We have posted several articles on yesterday’s UN attempt at staging a non- event.

It really starts with the announcement of a meeting at UN Headquarters in New York, 11:30 am to 1 pm, today, March 11, 2010, with the Permanent Mission of Mexico to the UN. THIS IS A CLOSED MEETING and the announcement in the Journal of the United Nations of yesterday, March 10, 2010, that says having that meeting there it does not imply any opinion or endorsement by the Secretariat of the UN.

The meeting is a Briefing on the sixteenth session of the Conference of the Parties of the UNFCCC – or the COP 16 of December 2010, that the UN thinks should help it extricate itself from the situation left behind by the Copenhagen COP 15. Mexico is the host and it does not want to be the home of a disaster. So that is why the UN hauled in to New York also Dr. Rajendra Pachauri, Chair of the IPCC, and Professor Robert Dijkgraaf who as head of the InterAcademy Council (IAC) was asked to arrange for a review of the IPCC scientific procedures – a step very much in need now after the fact that the UN decided to cave in to the criticism from the deniers of the idea that there is soundness in the scientific evidence that CO2 emissions are not good for the health of the planet. At least they want to be able to say that damages have not been caused by humans – so why bother with this climate change effort at all?

OK – now step 2 the Journal announces for March 10, 2010, an official UN Press Conference with Mr. Rajendra Pachauri and Profesor Robbert Dijkgraaf. This announcement sounded to me quite insane. What would be the credibility of the reviewer if he lines up at what could have become in a free society at a hearing on the side of the head of the organization he is suppose to review? This really deserved two question marks. The Netherlands is an advanced State to the attention of the UN.

I was tipped off and decided to call in to  Ms. Isabelle Broyer, Chief of the Media Accreditation and Liaison Unit, as I wanted to get a pass to this Press Conference in order to be able to ask some good questions. As the readers of our website know, I do not hold a Press Pass to the UN since the changes in UN Administration that brought in Mr. Ban Ki-moon who replaced Mr. Sashi Tharoor with Mr. Kiyotaka Akasaka as Under-Secretary-General for Communications and Public Information -  a move that allowed Mr. Ahmad Fawzi, the Director of News and Media Division, to revoke our pass because we did not follow his ways of thinking when it comes to reliance on oil and the essence of sustainable development and problems of global warming/climate change. That was when the job Ms. Broyer holds now was in the hands of Mr. Gary Fowlie who was moved since to another job, and Mr. Fawzi is about to retire at the end of this month also. I thought that Ms. Broyer would show now the courage to correct an evil, but she was not up to this. This caused me to make sure I get the information I was after and I knew that I was on an interesting something when I got the e-mail from Geneva, which I posted, that clearly proved to me that folks from at least two outside agencies do not want to be seen as fall guys for the New York Headquarters.

OK – now step 3 – the Appointments of the Secretary-General for March 10, 2010 include a private meeting at 12:00 pm with Dr. Pachauri followed by a 12:30 pm joint “stake-out” for the benefit of the UN correspondents. A stake-out is a stand-up event where usually the correspondents are allowed to ask questions. In this case – please no questions – just be used as props – please. The event is described in full in the article by Matthew Russell Lee we posted.

As I was at the UN anyway – for a different event – I also learned that there was an adjustment to the Briefings to the Press schedule for the day. Seemingly Professor Dijkgraaf is no push-over to his large credit – he clearly pulled away from joint appearances with those he will be called to investigate, and did not appear at that stake-out, but as the UN is in terrible need to do something on this so called “climate-gate” was given separate Press meeting time at 1 pm.

OK – now step 4 – the output from the Press events of March 10, 2010 include the self-serving “Remarks to Media on IPCC” from the UN Secretary-General that had not the courtesy of allowing questions, and a not-easy-to-get two page document by the uninitiated – “PRESS CONFERENCE ON REVIEW OF INTERGOVERNMENTAL PANEL ON CLIMATE CHANGE.” This was the document used by Jeffrey Ball in his evaluation for the Wall Street Journal that we also presented.

—————-

The material follows:   http://www.un.org/News/briefings/docs//2…

Department of Public Information • News and Media Division • New York

Press Conference on Review of Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change – March 10, 2010

The aim of an independent review of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) was to ensure the quality of its future reports, the co-chair of the scientific institute charged with that task said today.

“Our goal will be to assure nations around the world that they will receive sound scientific advice on which Governments and citizens alike can make informed decisions,” Robbert H. Dijkgraaf of the InterAcademy Council said at a Headquarters press conference.

Created by the world’s science academies in 2000, the Council aims to mobilize top scientists and engineers to provide evidence-based advice to international bodies.  IPCC Chairman Rajendra Pachauri announced the review’s establishment amid growing attacks by sceptics following the disclosure that the Panel’s fourth assessment report, which confirmed human responsibility for global warming, contained errors in respect of the pace of the phenomenon.  Mr. Pachauri and United Nations Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon had then asked the InterAcademy Council to lead the independent review.

“Our task is forward-looking,” Mr. Dijkgraaf stressed, explaining that the Council had been asked to form a group that could recommend improved practices and procedures so as to ensure the quality of reports in time to impact the Panel’s fifth assessment, already under way.  That meant that the review and recommendations were required by the end of August 2010, “a very tight schedule”, he said.  Specifically, the review would examine quality control and guidelines for the types of literature appropriate for use in assessments, with special attention to non-peer review literature.  It would also look at the Panel’s procedures for Government review of IPCC materials, its handling of the full range of scientific views and its procedures for correcting errors.

Reviewers had been asked to analyse the entire IPCC process, including management, administration, transparency and the way in which the Panel handled possible errors and communicated them to policymakers and the public, he said.  They would also look at how the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), World Meteorological Association (WMA), the overall United Nations system and other stakeholders related to the Panel, with a view to strengthening assessments and ensuring consistent application of IPCC procedures.  Finally, they would analyse the Panel’s communication strategies to ensure that the public was kept informed of its activities.

Emphasizing the independence of the review, which would be conducted in accordance with the InterAcademy Council’s own procedures, he said neither the IPCC, UNEP, WMA, nor any related bodies, would exercise control over or oversee the review process or the final report.  The international group of experts to be assembled by the Council would serve on an unpaid, voluntary basis in all cases where the group was asked to provide advice on a particular issue, he said, adding that the United Nations would provide funds for travel and other expenses.

All draft reports of the InterAcademy Council underwent an intensive peer-review process by international experts, he said, stressing that a final report was only released to the public when the Council’s Board was satisfied that the subsequent feedback had been thoughtfully considered and incorporated.  In addition, all efforts were made to ensure that reports were free of national or regional biases.

Responding to questions, Mr. Dijkgraaf declined to comment on Mr. Pachauri’s chairmanship of the IPCC or give his own views on climate change and the Panel’s current structure, only reiterating the forward-looking nature of the review to be conducted, and pointing out that continual review was part of all scientific procedures.

Asked how he hoped to find enough scientists for an independent review when the IPCC counted thousands of the world’s top climate scientists in its ranks, he said it would be a delicate task to find the necessary diversity of scientific disciplines and people with experience of large-scale organizations.  It was also important that all involved maintain objective distance from the Panel’s work.

In response to a question as to whether the opinions of climate change sceptics would be included, he said:  “By nature every scientist is a sceptic.”  As for alleged manipulation of data at East Anglia University and various consultancy agreements that had been the subject of controversy, he said certain case studies might be part of the investigations, but the reviewers would certainly look at management and organizational issues.

Questioned further, Mr. Dijkgraaf said the number of experts to be appointed had not yet been determined, though a substantial number was needed to provide diverse expertise.  Hopefully, there would have been progress in determining the Board’s composition by a 22 March meeting.

* *** *

Further, considering that Professor Dijkgraaf expects to have his panel ready by March 22nd, we would like to point out the added importance of the full day meeting at the Earth Institute of Columbia University on March 25th – we posted.

The meeting gets added interest as the UNSG is part of that meeting, and he will be there at the home of serious scientists that may not treat him as kindly as the UN Department of Public Information. We look thus forward to further disclosures specifically that there are scientists that think the IPCC under the Pachauri ledership erred rather on the low side and not on the high side. Others may even be less kind by saying something like that both men – the UNSG and the head of the IPCC – were choices of the G.W. Bush US Administration.

Reader Supported News | 04 March 10 PM Andrew Romano opines in Newsweek: “Obama Needs to Be Unreasonable.” He might have something. | The House did pass Obama’s jobs bill, but the drama is thick: “House Approves $15 Billion Job-Creation Package.” Michael O’Brien and Bob Cusack reported it for The Hill. — ma/RSN Andrew Romano | Obama Needs to Be Unreasonable. Andrew Romano, Newsweek | Watching President Obama’s bipartisan health-care summit, I was reminded of something George Bernard Shaw once said: “The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore all progress depends on the unreasonable man.” READ MORE House Approves $15 Billion Job-Creation Package, 217-201 Michael O’Brien and Bob Cusack, The Hill | The House passed the Senate’s $15 billion jobs bill in a 217-201 vote on Thursday. Lawmakers voted to approve the package, which provides a series of tax credits for job creation and other stimulus measures, after Democrats struggled to pass a rule for the legislation. READ MORE Moderation Is No Virtue Is Obama too reasonable for his own good? PHOTOS Is Obama Keeping His Promises? One year in, a look at how the president is doing. Video: Obama’s First Year By Andrew Romano | Newsweek, Mar 3, 2010. Watching President Obama’s bipartisan health-care summit, I was reminded of something George Bernard Shaw once said: “The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore all progress depends on the unreasonable man.” The Republicans had clearly decided that it was in their best interest to act like the “unreasonable” men in the room—the more intractable, immoderate negotiators. They said the process should “start over from scratch,” as if there were enough time remaining before campaign season to repeat the entire ordeal, and they continued to characterize a market-based proposal to reform the private insurance industry as “a government takeover of health care.” Obama, meanwhile, sought advantage in seeming “reasonable,” making a show of shunning campaign rhetoric and insisting on finding specific areas where “both sides can work together.” “I hope that this isn’t political theater, where we’re just playing to the cameras and criticizing each other,” Obama said at the start of the summit, “but instead are actually trying to solve the problem.” Seven hours later, he’d made no discernible progress. This is the dynamic that largely defined Obama’s first year in office. So maybe it’s time to ask whether “reasonable” presidential leadership is an inherently flawed proposition. For many Americans the most appealing thing about candidate Obama was his rational cast of mind. After eight impractical, divisive years of George W. Bush, voters welcomed the prospect of a less ideological, more unifying presidency. Reason, the thinking went, would beget results that most people could get behind. It hasn’t really worked out that way. In pushing for his biggest initiatives to date—the stimulus package and health-care reform—Obama has chosen to support what he believes to be the best possible proposal instead of what he believes to be the best imaginable proposal. His economic adviser, Christina Romer, initially recommend a $1.2 trillion stimulus bill, but when his chief of staff, Rahm Emanuel, said “it would be impossible to move legislation of that size” through Congress, Obama slashed the sticker price to $787 billion. Health care was more of the same. After calling himself  “a proponent of a single-payer universal-health-care program“—and later advocating for a public option—the president wound up backing a private-market plan that’s nearly identical to the one that GOP leaders such as Bob Dole put forth in 1993. Obama’s first year was hardly a failure. He passed legislation large and small and made far more progress on health-care reform than any of his predecessors had. But the results of his rationalism—a stimulus package that’s considered bloated on the right and insufficient on the left; a health-care bill that’s stalled in Congress, despite a commanding Democratic majority—have become deeply controversial. His approval rating, meanwhile, rarely cracks 50 percent, and his political capital is largely spent. “Obama won the election by being the rational, professorial type,” says Sean Wilentz, the liberal Princeton historian. “It’s still unclear, however, that what worked for him as a candidate can work for him as president.” So the question is: would Obama be in better shape politically if he’d been a little less willing to adapt himself to the world, and a little more persistent in trying to adapt the world to himself?

Better than sliced bread?

{Now please – do not be sarcastic – this
should have been an Obama moment. Will the White House buy one – or
get one for free if this is permissible – and install it in the White
House Basement – Please? The point is that people should realize that
clean DECENTRALIZED ENERGY is the best we will ever get!}

Bloom: Thinking inside the box – { a new meaning for this – please! }

• Posted on Sustainabilitank.info on February 27th, 2010
  by Pincas Jawetz (PJ@SustainabiliTank.com)

  W. W. Norton & Company / By Joseph Stiglitz
  The Great American Bank Robbery:How did the big banks nearly take down the entire economy and still continue to profit? Nobel Prize-winning economist Joseph Stiglitz explains.
  February 27, 2010  |

  The following is Part I of a two-part excerpt from Freefall: America, Free Markets, and the Sinking of the World Economy by Joseph Stiglitz ( W.W. Norton & Co., 2010). Read AlterNet’s recent interview with Stiglitz by Zach Carter.

  Bankruptcy is a key feature of capitalism. Firms sometimes are unable to repay what they owe creditors. Financial reorganization has become a fact of life in many industries. The United States is lucky in having a particularly effective way of giving firms a fresh start—Chapter 11 of the bankruptcy code, which has been used repeatedly, for example, by the airlines. Airplanes keep flying; jobs and assets are preserved. Shareholders typically lose everything, and bondholders become the new shareholders. Under new management, and without the burden of debt, the airline can go on. The government plays a limited role in these restructurings: bankruptcy courts make sure that all creditors are treated fairly and that management doesn’t steal the assets of the firm for its own benefits.
  

