|
Posted on Sustainabilitank.info on March 9th, 2010 nbsp;http://peacenow.org supports Iran sanctions that can work. Congress is now considering two pieces of legislation that will limit the Iranian regime’s ability to crack down on freedom of speech within Iran: HR 4301 – the Iran Digital Enhancement Act (IDEA) – would help give the Iranian people the high-tech tools they need to communicate online. It would also make it harder for the Iranian government to monitor or block Internet communications. HR 4303 – the Stand with the Iranian People Act (SWIPA) – would punish corporations that help the Iranian government stifle free speech. It would also allow American non-profits to provide humanitarian aid within Iran. And it would bar Iranian officials who have abused the human rights of the Iranian public from entering the United States. Empowering the Iranian people must be a vital part of the American strategy to deal with the threat posed by Iran to Israel and to key American national security interests. Now is the time for action. What happens in Iran can have broad ramifications for Israel and for the future of the Arab-Israeli peace process. ### |
|
Posted on Sustainabilitank.info on March 9th, 2010 The suggestion of Mr. Marthinus van Schalkwyk presents some very interesting dilemmas: - first, it proposes an African for the position and we believe this is a bit like putting the carriage before the horse. Indeed, we say all the time that Africa is suffering because of the sins of others, so Africa and the Island States have most reasons to see a Climate agreement become reality, but then it is not the sufferers, but the sinners, that will have to sign up to an enforceable agreement, and those are mainly China and the US. Here indeed South Africa is one of the additional three IBSA states that participated in the formulation of the Copenhagen notice. If one where to try to pick a lead country from among the IBSA – we suggested it be Brazil as it would have the least conflicts of interest from among the three. - then, the appointment of Mr. van Schalwyk, a South African, would also mean that there will be the third Dutch person on that job in a row, albeit, this Dutchman comes from South Africa and not from the Netherlands, but nevertheless the subject will come up. - also, as we know the 2010 meeting of the UNFCCC, or COP 16, will be held in Mexico, while the following one, the 2011 COP 17 is intended for South Africa. An appointment of a South African to head the UNFCCC at this time would mean that the Mexico meeting that is limping anyway – as we just posted an hour ago – will become completely useless. Some, like the Latin American States, will find this objectionable. This one point leaves us perplexed if we sense that Cancun is just one more UN ritual led so that it has beforehand no chance to succeed – who knows – maybe the appointment of Mr. van Schlkwyk could actually result in annulment of a UN scheduled event. That could then be the first emissions saving UN led activity. - the last point has to do with the backing of Mugabe’s Zimbabwe from South Africa in the leadership of The UN Commission on Sustainable Development. The facts are that the CSD was destroyed because of that backing by South Africa, and the CSD is needed if one wants to find a base for climate activities at the UN. That past experience might have left, and who knows, perhapse still creates, a sour taste when looking at South Africa’s place in UN leadership. Will we do away also with the CSD and base climate on the Committee of 19 Wise Men that the UN Secretary-General just established? Without taking a stand on the candidate himself, nevertheless the first three points we raised will probably have to be weighed against the attributes that might be proposed when other names become available. ============== from: BuaNews (Tshwane) 8 March 2010, Pretoria — President Jacob Zuma has nominated Tourism Minister Marthinus van Schalkwyk for the post of the United Nations’ new climate chief. Van Schalkwyk has been tipped as a strong contender to take over from Yvo De Boer who headed the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCC). De Boer announced his resignation last month. “The South African government will consequently forward the name of Minister Van Schalkwyk to the Secretary General for his further consideration,” the Presidency said on Monday. Zuma and the minister met on Sunday to discuss this issue as well as South Africa’s global positioning, the Presidency said. “The final decision on the appointment rests with the Secretary General of the United Nations, Mr Ban Ki Moon.” Van Schalkwyk was deeply involved in climate change issues during his tenure as minister of environmental affairs and tourism. He built a strong profile for himself during the UN climate treaty negotiations leading up to the Copenhagen summit late last year. “During this period he commanded significant respect across the developing-developed country divide. This will stand him in good stead in this critical phase of driving the global climate change negotiations to conclusion,” said the Presidency. Given that South Africa will also be hosting and presiding over the climate change negotiations next year, the Presidency said it would be an “honour for the country to have one of its own to head up this very important UN institution”. If appointed, Van Schalkwyk will oversee one of the most important treaties of the 21st century – the 2012 treaty on climate change. The treaty is aimed at mitigating the causes and effects of climate change and shape the way countries power their economies. ——————- JOHANNESBURG — The South African president’s office announced the nomination of its tourism minister for the United Nations’ top climate post on Monday. The office said in a press release that Marthinus van Schalkwyk is a candidate to direct the U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change. The current leader of the post, Yvo de Boer, announced his resignation in February and will step down July 1. “We are pleased to know Minister Van Schalkwyk is being considered and would be very confident that he would be equal to the task of replacing Mr. de Boer,” said Themba Linden, Political Advisor at Greenpeace