Others dubbed it – “Snowmageddon.” We call it a potential tie-breaker in the Congressional Global Warming Wars. They will call it Washington Freezing and find in it an excuse for doing nothing on the Global Issue.

The storm also got the attention of the White House, whose current occupant, Barack Obama, famously dissed his adopted city’s response to a minor snowfall shortly after taking office last year. This time around, his tune had changed. As White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs told reporters, “Even a transplanted Hawaiian to Chicago has sufficient respect for a forecast of nearly two feet of snow.”

———-

Even as city officials were urging residents to stay off the streets, Washingtonians were making plans for mass revelry in the form of giant snowball fights. (A group snow battle during the December storm was marred when a police officer pulled out a gun after snowballs hit his Hummer.)

On Friday, a Facebook group promoted the “official DuPont Circle Snowball Fight” for Saturday afternoon and boasted that its membership had soared from 30 people on Thursday to more than 2,000 a day later.

Local bars and restaurants were offering Snow Day specials, with at least one establishment, Urbana, promoting a “baby, it’s cold outside beach party” theme.

Washington, Maryland and Virginia all declared snow emergencies Friday morning, and hundreds of flights were canceled at the region’s three major airports.  The lobbyists will be stuck in town this weekend. With snow soon to be sticking to the runways, a Metropolitan Washington Airports Authority spokesman said she expected the final flights to leave the area by 6 p.m., with the airports likely to be shuttered all day Saturday.

——————–

By Nafeesa Syeed
AP
WASHINGTON (Feb. 6) — A blizzard battered the Mid-Atlantic region Saturday, with emergency crews struggling to keep pace with the heavy, wet snow that has piled up on roadways, toppled trees and left thousands without electricity.

The National Weather Service called the storm “extremely dangerous.”

Officials urged people to huddle at home and out of the way of emergency crews. Forecasters said the storm could be the biggest for the nation’s capital in modern history.

A record 2½ feet or more was predicted for Washington. As of early Saturday, 10 inches of snow was reported at the White House, while parts of Maryland and West Virginia were buried under more than 20 inches. Forecasters expected snowfall rates to increase, up to 2 inches per hour through Saturday morning.

Blizzard warnings were issued for the District of Columbia, Baltimore, parts of New Jersey and Delaware, and some areas west of the Chesapeake Bay.

“Things are fairly manageable, but trees are starting to come down,” said D.C. fire department spokesman Pete Piringer, whose agency responded to some of the falling trees. No injuries were reported.

President Barack Obama called the storm “Snowmageddon.”

Airlines canceled flights, churches called off weekend services and people wondered if they would be stuck at home for several days in a region ill-equipped to deal with so much snow.

“D.C. traditionally panics when it comes to snow. This time, it may be more justifiable than most times,” said Becky Shipp, who was power-walking in Arlington, Va., Friday. “I am trying to get a walk in before I am stuck with just the exercise machine in my condo.”

The region’s second snowstorm in less than two months brought heavy, wet snow and strong winds that forecasters warned could gust near 60 mph in some areas along the coast.

Hundreds of thousands of customers across the region had lost electricity and more outages were expected to be reported because of all the downed power lines. A hospital fire in D.C. sent about three dozen patients scurrying from their rooms to safety in a basement. The blaze started when a snow plow truck caught fire near the building.

Authorities blamed the storm for hundreds of accidents, including a deadly tractor-trailer wreck that killed a father and son who had stopped to help someone in Virginia. Some area hospitals asked people with four-wheel-drive vehicles to volunteer to pick up doctors and nurses to take them to work.

The country band Rascal Flatts postponed a concert Saturday in Ohio, but the Atlanta Thrashers-Washington Capitals NHL game went on as planned.

In Dover, Del., Shanita Foster lugged three gallons of water out of a Dollar General store.
“That’s all we need right now. We’ve got everything else,” said Foster, adding that she was ready with candles in case the power went out.

Shoppers jammed aisles and emptied stores of milk, bread, shovels, driveway salt and other supplies. Many scrambling for food and supplies were too late.
“Our shelves are bare,” said Food Lion front-end manager Darlene Baboo in Dover. “This is just unreal.”

Metro, the transit system the Washington area is heavily dependent upon, closed all but the underground rail service and suspended bus service.

Maryland’s public transportation also shut down Saturday, including Baltimore’s Metro. Maryland Transit Administration spokeswoman Jawauna Greene said the underground portion of the Metro could reopen later Saturday but it depended on the weather conditions.
“We have trees on the overhead wires, trees on train tracks. We can’t get anything out,” she said.

Amtrak also canceled several of its Northeast Corridor trains Saturday, and New Jersey’s transit authority expected to suspend bus service. As much as a foot of snow was reported in parts of that state.

Across the region, transportation officials deployed thousands of trucks and crews and had hundreds of thousands of tons of salt at the ready. Several states exhausted or expected to exhaust their snow removal budgets.

Maryland budgeted about $60 million, and had already spent about $50 million, Gov. Martin O’Malley said. Virginia Gov. Bob McDonnell, who has been in office less than a month, declared his second snow emergency, authorizing state agencies to assist local governments. As of early Saturday, some parts of Virginia had already seen more than 18 inches of snow.

The snow comes less than two months after a Dec. 19 storm dumped more than 16 inches on Washington. Snowfalls of this magnitude – let alone two in one season – are rare in the area. According to the National Weather Service, Washington has gotten more than a foot of snow only 13 times since 1870.