  Banks differ in one respect: the government has a stake because it insures deposits….The reason the government insures deposits is to preserve the stability of the financial system, which is important to preserving the stability of the economy. But if a bank gets into trouble, the basic procedure should be the same: shareholders lose everything; bondholders become the new shareholders. Often, the value of the bonds is sufficiently great that that is all that needs to be done. For instance, at the time of the bailout, Citibank, the largest American bank, with assets of $2 trillion, had some $350 billion of long-term bonds. Because there are no obligatory payments with equity, if there had been a debt-to-equity conversion, the bank wouldn’t have had to pay the billions and billions of dollars of interest on these bonds. Not having to pay out the billions of dollars of interest puts the bank in much better stead. In such an instance, the role of the government is little different from the oversight role the government plays in the bankruptcy of an ordinary firm.
  
  Sometimes, though, the bank has been so badly managed that what is owed to depositors is greater than the assets of the bank. (This was the case for many of the banks in the savings and loan debacle in the late 1980s and in the current crisis.) Then the government has to come in to honor its commitments to depositors. The government becomes, in effect, the (possibly partial) owner, though typically it tries to sell the bank as soon as it can or find someone to take it over. Because the bankrupt bank has liabilities greater than its assets, the government typically has to pay the acquiring bank to do this, in effect filling the hole in the balance sheet. This process is called conservatorship. Usually the switch in ownership is so seamless that depositors and other customers wouldn’t even know that something had happened unless they read about it in the press. Occasionally, when an appropriate suitor can’t be found quickly, the government runs the bank for a while. (The opponents of conservatorship tried to tarnish this traditional approach by calling it nationalization. Obama suggested that this wasn’t the American way. But he was wrong: conservatorship, including the possibility of temporary government ownership when all else failed, was the traditional approach; the massive government gifts to banks were what was unprecedented. Since even the banks that were taken over by the government were always eventually sold, some suggested that the process be called preprivatization.)
  
  Long experience has taught that when banks are at risk of failure, their managers engage in behaviors that risk taxpayers losing even more money. The banks may, for instance, undertake big bets: if they win, they keep the proceeds; if they lose, so what? They would have died anyway. That’s why there are laws saying that when a bank’s capital is low, it should be shut down or put under conservatorship. Bank regulators don’t wait until all of the money is gone. They want to be sure that when a depositor puts his debit card into the ATM and it says, “insufficient funds,” it’s because there are insufficient funds in the account, not insufficient funds in the bank. When the regulators see that a bank has too little money, they put the bank on notice to get more capital, and if it can’t, they take further action of the kind just described.

  As the crisis of 2008 gained momentum, the government should have played by the rules of capitalism and forced a financial reorganization. Financial reorganizations—giving a fresh start—are not the end of the world. Indeed, they might represent the beginning of a new world, one in which incentives are better aligned and in which lending is rekindled. Had the government forced a financial restructuring of the banks in the way just described, there would have been little need for taxpayer money, or even further government involvement. Such a conversion increases the overall value of the firm because it reduces the likelihood of bankruptcy, thereby not only saving the high transaction costs of going through bankruptcy but also preserving the value of the ongoing concern. That means that if the shareholders are wiped out and the bondholders become the new “owners,” the bondholders’ long-term prospects are better than they were while the bank remained in limbo, when they were not sure whether it would survive and not sure of either the size or the terms of any government handout.
  
  The bondholders involved in a restructuring would have gotten another gift, at least according to the banks own logic. The bankers claimed that the market was underestimating the true value of the mortgages on their books (and other bank assets). That may have been the case—or it may not have been. If it is not, it is totally unreasonable to make taxpayers bear the cost of the banks’ mistake, but if the assets were really worth as much as the bankers said, then the bondholders would get the upside.

  The Obama administration has argued that the big banks are not only too big to fail but also too big to be financially restructured (or, as I refer to it later, “too big to be resolved”), too big to play by the ordinary rules of capitalism. Being too big to be financially restructured means that if the bank is on the brink of failure, there is but one source of money: the taxpayer. And under this novel and unproven doctrine, hundreds of billions have been poured into the financial system.
  
  If it is true that America’s biggest banks are too big to be “resolved,” this has profound implications for our banking system going forward—implications the administration so far has refused to own up to. If, for instance, bondholders are in effect guaranteed because these institutions are too big to be financially restructured, then the market economy can exert no effective discipline on the banks. They get access to cheaper capital than they should, because those providing the capital know that the taxpayers will pick up any losses. If the government is providing a guarantee, whether explicit or implicit, the banks aren’t bearing all the risks associated with each decision they make—the risks borne by markets (shareholders, bondholders) are less than those borne by society as a whole, and so resources will go in the wrong place. Because too-big-to-be-restructured banks have access to funds at lower interest rates than they should, the whole capital market is distorted. They grow at the expense of their smaller rivals, who do not have this guarantee. They can easily come to dominate the financial system, not through greater prowess and ingenuity but because of the tacit government support. It should be clear: these too-big-to-be-restructured banks cannot operate as ordinary market-based banks.
  
  I actually think that all of this discussion about too-big-to-restructured banks was just a ruse. It was a ploy that worked, based on fear-mongering. Just as Bush used 9/11 and the fears of terrorism to justify so much of what he did, the Treasury under both Bush and Obama used 9/15—the day that Lehman collapsed—and the fears of another meltdown as a tool to extract as much as possible for the banks and the bankers that had brought the world to the brink of economic ruin.
  
  The argument is that, if only the Fed and Treasury had rescued Lehman Brothers, the whole crisis would have been avoided. The implication—seemingly taken on board by the Obama administration—is, when in doubt, bail out, and massively so. To skimp is to be penny wise and pound foolish.

  But that is the wrong lesson to learn from the Lehman episode. The notion that if only Lehman Brothers had been rescued all would have been fine is sheer nonsense. Lehman Brothers was a consequence, not a cause: it was the consequence of flawed lending practices and inadequate oversight by regulators. Whether Lehman Brothers had or had not been bailed out, the global economy was headed for difficulties. Prior to the crisis, as I have noted, the global economy had been supported by the bubble and excessive borrowing. That game is over—and was already over well before Lehman’s collapse. The collapse almost surely accelerated the whole process of deleveraging; it brought out into the open the long-festering problems, the fact that the banks didn’t know their net worth and knew that accordingly they couldn’t know that of any other firm to whom they might lend. A more orderly process would have imposed fewer costs in the short run, but “counterfactual history” is always problematic.

  There are those who believe that it is better to take one’s medicine and be done with it, that a slow unwinding of the excesses would last years longer, with even greater costs. Perhaps, on the other hand, the slow recapitalization of the banks would have occurred faster than the losses would have become apparent. In this view, papering over the losses with dishonest accounting (as in this crisis, as well as in the savings and loan debacle of the 1980s) would be doing more than just providing symptomatic relief. Lowering the fever may actually help in the recovery. A third view holds that Lehman’s collapse actually saved the entire financial system: without it, it would have been difficult to galvanize the political support required to bail out the banks. (It was hard enough to do so after its collapse.)

  Even if one agrees that letting Lehman Brothers fail was a mistake, there are many choices between the blank-check approach to saving the banks pursued by the Bush and Obama administrations after September 15 and the approach of Hank Paulson, Ben Bernanke, and Tim Geithner of simply shutting down Lehman Brothers and praying that everything will work out in the end.

  The government was obligated to save depositors, but that didn’t mean it had to provide taxpayer money to also save bondholders and shareholders. As noted earlier, standard procedures would have meant that the institution be saved and the shareholders wiped out, with the bondholders becoming the new shareholders. Lehman had no insured depositors; it was an investment bank. But it had something almost equivalent—it borrowed short-term money from the “market” through commercial paper held by money market funds, which acted much like banks. (One can even write checks on these accounts.) That’s why the part of the financial system involving money markets and investment banks is often called the shadow banking system. It arose, in part, to circumvent the regulations imposed on the real banking system—to ensure its safety and stability. Lehman’s collapse induced a run on the shadow banking system, much as there used to be runs on the real banking system before deposit insurance was provided; to stop the run, the government provided insurance to the shadow banking system.

  Those opposed to financial restructuring (conservatorship) for the banks that are in trouble say that if the bondholders are not fully protected, a bank’s remaining creditors—those providing short-term funds without a government guarantee—will flee if a restructuring appears imminent. But such a conclusion defies economic logic. If these creditors are rational, they would realize that they benefit enormously from the greater stability of the firm provided by conservatorship and the debt-to-equity conversion. If they were willing to keep their funds in the bank before, they should be even more willing to do so now. And if the government has no confidence in the rationality of these supposedly smart financiers, they could provide a guarantee, though they should charge a premium for it. In the end, the Bush and Obama administrations not only bailed out the shareholders but also provided guarantees. The guarantees effectively eviscerated the argument for the generous treatment of shareholders and long-term bondholders.

  Under financial restructuring, there are two big losers. The executives of the banks will almost surely go, and they will be unhappy. The shareholders too will be unhappy, because they will have lost everything. But that is the nature of risk-taking in capitalism—the only justification for the above-normal returns that they enjoyed during the boom is the risk of a loss.
  
  Joseph Stiglitz, a Nobel laureate, is a professor of economics at Columbia University.

  Permalink | |  Email This Article
  Posted in Obama Styling, Policy Lessons from Mad Cow Disease, Real World's News, Reporting from Washington DC

  Discuss this article

February 18, 2010

Religion rejuvenates environmentalism

By Courtney Woo
The Miami Herald

Evangelical pastor Ken Wilson’s environmental conversion began a few years ago with goose bumps, watery eyes and an appeal for help.

“I heard Gus Speth, the dean of forestry at Yale, say to a group of religious leaders, ‘I used to think the top environmental problems facing the world were global warming, environmental degradation and eco-system collapse, and that we scientists could fix those problems with enough science,’ ” Wilson recalls. “‘But I was wrong. The real problem is not those three items, but greed, selfishness and apathy. And for that we need a spiritual and cultural transformation. And we scientists don’t know how to do that. We need your help.’”

For full story, visit:
 http://www.miamiherald.com/news/environm…

=——————————
February 17, 2010

Rwanda Named Global Host of World Environment Day 2010

United Nations Environment Programme

Kigali (Rwanda)/Nairobi (Kenya) – Rwanda, the East African country that is embracing a transition to a Green Economy, will be the global host of World Environment Day 2010, the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) announced today.
World Environment Day (WED), which aims to be the biggest global celebration for positive environmental action, is coordinated by UNEP every year on 5 June.
This year’s theme is ‘Many Species. One Planet. One Future.’ – a message focusing on the central importance to humanity of the globe’s wealth of species and ecosystems.

For full story, visit:
 http://www.unep.org/Documents.Multilingu…

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.

Executive Secretary Yvo de Boer leaves United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change Secretariat.
We knew Yvo since his work for the Dutch government and held him in high esteem. The problem with Yvo was that he fell in for the nothingness of the UN and was not ready to stand up and fight for his subject in face of that nothingness. The UN is nothing more then the lowest common denominator of its member states and on climate it was the oil industry of the major industrial states and the monarchs of the oil exporting states that colluded in holding the subject under the table. The Rio UNCED ghost of Maurice Strong was still around and pushing for the importance of the conventions signed at the 1992 UN meeting on Environment and Development, so the subject could not be killed, but then most countries were ready to push it under the table. The US did not ratify any of those conventions anyway. Morris Strong is now active in China – we saw him last December in Copenhagen outside the UNFCCC compound.

When Yvo de Boer – the Executive Secretary of the UNFCCC, headquartered in Bonn, thanks to a wish of the  German government to find some use for that city after moving its capital back to Berlin, a UN body run by delegates of UN Member States that was located in Bonn together with the Secretariats of the other Rio Conventions Secretariats, according to UN rules set up in New York, came for the first time to New York as a UN official, back in 2006, when I was still  an official  member of the UN Press Corps, I fought for having UN Department of Public Information set up a Press Conference with the head of this important new UN body. He was given about 10 minutes in the Press briefing-room – that infamous S-226. I organized a few correspondents to demand more time with him, and we did have the chance to talk with him, officially,  further using the UNCA room (UN Correspondents Association) as a venue. The Pakistani head of UNCA did not like it. Neither  The New York Times nor the CNN came. Their correspondents at the time did not believe yet in climate change – actually very few – but the best journalists came – those that were the budding internet breed. Just four years ago – the UN was still considered as the place where one should be able to explain the global aspects of CO2 emissions. The problems with not being able to do so were palpable. I thought then that Yvo understood where his main opposition will be – in this  New York spirit of the UN – and thanks to his EU base Yvo de Boer will be ready to fight for the cause and not be just another UN bureaucrat.

But I was disappointed. He did become a UN bureaucrat and smiled – ear to ear – along with UNSG Ban Ki-moon in that “SEAL THE DEAL” – when there was no deal – CHARADE. The following press release that is being released by the official UNFCCC Press officers that worked along his side all those years, shows that Yvo de Boer understood the reality of the situation all along – but does not explain why he did not try to manage the subject with personal pride in what he was doing there. Though personal, but this is nevertheless something that throws a shadow on Mr. de Boer, is the fact that when under the new UN Secretary General, Mr. Ahmad Fawzi managed finally the feat to declare our website as non-UN-Press under his rules, something he fought for but was rejected by Mr. Sashi Tharoor, the Under Secretary General under UNSG Kofi Annan, Yvo de Boer bowed to the decision – though he knew well that our website is fighting for what should have been his cause in his job. Yvo de Boer ran an organization that was lacking positive press because he bowed to those in New York that did not want climate change positive press. It is as simple as that – so he is responsible for failures by not having fought strong enough for success.

Yes, we knew all the time that it will eventually be the industry and business that will, come the day, move on climate change work. We knew all the time that China is in the lead despite everything that they were saying in public – climate change does work well for innovative business and that is why it will win in the end. We knew that the meeting in Poznan is a waste of time and there is no deal for Copenhagen. We had misgivings about going to Bali, and when I came to Vienna to participate at a pre-Bali meeting Mr. De Boer bowed to a note from Mr. Ahmad Fawzi and was not ready to let me in as Press. Had he been ready to show backbone for the subject he was in charge off – he could have found ways to resolve the conflict by granting limited accreditation – for God’s sake – he knew me, knew what I was doing, knew the problems, where was his fighting spirit?

Yes, we think that Yvo de Boer will be a good addition to the climate consultancy business, and lobby within the States that can start implement such programs internally, and within business relationships, in context of more limited groupings – like a G2 – a possible G5 or G7 – a United EU, etc. They need the experience he has accumulated, and we hope that in these contexts he will indeed develop his career and find himself as well. KPMG is a good outfit for this. Work with Universities is good as well, and personally would love to see him involved at the Earth Institute at Columbia University where he could still be around at the UN periphery and finally not be hindered from speaking  truth.

Also, let me repeat once more – Copenhagen was not the disaster as the UN contends. It was thanks to President Obama’s trip to Beijing that it has become the start to moves in the real world – with China and The White House officially on board. Will the new Secretary General of the UNFCCC be chosen so that he leads within the context of the reality that is now open for all to see? Pitty that Mr. Yvo de Boer did burn himself out by putting himself too much in those losing dancing shoes – though we see now that the dance was not unknown to him.

——————–

A UNFCCC PRESS RELEASE

Executive Secretary leaves United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change Secretariat

<http://unfccc.int/press/press_releases_advisories/items/4712.php>

(Bonn, 18 February 2010) – Mr. Yvo de Boer has announced today that he will
resign his position as Executive Secretary of the United Nations Framework
Convention on Climate Change as of 1 July 2010. Mr. de Boer will be joining
the consultancy group KPMG as Global Adviser on Climate and Sustainability,
as well as working with a number of universities.

“Working with my colleagues at the UNFCCC Secretariat in support of the
climate change negotiations has been a tremendous experience”, said Mr. de
Boer who has led the organisation since September 2006. “It was a difficult
decision to make, but I believe the time is ripe for me to take on a new
challenge, working on climate and sustainability with the private sector
and academia,” he explained.

“I have always maintained that while governments provide the necessary
policy framework, the real solutions must come from business,” said Yvo de
Boer. “Copenhagen did not provide us with a clear agreement in legal terms,
but the political commitment and sense of direction toward a low-emissions
world are overwhelming. This calls for new partnerships with the business
sector and I now have the chance to help make this happen”, he added.

Mr. de Boer will remain in his current position until 1st July and help
negotiations move forward ahead of the Climate Change Conference in Mexico
in November this year. “Countries responsible for 80% of energy related CO2
emissions have submitted national plans and targets to address the climate
change. This underlines their commitment to meet the challenge of climate
change and work towards an agreed outcome in Cancun”, he said.

Mr. de Boer (1954) was appointed Executive Secretary of the UNFCCC in
September 2006. Before that he was extensively involved in European Union
environmental policy as deputy Director General of the Dutch Environment
Ministry.  Mr. de Boer has also served as Vice-chair of the U.N. Commission
on Sustainable Development, acted as an advisor to the Government of China
and the World Bank and worked closely with the World Business Council on
Sustainable Development.

About the UNFCCC

With 194 Parties, the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change
(UNFCCC) has near universal membership and is the parent treaty of the 1997
Kyoto Protocol. The Kyoto Protocol has been ratified by 190 of the UNFCCC
Parties. Under the Protocol, 37 States, consisting of highly industrialized
countries and countries undergoing the process of transition to a market
economy, have legally binding emission limitation and reduction
commitments. The ultimate objective of both treaties is to stabilize
greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere at a level that will
prevent dangerous human interference with the climate system.

For further information, please contact:

Mr. Eric Hall, Spokesperson/Manager of Communications and Media
Tel.: (+49-228) 815-1398; mobile: (+49-172) 259-0443; e-mail: ehall
(at)unfccc.int

Mr. John Hay, Media Information Officer
Tel.: (+49-228) 815-1404; mobile: (+49-172) 258-6944; e-mail: jhay
(at)unfccc.int

The problem with our media is that the reporting does not highlight what is really important.

I happened to watch President Obama’s speech and what stroke me was his assertion that while coming to an understanding with the Republicans on the inclusion of nuclear power in the new energy mix – he wants them to help him make nuclear power economical by putting a price on CO2 emissions – as simple as that – nuclear power being uneconomical – causes at this time an increase in deficit that the economy cannot afford.  So – President Obama took his decision knowing that Nuclear is Snake Oil and he passes the onus on the Republicans to help him avoid the blow to the economy that comes from doing anything that increase the deficit and does not create an industry that stands on ite own – private – feet. What kind of Conservatives could go for this program only half-way?

President Obama does not seem to have in his pocket the Republicans agreement to go for a complete solution that he points out, and it seems that by going with them just half way – that is how far they are ready to go – he left behind the environmentalists that backed him to his starting point. If the Republicans do not join for the whole trip – he ends up losing also politically by losing the environmentalists. Nobody assumed that being a President is going to be easy, but life for the President could be made easier by taking a guiding map first and starting to walk according to the path he draws on that map for all to see. The first step on that map could start with a regulatory move that puts a clear cost on carbon – drives up the cost of polluting energy sources and then allows private enterprise to swim on their own. These first steps will surely create enemies but also friends. Not taking these decisive path – only enemies. Further evidence to day came from two oil companies that President Obama had on board when promising to fight for a clear price of carbon, have left him right after his pro-nuclear statement of yesterday. These are BP America and ConocoPhillips that left the US Climate Partnership (USCAP) of industry, some Environmentalists, and labor interests that came out for a Climate legislation that includes a Cap&Trade element. The only Oil company that is still on board is Royal Dutch Shell Oil PLC, while the other majors – ExxonMobil and Chevron were never part of it. So why did BP and Conoco leave? That is clear – without an effort of providing a level playing field that comes from a CARBON TAX why should they just stand by watching an Administration that is ready to buy Republicans by serving them as breakfast subsidized nuclear power as a way to decrease the dependence on oil? The oil companies that were ready to move into the renewable energy market, and know that nuclear is hopelessly uneconomic, have no interest in nuclear, so they will just join now rather the other US oil sisters to oppose the President. The Wall Street Journal reporting, to help befuddle the issue, mentions also Caterpillar as third company that left USCAP – true as it might be – it just hides the true reason of what is going on. The Editorial is better, but does not believe in the whole CAP & TAX idea – so it campaigns against it. General Electric Co. and Honeywell International Inc. continue their membership in USCAP – makes sense.

The Washington Post has good reporting – but the crucial paragraphs are somewhere at the end of the article in the follow up page. You know, lots of people read the headlines and the front page piece only – they will never know that Obama spoke also beyond those billions he throws into a fire that is yet to catch on for a couple of years hence – this while jobs are needed before November 2010 – and the Republicans may or may not want to help him before that.

From the Washington Post:
But he urged Republican supporters of nuclear power to “recognize that we’re not going to achieve a big boost in nuclear capacity unless we also create a system of incentives to make clean energy profitable.” He said that “as long as producing carbon pollution carries no cost, traditional plants that use fossil fuels will be more cost-effective than plants that use nuclear fuel.”

That, he said, is why Congress should pass comprehensive energy and climate legislation. After talks last week with GOP congressional leaders, Obama said, “I believe there’s real common ground here, and my administration will be working to build on areas of agreement.”

————————
Obama offers loan to help fund two nuclear reactors.

Obama backs loans for new nuclear plant – President Barack Obama announced a guarantee of $8.3 billion in loans for the first new U.S. nuclear power plant in nearly three decades, underscoring the administration’s efforts to reduce dependence on foreign oil. (Feb. 16)

By Michael D. Shear and Steven Mufson
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, February 17, 2010

President Obama seized a key Republican energy initiative as his own Tuesday, promising $8.33 billion in federal loan guarantees for a pair of Georgia reactors that he said would give new life to the U.S. nuclear power industry and create a surge of high-skill jobs.

By helping to finance the construction of the reactors — the first new U.S. nuclear power units in more than 30 years — Obama is hoping to jump-start his efforts to pass comprehensive climate-change legislation, which has stalled in Congress in the face of GOP opposition.

The president is also casting the nuclear initiative as a centerpiece of his plan to produce clean-energy jobs, although construction on the two reactors would not begin for more than a year. Nonetheless, after touring a Maryland training facility for energy jobs, Obama said the competition for those positions worldwide will be fierce.

“If we fail to invest in the technologies of tomorrow, then we’re going to be importing those technologies instead of exporting them,” he said. “We will fall behind. Jobs will be produced overseas instead of here in the United States of America. And that’s not a future that I accept.”

Republicans, who have called for building as many as 100 new nuclear power plants, hailed the president’s move as evidence that he has accepted their argument. Sen. Lindsey O. Graham (S.C.) called it a “good first step” that would pave the way for progress on climate and energy legislation.

But Obama’s announcement set up a clash with environmentalists who remain worried about the safety of nuclear power and waste disposal. And it drew criticism from some conservatives who called it a risky move that could cost taxpayers billions if construction costs spiral, electricity demand sags and utilities default.

Nuclear power plants “are simply not economically competitive now, and therefore they can’t be privately financed,” said Peter Bradford, an adjunct professor at Vermont Law School and a former member of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. “There are many cheaper ways to displace carbon, and there are many cheaper ways to provide for electric power supply.”

Jack Spencer, a fellow at the Heritage Foundation and a supporter of nuclear power, warned: “Loan guarantees do not a nuclear renaissance make.” He said the guarantees would “perpetuate the problems that have plagued nuclear energy for 30 years: the regulatory structure and nuclear waste [disposal] and too much government dependence.”

The loan guarantees announced Tuesday would sharply lower borrowing costs to finance new reactors at the Alvin W. Vogtle Electric Generating Plant in eastern Georgia near the South Carolina border, where two units are being operated by the Atlanta-based Southern Co., a large utility. The loan guarantees would cover part of the $14 billion in financing needs; Japanese export loan guarantees would cover another portion. Southern, which owns 46 percent of the plant, and its partners would have equity interests as well. The companies would “definitely have skin in the game,” said Energy Secretary Steven Chu.

Administration officials said that the loan guarantees would not cost taxpayers anything and that companies would pay fees to cover the risk of default. But critics said the administration was vastly underestimating the likelihood of the loans going bad.

Jobs would be created, but not right away. The nuclear units would require 3,500 construction positions and later 800 jobs for operating the plant. But Southern chief executive David Ratcliffe noted that the company would not draw the loan guarantees and begin construction until the NRC grants a license, which it does not expect until late 2011. Moreover, the Energy Department and Southern are still negotiating terms of the guarantees.

To deflect critics, the president promised efforts to make the technology even safer and asserted that nuclear power must be a significant part of global attempts to reduce reliance on polluting, carbon-based fuels.

“It’s that simple,” he said. “This one plant, for example, will cut carbon pollution by 16 million tons each year when compared to a similar coal plant. That’s like taking 3.5 million cars off the road.” The reactors would be able to power 550,000 homes, providing electricity to 1.4 million people.

Obama has long been amenable to new nuclear power and said throughout the presidential campaign that it had to be part of a comprehensive energy strategy. The loan guarantee he promised Tuesday would come from $18.5 billion in money authorized during President George W. Bush’s administration under the Energy Policy Act of 2005. But in the latest budget proposal, Obama has proposed tripling that to $54.5 billion, an amount that Chu said could help jump-start seven to 10 new nuclear power reactors. The United States has 104 commercial nuclear reactors.

White House press secretary Robert Gibbs acknowledged later that the push for an increased use of nuclear power “might not make everybody in [the president's] party completely comfortable.” But he said the announcement demonstrates to Republicans Obama’s “willingness to be part of this dialogue.”

The House passed climate-change legislation last year that included a cap-and-trade system that Republicans derided as a tax on carbon production. The legislation is stalled in the Senate, but Graham has been meeting with Sens. John F. Kerry (D-Mass.) and Joseph I. Lieberman (I-Conn.) in hopes of reaching a compromise.

“The president believed throughout the campaign, and said as much, that we need a balanced approach,” Gibbs said. “He made good on that balanced approach today.”

After a meeting with Republican leaders at the White House last week, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) cited construction of nuclear power plants as one of the areas that “we might be able to work on together.”

In his speech at a training center in Lanham run by the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Obama called the new loan guarantees “just the beginning” and noted that his budget proposal calls for billions more in federal subsidies.

But he urged Republican supporters of nuclear power to “recognize that we’re not going to achieve a big boost in nuclear capacity unless we also create a system of incentives to make clean energy profitable.” He said that “as long as producing carbon pollution carries no cost, traditional plants that use fossil fuels will be more cost-effective than plants that use nuclear fuel.”

That, he said, is why Congress should pass comprehensive energy and climate legislation. After talks last week with GOP congressional leaders, Obama said, “I believe there’s real common ground here, and my administration will be working to build on areas of agreement.”

Said Carl Pope, executive director of the Sierra Club: “We are pleased that President Obama reiterated the need to put a price on carbon and build a clean energy economy with more renewable energy and greater energy efficiency.”