Africa. “By all accounts, he has an excellent standing as a negotiator, and has earned a great deal of respect for being very engaged and informed.” Van Schalkwyk’s chances of being appointed are bolstered by the high likelihood that South Africa will host the U.N.’s climate change negotiations in 2011. South Africa along with the U.S., India, Brazil and China drafted the climate change agreement reached in Denmark in December. The compromise calls for reducing emissions to keep temperatures from rising more than 2 C (3.6 F) above preindustrial levels. The nonbinding agreement also calls on rich nations to spend billions to help poor nations deal with drought and other impacts of climate change, and to develop clean energy. Even though it helped draft the accord, South Africa joined a chorus of critics, expressing disappointment at not reaching a legally binding climate change agreement. —————– Could it be that his oponent will be an Indian backed by China? The guesing game may just go wild from now on: There have also been reports in India that environment minister Jairam Ramesh has nominated Indian environment secretary Vijai Sharma for the role, and his nomination is believed to be supported by China. As such, Van Schalkwyk is likely to be regarded as a potential conciliatory candidate, securing the support of the many Africa countries that will be most directly affected by climate change and providing a potential link between the US and Europe and the so-called BASIC group of emerging economies, of which South Africa is a member alongside Brazil, India and China. His nomination chances will be further bolstered by the likelihood that South Africa will host next year’s main UN climate change summit where diplomats still hope an international treaty agreed later this year in Mexico can be formally adopted. ### |
|
Posted on Sustainabilitank.info on March 9th, 2010 EU Climate Chief delivers Treaty blow. by Fiona Harvey, Environment Correspondent The world will almost certainly fail to draw up a new treaty on climate change this year, the minister in charge of last year’s Copenhagen summit has admitted, delivering a heavy blow to the barely flickering hopes for a swift global settlement. Connie Hedegaard, the Danish minister who masterminded the summit of world leaders on global warming last year and is now the European commissioner for climate change, told the Financial Times negotiations were not progressing fast enough for a treaty to be signed soon. “To get every detail set in the next nine months looks very difficult,” she said. “Europe would love that to happen, and I would love that to happen . . . but my feeling is that it is going to be very difficult to get a treaty.” Her pessimism echoed that of the outgoing United Nations climate change chief, Yvo de Boer. He told the FT as he resigned last month after four years of seeking an agreement that he could not see a treaty being signed this year. Governments had been hoping to forge a final treaty at a global conference this December in Mexico, after failing to do so in Copenhagen. However, Ms Hedegaard said this was more likely to happen at a follow-up meeting next year in South Africa. That would still allow governments to meet their self-imposed deadline of forging a new agreement before the end of 2012, when the current provisions of the world’s only existing treaty on greenhouse gas emissions, the 1997 Kyoto protocol, expire. Ms Hedegaard robustly defended the Copenhagen summit, which attracted loud criticism, especially for the chaotic way in which it finished. She said that calling world leaders to the long-running negotiations had ensured rapid progress towards the end, when for the first time developed and developing countries mutually agreed limits on their emissions. But she said there would not be another Copenhagen-style summit. “You can do such a thing one time,” she said. The price of failure, if diplomats attempted to force an agreement this year, was too high, Ms Hedegaard said. “People would say let’s skip that idea, let’s skip the UN thing,” she said. She also defended climate scientists, saying the handful of flaws in the 2007 report by the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and the e-mails in which scientists talked of concealing data did not affect the large body of scientific evidence amassed over decades. The UN climate talks have been going on since 1992, when world governments signed the first legally binding treaty aimed at avoiding dangerous levels of climate change. The Kyoto protocol failed because it did not impose obligations on developing countries and was rejected by the US. ——————- Connie Hedegaard: Statement of CONNIE HEDEGAARD, European Commissioner for Climate Action, on the creation of the Directorate-General CLIMATE “The DG CLIMATE has been created … ### |
|
Americas Society gets funding from the Ford Foundation to promote Social Inclusion in Latin America. Posted on Sustainabilitank.info on March 9th, 2010
Visit AS/COA at www.as-coa.org
New York, March 9, 2010—Americas Society is honored to announce the Ford Foundation’s generous award of a one-year grant of $132,700 for Americas Society’s program to promote research, policy debate, and policy change on social inclusion. The Americas Society’s Social Inclusion Program aims to strengthen the economic and political representation of previously marginalized groups, coordinate new research on expanding access to markets and social services, and highlight how government and business can address the systemic problem of social exclusion throughout the Western Hemisphere. “Drawing on new research and our unique partnerships with local and international business, our goal is to foster public/private partnerships to increase market access, support the integration of workers and influence public policy to reduce social, economic and political exclusion throughout the Americas,” says Christopher Sabatini, Senior Director of Policy for Americas Society and Editor-in-Chief of Americas Quarterly. Through the AS’s policy journal, Americas Quarterly and the Americas Society website (www.as-coa.org), the program will also highlight Ford Foundation initiatives that advance social inclusion in the region and will aggregate research to provide a comparative regional perspective on topics such as land rights, access to public services, crime and insecurity, human rights, market access, and political representation. “We are deeply grateful to the Ford Foundation for its generous support and look forward to expanding our activities to promote greater social inclusion in the Americas,” says Americas Society President and CEO Susan Segal. For further information about the Americas Society’s work on social inclusion, please contact Americas Society Communications Manager Alex Andrews at aandrews@as-coa.org or (212) 277-8384. ### | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Posted on Sustainabilitank.info on March 9th, 2010