The heaviest on record was 28 inches in January 1922. The biggest snowfall for the Washington-Baltimore area is believed to have been in 1772, before official records were kept, when as much as 3 feet fell, which George Washington and Thomas Jefferson penned in their diaries.

In Washington, tourists made the best of it Friday, spending their days in museums or venturing out to see the monuments before the snow got too heavy.

A group of 13 high school students from Cincinnati was stranded in D.C. when a student government conference they planned to attend was canceled – after they had already arrived. So they went sightseeing.

At the Smithsonian’s natural history museum, Caitlin Lavon, 18, and Hannah Koch, 17, took pictures of each other with the jaws of a great white shark in the Ocean Hall.
“Our parents are all freaking out, sending texts to be careful,” Koch said. “Being from Ohio, I don’t think I’ve ever seen that much snow at once.”

Associated Press writers Brett Zongker and Sarah Karush in Washington, Kathleen Miller in Falls Church, Va., David Dishneau in Chantilly, Va., Ben Nuckols in Hanover, Md., Randall Chase in Dover, Del., and Steve Szkotak in Richmond, Va., contributed to this report.

———————

Here in New York, I just came home from jogging on the street – there were more joggers out on a Saturday morning then I ever saw. The streets  are clear – the only white is that of salt some eager store owners or building – Supers sprinkled believing there will be snow. Indeed in between parked cars, in some streets, there is a little bit of white – so there was a dusting sometime earlier today. Will New York be spared this time? Was it all destined for Washington or we are still on line to get it later?

In a room where members of the Security Council met after us, the subject was “GLOBAL CRISIS, MORE THAN JUST ECONOMICS,” and we learned it is actually a Triple Crisis – Finance, Food, Climate – Crises – a global security problem.

The introducer/moderator was Dr. Jean-Marc Coicaud, Director of the United Nations University Office in New York.

The Presenters were from the World Institute for Development Economics Research (WIDER) of the UNU-WIDER in Helsinki: Professor Finn Tarp the Director of WIDER who is also Chair of Development Economics at the Department of Economics at the University of Copenhagen, and Professor Tony Addison the Chief Economist/ Deputy Director of WIDER who hails from the Universities of Manchester and London.

The Discussant was Joseph H. Melrose Jr., a retired US Ambassador with an illustrious career and stays with the UN during the 61st to 64th UNGA Sessions (2006-2009) and now Professor of International Relations at Ursinus College in Pennsylvania.

The Event Brief read: “As the global economy is passing through a period of profound change, the immediate concern is the financial crisis, originating in the developed world. The global South is affected by lower demand and decreasing prices for their exports, reduced private financial flows, and remittances. Simultaneously, climate change remains unchecked with the growth in greenhouse gas emissions exceeding previous estimates. Finally, malnutrition and hunger are on the rise, propelled by the recent inflation in global food prices. Seeking potential policy solutions, the discussion will address threats to development arising from the global economic crisis, food shortages and climate change.

To put this in simple words – there is a Triple Crisis:

(1) a Finance Crisis
(2) a Food     Crisis
(3) a Climate Crisis.

These three crises sit in their separate “POLICY SILOS” and undermine World Peace. A voice must be heard that this is not just a question of economics but it is a series of social problems that undermine World Peace.

The present economic downturn is the deepest in 60 years and let us remember that the UN is only 65 years old. Just a short few weeks ago we used to say that the world crisis has engulfed the whole world except MENA – now came the Dubai crisis and we see that nobody is safe. I would like to add here that the globalization process got us to this situation and now clearly – when there is a sneeze in one corner of the world its echo will thunder all over. Will the North respond to the need of increased assistance for development? The World Pie, or cake, has shrunk – but that means that the percentage for foreign aid must increase if the pace is to be held in place in what regards the needs by the poorer peoples of the world. Their needs become a question of security for all – Is it likely that the richer countries will increase their aid percentage wise? But see – aid did not increase since the late 80’s. We even look now at a world that will call for CARBON TAXES because of the need to react to climate change. What will be the impact on the economic development in the emerging countries?

Dr. Melrose pointed out that the US funded since 2006 activities on nutrition – last year there was a seminar on the subject. Good ……but?

A question from the room – Nobody mentioned demography & population increase – the population explosion!

Tony Addison – on the global food architecture & population – at $80/barrel of oil going to $200 – biofuels becomes attractive – so global food architecture calls for higher efficiency. 1.5 billion people in high poverty – institutions are needed – even remittance flows are drying up.

Fossil fuels subsidies are much higher then is the ecosystem aid. Watch the origins of conflict and energy resources and follow the lines of fossil fuels. That was the greatest finale I witnessed at a UN show. This could happen only in a Think tank environment and one would wish every country to send someone to these sessions – they might learn something about what makes human disasters happen. You just cannot paint man made catastrophes with the natural disaster hazard colors.

I am also thinking of our recent posting about Ethiopia, a country with 5.2 million people needing food help from abroad, while plans are being made to turn it into a new bread-basket for exports. Is this something that we should also look at closely? Is there someone who will help integrate local needs with export potential?

The problem was the 51 cents/gallon of ethanol from sugar-cane tariff, the US imposes against imports from international producers of bioethanol – so they do not compete with US agro-ethanol.

