Transforming the Global Economic Paradigm ASAP.

Rachel’s Network “Green Leaves”
Spring Newsletter 2013
Advisor Spotlight 

We all  know well the challenges facing us. From reversing ecological and economic collapses to meeting the development needs of seven billion (and growing) residents of our planet, we’ve got our work cut out for us.

But what can one person—or one organization—do?

A lot.

Join me on an adventure to transform the global economic paradigm.

Nations, companies, and NGOs are all seeking a new global agenda. Many of these groups are now coalescing around the United Nations’ work to replace the Millennium Development Goals—the targets set back in 2004 for poverty reduction—that expire in 2015.

I’ve been asked by the King of the tiny Kingdom of Bhutan to help the world shift its development model away from the current approach of increasing the throughput of stuff and money through the economy (as measured by gross national product) to an agenda of increasing human well-being, measured as “gross national happiness.” I’m part of an International Expert Working Group, convened by the King to set forth the intellectual architecture for this new paradigm.

Where do you come in? The Expert Group has created the Alliance for Sustainability and Prosperity, or ASAP for short, to convene the expertise needed to bring genuine prosperity and well-being to everyone on the planet.

ASAP seeks your ideas. The world needs help and its leaders are asking for your answers.

How do we encourage governments, companies, and an economy obsessed with measuring and growing gross national product to shift to maximizing total well-being? For example, a divorcing cancer patient who gets in a car wreck has added to the GNP. Is she any better off? Clearly not. If you stay home to care for your children you add nothing to the GNP, but have contributed significantly of your family’s welfare, and to a healthier society.

Humankind has all of the technologies needed to solve the crises facing us.

Why aren’t we using them? How do we overcome the gridlock of governments, and inspire the best of the private sector to take more of a leadership role?

Explore the ASAP site at www.asap4all.org. The “Articles” section provides pieces written by ASAP members. See, in particular, “Building a Sustainable and Desirable Economy-in-Society-in-Nature,” with lead author Robert Costanza.

The “Public Forum” invites your best thinking. ASAP experts have been  working on this for over three decades.

But the state of the world today is a testament to the fact that we can’t do it alone. The radical utopian forecast is that we can sustain business as usual. It’s not going to be like that.

What sort of future do you want to see for the world? How do you think we can achieve it? What is already working that should be replicated more broadly? That has to be fixed? And what’s the purpose of the economy that we’re all a part of? Do we exist to serve it, or can we transform it, instead, to serve us?

If you have a good idea, but no clue how to achieve it, submit it—maybe another of you has the answer you’re seeking.
ALL of us are smarter than any of us.

We believe that it is possible to transform the global economy into one that delivers greater human well-being and happiness, while nestling gracefully into the larger ecosystem that sustains all life. Indeed, doing this is key to ending the global economic crisis. We can’t achieve one without doing the other.

Presidents Obama and Xi agreed at RANCHO MIRAGE, California to fight Climate Change by cutting the use of the Ozone Depleting Hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs) – this according to a press release from the White House.

It is not clear to us if The Rancho Mirage Agreement includes steps on reducing CO2 emissions.

In effect we found that big statements on an agreement on Climate Change have just very little to stand on - www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/06/08…

The following release from IIASA is much more to the point regarding the needs for a US-China agreement on Climate Change then what it seems was obtained ay the Rancho Mirage meeting.

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

“For China: To cut CO2 – account for outsourcing!”
That is our rewrite of the original IIASA title.

In order to reach targets for CO2 emissions, China should count CO2 emissions where products are consumed, not simply where they are produced, say IIASA researchers.

The new study, published in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS), provides a detailed consumption-based accounting of carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions in China.

Consumption-based accounting allocates emissions to the province where products are ultimately consumed, rather than simply focusing on where emissions occur. It shows that policies to reduce emissions in China may tend to push factories and production into developing regions of the country.

“China has set emissions targets which are more stringent in affluent coastal provinces than in less-developed interior provinces. This may reduce emissions in one region, but in China as a whole, you find CO2 emissions continue to increase, because the polluting factories move into the less-developed regions,” says Laixiang Sun, IIASA and University of Maryland researcher who co-authored the study along with an international team including two former participants in IIASA’s Young Scientists Summer Program (YSSP). Instead, say the researchers, accounting for carbon emissions based on consumption rather than production could create better incentives and fair distribution of responsibilities to reduce greenhouse gas emissions both nationally and globally.

China is currently the largest emitter of CO2, pumping out 7.2 gigatons of the greenhouse gas every year as of 2007, the year that the study examined. This emission figure shot up to about 10 gigatons in 2011. While the country has pledged to improve their CO2 intensity—the amount of emissions per unit of GDP—Sun says, these efforts may simply encourage provinces to outsource their emissions to poorer regions, placing an unfair and unmanageable burden on those regions.

The same effect occurs on a global scale, as richer countries outsource polluting industries and manufacturing to developing countries—including China—where costs are lower and regulations may be more lax.

“We must reduce CO2 emissions, not just outsource them,” says Sun. “Developed regions and countries need to take some responsibility, providing technology support or investment to promote cleaner, greener technology in less-developed regions.”

Overall, 57% of China’s fossil fuel emissions were from production of things eventually consumed in a different province or in another country. This study for the first time quantified these emissions on a detailed regional scale. The researchers used an economic input-output model that can track trade flows across sectors and regions, accounting for emissions triggered by final consumption across the entire production supply chain.

——————————–

About the researchers
Laixian Sun is a senior research scholar in IIASA’s Ecosystems Services and Management Program, and an adjunct professor at the University of Maryland.

Klaus Hubacek is a professor at the University of Maryland. Hubacek participated in IIASA’s YSSP in 1999, and has collaborated with IIASA and Sun since that time.

Dabo Guan is an Associate Professor at the University of Leeds, and participated in IIASA’s YSSP in 2004.

——————————-

Reference
Feng, K, SJ Davis, L Sun, X Li, D Guan, W Liu, Z Liu, and K Hubacek. 2013. Outsourcing CO2 within China. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. To access the paper, please visit the PNAS Reporters Web site, or contact us.

For more information please contact:

Klaus Hubacek
Department of Geographical Sciences
University of Maryland, LeFrak 2181
College Park, MD 20740, USA
Tel: +1 301-405-4567
hubacek@umd.edu

Laixiang Sun
IIASA Senior Research Scholar
Ecosystems Services and Management
Tel: +43 2236 807 456
sun@iiasa.ac.at; LS28@soas.ac.uk

Katherine Leitzell
IIASA Press Office
Tel: +43 2236 807 316
Mob: +43 676 83 807 316
leitzell@iiasa.ac.at

This report of ours starts with the May 22nd, 2013 meeting of The Vienna Club of Thinkers. The Topic was Energy Turnaround from a thinking person’s point of view. The presenter was Wilhelm Michael Zankl and the audience looked and sounded like a Mensa Club reunion.
The location was Cafe Benno, Alser Strasse 67, 1080 Vienna, and the club meets every Wednesday 8 PM.

The second event was the following day at the Renner Institut (the Governing Austrian Socialist Party Think tank) at their usual meeting-place at Garden-Hotel Altmansdorf (Hotel 2), Oswaldgasse 69, 1120 Vienna – and the topic was “Does the Energy Turnaround create jobs?

What drove our attention to these meetings is the upcoming introduction of the SE4All (Sustainable Energy for All) at the three-day meeting at the Austrian Presidency Halls – the Hofburg – May 28-30 – next week. But let me immediately say that I do not think that there was any direct planning of these meetings because of the conference – at least the people I talked to at above two meetings did not know about the larger event, rather I think that the topic of Energy Policy being picked up these days by the European Commission in Brussels, is the general motivator of these meetings, and the newspapers keep providing motivating articles as well.

——————————————

In 1990, Zankl wrote “Energy, Anergy, Anarchy” with the latest edition of 1995 – the content of his logic has not really changed since. He cooperated with Hermann Scherr and Jeremy Rifkin and the system is clear. The road in front of us is clearly depicted:

You see a car nearing a decision point:

- No Oil – this is the end of the way

- No Nuclear – with a two kilometer slippery slope, at 3km you get storm and lightning and a sign of turn around

- Water, Sun and Wind – clear choice.

What is energy? It means “Inside – Somewhere” from two Greek words – then you divide it – you can use it.

Fast run down takes us to Archimedes, Leibnitz, Carnot (First law of Thermodynamics, Rudolph Clausius (Second Law of Thermodynamics).

Energy is Power, mass, and Work as energy per time and power per distance.

Anergy is what escapes to the environment. Entropy tells us we cannot bring it back – it pollutes the Environment and Hermann Scherr said it ought to be taxed – rather then the CO2.

There is an energy entropy, a matter entropy, and an information entropy – nothing is 100% sure. Order is the lowest entropy. A constructive process can be seen as negative entropy.

Biology uses energy sparingly but we humans waste it. But energy is existence. Energy is Welfare. If you want to waste energy – waste solar energy – it is there for us to waste. We get to politics and here to the conflict of interest with the notion of centralism – farmer unions and bio-energy.

He sees no problem if 10 billion people operate 5 billion electric vehicles with power derived from the sun and wind. The Turnaround must change the corporate economy to a people’s economy.

Growth Sustainability is not possible – this needs boundless energy that is not produced with oil, coal, Natural Gas.

Regenerative energy comes from wind, photovoltaic, biogas.

Time bombs: Change of Ocean Streams (the Gulf Stream), Melting of Glaciers, Methane Hydrates.