Scientists Propose a More Efficient Way to Make Ethanol.By HENRY FOUNTAINPublished on New York Times website March 2, 2010 but in print only March 9, 2010Producing ethanol from corn is relatively easy: the corn’s abundant sugars are readily fermented into alcohol. But using what is essentially a food crop to produce fuel has been criticized as a misuse of resources that can harm both agriculture and the environment. Better, critics say, to make what is called cellulosic ethanol from leaves and stalks or other crop waste or nonfood crops like switchgrass. The process uses lignocellulose, the basic structural material of all plants and the most abundant organic compound on the planet. But cellulosic ethanol is more difficult to make. The lignocellulose must first be broken down into sugars, which can then be fermented. Current techniques use costly enzymes or highly concentrated acids that are difficult to handle. Now, Ronald T. Raines and Joseph B. Binder of the University of Wisconsin are proposing a different way. In a paper in The Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, they describe a process that uses an ionic liquid — a salt with a low melting point — in combination with water and acids at lower concentrations to produce fermentable sugars. The researchers found that water was the key to making the process efficient. Without water, the sugars produced by the action of the ionic liquid and the acid rapidly degraded into other compounds. But water keeps chloride ions in the salt from further reacting with the sugars. The researchers say their process produces sugar yields approaching those obtained by enzymatic methods. While much work remains, they say the process may prove useful in converting agricultural waste to a useful fuel. A version of this article appeared in print on March 9, 2010, on page D3 (Science) of the New York edition.### |
|
Posted on Sustainabilitank.info on March 9th, 2010 Last night, March 8, 2010, three month since Copenhagen, I learned from someone that was among the creators of the US Carbon Market that this market is practically dead. Anything new on climate? No – nothing! Is there hope? Only if you are a continuous optimist! That exchange brought me to post the following as a reminder of the post-Copenhagen spirit. Further, we are still that optimist that believes with a US health-care bill pushed through there may be a renewed US-China joint effort on climate. Further, we also follow with interest Brazil reasserting itself by putting its foot down on conditions of trade with the US. This push by Brazil may remind the US that it is hard to handle wars in Asia without house cleaning in its attitude in the Western Hemisphere. Brazil and the Latins must become US partners also on Climate and they are right to claim a more open door to US markets. ————————— Letter to Grist from Europe Copenhagen blame game is obstacle to 2010 climate deal.29 December 2009 Read More About Climate & Energy, COP16, Copenhagen climate talks, Mexico, United Nations The holidays are supposed to be the season of goodwill. But that has been in short supply over the past week and a half as governments and environmental groups blame each other for the disappointing outcome of the Copenhagen climate summit.
Then it was China’s turn. Writing in The Guardian, UK energy and climate change secretary Ed Miliband condemned China for vetoing emission targets supported by “a coalition of developed and the vast majority of developing countries” and suggested the country had “hijacked” the negotiations. He was supported by the writer and journalist Mark Lynas, who had been at the heart of the bargaining as an adviser to the Maldives. Lynas took to The Guardian’s pages with a detailed, first-hand account of how the emerging superpower had “wrecked the talks, intentionally humiliated Barack Obama, and insisted on an ‘awful’ deal so that western leaders would walk away carrying the blame.” China, predictably, hit back, calling Miliband’s comments “unfair and irresponsible” and accusing him of “trying to shirk the obligations of developed countries.” China had “performed no worse than any others,” its officials insisted. Then the European Union weighed in, saying it was “obvious” that both China and the United States “did not want more than we achieved in Copenhagen.” It, in turn, was heavily criticized for joining U.S. opposition to the continuance of the Kyoto Protocol and for failing to rally other countries to ambitious emissions targets. Just about everybody blasted the Danes for their how they chaired the conference, while many identified widespread failures in the UN negotiating system, which British Prime Minister Gordon Brown called “at best flawed, at worst chaotic.” If success has many fathers, as the saying goes, failure breeds a host of unpleasant, caught-out children, all trying to shift the blame to a sibling. And there is plenty to go around. For what it is worth, China deserves most of it. It led the disruption in plenaries that made it impossible for the conference to get down to serious negotiating, took the targets out of the “accord” that finally resulted and has expressed more pleasure at the emasculated outcome than any other country. The United States certainly made mistakes, particularly in its approach to China. But in the weeks preceding Copenhagen, the Americans moved quite far (despite political pressures from a wary Congress), and President Obama worked hard to rescue some sort of a deal at the actual gathering. The environmentalists’ failure to recognize this suggests that deep-seated anti-Americanism continues even after the departure of the much-loathed Bush administration. And though the EU should have taken more of a lead and was foolish to join in attempts to undermine the Kyoto Protocol, its leaders led the last-minute rescue missions in Copenhagen. The Danes were undoubtedly not up to the job of charing the gathering. Indeed, the accord only won arms-length acceptance from the plenary after the Danish prime minister, Lars Løkke Ramussen, was quietly ejected from the chair. This type of situation probably won’t be a problem next December in Mexico, not least because a developing country will be presiding. And the shambolic failure of the UN system, not just in Copenhagen but over the whole of the last year (leading even one of its stalwarts, Malta’s Michael Zammit Cutajar, to confess “its tough to keep the belief in it”) is leading to an unprecedented drive for reform. UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon announced he was setting up a “high-level panel” to see “how to streamline the negotiations process,” adding that he wanted to discuss “how we can do better” with governments and civil society. And that was just one sign of the most remarkable development of the last ten days. For even as the blame flew around, the key participants — far from taking refuge in it, and scaling down their commitments — were actually underlining their determination to do more. Obama reemphasized his resolve to get a cap-and trade bill through Congress, insisting that clean energy will “drive economic growth for decades to come.” Gordon Brown said he would be stepping up efforts to get a climate treaty. And France’s Nicolas Sarkozy offered to host a summit this spring of the leaders that signed the Copenhagen accord, while Angela Merkel’s Germany will host a ministerial meeting in June. Mexico pledged to press for the most controversial international commitment of all — a 50 percent global emissions cut by 2050 — as part of “a binding international agreement” under its chairmanship. Brazil announced it would stick to its own ambitious targets. India — whose celebration of the Copenhagen’s failure was second only to China’s — launched a plan for special “green economic zones.” And China announced new regulations to increase the use of renewable energy. Welding all this into a new treaty remains a formidable task, probably more so than before the Copenhagen summit opened. But there is still much to work with, if only governments can start working together. The first step is to move beyond the finger-pointing. As Yvo de Boer, the UN official in charge of the negotiations, pointed out last week: “These countries will have to sit down together next year, so blaming each other for what happened will not help.” ### |
|
Posted on Sustainabilitank.info on March 8th, 2010 ![]()
Freedom for Sale: Why the World Is Trading Democracy for Security
When the Soviet Union collapsed in 1991, Western commentators were quick to assert that liberal democracy and capitalism had won the day. The truth was more complex. Authoritarian governments in China, Singapore, and later, Russia, deftly separated democracy from capitalism, offering their citizens a choice. They could embrace all the comforts of a consumerist society, so long as they surrendered their civil liberties. Freedom for Sale (Basic Books) is a portrait of a new paradigm of authoritarian capitalism, which is making inroads not just in the East, but in America as well. At this Open Society Institute event, author John Kampfner will discuss his argument that this model represents a “pact” between governments and their middle class subjects. As long as citizens consent to stay out of politics and keep to themselves, in return they receive all the creature comforts they desire. The cost is small, insofar as the average citizen is concerned—but as soon as activists and journalists get involved, the pact has swift, deadly consequences. Crackdowns on journalists in China, detentions of political dissidents in Singapore, and thuggish intimidation and assassinations in Russia are all part and parcel of this system, but even so, the pact seems more popular, and more successful than ever. Speakers
http://www.soros.org/resources/events/freedom-for-sale-20100318?utm_source=Open+Society+Institute&utm_campaign=ef3298ed63-upcoming_events_2010308&utm_medium=email
### | |||||||||||
|
Posted on Sustainabilitank.info on March 8th, 2010 We picked up some ideas from Katie McCaskey of an aol blog – http://www.housingwatch.com/2010/02/19/kill-your-lawn-earn-some-green/ Katie pointed out that Southern California residents have now further good financial reasons for doing sane things and rip out their water-wasting turf – did you hear that they will get even a check in the mail? These programs were instituted by Southern California utilities because of water shortage and above triggered my memory of things past that occured when I tried to do sane things in New York State and found that one must bow to the conventional narrow minds running the system. Cyberhomes blogger Marcie Geffner writes: ### |
|
Posted on Sustainabilitank.info on March 8th, 2010 Why the euro will continue to weaken.By Wolfgang Münchau Published in The Financial Times, March 7, 2010. If you want to unnerve a European, the revelation of a secret dinner of New York-based hedge funds conspiring against the euro is hard to beat. Europeans are right to worry – but not about the collusion itself. They should be much more concerned that some of the world’s smartest investors are convinced the euro has only one way to go: deep down. At first sight, this flies in the face of a previous consensus. In Europe, in particular, the predominant view has been that the infidels at the Federal Reserve and the Bank of England will ultimately inflate themselves out of their debt, while the European Central Bank will hold firm. That scenario would be consistent with an overvalued euro. So what has prompted some sophisticated investors to think the opposite? Greece? Probably not. This is a story about what will happen to the eurozone beyond Greece. Without political and legal constraints, this would be much easier. The