We are cynics by nature and wonder if the release today has anything to do with Shell Oil Company having announced last weekend that they will invest over a billion dollars in the production of sugar-cane ethanol in Brazil. So, did we have to wait until an oil company steps heavily into this area – so we finally allow US door to be opened to a non-petroleum liquid fuel?

WE ARE VERY PARTIAL TO THIS TOPIC BECAUSE BACK IN 1978 AT UNIDO IN VIENNA, AND IN 1979 IN NEW ORLEANS, I WAS PERSONALLY INVOLVED IN BRINGING THIS SUBJECT TO THE ATTENTION OF THE LIQUID FUEL HUNGRY WESTERN WORLD. IN VIENNA WE SHOWED THE CUBAN EXPERIENCE AT A UN – AUSTRIA – SWEDEN EVENT. IN NEW ORLEANS THIS WAS “THE FIRST INTER-AMERICAN CONFERENCE ON RENEWABLE SOURCES OF ENERGY” THAT I HELPED ORGANIZE. OBVIOUSLY – TO LOUISIANA WE COULD NOT BRING THE CUBANS – BUT BRAZIL, ARGENTINA AND MANY OTHERS WERE PRESENT UNDER THE FRIENDLY EYES OF THE US DEPARTMENT OF STATE. ETHANOL BECAME A RECOGNIZED FUEL, BUT US AGRICULTURE MADE SURE IT WILL BE US CORN AS FEEDSTOCK. WE COULD NOT EVEN GET PREFERENTIAL TREATMENT FOR IMPORTS FROM FRIENDLY COUNTRIES BECAUSE OIL AND AGRICULTURE – SOME OF THE STRONGEST LOBBIES IN WASHINGTON – WOULD NOT ALLOW IT , EVEN AFTER THE INTERVENTION OF US REPUBLICAN SENATORS LIKE FRANK CHURCH, JACOB JAVITS, CHARLES PERCY – SO WHAT WILL IT BE NOW? WILL THOSE TARIFFS COME OFF?

—————-
EPA Reaffirms Sugarcane Biofuel is Advanced Renewable Fuel with 61% Less Emissions than Gasoline.
Brazil Sugarcane Update – Brazilian Sugarcane Industry Welcomes U.S. EPA’s Renewable Fuels Rules.

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has confirmed that ethanol made from sugarcane is a low carbon renewable fuel, which can contribute significantly to the reduction of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. As part of today’s announcement finalizing regulations for the implementation of the Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS2), the EPA designated sugarcane ethanol as an advanced biofuel that lowers GHG emissions by more than 50%.

“The EPA’s decision underscores the many environmental benefits of sugarcane ethanol and reaffirms how this low carbon, advanced renewable fuel can help the world mitigate against climate change while diversifying America’s energy resources,” said Joel Velasco, Chief Representative in Washington for the Brazilian Sugarcane Industry Association (UNICA).

Sugarcane ethanol is a renewable fuel refined from cane that grows typically in tropical climates. Compared to other types of ethanol available today, using sugarcane ethanol to power cars and trucks yields greater reductions in greenhouse gases and is usually much cheaper for drivers to purchase. Brazil has replaced more than half of its fuel needs with sugarcane ethanol – making gasoline the alternative fuel in that country and ethanol the standard.  Many observers point to sugarcane ethanol as a good option for diversifying U.S. energy supplies, increasing healthy competition among biofuel manufacturers and improving America’s energy security.

The RFS2 will help the United States meet energy security and greenhouse gas reduction goals sought by the Energy Security and Independence Act of 2007 (EISA). The new regulations establish minimum biofuels consumption in the U.S. of more than 12 billion gallons (45 billion liters) in 2010, rising to 36 billion gallons (136 billion liters) in 2022, of which 21 billion gallons per year would have to be one of three types of advanced biofuels: cellulosic, biomass diesel, and “other advanced,” that meet required GHG reduction thresholds as determined by the EPA.

Today, EPA affirmed that sugarcane ethanol meets the “other advanced” category in the RFS2, although with a GHG reduction level that exceeds the requirement for all categories as well.  Specifically, EPA’s calculations show that sugarcane ethanol from Brazil reduces GHG emissions compared to gasoline by 61%, using a 30-year payback for indirect land use change (iLUC) emissions.

“We are pleased that EPA took the time to improve the regulations, particularly by more accurately quantifying the full lifecycle greenhouse emission reductions of biofuels. EPA’s reaffirmation of sugarcane ethanol’s superior GHG reduction confirms that sustainably-produced biofuels can play a important role in climate mitigation. Perhaps this recognition will sway those who have sought to raise trade barriers against clean energy here in the U.S. and around the world. Sugarcane ethanol is a first generation biofuel with third generation performance,” noted Velasco.

Last year, UNICA submitted comments to EPA with abundant scientifically credible evidence showing that – even including indirect emissions – sugarcane ethanol has a reduction of GHG emissions of 73-82% compared with gasoline, on a 30- or 100-year time horizon respectively. The RFS2 requires the use of at least 4 billion gallons (over 15 billion liters) of “other advanced” renewable fuels a year by 2022. In 2010, the RFS requires 200 million gallons of this type of advanced renewable fuels.

“While we are reviewing the final rule, it is clear that EPA has incorporated many of the comments that UNICA and other stakeholders made during the public process. EPA should be congratulated for the way it upheld the Obama’s goals of transparency and scientific integrity in the environmental rulemaking. And we hope that other governments should take note of the manner that EPA has handled this process,” concluded Velasco.