Global Warming but in Europe cooling because of the melting of glaciers.

Looking at 160,000 years CO2 curve we see the risingin the last 23,000 years with very intensive rising in the last 200 years.

He calculates the waste of money because of our neglecting to use the energy from the sun. The loss per meter square is 100 Euro and it is estimated that at least 30 Euro could have been easily obtained. This is decentralized energy – not the Desertech kind which he rejects.

At Q&A time much more came into focus. Vienna could export electricity if all roof space were used.

In the audience was also Herbert Rauch who in 2005 wrote with Alfred Strigl “Die Wende der Titanic” (The Turn of the Titanic) and created the “EUROPEAN ASSOCIATION FOR THE PROMOTION OF SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT”  ESD  –  www.esd-eu.akis.at

It is just a pity that our corporate world never really built policies around the ideas of these thinkers – and we stopped a long time ago wondering why.

———————————-

The four hour long, two part, Renner Institute Seminar with encouragement from the European Commission, was a mixed bag. It included a variety of presenters divided into two panels by the moderator – Mr. Guenther Strobl, the Business Editor of “Der Standard.” The first panel dealt rather with generalities and the second panel was defined as from sectors. So the first panel had CEOs of major Austrian institutions and full audience, while the second panel lost half of the audience and that was a pity.

The first panel included the Director of the Board in charge of Energy at the Wiener Stadtwerke (the Vienna Energy that  supplies around two million people with electricity, gas and heat.) Mr. Marc Hall; Mr. Sven Hergovich The Environment and Transport head of the Labor Board of Vienna; Mr. Manfred Pils of the Austrian Power Grid and with the Naturamico International; and Ms. Theresis Vogel, business chair of Climate and Energy Funds.

I just did not believe my ears – the word “Nachhaltigkeit” or Sustainability in any form – was not mentioned by these speakers even once.

Indeed – the first speaker was Mr. Pils and he spoke of the problem that Fukushima made nuclear impossible and that in the EU 13 million people living at the sea-shore will lose their homes if the sea level rises by one meter. He mentioned the big bill that the EU pays for importing energy.
Then he asked – How do you finance efficiency? The investor is not the one who benefits from the increased efficiency of a building.

He spoke of the gas network as the best way to deposit energy and suggested the recycling of CO2 by making CH4 out of it. Sounds good but when and how?

Ms. Vogel stressed efficiency as Europe is committed to decrease CO2 emissions by 80-85% by 2050.

Mr. Hall also stressed efficiency and reminded us of Amory Lovins’ NEGAWATT. He defined Energy Turnaround for Germany as Electric Power creation and the avoidance of liquid fuel for mobility.

Mr. Hergovich suggested numbers for new jobs but did not clearly explain how it will be done.

The Q&A was lively and at the end I engaged Mr. Hall on the issue of the missing concept of Sustainability as a starting point to the discussion.
That is when I learned that the gentleman regards fossil fuels as renewables – only it takes a little longer. Climate Change is not something he worries about. Nice – but I do! It seemed that the members of the panel had in mind the rear-guard effort of surviving assault from people they do not trust.

The second panel, was much more open to innovation.  I will mention them in the order of their appearance – as the later they spoke in the pecking order, the better it got.

First speaker was Herbert Lechner the scientific coordinator of the Austrian Energy Agency – a government institution.
He compared Germany and Austria and spoke of Energy (R)EVOLUTION as choice between Evolution and Revolution in order to achieve the 2050 goals.
This can be achieved only if Zero-Emission buildings are part of new construction. But that is only the tip of the iceberg – the old buildings will continue to waste energy until replaced he explained.

The second speaker Michael Strebl, the CEO of Salzburg Netz GmbH, the promoter of the Smart-Grid of the Salzburg region. They work with Siemens. In the Koestendorf community they plan to use heat-pump systems.

Ms. Karin Tauz is the Head of the Business Unit that develops Electric Mobility for the Austria-Tech company that belongs to the Federal Government for Technology oriented political measures themes. She sounded very goal oriented and in tune with what politics needs in order to come up with solutions. She actually got applause from the remaining audience.

And now the last speaker – Mr. Hubert Ladinger who is with Ludwig-Boelkow-Systems Technology GmbH of Ottobrunn, Bavaria, Germany.
They work on a system to store electric power by creating a gas that is usable – CH4, H2 …

Finally I heard the word Sustainability. www.LBST.de uses electrolysis to create these usable gasses and thus a way to store the energy obtained from the sun or the wind – for later use that can include Fuel Cells or Gas Turbines. THEY SELL WIND-GAS and before you know they can replace the Fracking-Gas !!  Further – he actually had employment figures and made suggestions to answer the questions that were posed before the first six speakers said what they did.

As part of the Q&A, it occurred to me that the seminar was actually very good because it exposed the negatives and eventually landed on a positive. And really what are seminars for? I respect a seminar when it provides the listener with enough ideas so he can leave and create by himself – in this respect – this seminar was a great success. Just listening to people tooting their horns hardly ever is worth the time spent.

Also – to the suggestion of EVOLUTION vs. REVOLUTION – it became clear to me that it is neither.

WHAT IS NEEDED IS REFORMATION.

Further, it seems that the word REFORMATION with its old use in the replacement of corrupt church behavior of the Middle Ages, a new system based on much less waste and simpler demands by the public of the time, is indeed what the ENERGY TURNAROUND will have to come up with.

It was clear to me that voicing this to the people that came to the seminar will fall on deaf ears – and it did. But the LOGIC THINKERS might appreciate this better. Also I hope that next week’s three days exercise might come up with a beginning of a roadmap to get us to 2015, 2025 and beyond.

———————–

Over the weekend several articles and advertisements came to my attention:

First the self-congratulatories in Der Standard and the Kronen Zeitung of the Austrian OMV Oil Company about its Pipelines and Technologies – that they want us to think that are what is needed to secure a good energy future.

Then the article in the Business Section of the “Die Furche” of May 23, 2013, by Austria Ambassador to China Irene Giner-Reichl “Focus Energy-Revolution” about the Upcoming Energy Forum that starts May 28th. THE SUSTAINABLE ENERGY FOR ALL concept being based on Electricity that has a largely increased content coming from Renewable Energy. As per the UN, the intent is to double the Renewable Energy content  by 2030.

And in the weekend Der Standard – 25/26 May 2013 – Mr. Guenther Strobl, the moderator of the Renner Institute panels of May 23rd, has interviewed former German Environment Minister and former head of UNEP – Professor Klaus Toepfer, who told him that the idea of having a cheap energy policy in the EU does not make sense. My God, why did Mr. Strobl not take advantage of this concept at his Thursday panels? Or did this interview happen only on Friday the 24th?

The use of gas from underground fracking shale in order to replace reliance on more dirty oil is not something that can be noticed only in passing – a much more serious look at this technology is needed. But then this will not come up unless investigative reporting is ordered by editors of respected media.

Further – just saw the “Die Presse” of today – Monday, May 27, 2013 – article by Professor Emeritus at the University of Vienna Physics Department who lectures on Energy – Professor Gero Vogel. The title is “THE BIG SOBERING UP FROM THE ENERGY TURNAROUND” – the Energiewende – that this old-timer professional was very suspicious all the time because he knew that the talk of having “OECOSTROM” in Austria was just not true. While getting its electricity from hydro-power, nevertheless September to March Austria is short of water and imports from the European power market the nuclear and coal generated electricity from the Czech Republic – which the Austrian deride for their way of producing that electricity in the first place. (for those interested – the reference is to -”Die grosse Ernuechterung nach der Energiewende.”)

The Professor is obviously right describing the political reality – but like him saying that the weather now is warm and the snow melted, which is factually not true, as Austria is now again in the middle of a two weeks spell of freezing weather – he is wrong about the potential of having clean energy – honestly – for all of the EU. The Energy turnaround is not behind us – the truth is that we have not entered it yet. The conservative leaders of business hold us back for their very narrow economic reasons that if allowed will push us to environmental hell.

From  webmaster@energies-renouvelables.org the publisher of EU Renewable Energy “Barometers.”

The 2013 EurObserv’ER Photovoltaic Barometer has been released. This new report focuses on developments in Europe regarding photovoltaic (PV) electricity generation for the year 2012.
The bi-lingual EurObserv’ER PV Barometer is available for free download at:
www.eurobserv-er.org/pdf/baro-jdp9.asp
(PDF, English/French, 24 pages, 2.2 MB)

Key data for the year 2012 for the European Union (EU-27):
–       Photovoltaic capacity connected in the EU in 2012: 16.5 GWp (22.0 GWp in 2011)
–       Installed PV capacity 68.6 GWp in the European Union at the end of 2012 (52.1 GWp end 2011)
–       Photovoltaic electricity generated in the EU in 2012: 68.1 TWh (45.3 TWh in 2011)

ENGLISH – Read more in the press release:
www.eurobserv-er.org/pdf/press/year_2013/photovoltaic/english.pdf

FRANCAIS – Plus d’informations dans le communiqué de presse:
www.eurobserv-er.org/pdf/press/year_2013/photovoltaic/francais.pdf

DEUTSCH – Lesen Sie weiter in der deutschen Pressemitteilung unter:
www.eurobserv-er.org/pdf/press/year_2013/photovoltaic/deutsch.pdf

ESPANOL – Si desea más información, consulte la nota de prensa en español en:
www.eurobserv-er.org/pdf/press/year_2013/photovoltaic/espanol.pdf

Another way to stay informed on future releases is to follow #EurObserv’ER through Twitter at twitter.com/EurObserv_ER.