eurozone would prescribe itself a crisis resolution mechanism, a procedure to manage internal imbalances, and perhaps move towards a common eurozone bond. Several economists have made concrete proposals: Daniel Gros, director of the Centre for European Policy Studies, and Thomas Mayer, chief economist of Deutsche Bank, have argued the case for a European Monetary Fund. Yves Leterme, the Belgian prime minister, has proposed a European debt agency. While all of this sounds sensible, none of it may ever happen because of political and legal constraints. Some member states would argue that a new European treaty would be needed to implement such proposals. The route to getting the Lisbon treaty ratified was so tortuous that Brussels would rather go to hell and back than negotiate and ratify another treaty. In any case, German constitutional law imposes such tight constraints that any dilution of the no bail-out clause in the Maastricht treaty or the price stability target of the ECB might trigger a forced German exit. The most one can hope for during the next 10 years is improved voluntary co-ordination in the European Council. So the question then becomes: what economic adjustment mechanisms are feasible against this political and constitutional backdrop? The options are limited. The one policy response we can almost take for granted will be an attempt to reduce budget deficits back towards the Maastricht treaty’s upper ceiling of 3 per cent of gross domestic product. This will be achieved, if not by 2012, then a year or two later. Meanwhile, Germany has unilaterally prescribed itself a deficit-to-GDP ceiling of 0.35 per cent from 2016. There will be some slippage here as well. But there can be no doubt that the eurozone will try – and probably succeed – to consolidate its fiscal position. The budget committee of the German Bundestag started last Friday, in fact, by cutting the finance minister’s 2010 budget by almost €6bn ($8.2bn, £5.4bn). If we assume further budgetary consolidation as a given, how then will the eurozone economy adjust? It is an economic fact that the sum of public and private sector balances must equal the current account balance. So forcing up public sector balances implies either an offsetting fall in private sector balances, an offsetting improvement in the current account balance, or some combination of the two. In scenario one, the eurozone’s current account balance remains broadly unchanged, and all the adjustment comes through a fall in private sector balances. In a similar way, Greece last week solved its fiscal problem by creating a private sector problem of identical size. The Greek state – the sum of its public and private sectors – is just as bankrupt today as it was a week ago. This means that, by following the fiscal policy rules, the eurozone would risk a private sector depression, which would almost certainly be concentrated heavily in Europe’s south. This scenario would greatly increase the probability of a eurozone break-up at some point in the future. Investors who believe in this scenario would be very afraid to hold euros. In scenario two, all the adjustment comes through the eurozone’s current account balance, which would turn from slightly negative to strongly positive. It is difficult to see how this could be done without a significant further devaluation of the euro. The euro would join the long list of currencies that have seen their problems solved through competitive devaluation. So the consequences would be a significant devaluation of the euro against the dollar and a reversal of its appreciation against sterling. It would make life more difficult for the British. But, most importantly, it would contribute to a resurgence in global imbalances. Whichever scenario you choose, the euro is going to be weak. Even if the eurozone were to allow more serious slippage in budgetary consolidation than I have suggested, that would probably not help the euro either, as markets would start to doubt the longevity of the currency union for political reasons. We have always known that a monetary union cannot exist without political union in the long run. Those smart New York investors are betting that the long run is closer than we thought. ### |
|
Posted on Sustainabilitank.info on March 6th, 2010
Arctic Shelf Leaking Potent Greenhouse Gas
By Stephen Leahy
### |
|
Posted on Sustainabilitank.info on March 5th, 2010 Thursday, 04 March 2010
IPI to Hold 60th Anniversary World Congress in Vienna and BratislavaThinking the Unthinkable: Are We Losing the News?The International Press Institute (IPI) will hold its annual World Congress in Vienna, Austria, and Bratislava, Slovakia, from 11-14 September 2010, the organisation today officially announced. The 2010 World Congress will mark the 60th anniversary of the founding of IPI, and the organisation will celebrate 60 years of defending press freedom in a series of events, culminating in the World Congress in the “twin cities” of Vienna and Bratislava. Under the overall theme, “Thinking the Unthinkable: Are We Losing the News? (Media Freedom in the New Media Landscape),” the three-day conference will focus attention on the state of the news media itself, providing new business models and solutions for the media, and the unique opportunity to meet and interact with major players from both traditional and new media outlets. The Congress will also look at the new ways of delivering information and how new technologies are proving to be a powerful ally of freedom of opinion and expression. “The new information platforms are having an enormous impact not only on mainstream journalism, but also on press freedom in countries where authoritarian regimes seek to curtail freedom of opinion and expression,” said IPI Director David Dadge. At a special Gala Dinner and Ceremony, to be held at Vienna City Hall, IPI will honour “60 World Press Freedom Heroes” to commemorate the 60 years of its existence. IPI’s Press Freedom Heroes are individuals who have made a significant contribution to the defence and promotion of press freedom, especially – but not only – if this involved acts of resistance or bravery under hardship conditions. “We will pay tribute to these brave men and women, who displayed the utmost courage