Brazil is a leader in the production of sugarcane ethanol, which is widely considered as the most efficient biofuel available today. In 2009, Brazil produced over 7 billion gallons of sugarcane ethanol, most of which is used in Brazil in flex fuel vehicles. As a result of Brazil’s innovative use of sugarcane ethanol in transportation and biomass for cogeneration, sugarcane is the leading source of renewable energy in the nation, representing 16% of the country’s total energy needs. In fact, gasoline has become the alternative in Brazil, reducing the country’s dependence on fossil fuels lowering emissions. A recent study in the November 2009 edition of the journal Energy Policy indicated that since 1975, over 600 million tons of CO2 emissions have been avoided thanks to the use of ethanol in Brazil.

———

ABOUT UNICA. The Brazilian Sugarcane Industry Association (UNICA) represents the
top producers of sugar and ethanol in the country’s South-Central region, especially the
state of Sao Paulo, which accounts for about 50% of the country’s sugarcane harvest
and 60% of total ethanol production. UNICA develops position papers, statistics and
specific research in support of Brazil’s sugar, ethanol and bioelectricity sectors. In 2008,
Brazil produced an estimated 565 million metric tons of sugarcane, which yielded 31.3
million tons of sugar and 25.7 billion liters (6.8 billion gallons) of ethanol, making it the
number-one sugarcane grower and sugar producer in the world, and the second-largest
ethanol producer on the planet, behind the United States.

—————-

Brazil Hopes Shell-Cosan Can Boost Ethanol Exports

Date: 04-Feb-10, Reuters from Brazil
Author: Inae Riveras – Analysis

SAO PAULO – Brazil’s ethanol industry, which invested heavily to boost output of the cane-based biofuel, is counting on a tie-up between sugar and ethanol producer Cosan and Royal Dutch Shell Plc to revive its prospects after exports fell short of expectations.

“Shell chose ethanol as the renewable fuel they want to be in and it chose Brazil. Whether this will mean more exports will depend on a series of circumstances beyond the companies’ control,” said ethanol expert Eduardo Pereira de Carvalho.

The slow rate of growth for ethanol exports has disappointed Brazil, where more than 450 mills joined the ethanol sector’s expansion drive in recent years.

Some analysts say any growth in ethanol exports will depend on oil prices more than other factor.

“The deal itself does not raise or reduce the economic viability of blending anhydrous ethanol in gasoline. This will be determined by the oil market,” said sugar and ethanol analyst Julio Maria Borges, director at Job Economia.

In 2008, when oil prices reached record highs of $147 per barrel, Brazil exported 5.1 billion liters of ethanol, up sharply from 3.5 billion liters the previous year. Countries simply bought more of the fuel to replace gasoline.

But oil prices tumbled as the global credit crisis intensified, and there was a similar decline in foreign interest for the cane-based fuel. Brazilian ethanol exports in 2009 slipped to 3.3 billion liters despite extremely low prices on the Brazilian market.

STEADY SUPPLIES, TARIFFS

If ethanol is economically viable compared to oil, however, Brazilian ethanol exports should benefit from Shell’s global infrastructure, commercial relationships and know-how.

Shell, with distribution centers and 45,000 filling stations around the world, will have access to annual supplies of 2 billion liters of Cosan ethanol.

“Shell will be able to strike long-term deals with clients around the world, something that currently hardly exists, as it will be backed by a big provider,” Borges said.

“It’s difficult to predict (when exports could rise)… but the strategic meaning of a company the size of Shell to invest here is the most important point,” Carvalho said.

The EU refuses to see the multi headed Hydra it has become and expects President Obama to play along. Reality calls – EU please get serious at becoming some sort of one headed entity! The US President is a busy man now with all that US Jazz.

It slowly starts sinking in – we said it a long time ago!

Battling the ‘Multilateral Zombie’ – EU climate strategy after Copenhagen.
LEIGH PHILLIPS

February 3, 2010, http://euobserver.com/9/29354/?rk=1,
 http://old.norden.org/analysnorden/defau…

EUOBSERVER / ANALYSIS – “The EU’s post-Copenhagen strategy should be
just to have a strategy, any strategy,” quips one Brussels think-tank
wag during an interview.

The rough hip-check Europe received in the Danish capital in December,
sidelining the bloc during the eleventh-hour huddle between major
powers that produced the Copenhagen Accord, has produced a wave of
despondency and cynicism amongst Brussels politicians, green
lobbyists, and analysts – and carbon traders across the continent to
boot. They’re all having a crack at how poorly the EU played its hand
during climate negotiations.

For the last three years, if it hasn’t been the institutional reform
of the Lisbon Treaty, it’s been the bloc’s obsession with climate
change that has dominated the EU agenda. Even if the EU is well off
the at least 40 percent cut in emissions that science demands if we
are to avoid catastrophic climate change, it remains the case that as
a result of its 2008 climate and energy package, Europe remains the
most advanced rich-country power on the planet in terms of its binding
CO2 reduction commitment.

With its climate boy-scout badge afixed to its sleeve, Brussels headed
off to Camp Copenhagen expecting at least to see its self-proclaimed
leadership reflected in winning something along the lines of a broad
commitment from other powers to at least a 20-percent cut in carbon
emissions below 1990 levels by 2020.

But in the end, the EU ended up the goody-two-shoes pupil who’s top of
the class, but yet, when he invites all the other kids over for a
party, glumly watches as they end up playing among each other instead
of with him. It was the US, China, India, Brazil and South Africa that
cobbled together the last-minute three-page-long Copenhagen Accord
without the EU even in the room, while most of the developing world
complained throughout the two weeks that Brussels was at best just a
cat’s paw for Washington.

Denmark’s Connie Hedegaard, now incoming EU
climate commissioner, was repeatedly attacked for favouring rich
countries over the developing world.

“It was the strangest conference I have been at in my life, from all
points of view,” Mr Barroso told a pow-wow of the leading European
think-tanks in early January.

Typical of the initial EU reaction were comments from Swedish
environment minister Andres Carlgren, who, when meeting in Brussels in
late December with his EU counterparts to debrief after the UN summit
and begin the discussion of what to do next, slammed the result as a
“disaster.”

“It was a really great failure and we have to learn from that,” he
said at the time. { but the gentleman forgot to say whose failure it was!}

Glass half full!

However, after the holidays, a clutch of pollyanna-ish EU officials
have since fervently urged everyone to consider the Accord’s silver
lining. Both President Barroso and the bloc’s chief climate
negotiator, Artur Runge-Metzger, in various venues have emphasised
that many of the things the EU had been pushing for were contained in
the final result – developed countries agreed for the first time a
concrete sum for climate finance, a target maximum average global
temperature increase of two degrees was embraced and a review,
allowing for a ratcheting up of targets if necessary, is foreseen for
2015.

At the same time, EU member states that have never been comfortable
with the bloc’s climate ambitions have used the opportunity to delay
or block European plans to boost its CO2 emissions reduction
commitment from 20 percent on 1990 levels to 30 percent. On 18
January, environment ministers met in Seville, to assess, for the
second time, the reasons for the failure in the Danish capital. UK,
France, Germany, Belgium and Spain continued to push for the increased
pledge, while Italy and Poland said now was not the time given the
poverty of ambition by other states at Copenhagen.

As of this week, the consensus in the bloc is to maintain its target
of 20 percent and conditional offer of 30 percent if other powers make
comparable efforts – in other words exactly the same position the EU
has held for the last year, although Ms Hedegaard has publicly said
she hopes to see a move to 30 percent “by Mexico,” meaning the next UN
climate summit in the Central American nation at the end of 2010.

At the same time, the commission itself is in the ‘twenty-percenter’
camp, pushing this position in Copenhagen, “afraid to be naked” with
nothing left to put on the table in the game of climate strip poker.
Moreover, crucially, the executive’s goal of a transatlantic emissions
trading system is unworkable with cuts pledges that are wildly
divergent and without legally binding commitments from Washington.

The US is looking to a 17 percent emissions reduction on 2005 levels,
which works out to be just three percent when using the same 1990
baseline year as the EU. Watch for the US, if legislation gets
through, at some point to somehow nudge up its cut to 20 percent and
the EU to stick to the same figure, dressed up in language about how
the two targets are now comparable, with a fudge over the differing
baseline years.

Support unravelling:

Separately, four of the five architects of the Accord, Brazil, South
Africa, India and China, have themselves gone lukewarm on the project,
smarting from accusations from much of the rest of the developing
world that these four richest of the poor countries had broken ranks
after a year of unprecedented global south unity.

“The two-track negotiating process …is the only legitimate process
to reach a legally binding treaty in Mexico,” he added.

Meanwhile, the cornerstone of the Accord, an understanding that
however limited America’s commitment, Washington would at least be
able to deliver on this promise.

But with the surprise election to the US Senate of Massachusetts
Republican Scott Brown on an anti-climate-bill ticket, killing the
Democrat’s filibuster-proof majority, the country’s climate
legislation is threatened. A defeated or heavily watered down bill
only engenders further reservations in the minds of Chinese, Indian
and even European leadership about promising tough reduction targets.

For all the public talk of Latin American, Chinese and African climate
“villains” blocking the process in Copenhagen, privately, there is
frustration with Washington as well. A senior EU policy official
speaking to EUobserver described President Obama’s position as the
same as that of George Bush. “We are willing but only if others move,”
the official said, attributing the position to both the current and
former US leaders.

One EU climate voice {?}

A popular post-Copenhagen analysis from the Brookings Institute, the
centrist US think-tank, that has made the rounds of officialdom and
NGO-land warns of a slow-motion failure scenario similar to the Doha
round of WTO talks, a process it describes as a “multilateral zombie”
in which climate negotiations “stagger on piteously, never making much
progress while never quite dying either.”

Nevertheless, despite the dark days and the cynicism of some
onlookers, we can already begin to sense the outlines of a European
strategy.

EU Council President Herman Van Rompuy has already said he hopes to
see a common climate strategy emerge from an 11 February extraordinary
EU summit originally scheduled to deal with the economy. Angela
Merkel, as well, has upgraded a climate meeting in Bonn in June from
expert to ministerial level and the European Commission is preparing a
series of proposals that it is to put to the member states.

While this sort of member-state activity is likely to continue, the
Lisbon Treaty has given the commission a powerful new diplomatic
weapon it intends to use to the fullest.

Sidelining the UN:

Related to this, the major task will be to break the remarkable unity
shown by developing nations. The UNFCCC’s principle dating back to
Kyoto of “common but differentiated responsibility,” is understood by
developing nations to mean that those countries that caused the
problem should pay for solving it and make binding commitments to CO2
reductions.

The third world has said that it would be happy to develop along a
low-carbon path itself, but that the rich north will have to pay for
this and that their emissions cuts should in any case be voluntary.
The World Bank, unhelpfully, has estimated the cost of all this to be
$400 billion a year. Meanwhile, wealthy nations, would rather that the
developing world, but specifically China and to a lesser extent India,
agree to binding, verifiable CO2 cuts without the price tag.

The key advantage of the Copenhagen Accord for rich countries is that
it “weakens or even does away with the principle of common but
differentiated responsibilities,” as the South Centre, a Geneva-based
think-tank close to developing world governments, warns – another
reason why the Basic countries, upon reflection, have taken a distance
from the deal.

In many ways, Copenhagen was a victory for the developing world, in
that it managed to hold off against pressure to junk the Kyoto
Protocol and in the end ensured that the Copenhagen Accord was only
“noted” by the UN plenary instead of endorsed, making it a document
floating in a legal limbo.

Border tariff:

It should also be remembered that many other major powers were
sidelined at Copenhagen. Japan and Russia were also absent from
Copenhagen’s endgame. In many ways, the EU’s limited influence has
been largely a product of its own climate success. Although Europe is
the world’s third largest emitter, this will likely change in the near
future. Ironically, if the continent isn’t going to be as much of a
problem in absolute (as opposed to per capita) terms as China or India
by 2030, it doesn’t have much of a bargaining chip. Washington was
always going to be far more interested in Beijing.

Copenhagen was very much the US and China show, but it won’t always be.

——–

This feature was originially written for the Nordic Council’s Analys
Norden website.

{ We wonder at the last sentence of the article because we think that unless the EU does in fact unite under  one leadership it will not amount to much when the US continues to deal with the BASICs – I mean the countries that are form the basic future. The EU should aim at becoming the G3 to be added to China and the US in future global negotiations that will include also the IBSA and one or two more states. See please next article.}

——————————————————————————-

US blames Lisbon Treaty for EU summit fiasco. Mr Obama – the Madrid summit decision is being seen as a diplomatic snub to Spain.
by ANDREW RETTMAN from Brussels.

February 3, 2010, http://euobserver.com/9/29398/?rk=1
EUOBSERVER / BRUSSELS  writes -  The US State Department has said that President Barack Obama’s decision not to come to an EU summit in Madrid in May is partly due to confusion arising from the Lisbon Treaty.

State department spokesman Philip J. Crowley told press in Washington on Tuesday (2 February) that the treaty has made it unclear who the US leader should meet and when. { that sounds very clear to me.}

“Up until recently, they [summits] would occur on six-month intervals,
as I recall, with one meeting in Europe and one meeting here. And that
was part of – the foundation of that was the rotating presidency
within the EU. Now you have a new structure regarding not only the
rotating EU presidency, you’ve got an EU Council president, you’ve got
a European Commission president,” he said.

“We are working through this just as Europeans themselves are working
through this: When you have a future EU-US summit meeting, who will
host it and where will it be held?” he added. “All of this is kind of
being reassessed in light of architectural changes in Europe.”

The Lisbon Treaty came into force on 1 December, 2009. It created the post
of a new EU Council president and EU foreign relations chief in order
to give the union a stronger voice abroad.

It kept the institution of the six-month rotating EU presidency as
well, with the member state holding the chairmanship to do the bulk of
behind-the-scenes policy work in Brussels.

The Spanish EU presidency is being closely watched to see how the EU
manages the transition to the new power structure. The EU Council
president has so far taken charge of summits in the EU capital. But
Madrid was to share the limelight with a few top-level events at home.

The state department’s Mr Crowley said the US and Spain have been in
touch “directly” to discuss Mr Obama’s decision after Madrid learned
about it through the media on Monday.

“Obviously, there’s been some disappointment expressed by the
government of Spain, and we understand that and we’ll be working with
them on that,” he said.

Spanish Prime Minister Jose Luis Zapatero and Mr Obama are both
expected to attend the National Prayer Breakfast in Washington on
Thursday. But no bilateral meeting has been announced so far.

Mr Zapatero, a centre-left secularist, has taken flak for his trip in
Spanish media, with the El Pais daily calling his decision to attend
the prayer event “shocking.”

Climate change http://bit.ly/5iZZ41
12:39 PM Jan 8th from Ecademy.com

Green jobs http://bit.ly/5MsDHG
5:04 AM Jan 8th from Ecademy.com

Climate change – No hiding place?
The betting is that 2010 will be the hottest year on record. But
understanding how the planet’s temperature changes is still a
challenge to science
Jan 7th 2010  From The Economist print edition

IT MAY seem implausible at the moment, as northern Europe, Asia and
parts of America shiver in the snow, but 2010 may well turn out as the
hottest year on record. Those who doubt that greenhouse gases are
quite the problem they have been cracked up to be by most of the
world’s climatologists have taken comfort from the fact that the
Hadley Centre, part of Britain’s Meteorological Office, reckons the
warmest year since records began was 1998 (see chart 1). Twelve years
without a new record would, the sceptics reckon, be rather a large
lull in what is supposed to be a rising trend. Computer modelling by
the Met Office, though, gives odds-on chances of the lull being
broken.

The fact that no record high happened in the 2000s does not mean that
there was no warming over the decade—trends at scales coarser than the
annual continued to point upwards, and other authorities suggest there
have been record years during the period. Nor was the length of time
without an annual record exceptional. Models simulating centuries of
warming normally have the occasional decade in which no rise in
surface temperatures is observed. This is because heat can be stored
in other parts of the system, such as the oceans, for a time, and thus
not show up on meteorologists’ thermometers.

Indeed, one reason for thinking that the coming year will be hotter
than all known previous ones is that the tropical Pacific is currently
dumping heat. This phenomenon, by which heat that has been stored up
in the sea over the previous few years is released into the
atmosphere, is known as El Niño. A strong Niño contributed to the
record temperatures in 1998. In 2007 and 2008 the opposite phenomenon,
a cooling Niña, was happening. That goes some way to explaining why
those years were chilly by the standards of the 2000s.

And on top of El Niño, there is the sun. The sun’s brightness
fluctuates over an 11-year cycle. Though the fluctuation is not vast,
it is enough to make a difference from peak to trough. In 2009 the sun
was at the bottom of its cycle. Unless it is behaving particularly
strangely, it should, over the next 12 months, begin to brighten.

The Met Office’s forecast was made using the Decadal Prediction
System, or DePreSys (pronounced “depresses”, which is what it
sometimes does to Doug Smith and his colleagues, who run it). Climate
models are normally used to show how the climate’s behaviour will
respond to changes in things like greenhouse-gas levels. But though a
model’s response will, it is hoped, be similar to the real climate’s,
models are caricatures, not portraits. Trying to force one into a
state that looks exactly like the real climate at a specific time, as
prediction requires, will distort it, and it is likely to misbehave as
a result.

DePreSys is an attempt to work round this “initialisation” problem—to
give the model’s caricature not just an all-purpose resemblance to the
way the real climate behaves, but one that captures its pose and
expression at a particular moment. In 2007 the first study using
DePreSys correctly predicted that there would be a few more years
which would set no records. After this, it said, there would be a
definite rise in temperature. More recently, Dr Smith and his team
have been using clusters of computers around Britain to run multiple
models with slightly different initial conditions. Four-fifths of
these runs suggest 2010 will be warmer than any previous year—which
could be taken as odds of four-to-one on. The techniques are still in
their infancy. But they are at least making predictions that can be
checked.

Balancing the books:
Dr Smith and his colleagues are trying to predict some of the natural
variability to come. Kevin Trenberth of America’s National Centre for
Atmospheric Research wants to understand in detail the natural
variability just seen. His quest gained unexpected prominence when one
of his forcefully expressed e-mails on the subject—“The fact is that
we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a
travesty that we can’t”—found its way into the public domain as one of
thousands of e-mails from the Climatic Research Unit of the University
of East Anglia in the “climategate” furore of November 2009.

Dr Trenberth was not, he has since been at pains to stress, saying
that the relatively unwarmed 2000s were particularly out of the
ordinary. Instead, he was saying that, given the panoply of satellites
and measurement networks that are being installed to monitor the
climate, it should now be possible to identify the places and
processes that hide energy from the prying eyes of climatologists.
That would make it possible to determine what has actually happened to
the energy trapped by increasing levels of greenhouse gases.

For the first part of the decade this turns out to be possible. From
1998 to 2003, although surface temperatures were not rising, a lot of
energy was mopped up by the oceans (see chart 2). This is borne out by
the rise in sea level during the period, which matches (once the
additional effects of melting glaciers and ice sheets are taken into
account) the expansion of the water in the oceans caused by this
heating. Until the middle of the 2000s, therefore, the sums seem to
balance.

It is after that that the problem comes. Runoff’s role in the rising
sea level increases, meaning the fraction attributable to expansion,
and thus the amount of heat taken up by the sea, has fallen (and the
chart therefore levels out). The missing heat must therefore be going
somewhere else. One possibility is that it is being reflected back
into space by changes in cloud cover. The data, however, seem to say
no. America’s CERES programme, the result of observations by seven
different instruments on six different satellites, suggests the Earth
has actually absorbed more energy and reflected away less over the
past few years, rather than the other way round. It is all rather
mysterious.

Nevertheless, while there is a lot of scepticism in, around and about
climate science, none of it is aimed at the first law of
thermodynamics, which says that energy cannot be created or destroyed.
The energy that the sun delivers to the Earth must therefore be equal
to the energy that is reflected back into space, plus that re-emitted
as infra-red radiation, plus that stored in some part of the
atmosphere, the oceans or the land.

The fact that the books cannot currently be balanced is therefore an
admission of ignorance—an ignorance that better, future measurements
should help abolish. That, in turn, should allow predictions of what
the climate will do next, for good or ill, to become significantly
better, and thus deprive climatic bookies of their trade.

————

Britain may get green jobs, but not the sort ministers promise.
Jan 7th 2010 | From The Economist print edition

BRUISED by the worst recession since the second world war, and staring
glumly at a megalithic national debt that their children will be
repaying decades hence, few Britons are keen for finance to make up as
big a slice of the national economy in the future as it has in the
past. Politicians from all parties are keen to talk about new ways for
Britain to earn a living.

On the face of it, Britain ought to be attractive for budding green
industrialists. There is plenty of rain and wind for renewable-energy
firms to play with, and a reasonably well-educated and scientifically
literate workforce to build better batteries, turbines and
nuclear-power plants. In normal times finance is generally available.
And ambitious targets to cut emissions ought to ensure a big market to
sell into.

Yet out there in the real world of factories and small businesses, not
much seems to be happening. The day after the prime minister’s
interview, it emerged that, thanks to a dearth of British suppliers,
€1.8 billion (£1.6 billion) of the €2 billion earmarked to build the
world’s largest offshore wind farm in the Thames Estuary would be
going to foreign firms. In August Britain’s only wind-turbine factory,
on the Isle of Wight, shut its doors for good. As countries such as
Denmark, Germany and Japan build big low-carbon industries, Britain,
far from being a world leader, is in danger of “missing the boat”,
warns the EEF, a manufacturers’ organisation.

Official support for greenery is not as generous as it seems. When
analysts at HSBC, a big bank, studied last year’s fiscal-stimulus
plan, they concluded that only around 7% of the spending would go to
the environment—compared with 81% in South Korea, 34% in China and 12%
in America. Andrew Simms, policy director of the New Economics
Foundation, a think-tank, points out that much of the supposedly new
spending had already been announced (a favourite Labour trick).

Those reluctant to interfere could well point to Spain, where generous
government subsidies created a bubble market in solar energy that has
burst spectacularly. Yet at the moment, says one industry boss,
British ministers seem to want to have their cake and eat it, claiming
to have an industrial policy without running the risk of actually
implementing it.

Not all is lost. There is one part of the environmental industry where
Britain is doing rather well: the traditional British (or Londonish)
activities of trading, lawyering and consulting. British firms advise
on green projects around the world, and the City hosts the world’s
largest active carbon-trading market, the European Carbon Exchange.
But with public hatred of bankers and finance still running strong,
these are the sorts of green jobs that politicians will probably want
to keep quiet about.

The kernel of the future – the projected five world leaders – are in trouble. With the US and China in a tiff because of Taiwan (arm sales by US manufacturers) and Tibet (a visit with the Dalai Lama), now South Africa, one of the three IBSAs that met with the G2 in Copenhagen, shows sings of 21st century immaturity. You just cannot go on living by Zulu rules if you want to lead your people out of poverty. Tiger Woods learned that very very fast that the limelight of world media will do you in, and even oil rich monarchs do not father now 20 children anymore. The stories about Zuma’s ascent in South Africa were plenty and his people we know told us so when it was rumored that he is in line to take over his country’s helm. It seems that Mandela’s South Africa deserves better – so does the 15 States group of Southern Africa { http://www.sadc.int }, and black Sub-Sahara Africa at large. We said before, South Africa is the third IBSA not alone, but as the symbol of all that immense Sub-Sahara black chunk of resources rich land and its one billion people that have the potential of evolving into next great consumers market to drive their own economy and the world economy. To this mass of people, the South African President must be an example and our prejudice that we knowingly attempt to show by this posting, calls for an exemplary leader for South Africa – someone fit to try on Mandela’s shoes.

This week the African Union rejected the attempt of Libya’s rambling Gaddafi to hold on to the chairmanship of Africa for another year, and voted instead to give the position to Malawi President Bingu wa Mutharika. We attach the story about that event at the end of this posting, as we focus on the further ramblings by a Libyan-sponsored group of African traditional leaders from an unnamed French speaking African country, who crowned Qaddafi “King of Kings.” Africa seems to react indeed with understanding to the fact that the world is changing into a 7 to 10 countries structure and that Africa wants one of its own, and that means not Qaddafi, to be part of this structure – a modern man rather then a traditional chieftain – neither do they think anymore that the position of leader in Addis Ababa belongs to a Mediterranean North African settler. They want a black leader – but hiding under a Zulu mantle, and invoking rules of the desert, simply  can not do anymore.

——————–
South Africa’s President Sows (Another) Sex Scandal.

Theunis Bates
 http://abbaymedia.com/News/?p=3699
By JASON McLURE

ADDIS ABABA, Ethiopia — Col. Muammar el-Qaddafi, the Libyan leader, delivered a rambling rebuke of fellow African heads of state Sunday after they chose to replace him as chairman of the African Union and failed to endorse his push for the creation of a United States of Africa.

“I do not believe we can achieve something concrete in the coming future,” said Colonel Qaddafi, before introducing President Bingu wa Mutharika of Malawi as his successor at the African Union’s annual summit meeting, held in Addis Ababa. “The political elite of our continent lacks political awareness and political determination. The world is changing into 7 or 10 countries, and we are not even aware of it.”

South Africa, Ethiopia and Nigeria were among the countries opposing Colonel Qaddafi’s attempts to form a continental government, which many view as impractical given the political and economic disparities in Africa.

Colonel Qaddafi argued that individual African states are too weak to negotiate with major powers like the European Union, the United States and China. His efforts to become the first African leader to win another one-year term as chairman of the African Union were thwarted by a push for Mr. Mutharika, 75, by the 15-member Southern African Development Community.

The Libyan leader also complained that such summit meetings were boring, that his colleagues were too long-winded and that he often was not informed of African Union decisions.

Colonel Qaddafi did not leave the lectern before giving the microphone to an unnamed representative of a Libyan-sponsored group of African traditional leaders who had crowned him “King of Kings” in a ceremony in 2008.

The representative, bearing a golden scepter and trailed by an aide fanning him with a large feather, spent much of his address praising Colonel Qaddafi.

“You have the African people with you,” said the man, who spoke in French and did not identify himself. “This is what is important, not politicking. It is politicians who have destroyed us.”