But, he said, the money would be better spent retrofitting buildings and reducing energy consumption. “The loan guarantees announced today may ease the politics around comprehensive clean-energy and climate legislation, but we do not believe that they are the best policy.”

Leslie H. Gelb is a former New York Times columnist and senior government official, he is author of “Power Rules: How Common Sense Can Rescue American Foreign Policy” (HarperCollins 2009), a book that shows how to think about and use power in the 21st century. He is president emeritus of the Council on Foreign Relations.

Leslie Gelb, on Daily Beast blog, summarizes Washington opinions on how to bring in old Carter and Clinton Presidency Argonauts in order to make the Obama Presidency, for the perplexed,  more like those former Presidencies they already understand. We bring here an excerpt of what we just read and strongly agree on one issue – the bringing back to the White House – in real power position – Mr. Paul Volcker – as a must if one wants indeed to start out on long term improvement of the US economy.

Shocked, we also tend to agree to the following: ” 70 and even 80 are the new 60. They {the people we copy in the following excerpt} all possess the necessary energy, experience and rare skill in delivering results. They are also shovel-ready. As a critical bonus, they could and would mentor the next generation down, a very talented one indeed, to succeed them in two or three years. To lead America and the world, Obama has to grow far beyond his present propensity to treat problems as intellectual puzzles—to collect facts and hear the arguments. The great tasks of governing demand proven intuition in sensing what’s achievable, which buttons to push when, how to buy the time for power to take hold, how to make adjustments without flagrantly foolish rhetoric, how to avoid failures that only diminish power, and how to succeed in small as well as large ways. With a team versed in such arts and skills, President Obama and America would succeed.”

From the Daily Beast we excerpted further – but we clearly look at that list with interest and not in full agreement with all those mentioned – just with the idea that some of the best old people of yester-years could indeed be helpfull as transition bridges from the Washington that is to the one that ought to be. We also think that the older those mentioned, probably the better chance that they have managed to burry their old hatchets, and be more amenable to help in the transition to a new generation.

Here are the personnel changes being bruited about in political and policy circles of Washington: First, remove Rahm Emanuel as chief of staff and move him to a senior political adviser slot. No one I’ve talked to believes he has the management skills and discipline to run the White House. But he is a terrific political mind and a fighter and should be given the new job and the time to do his thing. Proven pros who could step right in include the following: Erskine Bowles, president of the University of North Carolina and former Clinton chief of staff; Leon Panetta, now CIA director and formerly White House chief as well under Clinton; Sylvia Mathews, a former deputy chief of staff also under Clinton; and John Podesta, another former Clinton chief who now heads the Center for American Progress. All four are tough and know how to manage.

Replace Lawrence Summers, director of the White House’s National Economic Council, with Paul Volcker, the former chairman of the Federal Reserve. Summers is brilliant and highly controversial; he’s been beaten up and is said to want out anyway. Volcker has unmatched stature, practical experience, and the courage of a lion. He is the only one now in a position to get down to step-by-step brass tacks on the economy and stop Mr. Obama’s weekly gyrations. Others with proven track records who can help as inside or outside advisers are: Stephen Robert, formerly head of Oppenheimer, Vincent Mai, former leader of AEA Investors, and Tom Hill of Blackstone. There are also two economic stars in Washington who’d improve both policymaking and public combat: Sheila Bair, chairwoman of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, and Elizabeth Warren, chair of the Congressional Oversight Panel. One outside adviser above all would help the president see the economic hard choices ahead: Peter G. Peterson, accomplished businessman and policy head.

David Axelrod, the senior political adviser to the president, needs to concentrate on the next presidential campaign, wherein his expertise lies, and not on domestic and foreign policy, where he is just another smart unknowledgeable voice. Good replacements who do know the politics of Washington would be the aforementioned Podesta; and Tom Daschle, the former Democratic Senate Majority Leader. As for David Plouffe, another senior campaign aide, now in unofficial residence at the White House, he should be lodged in the nearby Executive Office Building. Senior adviser and Chicago buddy Valerie Jarrett is too much a part of the inner circle to move, but she should be given a more limited role in making policy.

Mr. Obama’s crowd appears to think that getting things done means his giving another speech. It’s nice, but not nearly enough.
Robert Gibbs needs a rest from being press secretary. Let’s put it this way: He wasn’t born for daily jousts with pithy Republicans. His job calls for memorable and pointed phrases and attacks, not circle-the-wagon circumlocutions. Possible successors? Try Doyle McManus of the L.A. Times, Jake Tapper of ABC News, or Helene Cooper of The New York Times.
Last but not least, James Jones, the National Security Adviser, has to move on. The career Marine was greatly admired and respected as Commandant of the Corps and as NATO’s military chief. He handled those duties with great skill. But by wide acclamation inside and outside the White House, he has not emerged as a strategist—perhaps the key requirement of this key position. The person in that job has to pull everything together—laying out achievable objectives and precise plans to dispense carefully packaged carrots and sticks. One Democrat who could step in now, despite his age, is Zbigniew Brzezinski, Jimmy Carter’s national-security adviser. He has a first-rate strategic mind—a rare quality—and knows how to deliver results. Obama will need to iron out Zbig’s lack of sympathy toward Israel and Russia.

Also available are a boatload of first-class retired diplomats with the judgment and background needed to perform the National Security Council job effectively. They would be greeted with applause both at home and abroad. Try former ambassadors Thomas Pickering, Morton Abramowitz, Frank Wisner, Reginald Bartholomew, and Winston Lord. They have it all. At a minimum, they and others like them should form the core of a group that meets regularly with Obama on strategy.

How Washington Can Really Help the Greens in Tehran .

from: Trita Parsi.

With the February 11 demonstrations around the corner, Washington is increasingly torn on whether and how to support the Iranian pro-democracy movement. Reality is that Washington’s history of involvement in Iran’s political affairs is not a pretty one. But between doing everything and doing nothing, there is a safe, effective third way. Alireza Nader of RAND and I write about that third path in Foreign Policy Magazine today.

 http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/20…

Trita Parsi, PhD
 http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/20…

Ever since last June’s disputed presidential election, Iran has been in the throes of change, with the nascent “green movement” protesting against an ever-more-authoritarian state. For months, Washington has asked itself: Should the United States actively push for regime change? Torn between the fear of ending up on the wrong side of history by being too cautious and the fear of ending up undermining the pro-democracy movement by being too aggressive, Barack Obama’s administration is playing a difficult balancing act.

History shows that intervention is easier said than done. Past U.S. attempts to sway Iranian internal affairs — such as the CIA-fomented 1953 coup d’état against a democratically elected prime minister, Mohammad Mossadegh — have proven costly for U.S. interests. Most notably, Washington’s support for the shah fueled the 1979 Islamic Revolution, inspiring anti-Western movements in Pakistan, Egypt, and beyond.

To make matters worse, due to its absence from the scene during the last 30 years, the United States is not sufficiently equipped to understand and shape what appears to be a titanic struggle between Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei and his opponents.

But between the extremes of doing nothing and doing everything, there is a middle ground: providing the Iranian pro-democracy movement with breathing space, rather than engaging in risky and imprecise exercises that would directly involve America as an actor on the Iranian scene. The United States can achieve this through a few simple steps:

First, the United States should tread carefully when it comes to issuing military threats. Under the shadow of a foreign military threat, the uphill battle of the Iranian pro-democracy movement becomes even steeper, as the Iranian regime is quite adept at exploiting foreign threats to stifle criticism at home. Moreover, the possibility of military conflict between Iran and the United States, or their respective “proxies,” might allow the Iranian regime to distract the population from the internal crisis.

Second, the United States should avoid sanctions that put a burden on the Iranian people, rather than the Iranian government. Broad-based sanctions that hit the entire economy hurt common citizens far more than the powerful elites. Any new sanctions should demonstrate not only international discontent with the conduct of the Tehran government, but also an effort by the United States to keep from harming average Iranians.

The shift toward targeted sanctions against the Iranian Revolutionary Guards Corps (IRGC) — a 100,000-strong paramilitary and security force with significant business interests — is a welcome development. However, because the IRGC controls Iran’s official and underground economy, identifying sanctions that hurt only the IRGC while sparing the general population is difficult. Instead, U.S. and U.N. designation of specific individuals within the government and the IRGC responsible for the repression and human rights violations would make the sanctions both effective and truly targeted. Such designations would discourage foreign governments and companies from engaging with these individuals or conducting business with them and their affiliates, demonstrating to the regime that its domestic and foreign policies will have significant consequences.

Third, Washington should slow down the diplomatic process. Negotiation with Iran in and of itself is not the problem; engagement doesn’t legitimize the Iranian government, as only the people of Iran can do that. But in spite of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s latest offer to accept the International Atomic Energy Agency nuclear deal, Iran remains in political turmoil. It is questionable that Tehran can make enduring decisions on issues of this magnitude under these circumstances. Adopting unrealistic time frames for diplomacy is self-defeating, as time is needed to ascertain Tehran’s ability to come to an agreement as the Iranian political crisis unfolds. Avoiding an unhelpful and unnecessary rush toward an agreement also helps defuse demoralizing fears among the greens that their struggle for democracy is of no relevance to the United States.

Fourth, the international community, including the White House and U.S. State Department, should be vocal in excoriating Iran’s human rights abuses. Condemning abuses should not be confused with interfering in internal Iranian affairs. As a signatory of numerous international conventions, Iran has a legal obligation to uphold its people’s human rights. When it fails to do so, the United States and the world community has a responsibility to speak up. The Iranian government is, perhaps surprisingly, very sensitive in this area, due to its ambition to be perceived as a regional leader. This sensitivity should be utilized to make advances on the human rights front in Iran.

This would be helpful to the green movement in two ways. First, international focus on Iran’s human rights record makes it more difficult for Tehran to proceed with its abuses. For instance, the United States should support a special session on the human rights situation in Iran at the U.N. Human Rights Council. Second, it helps counter the Iranian government’s perception that the United States is willing to sacrifice the human rights and pro-democracy aspirations of the Iranian people for the sake of a nuclear deal.

Finally (Fifth), Washington should exercise patience and view Iran as a long-term factor in shaping U.S. national security interests across the Middle East. The green movement will not and cannot adjust its action plan to suit the U.S. political timetable. But if patience is granted — which includes avoiding a singular focus on the nuclear issue at the expense of all other considerations — Washington will access a far greater potential for change.

Ultimately, the Iranian opposition has shown tremendous strength and vitality without any material support from the United States. Iran’s people, not outsiders, will be the ones to achieve sustainable democracy. The Iranian opposition is not merely concerned about the June election, nor is it a simple creature of Iran’s factional politics. Rather, it represents a historic struggle for democracy and human rights. Between the all or nothing approaches, the United States can best help by providing Iran’s democrats with breathing room.

——————-
Alireza Nader is an international affairs analyst at the RAND Corporation and co-author of Mullahs, Guards, and Bonyads: An Exploration of Iranian Leadership Dynamics.

Trita Parsi is president of the National Iranian American Council and the 2010 recipient of the Grawemeyer Award for Ideas Improving World Order.

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

UPDATED: Washington will do just that !!!

U.S. plans sanctions to hit Iran’s Revolutionary Guards
The U.S. is building a portfolio of sanctions against Iran that specifically targets the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps in response to Iran’s announcement it will continue efforts to enrich uranium — a process that could contribute to a nuclear weapons development program. Russia joined the U.S. with an atypically harsh response, while China, which has said it opposed sanctions against Iran before, was mute on the announcement. The goal of the sanctions, which would affect a large number of companies that does business with the Revolutionary Guards, would be to drive a wedge between Iranians and the security forces by making it too expensive for companies to do business with Iran.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/10/world/middleeast/10sanctions.html

In Washington DC, Baltimore, Philadelphia and Pittsburgh – the news were the record snow. So, that keeps them busy – the need to dig out from under that snow.

So far as governing goes, the Village Voice – that is Greenwich Village in new York City – wrote that the Republicans won a 41-59 majority as a result from the Massachusetts avalanche.

The new weather predictions are that the President will set now the agenda and expect the Democrats to follow – AMEN!       That is leadership – for God’s sake with 59 still standing – what do they wait for?

Further – he – that is Obama – will try to brow-beat the Republicans to cooperate first. The American people say Washington is too partisan ? If that were true the 59 would be good enough – but really? Who are the Obstructionists?

If Obama invites the Republicans to come on board that would be very clever – it would tell the Democrats to stop being obstructionists.

But, politics might be such that the Republicans feel comfortable to project that they are THE PARTY OF NO!

How do you pull out a rabbit from your top-hat? How do you change unemployment rates with nothing happening in the economy? The Republicans might be happy to see the Administration collapse – the country collapse – so who cares about OSAMA!

Obama tells the Democrats – we will be losers together if you do not shape up and they returned – SHOW US THE WAY!

——————

Next topic:  How long can the World’s biggest borrower continue to be the World’s biggest power?

If we get to the point that we have a difficulty to sell our treasuries in the world we will cease to be a big power – that came from Greenspan – the former head of the Federal Reserve. Henry Paulson, the present holder of that job seemed less convincing.

David Walker, former US Controller General – head of the GAO – now head of te Peterson Foundation – wrote a book on the US deficit that has reached now $1.56 trillion and this is untenable.

—————–

Fareed Zakharia on China-US relations – a US – China economic war is MAD – that is Mutual Assured Destruction – he thinks that the two are symbiotically bound now. I think he is wrong. China has such a huge internal market that it can continue well by producing just for their own people without exports to the US. They may not want to do that because it would mean a too soon push at increasing China’s middle class and risking folks ask for a mellowing down of the political regime. But nevertheless, this does not assure an immediate rebellion. In the US rather – a rebellion is possible – or a call for some real war – internally or externally.

To the latest two skirmishes – the US sending $6.4 billion worth of weapons to Taiwan, and Obama hosting The Dalai Lama at the White House. Both topics are not new. The military hardware agreement with Taiwan was agreed in 2001, and the Dalai Lama has visited every single US previous President since he landed in India. Why did the Chinese get excited right now? That is before the April visit they will be making themselves to the White House? What about the Iran sanctions and the fact that Obama was left to wait outside that China conference room in Copenhagen? Are we going to see some muscle show here?

Christiane Amanpour, on her program had as guest Victor Gao, of the China National Association of International Studies.

He pointed out that the US sells weapons to Taiwan that it does not allow for sale to China. China is now the largest credit maker to the US. What if China buys less for several months? Is 2010 going to be the year that Obama gets tough and China gets nasty? Neither of them can afford a real trade war.

David Rothkopf affirmed that “we are interconnected” so we have to develop a different approach.

Victor Cha – he was on China desk at the National  Security Council. He said – This is a MUTUAL HOSTAGE GAME – both sides lose.

—————-

Fareed Zakharia in Davos, had in front of an audience a half hour interview with King Abdullah II of Jordan.

It started out with Fareed pointing out the two main problems he thinks are facing Jordan: Iran’s nuclear ambitions and the Islamic fighting movement, but he was brushed aside by the King who continued coming back to the Israeli – Palestinian problem.

Fareed said that no-one has yet lost money by betting against Peace in the Middle East, but the King countered that the credibility of the US is at stake. We desperately need the undivided attention of the US – he said. If God forbid we cross the line of the viability of the 2 State Solution, what are we left with – continuing warfare – or even worse – the One State solution that many Israelis dread?

Fareed wanted to know if there is a Jordan option and was told flatly by the King that it will not work – Jordan absolutely does not want the West Bank. Are we talking of a viable entity? A third of the UN do not recognize Israel now.  The building of the wall has made Israel safer Fareed said and he spoke with President Peres who believes in a two States solution for the future of Israel but because of the security threats they think only of today and not the future.

The King disagreed – the injustice felt towards the Palestinian people pushes all other issues. He thinks that if you solved the problem of the Palestinians why should Iran then want the nuclear power. It does not make any sense for them to continue on that path. For now, it is the Palestinian issue that propels Iran’s efforts. When asked if he thinks that if not for the Israeli – Palestinian issue, there would be no Islamic terrorism? The King retreated by saying that – for evil to succeed – is for good men to do nothing. Evil will always exist – the evil always will be evil. On November 9, 2005 we had our own 9/11 and proportionately we lost twice as many people as the US casualties. The Israeli-Palestinian issue is is incendiary that it drives everything else.

Fareed suggested that Professor Bernard Lewis explained that it was rather because of the lack of openness in the Muslim world that created the Al Qaeda – it was against Egypt and Saudi Arabia. We have 400 million young people in the Islamic world that need a direction. My role is to create a viable political Middle Class. If you want to move your country it is education – education – education. Bahrain speaks our language – so is a list of young countries that agree.

————-

Christiane Amanpour had a panel on security issues and wanted to know what are the real security problems today. Surely it was not what you would have expected to hear. She was told:

- Outer Space

- The Open Sea

- The Cyber Space

- The Polar Ice Caps.

So far as the conventional thinking she was told that Washington and Beijing have less to fear from each other then from failed States like Somalia.

When satellites become more crucial they become targets. Where are the National borders in cyber-space? Most governments cannot even define a cyber attack.

Zbigniew Brzezinski said that we have to define the nature of the threat. Today it is not as lethal as it was when within 6 hours we could have had 80 million casualties in the cold war. But today attacks are less predictable even though less lethal.

The US still has a higher sophisticated technology capability. The Google issue is a cyberthreat. Are the hackers from China government? Do they really come from China? We may have to retaliatete selectively and we must have a foreign policy that does not object to this.

The way the domestic policy goes now, will Obama continue the international engagement that he started out with so well? Now we have gridlock.

Brzezinski called for Presidential leadership. Also – the President should persevere with the Iran effort.

The other topic is the Israeli -Palestinian conflict. Rhetorically Obama gets an A, For Performance a B or B-

On space – we must avoid a nuclear race in space – we must have the capacity to shoot down satellites and space vehicles.

———————

From the Kathie Crowley show – her interview with Secretary of State Hilary Clinton, I picked up one fleting issue – the names of the countries the Secretary mentioned as friends to work with in the present world. She clearly mentioned the big two China and India, but then she spoke also of other major economies – Brazil, South Africa and Turkey. I mention this here because it vindicates our recent decision to move Turkey to the Home-page of www.SustainabiliTank.info and it seems that we were right.

Clearly, there were no Europeans mentioned in that segment, neither Mexico nor Canada or Japan.

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.

Ms Hedegaard during the parliamentary hearing to confirm her
appointment as commissioner gave a robust defence of the document.

“I would very much have liked to have seen more progress in
Copenhagen, but finance was delivered; all the emerging developing
nations have accepted co-responsibility [for reducing emissions] and
Brazil, South Africa, China, India and the US, all of whom were not
part of the Kyoto Protocol, have now set targets for domestic action,”
she told MEPs mid-January.

But even as the EU begins to view the Copenhagen glass as half full,
elsewhere, support for the document is beginning to unravel.

Last week, realising that only around 20 countries had listed their
emissions reductions commitments in a schedule attached to the Accord,
UN climate chief Yvo de Boer quietly abandoned the 31 January deadline
for states to have done so.

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.

Last weekend, meeting in New Delhi, the four so-called Basic countries
described the accord as merely a “political understanding” without any
legal basis and that action should instead proceed on the basis of the
two documents to come out of the official UN process – one outlining
the second commitment period for the Kyoto Protocol and the other
dealing with climate actions by the US and emerging economies.

Indian environment minister Jairam Ramesh said: “We support the
Copenhagen Accord. But all of us were unanimously of the view that its
value lies not as a standalone document but as an input into the
two-track negotiation process under the UNFCCC.”

“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.

One of the main lessons the European Commission has drawn from the
Copenhagen failure is that European representation in climate change
talks needs to be streamlined in order to project its position more
effectively, even if the commission is not awarded the task of
negotiating on behalf of the bloc, as it does in trade talks,

“We are fragmented from a negotiating point of view,” President
Barroso said in his first public appearance of the year. “In trade
matters, this is different. The European Commission is the voice.”

Ms Hedegaard is of the same mind. In her parliamentary hearing, her
top message concerned European disunity: “In the last hours, China,
India, Russia, Japan each spoke with one voice, while Europe spoke
with many different voices.”

“A lot of Europeans in the room is not a problem, but there is only an
advantage if we sing from same hymn sheet. We need to think about this
and reflect on this very seriously, or we will lose our leadership
role in the world,” she told MEPs.

In a similar vein, the commission president has also suggested that
the new EU External Action Service – the bloc’s diplomatic corps born
of the Lisbon Treaty – be given more leeway to engage in climate
bargaining.

Until now, this sort of bilateral pressure has been left up to the
member states, with Paris tasked with winning over Francophone Africa,
London with arm-twisting the Commonwealth and Berlin given the job of
seducing Pacific islands.

Before last autumn’s federal election in Germany,
then-foreign-minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier was meeting regularly
with the Association of Small Island States and 20 Aosis ministers
visited the country last year specifically to discuss climate issues,
while Ethiopia’s surprise intervention at Copenhagen proposing a deal
that mirrored almost word for word a European Commission proposal from
September came as the result of UK and French behind-the-scenes
intercession.

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.

For this reason, the US has called for a junking of the UN process,
hoping that it can win other countries to its perspective via more
manageable arenas such as the G20 or the Major Emitters Forum, where
there are far fewer than the UN’s 192 nations to deal with and the
‘awkward squad’ of left-wing Latin American nations and the G77 group
of nations are absent. Both Jonathan Pershing, America’s chief
negotiator, and US climate envoy Todd Stern have said the UN should be
sidelined.

EU leaders however “are less neurotic about the UN than the Americans
are,” in the words of the Centre for European Policy Studies’ climate
specialist, Christian Egenhofer.

At the same time that President Barroso admitted to pulling his hair
out at the UN process, he also said there is no other option. “We need
to have a more efficient and results-oriented process in the future
…With unanimity, it is easier for one country to block – it’s the
basic logic of the system,” he said in early January, adding however:
“It’s very easy to criticise the UN …but the UN is what the members
make out of it.”

Although some Spanish presidency officials at one point said that
climate negotiations should pass through the G20 instead, everyone
else, from Mr Runge-Metzger to Ms Hedegaard believe this cannot be
done. “Some ask: ‘Shouldn’t we give up on the UN process?’ I say:
‘No.’ We would waste too much work,” she told the European Parliament.

Instead, according to Mr Runge-Metzger: “The next step for the EU is
to get the accord translated into the UN process,” to try to lock in
agreement in other fora and then feed this into the main UN
negotiations. The key is to appear to be endorsing the UN process
while still pushing for other fora to do the heavy lifting.

One arena in particular that climate watchers should keep an eye on is
the UN High-Level Panel on Climate Change and Development, announced
by Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon last September and to be launched
early this year. Made up of a handful of current heads of government,
along with experts, senior government officials and community leaders,
the panel will be a much more manageable entity, but will also have
the imprimatur of the UN.

Border tariff:

Meanwhile, EU officials are briefing heavily against the awkward
squad, attempting to paint them as obstructionist and
unrepresentative. Reporters are reminded of G77-chair Sudan’s
authoritarian government, while Ethiopia, which has authoritarian rule
but is on side, is never criticized. With Yemen, the birthplace of the
infamous underpants bomber, holding the 2010 presidency of the group,
this will be an even easier public relations hatchet job.

But it was not just a handful of countries, but the entire Africa
Group of Nations that forced a suspension of proceedings when they
twice walked out of the UN complaining of rich country shenanigans.
Latin America and the loudmouthed-or-eloquent (depending on who you
asked) Oxford-educated G77 negotiator Lumumba di-Aping, famous for his
line that an offer of $10 billion in climate finance “is not enough to
buy us coffins,” were only the most vocal of a host of frustrated
countries.

At the same time, even ardent developing world advocates privately
express their discomfort at the wealthy elites of China and India
using the poor of their own countries to advance an agenda of growth
that primarily benefits them. And it is true that the developing world
is not all of one mind. Tuvalu is bitterly opposed to the Copenhagen
Accord while the Maldives embraces it as the best it can get while the
tides are rapidly rising.

Elsewhere, the EU is also almost certain to take a fresh look at
slapping carbon tariffs on goods entering the bloc. There is no way
industry would allow a move to a 30 percent emissions reduction pledge
without such protection. “I will fight for a carbon tax levied on EU
borders,” French President Nicolas Sarkozy said earlier this month.

It’s always easy to dismiss such ambition when expressed by a man
known for his crafting of public policy by press conference, and EU
commissioner-designate for trade, Karel de Gucht has ruled a carbon
border tariff out, saying: “it will …lead to an escalating trade war
on a global level.”

But this is what a trade commissioner has to say. Many analysts
believe that a carbon tariff is inevitable and even WTO-compatible if
multilaterally agreed. The US climate bill already includes a carbon
tariff provision and, crucially, this is the stick that could be used
to force China, India and other nations to submit to its preferred
climate regime of binding reduction commitments for emerging
economies.

The EU is still essential here. Washington could not move ahead with a
tariff without Brussels on board.

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.

The informal event sees some 3,500 celebrities, businessmen,
politicians and religious leaders get together in the US capital each
year. It is organised by the Fellowship Foundation, a Christian
fundamentalist pressure group.

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.”

The White House has said that the US President would not be attending what used to be the regularly scheduled EU-US talks, which have been planned to take place in Madrid in May 24-25, 2010 by the Spanish Rotating EU Presidency for the First half of 2010.

Honestly, why should he participate in the European Games while there are so many real problems on his plate?

The EU has three Presidents – if they cannot decide who is their President in fact – do they really expect for Obama to travel trans-Atlantic, and sit at Summits chaired by all three of them – Herman Van Rampuy, The Permanent EU President, Jose Manuel Baroso, the President of the European Commission, and the Spanish Prime Minister, Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero,    who is presently the Rotating President of the EU?

Papers write of a “Snub.” This is ridiculous and for us who watched the Copenhagen Conference that was saved by President Obama under a G-2 arrangement with China, because he had to act fast if he wanted to save the meeting from itself, and there was no strong man or woman of the EU to stand at his side, the above “News” are old hat – and we say – we told you so!  Actually, we welcome Charles Forelle writes as “World News” in the Wall Street Journal of today: “Things haven’t been good recently for Europe’s position on the world stage. Despite the new treaty ambition to make the EU a bigger player, the bloc has sometimes seen itself shut out.  At climate talks in Copenhagen in December, Mr. Obama hammered out a last-minute accord with China and other emerging nations. The Europeans were left out of the picture.” This recognition of reality in a WSJ article is very unusual – but this is real life. If the EU does not get together – and still claims 7 seats at the G-20 – rather then one seat for real – they are turning themselves, by their own choice,  into world political irrelevancy. The same is true at the UN where we see more and more a 2 1/2 seats situation – with France and the UK in Security Council seats but Germany on practical UN Security Commissions, and no EU representative with any powers what so ever.

Obama’s decision not to go to Madrid is no snub to Mr. Zapatero or to Spain – but rather the cleareeded sign that he wants to go and meet the PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED EUROPE. Had Obama decided to go to Masdrid it would have been as if someone from Europe would come to a meeting of the US Governor’s Association. Just think – Germany id California, France is New York, the UK is Texas, Spain is Florida, Poland is Illinois, Austria is Vermont … etc etc. Perhapse indeed Van Rampuy should come to the US Governor’s Association meeting in order to learn what is needed in order to create out of the EU the neededpartner for Obama in order to turn the G-2 into a G-3 and to create out of the G-20 a new meaningful global body.

———————–

The best article on this we found is from The Telegtaph:
Barack Obama has snubbed the EU amid confusion in Washington over which “president” of Europe he would be expected to meet at a trans-Atlantic summit this spring.

By Bruno Waterfield in Brussels  – from Telegraph.com
Published:  01 Feb 2010 -
 http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnew…

The White House has said that Barack Obama will not be attending the EU-US talks planned to take place in Madrid in May.
The White House has said that the US President would not be attending the regularly scheduled EU-US talks, which have been planned to take place in Madrid in May 24-25, 2010 by the Spanish Rotating EU Presidency for the First half of 2010.

Honestly, why should he particioate in the European Games while there are so many real problems on his plate.
US officials have expressed frustration because the Lisbon Treaty, which was supposed to give the EU a single global voice, has created a number of European presidents competing for Washington’s attention.

Even the venue for the summit, Madrid or Brussels, has been “up in the air” after a tussle between Spain, which holds the EU’s rotating presidency and Herman Van Rompuy, the new created President of Europe.

Under the terms of the Lisbon Treaty, Mr Van Rompuy, President of the European Council which represents EU heads of government, should host the summit in Brussels as Europe’s lead negotiator in global bilateral talks.

But Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero, the Spanish prime minister, insisted that he should host the summit because the EU was in “transition” after the Lisbon Treaty entered into force in December.

A US official told the Wall Street Journal that President Obama had not yet received an a formal invitation to the EU-US summit, a twice yearly meeting that has taken place since 1991.

“We don’t even know if they’re going to have one. We’ve told them, ‘Figure it out and let us know’,” said the official.

Other American diplomats have blamed confusion over which of the three EU “presidents” is in charge of the summit – Mr Van Rompuy, Mr Zapatero or José Manuel Barroso, the European Commission president.

“Who attends from the US and at what point will depend on who’s calling the meeting,” said a US state department official.
“There’s a competition in Europe because you now have the standing EU architecture.”

Many national and EU diplomats are dismayed at the institutional infighting that has followed the entering into force of the Lisbon Treaty.

“The Spanish are behaving badly. They’ve made a mess of the summit but Van Rompuy and the post-Lisbon EU institutions will carry the can in the long term. The squabbling has damaged the EU in the eyes of the most powerful nation in the world,” said a senior source.

A European Commission spokesman hinted that the meeting would have to be downgraded or cancelled if Mr Obama did not show up.

“Normally a summit is a summit because it is attended by heads of state and government,” said the spokesman.

A Spanish foreign ministry spokesman said: “The EU-US summit is scheduled to take place in May in Madrid, as was foreseen and we are still preparing it.”

US officials have indicated that Mr Obama might reschedule talks with the EU in the wings of a Nato summit in Portugal this autumn.

William J. Antholis of The Brookings Institution, Washington DC, comes to the UN Headquarters to Discuss “Climate Change: Between Trust and Trade” – hosted Friday, January 29, 2010 by UNU-NYO and open to all.

January 29, 2010 – from The UN University – New York Office:

“Climate Change: Between Trust and Trade” with Dr. William Antholis, Managing Director of Brookings Institution.

Date: Friday, January 29, 2010
Time: 3:00 p.m. to 4:30 p.m.
Venue: Conference Room D, Temporary North Lawn Building, UN Headquarters, First Avenue, New York City.

Speaker Profiles: William J. Antholis, Managing Director, Brookings Institution.

Moderator Profile: Jean-Marc Coicaud, Director, UNU-ONY

————————

Please contact:
Nika Naiyi ZHU
Junior Professional Fellow
United Nations University
Office at the UN, New York
2 UN Plaza, DC2-2060
New York, NY 10017
tel: 212-963-6387
fax: 212-371-2144
email:  unu.edu
web: ony.unu.edu

Just back from a breakfast at Debevoise & Plimpton LLP, a New York firm active in Brazil for 30 years – Mergers & Acquisitions and Private Equity, Bankruptcy and Restructurings, Project Finance and Capital Markets – in short – the works.

The topic was – BRAZIL: ECONOMIC, INVESTMENT and POLITICAL OUTLOOK.

The Breakfast Seminar was organized by the Brazilian-American Chamber of Commerce, Inc. (BACC) - www.brazilcham.com, Chaired by Paulo Vieira da Cunha, Partner & Head of Research – Emerging Markets at Tandem Global Markets Fund, and Chairman, Banking and Capital Markets Committee, BACC.

His panel included Lisa Schineller, Director, Sovereign Ratings, Standard & Poor’s; Tony Volpon, Senior Economist, Nocura Securities International Inc.; Geoffrey Dennis, Managing Director and Global Emerging Markets Strategist Analyst, Citigroup (CIRA); Demian Reidel, Founding Member of QFR Capital Management, LP with previous important positions at Goldman Sachs, JPMorgan, background in Petroleum and Nuclear strategy in Argentina and economics at Harvard, who replaced as speaker the Founder of QFR, Jose Luis Daza; and Chris Garman, Managing and Practice Head, Latin America, Eurasia Group.

As expected, there was lots of talk about macroeconomics, how Brazil moved in the last years to the point that assets exceed debt; how Brazil survived well this last World Crisis. The present low indebtedness with a combination of FDI and equity and great export markets stretching from Asia to the US and the EU. They have managed very well the newly found oil wealth and the hope is that they can continue to manage it well and not open the country up too much to the international oil companies.    A main key is not to start to increase, without solid plans, the expenditures so they get addicted to that oil money as it happened in Mexico. The presentations were informative and very calculated as expected. But I really did not come for this.

What brought me to this early morning event was the expectation that there will be a presentation of the Political Outlook, specially as Brazil will have Presidential Elections this year – and I had my fill in the last presentation – the one by Mr. Garman.

As I am keeping coming back to it on our website – Brazil is the only “BRICS” from Latin America, actually in this world the third BRIC in size – after China and India. Brazil may not be able to match their 1,3 billion population each, but it clearly has more Natural Resources then either of them, and being in the Western Hemisphere, it is the one and only BRIC that shares space with the US – albeit – at quite a distance – and that is an advantage. If you wish – you may see this as sort of an anti pod to the US – about equal in size and potential and tied – even though the US is slow to admit – in a future love-hate relationship that will be main factor of the development of both countries the moment the US has realized that its addiction to Afro-Asian oil has lead to its downfall. Past mischief North Americans have committed in Brazil is hopefully over, and solid and wise cooperation could be in the cards with the people in that room as potential movers of the economic links.

{Facts: On October 3, 2010, Brazilian citizens eligible to vote will choose the successor of current President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva, of the Workers’ Party. If none of the candidates receives more than a half of the valid votes, a run-off will be held on October 31, 2010. According to the Constitution, the President is elected directly to a four-year term, with a limit of two terms. Lula is not eligible, since he was elected in 2002 and re-elected in 2006. This will mark the first time since 1989 that he will not run for President.

Lula is backing his Chief of Staff Dilma Rousseff of his Partido dos Trabalhadores (PT) – her main opponent is Sao Paulo State Governor Jose Serra, of the Partido da Social Democracia Brasileira (PSDB). Usually elections in Brazil are very lively and the event is third in importance to the Carnival and a good soccer game.}

Now to the Garman presentation: Actually for 15 years, even with changes in Government, Brazil showed an amazing continuity that led to the present growth.There is low inflation for the last 7 years and all of this came about with industrial policy and macroeconomics that made President Lula get approval ratings of 80%. Had he been able to run again the Brazilians would have gone for him, but in his absence, they still would like with an 80% majority to see his policies continued. Nevertheless, there is a problem with his choice for his replacement – it is not a strong choice – so there is not going to be a coronation but an election. This allows for the possibility that Brazilians might decide to take more risk then expected under Lula. This is more risk at fiscal policy. Thanks to the discovery of the pre-salt oil deposits there is more fiscal room and the Government driven policy of Petrobras might loosen up.  So – it is now clear that actually the elections do matter, and the contest has to be watched. The real question is – what do the voters want? Or let me put it differently, are they so bored with success that they want change?

Now I had my chance and ceased it without thinking twice. When the time for questions came, my question was right there. “Could foreign policy have an impact on the outcome of the elections in Brazil? With Brazil trying to get a seat at the UN Security Council and with its economic situation and growth having become a BRIC, would it not be the right thing for President Lula to suggest Brazil take a leadership position on the Haiti issue. Brazil is actually already involved with troops in Haiti – has even taken loses – why not claim the leadership position. There are many points of similarity in background, sugar cane etc.?”

Indeed, Mr. Garman picked up the challenge and said that this was a very good question and that by following such a path and showing to the voters that Brazil under his Administration has also had success in the international arena, this might help in the decision process towards the elections.

So, having written earlier that “Brazil could lead if asked” this turned now into “Brazil should ask to lead in order to do good not only to others but also to its own Administration.” Even economic analysts of Brazil can see that this makes sense.

Considering the large number of clicks on our postings about the Haiti catastrophe we decided to continue monitoring the situation from pure humanitarian angles – but true to our website we will look also at what the world must learn from its reaction to the goings-on in this stricken half of the Hispaniola Island and about the ways this reflects on the UN, the US, Brazil and the ALBA States. Will we realize that even without seeing any connection between this earthquake and climate change, though we did see connections between the Asian plates tectonic rim and the melting of the Antarctic ice cap, we do not see this here. But we see the denuding of the island from trees – this in order to have created the sugar cane and other plantations, as a clear contributing factor to global warming that caused the enhancement and increased frequency of the Hurricanes.

We know that the interest in our postings has to do also with our suggestion that Haiti is now the chance for Brazil to prove that they have arrived to the point that they should be considered as members of the small club of Nations that willl make a difference in the 21st century.

Brazil, that joined the powers that were on the winning side of WWII only close to the end, was nevertheless recognized by being posted as first speakers at the yearly UN General Assembly meeting. It was clear that the size of the country, and its tremendous potential, will bring it to the forefront of the new developing, post-war, world. OK – it took 60 years – but now they are there. Their history of colonizers in the Caribbeans is zero, but their background started with lots of similarities and to its advantage, it was distance wise very remote from Europe so it could breeze easier. Big Brazil and small Haiti have both much to owe to African culture and Europe induced agriculture. Yes – sugar cane, coffee, black slaves, sunny weather and so on. There was a time that in both countries life was easy as the Gershwins sing in Porgy and Bess. But Haiti fell behind.

Haiti is the world’s pits. An island South East of Puerto Rico, with a tremendous history of having been the second independent state of the Western Hemisphere, and the only one created by a rebellion of black slaves, with a French culture and lots of Voodoo, and some sons and daughters that did very well outside the country at times the country fell under local dictatorship or US invasions, has never become, just  like Cuba, a working US dependency. Perhaps this is thanks to the Americans not being able to stomach this entrenched different culture mix and the realization that it could “dilute” the white protestant US culture. While the top layer of sugar-cane growers did very well, denuded the western part of the Hispaniola island of trees and increased their bank-holdings on the back of their brothers that spiralled into abject poverty – to the dishonor of being the only western hemisphere State  that is on the UN list of the 50 least prosperous countries in the world. Actually – they are on the bottom of that list and even have the added disadvantage of being battered by natural disasters – one after another – in this last decade – three major Hurricanes and this last major Earthquake with its 7.0 epicenter just 10 miles from their capital.

Now, does the world owe them rescue? As a humanitarian obligation the answer is obviously a very strong YES. From the climate change / environmental angle – sure a clear YES with a but. Now, let us write about the BUT.

- THE NEW YORK TIMES January 17, 2010, QUOTATION OF THE DAY -

“Their priorities are to secure the country, ours are to feed. We have got to get those priorities in sync.”
- JARRY EMMANUEL, the air logistics officer for the World Food Program, after his group’s planes were diverted so the United States could land planes with troops and equipment.
 http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/17/world/…

PORT-AU-PRINCE, Haiti — As the focus on Saturday turned away from
Haitians lost to those trying to survive, a sprawling assembly of
international officials and aid workers struggled to fix a troubled
relief effort after Tuesday’s devastating earthquake.

While countries and relief agencies showered aid on Haiti, only a
small part of it was reaching increasingly desperate Haitians without
food, water or shelter. “We see all the commotion, but we still have
nothing to drink,” said Joel Querette, 23, a college student camped
out in a park. “The trucks are going by.”

Hunger drove many to swarm places where food was being given out.
Reports of isolated looting and violence intensified as night
approached, and there were reports of Haitians streaming out of the
capital.

Still, recovery and aid efforts were widening. And even the
distribution problems in the country stemmed in part from good
intentions, aid officials said: Countries around the world were
responding to Haiti’s call for help as never before. And they are
flooding the country with supplies and relief workers that its
collapsed infrastructure and nonfunctioning government are in no
position to handle.

Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton arrived in Port-au-Prince,
met with President René Préval for an hour and assured Haitians that
the United States “will be here today, tomorrow and for the time
ahead.” And in Washington, President Obama stood with former
Presidents George W. Bush and Bill Clinton, who will lead a national
drive to raise money to help the survivors.

But with Haitian officials relying so heavily on the United States,
the United Nations and many different aid groups, coordination was
posing a critical challenge. An airport hobbled by only one runway, a
ruined port whose main pier splintered into the ocean, roads blocked
by rubble, widespread fuel shortages and a lack of drivers to move the
aid into the city are compounding the problems.

About 1,700 people camped on the grass in front of the prime
minister’s office compound in the Pétionville neighborhood, pleading
for biscuits and water-purification tablets distributed by aid groups.
A sign on one fallen building in Nazon, one of many hillside
communities destroyed by the quake, read: “Welcome U.S. Marines. We
need help. Dead Bodies Inside!”

Haitian officials said the bodies of tens of thousands of victims had
already been recovered and that hundreds of thousands of people were
living on the streets. A preliminary Red Cross estimate put the total
number of affected people at 3.5 million.

The United Nations also confirmed the death of three of its most
senior officials in the quake: the secretary general’s special
representative for Haiti, Hédi Annabi; his deputy, Luiz Carlos da
Costa; and the acting police commissioner for the peacekeeping force,
Doug Coates of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. They were meeting
with eight members of a Chinese police delegation in the agency’s
headquarters, the Christopher Hotel, when it collapsed on Tuesday.

Even as the United States took a leading role in aid efforts, some aid
officials were describing misplaced priorities, accusing United States
officials of focusing their efforts on getting their people and troops
installed and lifting their citizens out. Under agreement with Haiti,
the United States is now managing air traffic control at the airport,
helicopters are flying relief missions from warships off the coast and
9,000 to 10,000 troops are expected to arrive by Monday to help with
the relief effort.

The World Food Program finally was able to land flights of food,
medicine and water on Saturday, after failing on Thursday and Friday,
an official with the agency said. Those flights had been diverted so
that the United States could land troops and equipment, and lift
Americans and other foreigners to safety.

“There are 200 flights going in and out every day, which is an
incredible amount for a country like Haiti,” said Jarry Emmanuel, the
air logistics officer for the agency’s Haiti effort. “But most of
those flights are for the United States military.

He added: “Their priorities are to secure the country. Ours are to
feed. We have got to get those priorities in sync.”

American officials said they were making substantial progress. Mrs.
Clinton said the military was beginning to use a container port in Cap
Haitien, in northern Haiti, which should increase the flow of aid.

The United States Agency for International Development was helping
choose sites and clear roads for 14 centers for the distribution of
food and water. Rajiv Shah, the agency’s administrator, said the
United States had moved $48 million of food supplies from Texas since
the quake and distributed 600,000 packaged meals. It has also
installed three water-purification systems capable of purifying
100,000 liters a day.

Yet problems remain. American officials said that 180 tons of relief
supplies had been delivered to the airport, but much was still waiting
for delivery. While the military has cleared other landing sites for
helicopters around the capital, they are thronged by people looking
for help, making landings hazardous.

Fuel shortages were mounting. At several gas stations around
Port-au-Prince, attendants or customers said that even though the
stations had fuel left in their tanks, there was no electricity to
work the pumps.

Some aid workers were critical of the United Nations, as well, arguing
that the agency had the most on-the-ground experience in Haiti and
should be directing efforts better.

But many United Nations employees were killed in the earthquake. And
Stephanie Bunker, the spokeswoman for the United Nations humanitarian
relief effort, said Saturday that a United Nations logistics team was
trying to coordinate with other agencies, and that the peacekeeping
forces were trying to clear roads.

Criticism of the United Nations “may reflect people’s frustrations
with the entire effort because it is such a grueling effort,” she
said. “It takes a long time for all this stuff to be cleared up and
fixed.” She noted that all modes of transportation — air, road and sea
— were still limited. A shortage of trucks remained a problem.

Michel Chancy, appointed by Mr. Préval to coordinate relief, said that
much of the aid to Haiti was coming to a government that was itself
under siege.

“The palace fell,” he said. “Ministries fell. And not only that, the
homes of many ministers fell. The police were not coming to work.
Relief agencies collapsed. The U.N. collapsed. It was hard to get
ourselves in a place where we could help others.”

At the American Embassy in Port-au-Prince, American rescue teams
continued to roll out of the gate. Most of their equipment had
arrived, and at any given time, the teams were working on several
different piles of rubble throughout the city.

“People need to get the message, we’re out, we’re doing stuff,” said
Craig Luecke, a coordinator with the search and rescue team from
Fairfax County, Va., who has been tracking American efforts in advance
of Mrs. Clinton’s arrival here. “My Google Earth map is filled with
American activity.”

Though the numbers are fluid, he said four American teams had helped
pulled nearly two dozen survivors from the rubble. The State
Department said 15 Americans were confirmed dead in the earthquake.

Some airplanes, after circling the capital’s airport, have been
turning back or landing in Santo Domingo, in the neighboring Dominican
Republic. Its airfield was growing ever more crowded with diverted
flights.

“We’re all going crazy,” said Nan Buzard, senior director of
international response and programs for the American Red Cross. “You
don’t have any kind of orderly distributions of food, water, shelter,
clothing. The planes are in the air, the materials are purchased. It
remains a profoundly frustrating situation for everyone.”

Among the aid groups avoiding the logjam in Port-au-Prince by entering
Haiti from the Dominican Republic was International Federation of Red
Cross and Red Crescent Societies.

A caravan of eight trucks from the federation was creeping toward the
Haitian border on Saturday morning, carrying medical equipment and aid
workers.

The group had originally planned to touch down in Haiti, but the
delays at the airport forced them to divert to Santo Domingo, delaying
their arrival in Haiti by about 12 hours, said Paul Conneally, a Red
Cross spokesman who was traveling with the convoy.

“Every minute counts, I know that, but we cannot be on standby to land
at Port-au-Prince because it may not be for two or three days,” he
said. “It’s problematic to go across roads, but it’s a small price to
pay.”

Mr. Préval, speaking at the airport, now the effective seat of the
Haitian government, urged patience. He showed a map covered with red
dots, indicating the worst-hit areas. When the earthquake struck, he
said, “We in Haiti thought it was the end of the world.”

Mr. Préval said he was making food, water, medical supplies and the
re-establishment of communication the priorities for his government.
“We have a lot of work to do,” he said.

Diane Sawyer on ABC News,1/15/10, is visibly and verbally upset that
so much food, water, etc. was still at the airport and not distributed
to the very many in desperate need and could be dead very shortly
without it.

Then one U.S. Commander interviewed, said they needed the Haitian
government to designate distribution centers, then to be approved by
the U.N., while 10,000 U.S. troops are on the way by Sunday to help in
distribution.

Have the U.S. government/military..politicians  lost their minds? If
the Haitian government, which barely exists after this tragedy, wasn’t
there for the people before the earthquake, why is anyone waiting for
this government to act now?

If the U.N., which has done little to stop genocide in Darfur with
500,000 Blacks murdered by Muslims, why in the world is the U.N. in
charge of this operation? To avoid this dilemma, our web has picked up
the COHA idea – let the Brazilians, much less suspected then the
Americans, take over for an agreed time period the keys of Haiti!

On CNN, with Anderson Cooper showing that only Dr. Gupta of CNN, is
left in a hospital with 25 wounded patients, while the UN has asked
the rest of the doctors to leave, and then to see the aerial views of
hundreds, perhaps thousands, of bodies lying on just one of the
streets, does anyone get what is going on here?

By following the supposed ‘plan’, the food and water sits at the
airport, and men, women and childen are dying .

A ‘distribution’ sight?  How about every spot where hundreds and
thousands are outside of hospitals, in parks, and in the streets,
afraid to go back into their homes, and get the food and water to
these people before they dehydrate and die. JUst don’t worry about the
fact that they did not have clean water even before this last
catastrophe hit.

Oh first we have to deal with all the ‘politics’?

Let’s see, now if the U.S. controls the airport, and not the U.N.,
then will the US be seen as ‘occupying’ Haiti? Will some see this as a
pretext to naming Haiti the US 51st State?

Then there is the big hoopla from listening to Obama that he’ll do
everything possible, including the comitment of  troops and
$100millions – some saying that this is for the reviews, while Rush
Limbaugh is obsessed on whether Obama will look good in all of this
and his ratings rise. Will he advise not to give to the Haitian people
in crisis?

If Limbaugh had a heart, he’d be pushing to feed the starving and put
the politics aside until we got through this level of the crisis.

Now with some saying 200,000 being reported dead, up from the Red Cross’s
assessment  of 45,000, we are witnessing Obama’s ‘Katrina’ of
going by ‘the book’, whatever that is, instead of stepping outside of
the box and actually making a difference.

How about just handing the water and food to everyone in need? Is this so hard to do?  How about taking care of everyone that needs the help? At what point do you need permission to be a human being and help another human being, especially when you can? Then, if this is really the case, take the Brazilians that are already in Haiti – and ask them for God’s and humanitarian sake – take the supplies and hand them out without waiting for the UN. We know, the Brazilians have lost 14 people and miss three more, but they are tough and will accept this if they see it is for a clear purpose. They also lost people in that infamous UN Baghdad disaster when the Brazilian Mission leader was killed.

This is how governments operate or don’t and they don’t… beyond the
stunts and media ploys and everyone covering their own butts, so as
not to do anything that they will have to be accountable for, while
the rest of us are expendible.

Thank G-d for independent thinking and action from volunteers.

With all the ‘chatter’ now from Yemen and another potential Muslim
Jihadist attack on the U.S. at this very time period, you can see in
Haiti the insipid approach that would happen here as well. On this, I
just observed that Saturday January 16, 2010, the Empire State
building was dressed in Green-White-Green colors – and these are the
colors of Nigeria. Is this the initiative of some private group to
thank the boy-bomber from Nigeria for awareness raising that we are
unsafe?

Can’t anyone make a decision that matters, when government bureaucrats
are in charge?

If 3 millions are affected by the Earthquake in Haiti, do we not
understand that without food or water for 5 days what is pending?

Then we watched Sean Hannity on FOX tonight talking about the
‘political earthquake’, should the Republican beat the Democrat next
Tues. for former Sen. Kennedy’s seat?

“Earthquake” Hannity? With hundreds of thousands dead in our back
yard? This is your level of consciousness to exploit using this word,
on going after Obama?

This is revolting – our stomachs turn.

How do you play ’safe’ with masses of people dying?

How do you exploit for politics, the horrors people are facing?

Appeasing those who want to kill us and then neglecting those in need
after the damage has been done, is one more example of what we are
witnessing daily in our approach in Haiti. It doesn’t matter if the
catatrophe is man-made through terrorism or by an act of G-d.

Today, after 8 yrs. illegal Haitians in Miami and in the rest of the
U.S., by the tens of thousands, they will now be allowed to stay for
18 months, eventually get green cards,  and we hope do something for
the folks back home.

But this still isn’t feeding today even one Haitian baby starving to
death or dehydrated by lack of water.

We got an e-mail saying:
“Having gone through Hurricane Andrew in 1992, I know what it is like
with 80,000 buildings destroyed and they, only admitting to 50 dead,
but there were many more.

We on Miami Beach were 17 miles from ‘Ground Zero’ and every house on
our block had no electricity for 11 days, all foods were spoiled,
every roof had to be replaced if you could find quality repair people,
not out to steal from you or legitimate insurance agencies not trying
to screw you, and in every level of survival running into obstacles
for getting food, water, gas,repairs, cleanup and a host of basics,
let alone damage to property and the emotional damage in all of it.

It took 10 years for us to recover.  Every Hurricane season we’re
glued to the weather channel in hopes of not going through it again,
and Haiti went through 3 hurricanes recently before this earthquake.
Haiti with so many of its trees destroyed. Then Papa Doc, Baby Doc,
Aristedes and even today, where are the Haitian leaders in Miami
speaking out, for they are in two political camps like the Dems. and
GOP, and neither are for the people, when it is all about them and not
us.

No matter. We MUST help those who need this emergency help.
The American people have always come to the rescue of those in need
all over the world and we’ll do it again and again for that is who we
really are and we don’t need to apologize for it either.

As a Jew, that is who I am too. That is my conscience. That is my
faith. That is my reason for being. That is my history of being a Jew
for 5000 years. Nothing to apologize for here either. My Covenant with
G-d, My Torah and My Constitution and my heart are my guides in all of
this as well as knowing so many on this level as well.” Even a secular
Jew like myself has no problem in seconding above last lines.

The Washington Post said:  “Copenhagen’s useful failure – The climate change summit’s failure is an opportunity to get green energy right.” By Bjorn Lomborg, The Washington Post, January 15, 2010.

Had this been the Lomborg title I would not have followed the leads to read the article – but then, Lomborg frased it differently – “From Copenhagen’s ashes, a better way to fight global warming” – and this is something we can agree with.

So, is it actually possible that Lomborg is only half as bad as the PRESS, and
he himself sometimes, makes him sound?

Now, that would be a complete misstatement of what we indeed feel after having
read his column.

Bjorn Lomborg is clever – he does not want to push us away, but he would like
to trap us into agreeing with him that a best action is no action.

Sure, research is always nice, but action means to use present available technology
while agreeing that the moment we start moving, it will be good old innovation that
will help us get newer and better ways of making the fuels that we set out to use -
and we surely want only renewable fuels.

Then also, why does he assume that developing new economies do not want also for
their people the clean environment that we want for our people? The economics of
sustainable development are economics of development in one’s own country as well
as economics of trade. We can not tell others how to do what they do for their own
people, and we will have to assume that that their own people will demand good
conditions like our own people do. What we have a handle on is International Trade -
and if there is one holly cow we may depend to help us is the WTO that can be induced
to have rules that invoke our responsibility regarding global warming. The moment
Bjorn Lomborg finally agreed that there is indeed a human induced climate change – he
has also agreed that there must be rules to regulate this – not so?