in defending press freedom in their country or region,” said Dadge. “Many of them paid the ultimate price, murdered for what they wrote or said.” IPI intends to invite all surviving Heroes to the ceremony in Vienna. For the first time, IPI will also hold – parallel to the Congress – a “New Media & High-Tech Innovations Exhibition”, showcasing the latest in new media technologies and information platforms. The Congress programme features a roster of world-class speakers, including Alex Jones, Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist and director of the Shorenstein Center on the Press, Politics and Public Policy at Harvard University’s Kennedy School of Government; Jeff Howe, contributing editor at Wired Magazine and author of the best-selling book, “Crowdsourcing”; Jim VandeHei, co-founder and executive editor of the influential Politico website; Martin Figueiredo, publisher and editor-in-chief of i Daily in Portugal; Guy Black, executive director of the Telegraph Media Group in the United Kingdom; Alexandra Föderl-Schmid, editor-in-chief of Der Standard in Austria; Sarah Montague, presenter, BBC, London, and many more. The event is expected to draw over 400 participants and their guests from around the world. Confirmed partners for the Congress are: Google; OMV; Samsung; Telekom Austria Group; City of Vienna; Twin City Liner; and Austrian Airlines, as official carrier. IPI’s media partners for the Congress are: ORF; Der Standard & APA. ### |
|
Posted on Sustainabilitank.info on March 5th, 2010
### | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Posted on Sustainabilitank.info on March 5th, 2010
### | ||||||||
|
Posted on Sustainabilitank.info on March 4th, 2010 THE WORLD IS WATCHING Obama takes charge, demands vote on health care. By DAVID ESPO, AP Special Correspondent – Wed Mar 3, 6:19 pm ET —————- POLITICO, OPINION CONTRIBUTOR Sarah Palin a populist? By CHARLES POSTEL 3/3/10 When David Broder praised Sarah Palin’s speech at the National Tea Party Convention as “perfect-pitch populism,” real Populists were surely spinning in their graves. In the 1890s, American farmers and other activists rocked corporate power in a populist revolt. Now, the Washington Post columnist has passed the populist mantle to Palin. If they could, the Populists would protest this misuse of their name. But why do political analysts insist on using the word “populism” to describe conservative activism? Why should we care? Because it makes hash of both history and our current political conflicts. The Populists were all about economic justice. They demanded government regulation of railroads, banks, telecommunications and insurance. And if that failed to curb corporate abuses, they wanted public ownership or at least a “public option.” They demanded a federal stimulus to get the economy out of the terrible depression of 1893-97. The Populists were the ones who pushed for a progressive income tax to pay for the needs of the people, especially for better and more accessible public schools and universities. The Populist Party of the 1890s failed. But, in failure, its proposals refashioned progressive politics for generations. Yet the populist reputation has suffered a cruel fate. In the 1950s, historian Richard Hofstadter discovered a “cranky” side of populism. “Progressive populism,” he suggested, had morphed into the conservative intolerance of McCarthyism. It didn’t matter that this never happened. It didn’t matter how many scholars had showed that there was not a scintilla of evidence for a populism/Joe McCarthy connection. The damage was done. Today’s political analysts channel Hofstadter. George Will’s Feb. 18 Washington Post column smugly reduces populism to the whiny politics of self-defeating resentment “that never seems serious as a solution.” It may be bad history, but it makes for simple story lines about “angry” politics. So they tell us Palin is a populist because she speaks for the “common people.” But every ambitious politician over the past 200 years has laid claim to “the plain people,” “the neglected middle class” or “the silent majority.” Palin is a populist, the political analysts tell us, because she is “resentful” and “angry.” But Americans are divided in their anger. And those divisions run along well-worn historical ruts. Take health care. Lots of Americans, in the populist tradition, are mad at the social injustice of 40,000 people dying every year because of a lack of health care. Lots of other Americans, in the conservative tradition, are no less angry at the idea that government would provide the care that they need. Or income taxes. Lots of Americans, in the populist tradition, resent the fact that schools and bridges are crumbling because Wall Street millionaires no longer pay their share of taxes. Lots of other Americans, in the conservative tradition, believe that progressive taxation means theft — putting “your tax dollars at work for those who won’t!” Or President Barack Obama’s stimulus. Lots of Americans believe that the feds should take more action — that is, print more money to pull the economy out of its slump and put people back to work. The Populists of old wanted to do this by taking the United States off the gold standard and printing money or coining silver. This gave rise to the late-19th-century “battle of the standards” that we learned about in high school — with the conservative “gold bugs” pitted against Populist “greenbackers” and “silverites.” Today’s tea party conservatives, like the gold bugs of yore, have put fear of inflation at the top of their political agenda. Tea party protesters are demanding a return to the gold standard. Earlier this month, Mike Pitts, a conservative legislator in South Carolina, introduced a bill to make gold coins the only legal currency in the state. Fox News’s Glenn Beck peddles his “three-G system” of “God, gold and guns” on his show. If we want to make sense of the storms brewing in American politics, a little history can’t hurt. The conservatives haven’t adopted gold as their symbol by accident. They are today’s gold bugs. They proudly follow in the footsteps of the “sound-money” enemies of Populism. Of the conservative bloc that fought Franklin D. Roosevelt’s New Deal. Of the militant Republicans of the McCarthy cabal, who exposed Harry Truman and Dwight Eisenhower as traitors. Of the Barry Goldwater and Ronald Reagan wing, who promised to free America from Social Security and government slavery. But many Americans have different concerns. They want government action to put the unemployed back to work, to stem the tide of foreclosures and evictions, to regulate the financial industry, to provide health care security and to repair schools and infrastructure. For such people, there’s another historical tradition they need to know about: It’s called Populism. Charles Postel, an assistant professor of history at San Francisco State University, won the Bancroft Prize in American history for his book “The Populist Vision.” ### |