—————————————————————————————–
See also the EurObserv’ER policy files at www.eurobserv-er.org/policy.asp with renewable energy policies in all 27 EU Member States for all technologies.
The next EurObserv’ER release will regard solar thermal energy (water heaters and concentrating solar power).
About the EurObserv’ER Barometer: Targeting the press and the interested general public, the EurObserv’ER consortium releases ‘Technology Barometers’ every other month.
The barometers focus on the latest state of renewable energies (solar energy, wind power, hydropower, geothermal energy and bioenergy) in EU member states.

—————————————————————————————-
Note: the interactive database on the website –
(click on ‘Interactive EurObserv’ER Database’ on the www.eurobserv-er.org homepage) –
allows you to download the Barometer data separately.
This allows you to create your own graphs to be used in your publication.

—————————————————————————————

Direct links to all 2013/2012/2011 EurObserv’ER publications:

Solar Photovoltaic Barometer
(April 2013, PDF, 26 pages, English/French language, 2.2 MB):
www.eurobserv-er.org/pdf/baro-jdp9.asp

Wind Power Barometer
(February 2013, PDF, English/French, 24 pages, 2.4 MB):
www.eurobserv-er.org/pdf/baro-jde12.asp

‘The State of Renewable Energies in Europe’, 2012 edition
(January 2013, PDF, English/French language, 240 pages, 15 MB)
www.eurobserv-er.org/pdf/bilan12.asp

Solid Biomass Barometer
(December 2012, PDF, English/French language, 16 pages, 2.1 MB)
www.eurobserv-er.org/pdf/baro212biomassEu.asp

Biogas Barometer
(December 2012, PDF, English/French language, 14 pages, 2.0 MB)
www.eurobserv-er.org/pdf/baro212biogasEu.asp

Renewable Municipal Waste Barometer
(December 2012, PDF, English/French language, 12 pages, 1.9 MB)
www.eurobserv-er.org/pdf/baro212mswEu.asp

Biofuels Barometer
(July 2012, PDF, English/French language, 21 pages, 3.6 MB)
www.eurobserv-er.org/pdf/baro210.asp

Solar Thermal Barometer
(June 2012, PDF, 24 pages, English/French language, 3.7 MB):
www.eurobserv-er.org/pdf/baro209.asp

Ground source Heat Pump Barometer
(September 2011, PDF, English/French language, 20 pages, 2.6 MB)
www.eurobserv-er.org/pdf/baro205.asp

—————————————————————————————————————–

Kind request: if you are referring to EurObserv’ER data in an article, report or other medium, please reference the source as follows:
“Source: EurObserv’ER, HYPERLINK “www.eurobserv-er.org” www.eurobserv-er.org, 2013”.

When including a web link to an article on the Barometer, for technical reasons please use www.eurobserv-er.org/pdf/bilan12.asp and not a direct link to the PDF file.

The EurObserv’ER barometer is a project supported by the European Commission within the DG Energy “Intelligent Energy Europe” programme.
It is also supported by Ademe, the French Environment and Energy management Agency, and Caisse des Dépôts.
The sole responsibility for the content of this publication lies with the author.
It does not represent the opinion of the European Union, nor that of Ademe, or Caisse des dépôts.
Neither the EACI, the European Commission, Ademe nor Caisse des dépôts are responsible for any use that may be made of the information contained therein.

 We kept the April 12, 2013 New York Times article as a draft because we basically found it very one-sided and know very little about “Berkeley Earth” or Elizabeth Muller (*), but with information about the Koch Brothers professed skepticism of progressive ideas.

Now we decided to post this because of Fareed Zakaria, someone we hold in high esteem, saying this Sunday on CNN/GPS, that in order to start putting a limit to the emission of CO2 globally, the best step for the US would be to share, what he called safe technologies of Shale Fracking and gas production, this in order to replace the reliance on burning coal as it is done now in China. We know this to be the wrong advice:

(1) there is no technology of “fracking the shale” that is safe to the ground water reservoirs.

(2) fracking and shale-gas will slow down the commercialization of truly positive renewable energy technologies,

and (3) the worse of all – it starts looking like “The Rhinoceros” of World War II Eugene Ionesco – the slow developing of a takeover by an aggressive wrong and obnoxious ideology – and the Koch Brothers are versed in technologies in this respect. 

So – let us say: Fareed Zakaria expressed the idea that Shale Gas is a step in the right direction, but we do not think so – and thousands of scientists agree with us but have suspicions about the proponents of the fracking myth.

Op-Ed Contributor

China Must Exploit Its Shale Gas.

By ELIZABETH MULLER

Published, The New York Times on-line: April 12, 2013

IF the Senate confirms the nomination of the M.I.T. scientist Ernest J. Moniz as the next energy secretary, as expected, he must use his new position to consider the energy situation not only in the United States, but in China as well.

Mr. Moniz, a professor of physics and engineering systems and the director of M.I.T.’s Energy Initiative, sailed through a confirmation hearing Tuesday before the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee.

But some environmentalists are skeptical of Mr. Moniz. He is known for advocating natural gas and nuclear power as cleaner sources of energy than coal and for his support of hydraulic fracturing to extract natural gas from shale deposits. The environmental group Food and Water Watch has warned that as energy secretary, he “could set renewable energy development back years.”

The criticism is misplaced. Instead of fighting hydraulic fracturing, environmental activists should recognize that the technique is vital to the broader effort to contain climate change and should be pushing for stronger standards and controls over the process.

Nowhere is this challenge and opportunity more pressing than in China. Exploiting its vast resources of shale gas is the only short-term way for China, the world’s second-largest economy, to avoid huge increases in greenhouse gas emissions from burning coal.

China’s greenhouse gas emissions are twice those of the United States and growing at 8 percent to 10 percent per year. Last year, China increased its coal-fired generating capacity by 50 gigawatts, enough to power a city that uses seven times the energy of New York City. By 2020, an analysis by Berkeley Earth shows, China will emit greenhouse gases at four times the rate of the United States, and even if American emissions were to suddenly disappear tomorrow, world emissions would be back at the same level within four years as a result of China’s growth alone.

The only way to offset such an enormous increase in energy use is to help China switch from coal to natural gas. A modern natural gas plant emits between one-third and one-half of the carbon dioxide released by coal for the same amount of electric energy produced. China has the potential to unearth large amounts of shale gas through hydraulic fracturing. In 2011, the United States Energy Information Administration estimated that China had “technically recoverable” reserves of 1.3 quadrillion cubic feet, nearly 50 percent more than the United States.

The risk is that what is now a nascent Chinese shale gas industry may take off in a way that leads to ecological disaster. Many of the purchasers of drilling rights in recent Chinese auctions are inexperienced.

Opponents of this drilling method point to cases in which gas wells have polluted groundwater or released “fugitive” methane gas emissions. The groundwater issue is worrisome, of course, and weight for weight, methane has a global warming potential 25 to 70 times higher than carbon dioxide, the principal greenhouse gas that results from the burning of coal.

Moving away from fossil fuels entirely may make sense in the United States, where we can potentially afford to pay for more expensive renewable sources of energy. But developing countries have other priorities, like improving the education and health of their people. Given the dangers that hydraulic fracturing poses for groundwater pollution and gas leaks, we must help China develop an approach that is environmentally sound.

Mr. Moniz has warned of the need to curb environmental damage from the process. But he has also stressed the value of natural gas as a “bridging” source of energy as we strive to move from largely dirty energy to clean energy. Extracting shale gas in an environmentally responsible way is technically achievable, according to engineering experts. Accomplishing that goal is primarily a matter of engineering and regulation.

That is where we need the engagement of environmental activists. At home, they can push the United States to set verifiable standards for clean hydraulic fracturing and enforce those standards through careful monitoring. Internationally, American industry can lead by showing that clean production can be profitable.

We need a solution for energy production that can displace the rapid growth of coal use today. Switching from coal to natural gas could reduce the growth of China’s emissions by more than 50 percent and give the world more time to bring down the cost of solar and wind energy to levels that are affordable for poorer countries.

 ——————————————–

Ecologic Institute: An International Think Tank for Environment and Development.

The Vienna Solarstammtisch that meets at the “Zum Hagenthaler” Restaurant at Wallgasse 32, 1060 Wien, every third Thursday of the month, is a creation of Eurosolar Austria.  www.eurosolar.at

It is led by Professor Franz Niessler, and the information is usually conveyed by Eng. Herbert Eberhardt   herbert.ebergardt at eurosolar.at

Many of the the Solar Table participants own electric vehicles and live in energy-saving homes equiped for use of solar energy.

At the May 2013 meeting, the First presenter was Rosemarie Dietz, a Green visionary from Perchtoldsdorf NO, who related her experiences when crossing on foot the length of Lower Austria (Niederoesterreich) looking for the implementation of renewable energy on her path. She was looking for location of wind-mills and for the use of photovoltaic use of solar energy, but she also found that there were no-more small local restaurants on her way where one could have stopped for a meal and a drink. The villages are shrinking and the young people move to the large cities. The small scale agriculture that was the base of the rural sector has vanished and everything is bought at the large supper markets like in the city – much of it imported from long distance.

The moderator was Gerhard Kohlmaier and the main speaker Professor Hannes Bauer who is now with the Union of Retirees of Lower Austria, Head of the Political and Economic Futures Forum and building an effort for change. His target is the economic security of the individual in a growing strength of the European Union. He clearly sees in providing safeguards for the communities in villages – people living on and from the land – the best way of providing this security – and it clearly grabs our attention because this is also our belief.