Having agreed that Copenhagen was badly prepared and that there was no deal to sign there,
I now disagree with him about the difference between making fossil fuels more expensive,
or renewable energy more cheap.

There will be no movement if we do not make fossil fuels more expensive BY OUTRIGHT TAXATION. Yes – we can go this way while in parallel making the alternatives cheaper by using incentives. WHAT BJORN LOMBORG IS TALKING ABOUT IS FUNDING RESEARCH – THAT MEANS SPENDING PUBLIC FUNDS FOR RESEARCH – AND WE MUST CREATE THESE  FUNDS BY TAXING THE USE OF FOSSIL FUELS. THIS IS IT WITHOUT MUMBO-JUMBO! – period and full stop with exclamation mark. Taxing the old in order to create the new.

Further, what Bjorn forgot without mentioning at all, is that before we use the new fuels or ways to supply energy from new sources, we will first try then to be more efficient in our use of energy inputs. We must thus make sure that from the waste of the polluting fuels we do not simply move to waste of lesser polluting fuels. We must thus also subsidize the re-dedication of our citizens for taking the right environmental decision to change our ways so we require less energy inputs. We must offer them for instance alternate means like public transportation where it does not exist today. Rethinking these lifestyle changes will actually create new jobs and will help the economy that will make it possible to move easier in the direction of funding the research for second and third generation technologies. These are things that an economist could step into – so here is something more to work with – Professor Lomborg!

Having said the above – please see now what Bjorn Lomborg actually did say, and wonder with us why The Washington Post changed his intent in its changed title, and why they do print something like this without at least balancing it out with more conventionally accepted thinkers that indeed tend to dismiss the Lomborg sworn position that no action on global warming is better then action – a position that he keeps back and presents from many various angles – all basically negative while covered in various shells of incomplete logic. Considering that this was printed in the Washington Post, does this mean that we sense here one more source of arrows directed at the US Congress future handling the US legislation on Energy and Climate?

From Copenhagen’s ashes, a better way to fight global warming.

By Bjorn Lomborg
Friday, January 15, 2010, The Washington Post

COPENHAGEN Even though no one should have been surprised by the
outcome of last month’s global climate summit in Copenhagen, the lack
of any meaningful action unleashed a torrent of angry and disappointed
rhetoric. “The outcome of Copenhagen doesn’t at all match the needs .
. . of mankind,” complained Sweden’s environment minister. “By
delaying action, rich countries have condemned millions of the world’s
poorest people to hunger, suffering and loss of life,” added Nnimmo
Bassey, chair of Friends of the Earth International. And those were
some of the milder comments.

Critics, however, should calm down. If anything, the summiteers did
the planet a favor by refusing to endorse a binding agreement to
drastically reduce carbon emissions. That’s because their inability to
make progress may be the nudge the international community needs to
face the real inconvenient truth: that after nearly two decades of
fruitless efforts, it’s time to give up our Rio-Kyoto-Copenhagen
fantasy and get real about combating global warming.

Two points underlie the issue of global warming: First, developing
nations have no intention of letting the developed world force them to
stop using carbon-emitting fuels. They are understandably wary of any
policy that might curtail the domestic economic growth that is
allowing their populations to clamber out of poverty. And that is
precisely what drastically reducing their carbon emissions would do.

Second, even for more-developed economies, trying to force drastic
cuts in carbon emissions makes no economic sense. All the major
climate economic models show that to achieve the much-discussed goal
of keeping temperature increases under 2 degrees Celsius, we would
need a global tax on carbon emissions that would start at $102 per ton
(or about 90 cents per gallon of gasoline) — and increase to $4,000
per ton (or $35.51 per gallon of gasoline) by the end of the century.
In all, this would cost the world $40 trillion a year. Most mainstream
calculations conclude that this is 50 times more expensive than the
climate damage it seeks to prevent.

In other words, trying to force cuts in carbon emissions is a solution
that will cost far more than the problem it is meant to solve. No
wonder this option never gained real traction.

So what do we do? Given that global energy demand is expected to
double by 2050, the only way to reduce (if not eliminate) our use of
fossil fuels without crippling the world economy is to radically ramp
up green-energy technologies — to the point where we can increase our
reliance on them by several orders of magnitude. For two decades we
have been putting the cart before the horse, pretending that we could
cut carbon emissions now and solve the technology problem later. It’s
time to turn things around. Instead of condemning billions of people
to continued poverty by trying to make fossil fuels more expensive, we
should make green energy cheaper. This means radically increasing
spending on research and development.

In a paper for the Copenhagen Consensus Center last July, Isabel
Galiana and Prof. Chris Green of McGill University examined the state
of non-carbon-based energy — including nuclear, wind, solar and
geothermal power — and came to some disconcerting conclusions. Based
on current rates of progress, they found that by 2050 our array of
alternative energy sources would produce less than half the power we
would need from them to be able to stabilize carbon emissions. By
2100, the gap would be even wider. The technology is simply not
progressing fast enough in terms of scalability or stability. This
should not be surprising. In many areas, there is still a need for the
most basic research and development. We are not even close to getting
the needed technological revolution started.

But we could be. Devoting just 0.2 percent of global gross domestic
product — roughly $100 billion (70 billion euros) a year — to green
energy R&D would produce the kind of game-changing breakthroughs
needed to fuel a carbon-free future. Not only would this be a much
less expensive fix than trying to cut carbon emissions, it would also
reduce global warming far more quickly.

So let’s be grateful that the Copenhagen summiteers were unable to
paper over their differences. Their failure should be our wake-up
call. After 20 years of getting nowhere, it’s time to take a fresh
look at the problem and adopt a different approach.

Bjorn Lomborg is director of the Copenhagen Consensus Center and the
author of “Cool It: The Skeptical Environmentalist’s Guide to Global
Warming.”

 http://www.ips-dc.org/events.

Today, six IPS experts are releasing a new report card: “Barely Making
the Grade: Obama’s First Year.” The report offers Obama a C-minus
grade, and it points out what we have learned about obstacles to
change that can guide us toward bolder change in 2010. It looks at the
three major battles of 2009: regulating the Wall Street casino,
reforming health care, and addressing climate change. In all three,
corporate interests succeeded in blocking significant change.

When we look back at U.S. presidents who were able to channel public
anger into meaningful change at the top, we can learn important
lessons for today. Many of the social protections that help working
people, the elderly, and people of color in this country were passed
in the mid-1930s under Franklin Delano Roosevelt or during the
mid-1960s under Lyndon Johnson. In both cases, well-organized
Americans created strong pressure to force change. Right now, IPS is
working with a wide variety of allies to come together to confront the
corporate interests that oppose change.

I invite you to join IPS tomorrow at noon at Busboys and Poets in
Washington, DC as Katrina vanden Heuvel, editor of the Nation and IPS
board member, leads a discussion on learning from these lessons as we
plan for 2010.

Sincerely,
John Cavanagh
IPS Director

Events
Institute for Policy Studies and its projects host events around the world. Most events take place in Washington, DC, are free and open to the public.

Calendar

Jan 15 -  Salon Event , Location Busboys and Poets, Langston Room 14th & V St NW
Washington, DC,  – 12:00 – 2:00.

The Obama Administration, One Year Later — Katrina vanden Heuvel headlines a discussion on how our voices can be heard over the next three years.

The world watched on January 20th, 2009, as Barack Obama was sworn in as the 44th President of the United States. We noted the promises he outlined in his speech and looked forward to working together as a nation.

As we continue to lay the groundwork in 2010, what can be said about his first year? Do you have a voice in defining the next three years?

Katrina vanden Heuvel, editor of The Nation magazine, will start the discussion at this salon series event.

Please RSVP to sena [at] ips-dc [dot] org or call 202-787-5277.

———————-

Jan 15  6:00 – 8:00  How can we build a movement for climate justice?

Confronting Climate Debt: What the Rich Owe the World — How can we build a movement for climate justice?

How can we build a movement for climate justice?

Three experts will discuss climate debt and its implications for building a movement for climate justice. Panelists will also share their insights on outcomes from the Copenhagen climate conference and what that means for climate activism in the U.S. and abroad.

Naomi Klein, award-winning journalist, syndicated columnist, and bestselling author of The Shock Doctrine: The Rise of Disaster Capitalism and No Logo: Taking Aim at the Brand Bullies.
Ambassador Pablo Salon, Bolivia’s Ambassador to the United Nations, negotiator at the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change, champion of climate debt.
Michele Roberts, Campaign and Policy Coordinator with Advocates for Environmental Human Rights, spoken word artist, advocate and activist for environmental justice.
Seating is on a first-come, first-serve basis. There is no entry charge. Although we can’t guarantee any seats, please go here to receive further information on climate justice from the sponsoring organizations.

This event is cosponsored by ActionAid, Friends of the Earth, Institute for Policy Studies, and Jubilee USA.

————————

Jan  18  – Author Event: Dr. Richard Wilkinson and ‘The Spirit Level: Why Greater Equality Makes Societies Stronger’ — The author will discuss the stunning new importance of Dr. Martin Luther King’s egalitarian vision.

Jan  19  – Author Event: Why More Equal Societies Almost Always Do Better — Can inequality actually be the problem policymakers address in improving America’s health, social and economic outcomes?

Jan  21 -    Brown-bag Discussion: Roberto Zamora — Join us for a discussion with the Costa Rican activist on issues of trade, Latin America, and “peace as a human right.”

Jan  27 -    Author Event: Phyllis Bennis, ‘Ending the U.S. War in Afghanistan: A Primer’ — Come to a talk and book signing with IPS fellow Phyllis Bennis.

China is the size of a continent, has 1.3 billion people, with a quite high percentage who are indeed participating in a growing economy, and show thus blooming numbers of internet connections that have increased from 100 million in 2005 to over 300 million in 2009; but China’s leaders demand control over internet content if you want to do business in the country.

China established its own Baidu.com – censored to the best of their capabilities – and will end up having this system as their main selective search engine that has already a 58% of the China market.  Google had 36% of the market, but obviously was more trusted by the Chinese – this because when agreeing to self-censorship in order to be allowed to participate in this market,  Google insisted to let the reader know that what they see is not all what there is – it has been censored. This last arrangement seemingly is not good anymore in the eyes of some China leaders, and we do not know yet what will be the position of the other outside operators like Microsoft and Yahoo.

So far as our own website goes, we have felt that readings dropped at the time of the Olympics, and as we are not a commercial enterprise, we could shrug it off. Will Google be ready to forget that small percentage of their revenue that comes from China? Do they hope that by decreeing their China problem for all to hear, they actually will return to themselves the credibility they lost when allowing censorship in the first place? What will this do to other business and institutional involvements of China? Will some in Western economies rethink their deals with China?

But this is not just about business – it is even much more about flow of information – inside China to its own people, and internationally.

What about Chinese nationals that occupy, using various long term nationality quota appointments, information positions in International organizations like the UN? Or in various financial, economic, scientific, educational … multinational institutions? Will one have now to look at the possibility that these are plants by China put there so that they interfere with free flow of information content as this happens on the internet? Are they there so they can interfere with the internet at source? Do we have to look over our shoulders and say to ourselves – that person is here because their old government put him/her in this position when they had strong interest in hindering the spread of information about climate change, addiction to oil, use of coal, infringement on human rights, problems of indigenous minorities and mind you – even indigenous peoples that might be majorities? We had our suspicion about some of these people, obviously not just from China, but also including China! As long as China was playing the chief developing country role – we might yet have believed that the changing country will outgrow this sort of things – but now with the clear claim to be the first half in a G2 relationship with the US, China and its riot control forces, China and its huge money reserves, China that may try to develop further without loosening its stands on freedom of speech and human rights, might be using such old plants also to deflect any possibility for a free press – an internet press – that might effect its own people who, in our opinion, justifiably believe that their life has improved during these last years of Chinese growth. Is this a first sign of China overconfidence?

——————
 http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/ba665a50-00ad-…

‘We’re being kept in the Stone Age’
By Kathrin Hille in Beijing
Published The Financial Times: January 14 2010

Google’s threathas heightened fears among Chinese internet users that the country could be on its way out of the global network.

“This is not an issue of Google abandoning China, but one of China abandoning the world,” one prominent blogger, Hecaitou, said on Twitter. Hecaitou’s blog was recently blocked in a growingclampdown.

Beijing has increased surveillance and regulation of the web during the past year. Last month, the Ministry for Industry and Information Technology announced that it would start requiring all sites to register their domain names with the government. Analysts say the move could transform China’s web into a vast intranet.

It is not yet clear how fully the regulators intend to implement the new rule. But strict enforcement would amount to creating a list of “allowed” websites inside China. It would put all foreign content appearing on domain names registered in other countries out of reach of Chinese users.

“The Chinese are being kept in the internet’s Stone Age,” said Xie Wen, a prominent web commentator.

Although Google’s China-based service filters its search results according to the requirements of the Chinese government, its self-censorship has been less strict than the one applied on many Chinese search engines or portals.

Observers believe that Beijing would be likely to block Google.com at least partially, as it did before the US company agreed to operate a censored service from servers in China in 2006. If the new rules on domain names are strictly enforced, Google.com and other foreign sites would be totally blacked out.

Mr Xie said: “We are not allowed to play along with web 2.0. Maybe the Chinese will become second-class citizens of the internet world. That is a real possibility. To put it more straightforward, some want to transform the internet into a national intranet.”