|
Posted on Sustainabilitank.info on March 2nd, 2010 Dear DHFC Supporter, He warned us! In his State of the Union Address, President Obama said he wouldn’t quit trying to thrust his radical transformation of America down your throat. Now he’s arrogantly fighting for a health care plan that you don’t want any part of, despite the loud-and-clear message from the voters in New Jersey, Virginia, and most of all Massachusetts, who have rejected his “transformation.” But a genuine fight is taking place, and I’m proud to say that the Freedom Center is leading the charge! The Freedom Center has published and distributed more than 200,000 copies of two booklets designed to expose Obama and the radical left and empower Tea Party activists as they take to the streets. The first booklet, Obama’s Rules for Revolution, reveals the links of radicalism from Saul Alinsky right up to today’s White House. Thanks in part to your steadfast support, Obama’s Rules is in the hands of 200,000 Americans! And the demand is still high! And our second booklet, The Art of Political War for Tea Parties, has become a basic text for men and women across the nation who have had enough and are ready to take to the streets to stop Obama’s radical agenda! Both booklets are flying off the Center’s bookshelves. We need to produce and distribute more. It is precisely because you know who I am are and what the Freedom Center has done to defend our country and its traditions that I now ask you to make a contribution of $25, $50, $100 or more to the Freedom Center to help us print and distribute another 250,000 copies of these booklets. The real hope on America’s horizon is not in the rhetoric of the President’s empty promises. It’s in the Tea Parties, the demonstrations in Washington, and the recent elections in Massachusetts, New Jersey and Virginia. Your countrymen are learning all about Obama and the radical leftist machine, knowledge you’ve had for a long time by virtue of working beside me at the Freedom Center. I have said it many times, the Freedom Center is not just another think tank; it is a battle tank. But we can only do this with your help. You have been the backbone of the Center, one of our most loyal supporters. Please make a tax deductible contribution to the Freedom Center that will allow us to complete the mission we have undertaken. America stands at the precipice. Let’s act together to save our country, our liberty and our future by bringing it back from the brink. Thank you so much for helping me in the past, and I hope you are standing with me still. Sincerely, David Horowitz P.S. I don’t have to tell you that the Freedom Center has been in the forefront of the fight against the left for the last 20 years. Now that it is Paul Revere time in America, we will be even more aggressive in telling it like it is, more active in warning our countrymen what they face, more determined in stopping the left’s advance. As we go to war with the leftists in the Obama administration, I ask you to reenlist one more time to serve with us. We will fight the battles, but we need you to pass the ammunition. The David Horowitz Freedom Center ### |
|
Posted on Sustainabilitank.info on March 2nd, 2010
### | ||||||||||||||||
|
Posted on Sustainabilitank.info on March 2nd, 2010 ———- Forwarded message ———-
From: Stephen Wise Free Synagogue
Date: Tue, Mar 2, 2010 Subject: Shabbat Dinner and Mitzvah Day This Weekend
### |
|
Posted on Sustainabilitank.info on March 2nd, 2010
Published 20:18, March the 1st, 2010
Gore: Mishaps occur, climate change is realFormer Vice President Al Gore took aim at skeptics who doubt the reality of human-caused climate change, saying he wished it were an illusion but the problem is real and urgent. Gore, who has made the fight against climate change his signature issue since leaving the White House in 2001, specifically addressed challenges to the accuracy of findings by the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. “But unfortunately, the reality of the danger we are courting has not been changed by the discovery of at least two mistakes” in reports by the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Gore said. Climate change skeptics have pointed to errors in the panel’s landmark 2007 report — an overestimate of how fast Himalayan glaciers would melt in a warming world and incorrect information on how much of the Netherlands is below sea level — as signs that the report’s basic conclusions are flawed. Climate change linked to allergies
Sneezing, congestion and runny noses from hay fever may be lasting longer because climate change may be extending pollen seasons, doctors in Italy said yesterday. Pollen seasons, as well as the amount of pollen in the air, progressively increased during a six-year study in Italy, the doctors told a meeting of the American Academy of Allergy, Asthma & Immunology in New Orleans. The team at Genoa University recorded pollen counts, how long pollen seasons lasted and sensitivity to five types of pollen. REUTERS
### |
|