Dr. Bauer looked at the ethics of high social, ecological and democratic values as strength for Austria in the EU context – Quality of Life and the Social Security of the citizens are the goals of his sort of politics.

Dr. Hannes Bauer is not a newcomer to Austrian Politics. During the years 1989-1991 and 2000-2008 he was a Socialist Party member of the Austrian Parliament and 1986-1987 State Secretary in the Ministry of Trades, Industry, and Labor. His background is economics – business development. Having started out from the State Government of Lower Austria and entering in 1991 the Leadership of at the the Federal level of the Austrian Socialist Party. He belongs to the Chancellor Bruno Kreisky School of active policy-oriented Socialism.

The meeting of the Solar-Table May meeting was amazing. Besides the Austrian political Reds and Greens, present were also the Blacks, Blues, and the new Stronach Yellow – and all got involved in the conversation. Needless to say that all were for solar energy but had difficulty accepting each-others honesty in pursuing the goal of a decentralized, community-based, small-town or village based economy – though all adhered to such a goal.

Energy was a main topic. How do we build back an agriculture that will provide biofuels, and how do we do so that the villages rely on photovoltaic solar energy and windmills – being independent of big corporation electricity grids, and even able to supply energy to the National grid? How do we convince the governing powers that there is no need of shale-fracking – this beyond the obvious that fracking is dangerous to the environment? How does one handle American intervention in EU economy planning?

I will now do something unusual – I am going to put forward the ideas I voiced at the meeting and which I felt summarized the different points of view in an event that sounded like a political competition, but that could easily be turned into a united National front for independence from outside economic forces. All what is needed now is a single party to come up with such ideas in its platform and invite the others to join in.

Let us start now:

The thesis is that what grows on the land is sustainable and positive, what comes from the inside of the earth will not endure, is unsustainable, and negative.

Planting for food and fuel, for animal feed and industrial feed-stocks, for human and animal life, is all based on the continuous energy that reaches the earth from the sun – thus non depleting. This is done by people living in small communities on the land – this activity if cared for, with the help of appropriate National policies, will keep people on the land and avoid their migration to magnet-cities something the topic of the evening was aimed to achieve.

Planting wind mills and solar collectors, like the photovoltaic collectors, on the land or roof-tops, is just another act of reaping results with the help of solar energy – exactly like growing vegetation or animals. We see no difference here.

Looking under the land for riches deposited in the past, the likes of fossil fuels of all sorts – coal, shale, oil, gas, and figuring out technologies to extract them from underground, amounts to using up in a short time of natures bank-deposits. On top of this it gave us the CO2 problem and clear climate-change – both avoidable if we refrain from using fossil fuels.

ERGO: Working the land revives the villages and provides us with what we need. Searching ways to obtain products out of fossil deposits, destroys the land, the population living on the land, and eventually the whole economy, because of the way it effects the environment, the social and economic development of the State, and the security of the people who lose their direct relationship to the land.

What political party will have the courage to put a return to a land policy of growth on its election banner?

————————

Further:

Mr. Eberhardt brought to show the new Renaud “Twizy” small two-seater electric vehicle.

———–

Next Solar Table meeting will be Thursday, June 20, 2013, same location, 18:00 pm (6PM)

THE TOPIC:  RENEWABLE PRIMARY MATERIALS – “NAWAROS” – (“Nachwachsende Rohstoffe”).

A lot has happened in the last week. The Earth hit the 400 parts per million CO2 threshold for the first time in human history. Scientists tell us this is bad news if we want to prevent runaway climate change. “If we continue to burn fossil fuels at accelerating rates, if we continue with business as usual, we will cross the 450 parts per million limit in a matter of maybe a couple decades,” scientist Michael Mann told Democracy Now! “We believe that with that amount of CO2 in the atmosphere, we commit to what can truly be described as dangerous and irreversible changes in our climate.”

 

 

 

May 17, 2013  | from Tara Lohan on AlterNet

If you didn’t know this already, we should be listening to Mann and to other scientists. I thought this was settled a long time ago, but someone keeps giving print space to climate deniers, so a new survey of 12,000 peer-reviewed studies on the climate was just completed and the not-so-shocking conclusion was this, as Mother Nature Network reports:

Published this week in the journal Environmental Research Letters, the analysis shows an overwhelming majority of climate scientists agree that humans are a key contributor to climate change, while a “vanishingly small proportion” defy this consensus. Most of the climate papers didn’t specifically address humanity’s involvement — likely because it’s considered a given in scientific circles, the survey’s authors point out — but of the 4,014 that did, 3,896 shared the mainstream outlook that people are largely to blame.

In light of this news, it makes it even more infuriating to see that the Obama administration has spent the week prostrating to the fossil fuel lobby. Here are four disturbing things the administration’s been up to.

1. Moniz Hearts Fracking

Obama tapped nuclear physicist Ernest Moniz to head the Energy Department and the Senate gave a big thumbs-up to Moniz on Thursday. Many environmental groups had concerns that Moniz was too pro-fracking, and those concerns are clearly warranted. Moniz’s first order of business Friday was to clear the way for 20 years of liquified natural gas exports via Freeport LNG Terminal on Quintana Island, Texas.

Of course, we’ve already been sold the story that we’re suposed to frack the crap out of the country in the name of energy security, but we knew all along it was for industry profit, right? Brad Jacobson recently detailed for AlterNet about how Congress members are clamoring for export plans to be fast-tracked — although what Americans will get out of the deal
will be higher gas prices and less energy security.

2. Thanks for Nothing, Sally

While the nomination of Moniz disappointed many environmentalists, some were cheered by REI exec Sally Jewell taking over the Interior Department. Those same folks might not be cheering after Jewell announced the Bureau of Land Management’s newest regulations (or lack thereof) for fracking on our public lands.

As Sierra Club’s Michael Brune reported Friday:

The new rules are disappointing for many reasons: Drillers won’t be required to disclose what chemicals they’re using, there is no requirement for baseline water testing, and there are no setback requirements to govern how close to homes and schools drilling can happen. Once again, though, the policy documents an even bigger failure to grasp a fundamental principle: If we’re serious about the climate crisis, then the last thing we should be doing is opening up still more federal land to drilling and fracking for fossil fuels.

3. No Time for Farmers

The group Bold Nebraska reported this week that Obama turned down an invitation to hear from Nebraska farmers and ranchers about their concerns that the Keystone XL pipeline could destroy their livelihoods. Of course, the President is a busy guy, right? And besides, the White House said he was not “taking any meetings on the pipeline.”

Or is he? The group writes:

Bold Nebraska was therefore surprised the President is meeting with staff at Ellicott Dredges, a company that just testified in Congress in support of Keystone XL and makes equipment that creates the tailing ponds, which are massive bodies of polluted water and a byproduct of the tar sands mining process.

“I simply do not understand why President Obama can find the time to visit a company that helps hold 12 million liters of toxic tar sands water but cannot find the time to visit ranchers who put over $12 billion of Nebraska-grown food on Americans’ dinner tables every year,” said Meghan Hammond, a young farmer whose family land is at risk with the current route in Nebraska.

4. Who Needs the Arctic? (Hint: We Do)

Subhankar Banerjee, a photographer and longtime Arctic activist, was recently appalled by a new report from the Obama administration on the future of the Arctic. And the rest of us should be, too. Banerjee writes about the report:

“Our pioneering spirit is naturally drawn to this region, for the economic opportunities it presents…” President Obama hides his excitement for oil and gas drilling in the Arctic Ocean by carefully choosing the euphemism—“economic opportunities.”

In page 7 the true intent of the report is finally revealed: “The region holds sizable proved and potential oil and natural gas resources that will likely continue to provide valuable supplies to meet U.S. energy needs.”

Of course the report mentions protecting the environment, but gives no specific details.

We know that Obama talks a good talk about climate protection, but his second term has proven thus far that he’s completely out of touch with reality. You can’t hit 400 ppm CO2 and still think “all of the above” is a rationale energy strategy.

 ————————————-

Observed concentrations of carbon dioxide (CO2) in the atmosphere have exceeded the symbolic 400 parts per million (ppm) threshold at several stations of the World Meteorological Organization’s Global Atmosphere Watch network. This is a wakeup call about the constantly rising levels of this greenhouse gas, which is released into the atmosphere by fossil fuel burning and other human activities and is the main driver of climate change. Carbon dioxide remains in the atmosphere for thousands of years, trapping heat and causing our planet to warm further, impacting on all aspects of life on earth.

On May 9, 2013, the daily mean concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere of Mauna Loa, Hawaii, recorded a reading of 400.03 ppm, according to the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. Mauna Loa is the oldest continuous atmospheric measurement station in the world and so is widely regarded as a benchmark site in the Global Atmosphere Watch.

Several other Global Atmosphere Watch stations have also reported CO2 concentrations exceeding the 400 ppm threshold during the seasonal maximum. This occurs early in the northern hemisphere spring before vegetation growth absorbs CO 2.

The threshold was first crossed at stations in the Arctic. A monthly average value exceeding 400 ppm was registered at Barrow, Alaska, USA (71.3N) for the first time in April 2012, as well as at Alert, in Canada (82.5N). From the beginning of 2013, measured CO 2. values at another GAW Global station, in Ny-Ålesund, Norway, (at 78.9N) also exceeded 400 ppm. This threshold has now also been crossed at stations closer to the Equator. Izaña, (Canary Islands, Spain), reported daily mean values exceeding 400 ppm at the end of April 2013. This was followed by Mauna Loa, which has been carrying out measurements since 1958.

The Global Atmosphere Watch coordinates observations of CO2 and other heat-trapping gases like methane and nitrous oxide in the atmosphere to ensure that measurements around the world are standardized and can be compared to each other. The network spans more than 50 countries including stations high in the Alps, Andes and Himalayas, as well as in the Arctic, Antarctic and in the far South Pacific.

Carbon dioxide is the single most important greenhouse gas emitted by human activities. It is responsible for 85% of the increase in radiative forcing – the warming effect on our climate – over the past decade. Between 1990 and 2011 there was a 30% increase in radiative forcing because of greenhouse gases. Radiative forcing is calculated relative to the pre-industrial level of key greenhouse gases.

According to WMO’s Greenhouse Gas Bulletin, the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere reached 390.9 parts per million in 2011, or 140% of the pre-industrial level of 280 parts per million. The pre-industrial era level represented a balance of CO2 fluxes between the atmosphere, the oceans and the biosphere. The amount of CO2 in the atmosphere has increased on average by 2 parts per million per year for the past 10 years.

At the current rate of increase, the global annual average CO2 concentration is set to cross the 400 ppm threshold in 2015 or 2016. www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/global.html.-

350NYC

United Against Pipelines, Forward on Climate!  Tomorrow, Monday May 13th,  New Yorkers will march and rally to greet President Obama when he attends a fundraiser in NYC––his first visit since his post-Sandy inspection. In his Inaugural Address just a few months ago, Obama promised “We will respond to the threat of climate change, knowing that the failure to do so would betray our children and future generations.”
Yet he continues to promote an “All of the above” energy policy that includes coal, tar sands, and fracked shale gas.

Join us if you stand against fossil fuel pipelines, against fracking, against tar sands, and FOR a country powered by wind, water and solar.

Gather in Bryant Park starting at 5 (meet near the fountain off 6th avenue at 41st Street). Reverend Billy and his choir will lead us off with a rousing blessing and song. We’ll begin to march at 5:30, then rally in front of the Waldorf Astoria at 6:30.

If you can, please wear yellow and orange (the colors of Occupy Sandy) to demonstrate your support for a clean energy future.
act.350.org/signup/NYC_Unites_Against_Pipelines/.

Event Partners: 350 NYC, 350 NJ, 350.org, Brooklyn For Peace, Coalition Against the Rockaway Pipeline (CARP), CREDO, CUNY Divest, Food & Water Watch, Global Kids Inc., Green Party of NY, Human Impacts Institute, NYC Friends of Clearwater, NYU Divest, Occupy the Pipeline, Occupy Sandy, Restore the Rock, Sane Energy Project, Sierra Club Atlantic Chapter, Sierra Club National, United for Action, World Can’t Wait, WESPAC, YANA (You Are Never Alone).

Climate Change Adaptation, Not to be Missed

from: Mica Longanecker  - micalonganecker.gcap@gmail.com via lists.iisd.ca  t Climate change is here to stay, what are you doing to ensure that we live in a more prepared, better-adapted world?   Climate change is a global issue that requires smart action. According to a recent article in the Guardian, global carbon dioxide levels are set to pass the 400ppm milestone over the next few days, setting an unprecedented level of carbon in the atmosphere.   Other recent news headlines re-enforce the extent to which climate change is affecting current systems. From the USGS-NOAA’s Climate Change Impacts to U.S. Coasts Threaten Public Health, Safety and Economy to the IPCC urging Obama to raise awareness of science behind climate change. From Pacific Islands looking for new and innovative models to UK tourist attractions at risk of surface water flooding and early indicators that climate change could bring malaria to Europe. The evidence is there. What’s needed is action.   The Global Climate Adaptation Partnership (GCAP), working with the University of Oxford Smith School of Enterprise and the Environment, is excited to offer the 2013 Adaptation Academy Foundation Course: Creating Climate Adaptation Leaders aiming to support decision making in a changing environment.   Now in our fourth year, the Adaptation Academy is a leading climate adaptation training programme, supporting participants in developing technical and leadership skills in climate adaptation through actual project work and practical case studies. We constantly refine and shape the course based on the learning and feedback from previous years, ensuring that we remain a global leader in climate adaptation training.   Climate adaptation requires champions, leaders and agents of change. Join us next August and immerse yourself in the Foundation Course. Emerge transformed. Be prepared to find adaptation solutions for some of the most profound challenges ever to face the world and build a strong foundation for integrating climate adaptation into your work. Join world-renowned alumni and the leading global network of climate adaptation.   From the halls of an Oxford college, explore your role, make new and binding friendships with future leaders, raise the bar on your own thinking and potential by rubbing shoulders with an internationally renowned academic community, learn first-hand from expert practitioners and be inspired by leading intellectuals pioneering revolutionary interventions.   The Foundation Course integrates four central learning themes: Participants’ role as change makers Causal chains of climate science Adaptation as a process Project/Program development Building on these four central themes, we have developed a range of different modules and exercises to bridge knowledge and application, theory and practice. The content of the 2013 Foundation Course will be: Concepts of climate change, risk, vulnerability and adaptation Analysing climate data for change and variability – trends and extreme events Using climate change scenarios – uncertainty, probability, climate envelopes Theory of change, leadership skills and communicating climate risks Assessing vulnerability and impacts Mapping socio-institutional networks, information flows and needs National, sectoral, urban and local strategies and measures Disaster risk reduction Economics of adaptation and adaptation finance Screening adaptation options to develop sound projects Monitoring, evaluation and learning in adaptation pathways Project development and practical skills development Places are filling up and only a few remain! Don’t miss this exciting opportunity to revolutionise your thinking and take steps towards becoming an effective change maker. The 2013 Adaptation Academy Foundation Course runs from the 12-30 August 2013, Oxford UK. For more information, check out the Academy website (www.adaptationacademy.org) or contact Mica Longanecker, the Academy Coordinator, at academy@climateadaptation.cc.   Apply directly online for the course here!   If you want to engage with some of the world’s leading climate adaptation experts on an ongoing basis, join GCAP’s LinkedIn Group.

Official welcome:                      

By Mitch Ginsburg May 9, 2013, The Times of Israel

Some look at the upheaval in Syria through a religious lens. The Sunni and Shia factions, battling for supremacy in the Middle East, have locked horns in the heart of the Levant, where the Shia-affiliated Alawite sect has ruled a majority Sunni nation for decades.

Some see it through a social prism. As they did in Tunis with Muhammad Bouazizi — an honest man who couldn’t make an honest living in this corruption-ridden part of the world — the social protests that sparked the war in Syria started in the poor and disenfranchised parts of the country.

Others look at the eroding boundaries of state in Syria and other parts of the Middle East as a direct result of the sins of Western hubris and Colonialism.

Professor Arnon Sofer has no qualms with any of these claims and interpretations. But the upheaval in Syria and elsewhere in the Middle East, he says, cannot be fully understood without also taking two environmental truths into account: soaring birthrates and dwindling water supply.

Over the past 60 years, the population in the Middle East has twice doubled itself, said Sofer, the head of the Chaikin geo-strategy group and a longtime lecturer at the IDF’s top defense college, where today he heads the National Defense College Research Center. “There is no example of this anywhere else on earth,” he said of the population increase. Couple that with Syria’s water scarcity, he said, “and as a geographer it was clear to me that a conflict would erupt.”

The Pentagon cautiously agrees with this thesis. In February the Department of Defense released a “climate-change adaptation roadmap.” While the effects of climate change alone do not cause conflict, the report states, “they may act as accelerants of instability or conflict in parts of the world.” Predominantly the paper is concerned with the effects of rising seas and melting arctic permafrost on US military installations. The Middle East is not mentioned by name.

But Sofer and Anton Berkovsky, who together compiled the research work of students at the National Defense College and released a geo-strategic paper on Syria earlier in the year, believe that water scarcity played a significant role in the onset of the Syrian civil war and the Arab Spring, and that it may help re-shape the strategic bonds and interests of the region as regimes teeter and borders blur. Sofer also believes that a “Pax Climactica” is within reach if regional leaders would only, for a short while, forsake their natural inclinations to wake up in the morning and seek to do harm.

Syria is 85 percent desert or semi-arid country. But it has several significant waterways. The Euphrates runs in a south-easterly direction through the center of the country to Iraq. The Tigris runs southeast, tracing a short part along Syria’s border with Turkey before flowing into Iraq. And, aside from several lesser rivers that flow southwest through Lebanon to the Mediterranean, Syria has an estimated four to five billion cubic meters of water in its underground aquifers.

From 2007-2008, over 160 villages in Syria were abandoned and some 250,000 farmers relocated to Damascus, Aleppo and other cities. The capital, like many of its peer cities in the Middle East, was unable to handle that influx of people. Residents dug 25,000 illegal wells in and around Damascus, pushing the water table ever lower and the salinity of the water ever higher.

For these reasons the heart of the country was once an oasis. For 5,000 years, Damascus was famous for its agriculture and its dried fruit. Since 1950, however, the population has increased sevenfold in Syria, to 22 million, and Turkey, in an age of scarcity, has seized much of the water that once flowed south into Syria.

“They’ve been choking them,” Sofer said, noting that Turkey annually takes half of the available 30 billion cubic meters of water in the Euphrates. This limits Syria’s water supply and hinders its ability to generate hydroelectricity.

In 2007, after years of population growth and institutional economic stagnation, several dry years descended on Syria. Farmers began to leave their villages and head toward the capital. From 2007-2008, Sofer said, over 160 villages in Syria were abandoned and some 250,000 farmers – Sofer calls them “climate refugees” – relocated to Damascus, Aleppo and other cities.

The capital, like many of its peer cities in the Middle East, was unable to handle that influx of people. Residents dug 25,000 illegal wells in and around Damascus, pushing the water table ever lower and the salinity of the water ever higher.

This, along with over one million refugees from the Iraq war and, among other challenges, borders that contain a dizzying array of religions and ethnicities, set the stage for the civil war.

Tellingly, it broke out in the regions most parched — “in Daraa [in the south] and in Kamishli in the northeast,” Sofer said. “Those are two of the driest places in the country.”

Professor Eyal Zisser, one of Israel’s top scholars of Syria, agreed that the drought played a significant role in the onset of the war. “Without doubt it is part of the issue,” he said. Zisser did not believe that water was the central issue that inflamed Syria but rather “the match that set the field of thorns on fire.”

Rebel troops transporting two women to safety along the Orontes River, which has shrunk in recent years and grown increasingly saline (Photo credit: CC BY FreedomHouse)

Since that fire began to rage in March 2011, the course of the battles has been partially dictated by a different sort of logic, not environmental in nature. “Assad is butchering his way west,” Sofer said. He believes the president will eventually have to retreat from the capital and therefore has focused his efforts on Homs and other cities and towns that lie between Damascus and the Alawite regions near the coast, cutting himself an escape route.

Sofer and Berkovsky envision several scenarios for Syria. Among them: Assad puts down the rebellion and remains in power; Assad abdicates and a Sunni majority seizes control; Assad abdicates and no central power is able to assert control. The most likely scenario, Sofer said, was that the Syrian dictator would eventually flee to Tehran. But he preferred to avoid that sort of micro-conjecture and to focus on the regional effects of population growth and water scarcity and the manner in which that ominous mix might shape the future of the region.

Writing in the New York Times from Yemen on Thursday, Thomas Friedman embraced a similar thesis, noting that the heart of the al-Qaeda activity in the region corresponded with the areas most stricken by drought. Sofer published a paper in July where he laid out the grim environmental reality of the region and argued that, as in Syria, the conflicts bedeviling the region were not about climate issues but were deeply influenced by them.

Egypt, Sofer wrote, faces severe repercussions from climate change. Even a slight rise in the level of the sea – just half a meter – would salinize the Nile Delta aquifers and force three million people out of the city of Alexandria. In the more distant future, as the North Sea melts, the Suez Canal could decline in importance. More immediately, and of greater significance to Israel, he wrote that Egypt, faced with a water shortage, would likely grow more militant over the coming years. But he felt the militancy would be directed south, toward South Sudan and Ethiopia and other nations competing for the waters of the Nile, and not north toward the Levant.

The Nile River, the lifeblood of Egypt’s 82 million people (Photo credit: CC BY Simona Scolari, Flickr)

As proof that this pivot has already begun, Sofer pointed to Abu-Simbel, near the border with Sudan. There the state has converted a civilian airport into a military one. “The conclusion to be drawn from this is simple and unequivocal,” he wrote. “Egypt today represents a military threat to the southern nations of the Nile and not the Zionist state to the east.”

The Sinai Peninsula, already quite lawless, will only get worse, perhaps to the point of secession, he and Berkovsky wrote. Local Bedouin will have difficulty raising animals in the region and will turn, to an even greater degree, to smuggling material and people along a route established in the Bronze Age, through Sinai to Asia and Europe.

Syria, even if the war were swiftly resolved, is “on the cusp of catastrophe.” Jordan, too, is in dire need of water. And Gaza, like Syria, has been battered by unchecked drilling. The day after Israel left under the Oslo Accords, he said, the Palestinian Authority and other actors began digging 500 wells along the coastal aquifer even though Israel had warned them of the dangers. “Today there are around 4,000 of them and no more ground water. It’s over. There’s no fooling around with this stuff,” he said.

Only the two most stable states in the region – Israel and Turkey – have ample water.

Turkey is the sole Middle Eastern nation blessed with plentiful water sources. Ankara’s control of the Tigris and the Euphrates, among other rivers, means that Iraq and Syria, both downriver, are to a large extent dependent on Turkey for food, water and electricity. That strategic advantage, along with Turkey’s position as the bridge between the Middle East and Europe, “further serves its neo-Ottoman agenda,” Sofer said.

He envisioned an increased role for Turkey both in the Levant and, eventually, in central Asia and along the oil crossroads of the Persian Gulf, pitting it against Iran. Climate change, he conceded, has only a minor role in that future struggle for power but it is “an accelerant.”

Israel no longer suffers from drought. Desalination, conservation and sewage treatment have alleviated much of the natural scarcity. In February, the head of the Israel Water Authority, Alexander Kushnir, told the Times of Israel that the country’s water crisis has come to an end. Half of Israel’s two billion cubic meters of annual water use is generated artificially, he said, through desalination and sewage purification.

For Sofer, this self-sufficiency is an immense regional advantage. Israel could pump water east to Jenin in the West Bank and farther along to Jordan and north to Syria. International organizations could follow Israel’s example and fund regional desalination plants, which, he noted, cost less than a single day of modern full-scale war.

Instead, rather than an increase in cooperation, he feared, the region would likely witness ever more desperate competition. Sofer said his friends see him as a sort of Jeremiah. But the Middle East, he cautioned, is a region where “leaders wake up every morning and ask what can I do today to make matters worse.”

Arnon Sofer, a longtime professor at the IDF’s National Defense College, sees a link between the war in Syria and the water shortages there (Photo credit: Moshe Shai/ Flash 90)

from NYU School of Continuing & Professinal Studies – Global Affairs Division: scps.global.affairs@nyu.edu
that years ago made it possible for us to introduce Sustainable Development to the Achademe.

LEARN FROM THE EXPERTS

Our faculty are practitioners and experts in their field.
They bring their real-world experience to life for their students.
Join them this summer!

World Politics: Confrontation or Cooperatiion? (GLOB1-CE9284)
Multiple sections, 8 weeks, begins May 14

Ralph Buultjens is a historian, author, and the former Nehru Professor and Professorial Fellow at the University of Cambridge. He was awarded the Toynbee Prize for Social Sciences in 1984. He is a well known media commentator featured on major networks such as the BBC, CNN, and ABC. He has also served as a consultant to the United Nations and major international organizations. At the Carnegie Council, Professor Buultjens served as trustee from 1978 to1984 and was Senior Fellow for several years. His numerous publications include: Conceptualizing Global History (with Bruce Mazlish, 2004) The Destiny of freedom: Political Legacies of the Twentieth Century (Louis Nizer lecture on public policy, 1999) Politics and History: Lessons for Today (1986), and The Secret Life of Karl Marx (1985).

Superstorm Sandy, NYC, and Climate Change (GLOB1-CE9023)
Saturday, June 15, 9am-5pm

Jesse Cameron-Glickenhaus is a former climate change advisor to Palau Mission to the UN. While at the Mission, he worked closely with Ambassador Stewart Beck to draft, advocate for, and pass the first United Nations General Assembly Resolution to recognize climate change as an issue of international peace and security. He is currently pursuing his J.D. at NYU School of Law where he served as the Staff Editor for the Environmental Law Journal in 2012-13 and currently serves as the Journal’s Submissions Editor. He received the Guarini Center on Environmental and Land Use Law Summer Internship for 2013. As a legal intern for the Environmental Defense Fund, Cameron-Glickenhaus researched and drafted memos and an amicus brief related to Federal Energy Regulatory Commission proceedings.

The United Nations‘ Role in the War on Terror (GLOB1-CE9998)
Mondays, 6:45-8:50pm, 8 weeks, 6/3-7/22

Howard Wachtel is a Franklin Fellow in the Political Section (Sanctions Unit) of the U.S. Mission to the United Nations in New York, where he focuses on the al Qaeda/Taliban, Cote d‘Ivoire, Sierra Leone, and Iraq sanctions regimes. During the course of the year, Howard will be monitoring each of these regimes, attending Security Council sanctions committee meetings, and contributing to the negotiation and drafting of Security Council resolutions related to each regime. He comes to the U.S. Department of State from Simpson, Thacher & Bartlett LLP, where he is a litigation associate. Mr. Wachtel is primarily responsible for USUN’s interaction with the Security Council on issues related to al-Qaeda/Taliban sanctions (the “1267 regime“). He is responsible for providing guidance and recommendations regarding the strategic direction of the 1267 regime, including new measures to address recent litigation challenging the regime and to ensure that the regime adapts to the evolving nature of the terrorist threat.

Creating a Nonprofit in a Global Landscape:
A Comprehensive and Practical Approach (GLOB1-CE9943)
Monday-Friday – June 17-21, 2013 (one week intensive)

Brad Heckman is the founding Chief Executive Officer of New York Peace Institute, one of the nation’s largest community dispute resolution and mediator credentialing agencies. Previously, he served as Vice President of Safe Horizon, New York’s leading victims services and violence prevention agency. In that capacity, he oversaw the agency‘s Mediation, Families of Homicide Victims, Legal Services, Anti-Trafficking, Batterers Intervention, and Anti-Stalking Programs. Mr. Heckman served as International Director of Partners for Democratic Change, for which he developed community peacebuilding centers throughout Eastern Europe, the Balkans, South Caucasus, Latin America, and the former Soviet Union. He received NYU-SCPS’s Excellence in Teaching Award in 2012, and serves on the boards of the National Association for Community Mediation, the New York City Peace Museum, and the New York State Dispute Resolution Association.

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

 TODAY – LAST EVENT OF THE SEMESTER!

In Print with James F. Hoge, Jr.

Featuring Michael Levi, David M. Rubenstein Senior Fellow for Energy and the Environment and Director of the Program on Energy Security and Climate Change

The Power Surge: Energy, Opportunity, and the Battle for America’s Future

TONIGHT!
Thursday, May 9
6.30-7.45pm
RSVP here

3 Encouraging Signs of Progress from the Bonn Climate Talks.

Submitted by Jennifer Morgan on May 3, 2013

Day 4 of the climate talks in Bonn, Germany. Photo credit: adopt a negotiator, Flickr

A slight breath of fresh air entered the UNFCCC climate negotiations this week in Bonn, Germany. Held in the old German parliament—which was designed to demonstrate transparency and light—the meeting took on a more open feel than the past several COPs and intersessionals.

Instead of arguing over the agenda, negotiators got down to work, discussing ways to ramp up countries’ emissions-reduction commitments now and move toward a 2015 international climate action agreement.

Reaching these two goals is imperative. It was encouraging to hear delegates make progress across three key issues involved in achieving them:

1) “Spectrum of Commitments”

This idea—put forward by the United States—is that every country should determine its own national “contribution” to curbing global climate change and present it to the international community.   A “spectrum” of various commitments would thus emerge, which could be included in some sort of formal agreement.

The idea opened up a much-needed conversation about the concept itself and how it would work in practice. Beyond the issues of ambition and equity noted below, the first question was whether there would be any guidance or templates for how countries put forward such commitments, or would it be a more “wild west” atmosphere. The second question was if and how the contributions would be reviewed, if at all.

The United States proposed a review up-front, but did not state whether that review would result in any change in the initial offer. Other questions included what kind of mechanism could be used to ratchet up ambition, and how developing countries could put forward contributions without knowing what kind of financial support might be provided. Clearly one key question is how to ensure that nationally offered commitments add up to a level of action that keeps global average temperature increase below 2 degrees C.

While the talks yielded more questions than answers, discussing new ideas like the spectrum of commitments represented good progress in the negotiating process.

2) Ambition

How to increase countries’ emissions-reduction commitments is clearly the key worry for just about everyone, as it should be. While in Bonn, atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide approached the 400 parts per million (ppm) threshold, putting the planet on an extremely dangerous trajectory.

Delegates struggled to think through ways to reduce greenhouse gas emissions enough to prevent climate change’s worst impacts. They heard from cities, farmers, and business people about what they’re currently doing to shift to a low-carbon economy. But how does that all add up? And how does one create the benefits for countries to go faster and deeper in reducing emissions?

In the context of a spectrum of commitments, the key question asked was how to ensure that collective actions would get the world anywhere close to staying below 2 degrees C of temperature rise. Many noted that the current ambition gap exists because of the bottom-up pledge and a failed review system. Why would this situation be any different if we pursue a spectrum approach? The word “ratchet mechanism” was often heard, with delegates searching for new ideas and incentives to catalyze more action. This “ratchet up” process, which enables countries to increase their emissions-reduction pledges over time, may be combined with a periodic review and a robust set of accounting, measurement, reporting, and verification rules.

3) Equity

The issues of equity and climate justice blew through many of the sessions and dominated informal dinner table debates. Although the “e” word is not mentioned specifically in the Durban Platform, it is now abundantly clear that figuring out how to make the 2015 international climate agreement equitable is going to be one of the keys to its formation. Some asked whether an “equity reference framework” approach could work. A number of experts have been analyzing the different indicators that could help assess whether a national climate action plan is equitable. While negotiating this set of indicators within the UNFCCC process would likely prolong the negotiations, delegates acknowledged that there is value in finding evidence-based, pragmatic ways to integrate equity into the decision-making process.

It was an encouraging debate: After this intersessional, all subsequent UNFCCC discussions of equity will inevitably be taken more seriously.

WRI and the Mary Robinson Foundation-Climate Justice hosted a Climate Justice Dinner one night during the talks. Stories of climate change’s real world impacts—which people in places like Bangladesh are already facing—connected negotiators with what’s really at stake for communities around the globe.

These stories and the open feeling of the meeting were clearly needed to inspire delegates to roll up their sleeves and think hard about how to address ambition, equity, and other issues.

Negotiators made some progress and started asking the right questions. Now it’s time to start answering these questions to ensure that the 2015 agreement not only provides transparency, but drives a game change in the level of climate action that the world has seen to date.

• LEARN MORE: Visit WRI’s Climate Justice Dialogue webpage

(illustration: Solar News)

The Incredible Shrinking Cost of Solar Energy.

By Juan Cole, Informed Comment on Reader Supported News.

04 May 13

ob Wile uses a graph to point out the obvious, the dramatic fall in the cost of solar power generation. In many countries– Italy, Spain, Germany, Portugal — and in parts of the US such as the Southwest, solar is at grid parity. That means it is as inexpensive to build a solar plant as a gas or coal one. The pace of technological innovation in the solar field has also accelerated, so that costs have started falling precipitously and efficiency is rapidly increasing.  

By 2015, solar panels should have fallen to 42 cents per watt.

Reneweconomy.com says that the best Chinese solar panels fell in cost by 50% between 2009 and 2012. That incredible achievement is what has driven so many solar companies bankrupt– if you have the older technology, your panels are suddenly expensive and you can’t compete. It is like no one wants a 4 year old computer.

Conservatives shed no tears when better computers drive slower ones out of the market, but point to solar companies’ shake-out as somehow bad or unnatural. No wonder US solar installations jumped 76% in 2012.

The reductions in cost over the next two years are expected to continue, at a slowing but still impressive 30% rate:

Construction has begun on the world’s largest solar plant. MidAmerican Solar and SunPower Corp. are building a 579 megawatt installation, the Antelope Valley Solar Project, in Kern and Los Angeles counties in California. That is half a gigawatt, just enormous. It will provide electricity to 400,000 homes in the state (roughly 2 million people?), and reduce carbon dioxide emissions by 775,000 tons a year. The US emits 5 billion metric tons a year of C02, second only to China, and forms a big part of the world’s carbon problem all by itself. We just need 645 more of the Antelope Valley projects.

Important new research also shows that hybrid plants that have both solar panels and wind turbines dramatically increase efficiency and help with integration into the electrical grid. Earlier concerns that the turbines would cast shadows and so detract from the efficiency of the solar panels appear to have been overblown. Because in most places in the US there is more sun in the summer and more wind in the winter, a combined plant keeps the electricity feeding into the grid at a more constant rate all year round, which is more desirable than big spikes and fall-offs.

That Germany, then China, then the US are the world’s largest solar markets is no surprise. But that number 17 Japan will increase its solar installations by 120% in 2013 and so may be the second hottest solar market, just after China, this year, would mark a big change. Japan may well have 5 gigawatts of solar installed by the end of this year, even though the relatively new prime minister, Shinzo Abe, is no particular friend of the renewables. In my own view, if Japan made the right governmental and private investments, it could overtake China in the solar field and reverse its long post-bubble stagnation.

ABB has been commissioned a large solar electricity generating plant on the edge of the Kalahari Desert near Cape Town, South Africa. It will supply the electricity needs of around 40,000 persons and reduce annual emissions by 50,000 tons of carbon dioxide. South Africa emits 500 million tons of carbon dioxide annually, and is third in the world for per capita emissions. (Still, it only emits a 10th as much over-all as the US). But they just need a thousand more plants like the Kalahari one, and voila! South Africa is also imposing a carbon tax, which will hurry things along. (At the moment, South Africa is far too dependent on dirty coal plants, which not only fuel climate change but also spew deadly toxins such as mercury into the atmosphere, whence it goes into human beings.

Because of South African and Israeli demand in particular, demand for solar panels in the Middle East and Africa has risen over 600% during the past year. Saudi Arabia’s announced plans to save its petroleum for export by going solar at home will add a great deal to regional demand if it sticks to those plans. (In most countries, petroleum isn’t used much for electricity generation as opposed to transportation, but in oil states such as Saudi Arabia it often is used in power plants; but that cuts down on foreign exchange earnings.)

The two Indian states of Gujarat and Rajasthan are emerging as the solar giants in India, with each having now passed half a gigawatt in solar electricity generation capacity. The two account for some 88% of all of India’s solar power. But Rajasthan may soon outstrip Gujarat, given the state’s solar-friendly commitments, its ample amounts of scorching sunlight, and its vast deserts.

Obama Picks Nominees for Commerce Dept. and Trade Representative.

Christopher Gregory/The New York Times. 

 www.nytimes.com/2013/05/03/us/pol… JACKIE CALMES

Published, The New York Times on-line: May 2, 2013

WASHINGTON — President Obama rounded out his second-term cabinet choices on Thursday, nominating Penny Pritzker, his longtime financial backer and an heir to the Hyatt Hotel fortune, to be commerce secretary, and Michael Froman, a law school friend and White House adviser on international economics, as trade representative.

Related:

Politics and Vetting Leave Key U.S. Posts Long Unfilled (May 3, 2013)

Leading Role in Obama ’08, but Backstage in ’12 (July 15, 2012)

Mr. Obama introduced his two friends in a Rose Garden announcement just before departing for a three-day trip to Mexico and Costa Rica, along with Mr. Froman. With Mr. Obama’s nomination on Monday of Anthony R. Foxx, the mayor of Charlotte, N.C., to be transportation secretary, he has now completed his selections for a cabinet depleted by departures after his first term.

Several nominees, including the new ones, still need Senate confirmation. Republicans will closely scrutinize Ms. Pritzker’s financial record, as Senator Charles E. Grassley of Iowa made plain in a statement after the announcement.

“Every nominee’s offshore tax avoidance activities should be examined as part of the nomination process,” he said, suggesting that Ms. Pritzker is “associated with the kind of tax avoidance activity that the president dismisses as fat cat shenanigans for others.”

Ms. Pritzker, a longtime Chicago donor and fund-raiser for Mr. Obama, had been expected to be his pick for the long-vacant Commerce Department post, but vetting of her substantial financial assets and ties delayed a formal announcement, administration aides have said. She was a leading candidate for commerce secretary after Mr. Obama’s election in 2008, but withdrew from contention amid the public scrutiny at the time.

On Thursday the president signaled confidence that Ms. Pritzker would be confirmed by joking about it. Noting that Ms. Pritzker’s nomination coincided with her 54th birthday, he quipped, “For your birthday present you get to go through confirmation.” After a comedic pause, he added with a chuckle, “It’s going to be great.”

With Ms. Pritzker, Mr. Obama would bring a woman and a voice for business interests into a cabinet that has been criticized in the past as having too few of either. Even so, the president of the National Organization for Women, Terry O’Neill, issued a statement immediately after the announcement saying that “the numbers are good, but not great,” since women are 51 percent of the population but about one-third of the cabinet.

“NOW is particularly concerned that the main group of advisers who have the president’s ear not just on occasion, but three, four, five times a day, is still overwhelmingly male,” she added.

Ms. Pritzker, a longtime business and civic leader in Chicago, would head perhaps the most eclectic department in the government, with wide-ranging responsibility that includes federal business programs, oceans policy, weather forecasting and travel and tourism. In Democratic and Republican administrations, the commerce secretary is often best known as a president’s emissary to the business community and political donors.

The commerce post had been vacant for nearly a year, since the businessman John E. Bryson resigned for medical reasons in June; his deputy, Rebecca M. Blank, has been acting secretary since then. Ms. Blank, an academic, is leaving to become chancellor of the University of Wisconsin, Madison.

Ms. Pritzker is chairwoman and chief executive of PSP Capital Partners and its affiliate, Pritzker Realty Group, and chairwoman of Artemis Real Estate Partners. During Mr. Obama’s first term, she served on his Council on Jobs and Competitiveness and on his Economic Recovery Advisory Board. Mr. Obama credited her on Thursday as “the driving force” behind his Skills for America’s Future initiative to connect businesses and community colleges to develop a work force with the skills employers need.

Mr. Froman, who is 50, has served in the White House as the deputy national security adviser for international economics since Mr. Obama first took office. Although the post was not a cabinet position, Mr. Froman had proximity to the president and a portfolio thicker than that of the cabinet-rank trade representative, encompassing not only trade but also international development and climate change issues.

Mr. Froman had planned to keep his White House post in the second term, and Mr. Obama initially intended to nominate Jeffrey D. Zients, a businessman who had been the acting director of the Office of Management and Budget, to be trade representative. But opposition to Mr. Zients from Senator Max Baucus of Montana, the Democratic chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, which would handle his nomination, scuttled it. Mr. Baucus objected to Mr. Zients’s oversight of a government-reorganization study that recommended changes that would have affected the committee’s jurisdiction, according to administration and Congressional aides.

Mr. Froman’s inclusion with Mr. Obama for the trip to Mexico and Costa Rica reflects his current leading role in international economic affairs. He has been the president’s “sherpa,” making preparations for past and coming global economic summit meetings. He also oversees economic relations with Europe, Japan and the developing BRIC bloc — Brazil, Russia, India and China — and development policies for Africa and the Middle East.

Administration officials said Mr. Froman would retain some of those responsibilities.

On Thursday, Mr. Obama gave Mr. Froman credit, along with the man he would succeed as trade representative, Ron Kirk, for finishing free trade pacts with South Korea, Colombia and Panama, all of which were begun in the Bush administration. The foremost issues for the new trade representative will be to negotiate trade liberalization deals with Europe and the Pacific Rim region.

“He has won the respect of our trading partners around the world,” Mr. Obama said of Mr. Froman. “He has also won a reputation as being an extraordinarily tough negotiator while doing it.”

Labor groups generally have had good if occasionally testy relations with Mr. Froman, but a liberal group, Public Citizen’s Global Trade Watch, assailed his “corporate agenda.” Business groups issued statements praising him and Ms. Pritzker.

FROM MOJO (MOTHER JONES):

Shutterstock

Back in 2011, Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-Minn.) declared war on energy-efficient light bulbs, calling “sustainability” the gateway into a dystopic, Big Brother-patrolled liberal hellscape. When the lights went off during Beyoncé’s halftime set at the last Superbowl, conservative commentators from the Drudge Report to Michelle Malkin pointed blame (erroneously) at new power-saving measures at New Orleans’ Superdome. And one recent study found that giving Republican households feedback on their power use actually encourages them to use more energy.

Why do conservatives, who should have a natural inclination toward conservation, have a beef with energy efficiency?              It could be tied to the political polarization of the climate change debate.

A study out today in the journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences examined attitudes about energy efficiency in liberals and conservatives, and found that promoting energy-efficient products and services on the basis of their environmental benefits actually turned conservatives off from picking them. The researchers first quizzed participants on how much they value various benefits of energy efficiency, including reducing carbon emissions, reducing foreign oil dependence, and reducing how much consumers pay for energy; cutting emissions appealed to conservatives the least.

The study then presented participants with a real-world choice: With a fixed amount of money in their wallet, respondents had to “buy” either an old-school light bulb or an efficient compact florescent bulb (CFL), the same kind Bachmann railed against. Both bulbs were labeled with basic hard data on their energy use, but without a translation of that into climate pros and cons.

When the bulbs cost the same, and even when the CFL cost more, conservatives and liberals were equally likely to buy the efficient bulb. But slap a message on the CFL’s packaging that says “Protect the Environment,” and “we saw a significant drop-off in more politically moderates and conservatives choosing that option,” said study author Dena Gromet, a researcher at the University of Pennsylvania’s Wharton School of Business.

The chart below, from the report, shows how much liberals and conservatives value each argument for efficiency:

While liberals (gray) valued all three equally, conservatives (white), were significantly less moved by and most at odds with liberals over the carbon-saving argument.

Courtesy Gromet

Gromet said she never expected the green message to motivate conservatives, but was surprised to find that it could in fact repel them from making a purchase even while they found other aspects, like saving cash on their power bills, attractive. The reason, she thinks, is that given the political polarization of the climate change debate, environmental activism is so frowned upon by those the right that they’ll do anything to keep themselves distanced from it.

“When we’re given an option where the choice is made to represent a value that we don’t identify with or that our ideological group doesn’t value,” she said, “this can turn the purchase into something undesirable.

By making [the environment] part of the choice, even though they might see the economic benefit, they no longer want to put their money toward that option.”

This graph, lifted from the report (on the x-axis, -1 is liberal and 1 is conservative), shows the damage the wrong messaging can do: With no messaging, roughly 60 percent of all participants picked the CFL; a pro-environment message boosted support in liberals but cut it sharply in conservatives:

Courtesy Gromet

That gap could represent real lost opportunities in the private sector: the EPA’s Energy Star label, for example, perhaps the most prominent label for energy-efficient products, puts greenhouse gas savings front and center in its packaging, and proudly boasts that products with the label helps Americans “protect our climate.”

This isn’t just a problem for businesses trying to push energy-efficient products, but also for environmentalists and policymakers pushing to write efficiency or other climate-friendly policies into law, said Jessica Goodheart, director of RePower LA, which advocates for energy-saving practices in the Los Angeles power utility. Goodheart said while tackling climate change is driving force behind her lobbying, she more often finds herself talking about jobs and the economy, especially when addressing small business owners.

“It’s always important to speak to people where they are, and with energy efficiency there are so many positive messages you can use,” she said.

And there’s no shortage of opportunities to roll those messages out: Last week, Energy Department researchers found that rules requiring utilities to use renewable energy were under attack in over half the states they exist in; such laws might have better luck fending off Bachmann-esque fusillades if they re-focus their rhetoric around their cost-savings, energy independence, or other benefits, Gromet’s research suggests, especially in conservative states.

That doesn’t necessarily mean green advocates need to somehow cover up the environmental benefits of a policy or product: A study from Stanford psychologists released last December found that re-framing environmental messaging in terms of preserving the “purity” of the natural world resonated morally with conservatives.

“There’s not going to be a one-size-fits-all message that will appeal equally,” Gromet said. “It’s important to know the market you’re appealing to; there are some messages you may want to avoid.”

Tim McDonnell is Climate Desk‘s associate producer. For more of his stories, click here. Follow him on Twitter or send him an email at tmcdonnell [at] motherjones [dot] com. RSS | Twitter

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

Saudi Kingdom to halt wheat production by 2016

The Kingdom is likely to totally depend on wheat imports starting from 2016, says Waleed El-Khereiji, head of Grains and Silos Flour …

—————————————————————-

Saudi- ‘Big opportunity’ in SR 1 bn biscuit market
Saudi Arabia is one of the primary emerging markets for top biscuits maker Britannia and it sees big opportunities in the Kingdom because …