Posted on Sustainabilitank.info on March 2nd, 2010 The New York Times Co.’s stock was surging today, March 1st, up 6.3%. It reached greater heights earlier in the day, spiking an astounding 11% on rumors that a billionaire shareholder – the Mexican Carlos Slim – would buy the whole company. A representative for Mr. Slim has told CNBC that Slim won’t be buying The New York Times. For its part, the Times Co. has said it doesn’t comment on rumors. Trading volume in New York Times shares is about four times as much as average today. Slim bought a 6.9% stake in the Times in 2008. In January 2010 he invested an additional $250 million. Over the weekend, New York Magazine reported that Rupert Murdoch’s Wall Street Journal was mooting a $15 million initiative to take on The New York Times with a new New York metro section, in hopes of cut into the Times’ advertising base. The Times needs money even though it actually returned last week the salaries of some of its employees that were cut because of the recession. Does the NYT try to retain some of the staff so that its writing does not suffer further? Are Murdoch – Salim fighting matches on New York’s horizon? We think the beneficiary of this will continue to be The Financial Times. ### |
|
Posted on Sustainabilitank.info on March 2nd, 2010 HRW Press – HUMAN RIGHTS WATCH AT THE UN. Egypt: Student Wrote About Corruption in Military Academy and was put before Military Court Trial. (New York, March 1, 2010) – The Egyptian authorities should drop all charges against Ahmad Mostafa, a 20-year-old engineering student charged with writing about corruption in the military academy on his blog, Human Rights Watch said today. Security officials are prosecuting Mostafa before a military court in a trial that began March 1, 2010. Military intelligence officers arrested Mostafa on February 25, 2010, while he was on his way to the Faculty of Engineering at Kafr El Sheikh University, and the prosecutor ordered his detention pending trial, based on a Military Academy complaint about the 2009 posting. Gamal Eid, director of the Arab Network for Human Rights Information, told Human Rights Watch that military intelligence officers questioned Mostafa on January 17 about his blogging, demanded his password, and then changed his password to keep him from accessing the blog before releasing him that same day. The blog post appears to have come to their attention after Mostafa discussed plans to hold a demonstration during a January visit by President Hosni Mubarak to Kafr el Sheikh with other April 6 members. The prosecutor charged Mostafa under Law 113 of 1956 and the Penal Code which prohibit “the publication of information considered a secret of the armed forces, spreading false information with the goal of causing harm and insulting officials responsible for admission of students into the military academy.” The only evidence presented is the post on Mustafa’s blog. Egypt has arrested and detained other bloggers for acts protected by freedom of expression. Kareem Amer, whose real name is `Abd al-Karim Nabil Suleiman, has been in Borg El Arab prison, in Alexandria, since November 7, 2006, for writing about sectarian tensions in Alexandria and criticizing President Mubarak and the Al-Azhar religious institution on his blog. On February 22, 2007, a court sentenced him to four years in prison for “insulting the president,” “spreading information disruptive of public order,” and “incitement to hate Muslims.” Hany Nazeer, another blogger, is being detained without charge in Borg El Arab prison, under the country’s emergency law. State Security officers arrested him at his home in Naga Hammadi, Qena, on October 3, 2008, after he expressed opinions critical of Christianity and Islam on his blog. Mostafa Hanafy, vice president of the Egyptian Council of State and a member of the Egyptian delegation to the United Nations Human Rights Council, told the human rights body on February 17 that the Egyptian government had “made a commitment before parliament to use the emergency law only for terrorism and drug-related crimes and it has only implemented the rules of the emergency law in these cases.” Musad Abul Fagr, a novelist and rights defender who had been outspokenly critical of violation of the rights of Sinai Bedouin, remains in prison under an emergency law order despite several court orders for his release. On July 17, prison officials transferred him to Borg El Arab prison under the 13th emergency law order extending his detention. Human Rights Watch strongly opposes any trials of civilians before military courts, whose proceedings do not protect due process rights. The African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights, in interpreting the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights, has said that military courts “should not, in any circumstances whatsoever, have jurisdiction over civilians.” The Human Rights Committee, the expert body that monitors compliance with the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), expressed concern in 2002 that Egypt’s “military courts and state security courts have jurisdiction to try civilians accused of terrorism although there are no guarantees of those courts’ independence and their decisions are not subject to appeal before a higher court,” as required by the ICCPR. In a 2009 report following his visit to Egypt, Martin Scheinin, UN Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms while countering terrorism, reiterated that “the trial of civilian terrorist suspects in military and Emergency Supreme State Security Courts raises concerns about the impartial and independent administration of justice and furthermore does not comply with the right to have a conviction and sentence fully reviewed by a higher court.” During the review of Egypt’s record by the UN Human Rights Council, several countries recommended that Egypt stop detaining bloggers under the emergency law and stop trying civilians before military courts. Hanafy, the Egyptian delegation member, told the Council on February 17 that “there are very few cases of [civilians tried before military courts]; the decision [to refer a civilian to a military court] is an administrative one that can be appealed against in all cases.” “The Egyptian government says one thing in Geneva and then immediately makes a mockery of the Human Rights Council’s review process,” Stork said. “No civilian should be tried before a military court, and no government that claims to respect human rights should be prosecuting someone solely for writing about corruption.” For more Human Rights Watch reporting on Egypt, please visit: For more information please contact: ### |


























Off-site Activities:

