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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

—————-

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

* *** *

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

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

Jeffrey Ball is Environment Editor and Columnist at  The Wall Street Journal. He covers the issues by pulling in the information from its sources and judges the information’s importance to business.

As  the WSJ describes him – “Jeffrey Ball is The Wall Street Journal’s environment editor. His column, “Power Shift,” appears every other Friday in the paper and chronicles the changing energy and environmental landscape.

Mr. Ball has written about energy and the environment for the Journal for a decade, having covered the oil industry from the paper’s Dallas bureau and the auto industry from the Detroit bureau. His reporting focuses on the economic viability of efforts to change the way society consumes fossil fuels.

He helped create Environmental Capital, the Journal’s daily blog on energy and the environment, and he has appeared on networks including PBS, NPR, CNN and the BBC. Before coming to the Journal in 1996, he worked as a reporter for the Charlotte (N.C) Observer and the Corpus Christi (TX) Caller-Times.

He graduated in 1990 from Yale University, where he majored in history and was editor-in-chief of the Yale Daily News.           He lives in Dallas with his wife and two daughters.”

We write the above because we were impressed. – He is a good journalist – he caught on to the implications to business of the uncertainty created by the push against Climate Science and the need to clear up that uncertainty.

He published:

Climate Panel Vows Better Oversight on Research - WSJ.com
Feb 24, 2010 … Write to Jeffrey Ball at  jeffrey.ball at wsj.com …
 http://online.wsj.com/article/SB20001424… We are not sure he was there, but he cut through the nonsense and came up with the essence. We have him take the stage on our website.

Climate Panel Details Its Review Plan: U.N. Appoints Another Global Science Body to Investigate Problems in Now-Controversial 2007 Report on Warming Trend.

By JEFFREY BALL, The Wall Street Journal, March 11, 2010.

The United Nations detailed its plans for an outside review of its beleaguered panel on climate change, amid political reverberations as critics and advocates each jockeyed to use the announcement to their advantage.

The InterAcademy Council, a body representing scientific academies around the world, is to conduct a wide-ranging review of the procedures and management of the U.N.’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. The review, to be done by August, comes in response to revelations of questionable behavior and factual errors by some scientists who contributed to the IPCC’s 2007 report, which won a Nobel Peace Prize.

The report called climate change “unequivocal” and “very likely” caused by emissions from human activity.

Robbert Dijkgraaf, co-chair of the InterAcademy Council, said in an interview that a particularly delicate task will be to pick who participates in the review. The council needs people who have knowledge of climate science but aren’t too close to the IPCC: “Clearly you cannot be the reviewer and the reviewed at the same time,” he said. But people involved in previous IPCC reports could serve on the review committee, he said.

The council was set up in 2000 to advise international institutions such as the U.N. and the World Bank. The IPCC chairman, Rajendra Pachauri, participated in a previous council report on energy issues, but Mr. Dijkgraaf said that wouldn’t compromise the council’s objectivity.

U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon has made climate change one of the top priorities of his tenure. Mr. Ban took no questions Wednesday and didn’t directly address trhe future of Mr. Pachauri, who has faced calls to resign. But the two stood together at the U.N. podium and Mr. Ban was supportive.

“Regrettably, there were a very small number of errors” in the panel’s 2007 report, Mr. Ban said. “Remember, this is a 3,000-page synthesis of complex scientific data. I have seen no credible evidence that challenges the main conclusions of that report.” In an interview Wednesday, Mr. Pachauri said he would “certainly not” resign.

Critics of proposed greenhouse-gas regulations in the U.S. have begun using questions about the IPCC as their latest ammunition. Peabody Energy Co., one of the country’s major coal producers, filed a petition last month with the U.S. Court of Appeals in Washington challenging the Environmental Protection Agency’s move to regulate greenhouse-gas emissions because it relies on IPCC determinations.

The EPA said in a statement that it is confident its move will withstand legal challenge. “The question of the science is settled,” the agency said.

The IPCC expressed “regret” earlier this year that its 2007 report erroneously claimed that Himalayan glaciers could melt by 2035. The report also said inaccurately that about half of the Netherlands sits below sea level. IPCC leaders, including Mr. Pachauri, say an independent review is needed to try to restore public confidence in the panel.

The InterAcademy Council’s board is likely to elect members to its review committee on March 22, Mr. Dijkgraaf said. He said the committee probably will include some people who have little exposure to climate science, but have expertise in issues such as quality control of data and use of non-peer-reviewed literature. The report will go through the council’s board, which consists largely of presidents of national science academies.

“Scientific reputations will rest on this, and if it can be shown the science was sloppy, their stars will fall,” said scientific ethicist Thomas M. Powers, director of the Science, Ethics, and Public Policy Program at the University of Delaware, speaking of those involved in the IPCC report. “Apart from divining rods, the best we can do is get the smartest people in the world, the people who know science, and ask them to review their peers.”

Environmentalists said that they hoped the review would quiet criticism of the IPCC. It should “restore public confidence that has been shaken by an aggressive campaign to sow confusion about climate science,” said a statement by Peter Frumhoff, who helped to write the 2007 report and is director of science and policy for the Union of Concerned Scientists.

Republican Sen. John Barrasso of Wyoming, who is among those calling for Mr. Pachauri’s resignation, on Wednesday said that the U.S. “cannot afford to continue to base our energy and environmental policies on contaminated U.N. data.”

The InterAcademy Council will probe, among other things, the IPCC’s guidelines for using non-peer-reviewed literature in its reports, how to ensure the IPCC considers a “full range of scientific views,” and how it corrects any errors in its reports once detected, Mr. Dijkgraaf said, The council also will “look at the management of the IPCC,” he said.

Neither the U.N. nor the IPCC will “exercise any control” over the study by the InterAcademy Council, Mr. Dijkgraaf said.
Printed in The Wall Street Journal, page A10.

State of the Planet, March 25, 2010.

From The Earth Institute, COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY

Thursday, March 25, 2010 -  8:30am-5:30pm EDT

Beijing, London, Nairobi, New Delhi, New York, via live links/webcast

New York site: Lerner Hall, Columbia University, 115 St/Broadway

—————–

Webcast/event site: http://www.stateoftheplanet.org/

—————

The State of the Planet conference, held every two years, brings together insights on critical issues from the world’s most influential thinkers and leaders. This year, the Earth Institute, The Economist and Ericsson join forces to bring the conversation to the global community. With broadband access enabled by Ericsson, live events in five cities will be brought together in real time, moderated by Economist journalists. Viewers at home can participate via interactive online tools and discussion boards.

Four major topics are on the table: the science and politics of climate change; healing the world economy in an environmentally sustainable way; the ongoing challenge of ending extreme poverty; and how we can build and strengthen international systems able to deal with continuing crises that span borders.

Speakers include:  UN secretary-general Ban Ki-moon; President Felipe Calderón Hinojosa of Mexico; Prince Albert II of Monaco; Sanjeev Chadha, CEO of Pepsico India; Achim Steiner, executive director of the UN Environment Programme; Xu Jintao, head of the environmental economics program, Peking University; and many others. Moderator: Al Jazeera journalist Riz Khan. Hosts of the event are: Earth Institute director Jeffrey D. Sachs; Ericsson president and CEO Hans Vestberg; and Matthew Bishop, American business editor and New York bureau chief of The Economist.

New York press registration/info: Kevin Krajick kkrajick@ei.columbia.edu 212-854-9729

Beijing: brookings@tsinghua.edu.cn

Nairobi: Nick Nuttall  nick.nuttall@unep.org

New Delhi: Abhijit Sinha  Abhijit.sinha@teri.res.in

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

DRAFT AGENDA –  New York, NY

March 25, 2010

8:30 a.m. EDT     Video Introduction

Welcome and Introduction by Event Hosts:

• Jeffrey D. Sachs, The Earth Institute
• Hans Vestberg, Ericsson
• Matthew Bishop, The Economist

Introduction of Global Sites:  Riz Khan, Al Jazeera English (Master of Ceremonies).

8:55 a.m. EDT SESSION I:  CLIMATE CHANGE – What Would It Take to Complete the Climate Deal?

In recent months, the world saw failed negotiations in Copenhagen, attacks on the validity of reports by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, and calls from politicians to open criminal investigations into climate science.  In this context, discussion is likely to go beyond “completion” of a climate deal to delve into the true state of our knowledge; how the world perceives it; and whether, and how, the world can move forward toward real action on climate change.

New York

Event Site Host: The Earth Institute, Columbia University

Moderator: Matthew Bishop, American Business Editor and New York Bureau Chief, The Economist
Panelists:

• Wallace S. Broecker, Newberry Professor of Earth and Environmental Sciences, Columbia University
• Mark Cane, G. Unger Vetlesen Professor of Earth and Climate Sciences and Professor of Applied Physics and Applied Mathematics, Columbia University
• Johan Rockström, Executive Director, Stockholm Environment Institute and Stockholm Resilience Centre, Stockholm University

Beijing

Event Site Host: Brookings Institution, Tshingua University

Moderator: James Miles, China Correspondent, The Economist

Panelists:

• Xiao Geng, Director, Brookings Tsinghua Center for Public Policy; Senior Fellow, Brookings Institution (speaking from Beijing)
• Xu Jintao, Professor of Natural Resource Economics; Head of the Environmental Economics Program in China, Peking University
• Jiang Kejun, Research Professor and Director, Energy Systems Analysis and Market Analysis Division, Energy Research Institute, National Development and Reform Commission
• Qi Ye, Professor of Environmental Policy and Management; Director; Climate Policy Institute, Tsinghua University

Monaco – HSH Prince Albert II of Monaco

New Delhi – Event Site Host: The Energy and Resources Institute (TERI)

Moderator:  Simon Cox, Correspondent, The Economist

Panelist:

• Nitin Desai, Former UN Under-Secretary-General; Distinguished Fellow, The Energy and Resources Institute (TERI) (TBC)

10:30 a.m. EDT   Break

——————-

10:45 a.m. EDT SESSION II:  POVERTY – How Do We Achieve the Millennium Development Goals?

Only five years remain until the 2015 deadline to achieve the Millennium Development Goals, the world’s agreed-upon targets to end extreme poverty and fight hunger and disease. This year is pivotal. UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon has called on world leaders to attend a summit in New York September 20-22, to boost progress toward the MDGs and agree on a plan of action to achieve them. The prospect of falling short of the goals due to lack of commitment is real, but achieving the MDGs remains feasible with adequate commitment, policies, resources and effort.

New York

Event Site Host: The Earth Institute, Columbia University

Moderator:  Matthew Bishop, American Business Editor and New York Bureau Chief, The Economist

Panelists:

• HRH Princess Máxima of the Netherlands, UN Secretary-General’s Special Advocate for Inclusive Finance for Development
• Glenn Denning, Professor of Professional Practice, Columbia University
• Hans Vestberg, President and CEO, Ericsson

Nairobi (Special Focus: Is Green Growth the Answer for Africa?)

Event Site Host: United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP)

Moderator: Jonathan Ledgard, Correspondent, The Economist

Panelists:

• James Mwangi , Group Managing Director and CEO, Equity Bank
• Sylvia Mwichuli Mudasia, Director of Africa Communications, UN Millennium Campaign
• Achim Steiner, Executive Director, United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP); UN Under-Secretary-General

——————

12:15 p.m. EDT  Lunch

1:30 p.m. EDT     Keynote Address

President Felipe Calderón Hinojosa, Mexico (speaking from Mexico City)

—————-

1:58 p.m. EDT     SESSION III:  ECONOMIC RECOVERY – What Does a Green Recovery Look Like?

This session will deal with two colliding questions. First: How do we haul the world out of the current economic recession? Second: Given that economic activity helps drive environmental degradation, how do we make a recovery environmentally sustainable? Discussion may start with shorter-term questions of money and finance, but will quickly move on to longer-term ones on how the world economy fits in with the usage or conservation of  natural resources; systems of energy generation, old and new; and the survival or fall of natural ecosystems.

New York

Event Site Host: The Earth Institute, Columbia University

Moderator: Riz Khan, Host of the Riz Khan Show, Al Jazeera English
Panelists:

• Sanjeev Chadha, Chairman and CEO, PepsiCo India
• Geoffrey Heal, Paul Garrett Professor of Public Policy and Business Responsibility and Professor of Economics and Finance, Columbia University
• Peter  Wierenga, Executive Vice President and CEO,  Philips Research

London

Event Site Host: The Economist

Moderator: John Micklethwait, Editor-in-Chief, The Economist, London

—————-

3:55 p.m. EDT     SESSION IV:  How Can an International System Be Built To Deal with Transnational Issues?

4:00 p.m. EDT     Keynote Address

Ban Ki-moon, UN Secretary-General

The challenges of sustainable development—whether heading off climate change, fighting extreme poverty, stabilizing populations, or ensuring adequate water supplies for human use and crops—must all harness actions from a wide array of institutions. Gaining cooperation among the many stakeholders involved is the toughest challenge of all. In the countdown to achieving the MDGs by 2015, and in the midst of a global economic crisis, the need to strengthen global cooperation has become an emergency rather than simply a matter of urgency. Strengthening global partnerships in the areas of aid, trade, debt relief, and access to affordable medicines and new technologies is critical to prevent a decline in development.

New York

Event Site Host: The Earth Institute, Columbia University

Moderator: Riz Khan, Host of the Riz Khan Show, Al Jazeera English

Panelists:

• Matthew Bishop, American Business Editor and New York Bureau Chief, The Economist, New York
• Jeffrey D. Sachs, Director, The Earth Institute, Columbia University
• Rajiv Shah, Administrator, United States Agency for International Development (USAID) (TBC)
• Ann Veneman, Executive Director, United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF)

——————-

5:17 p.m. EDT     Wrap-Up: Jeffrey D. Sachs, Hans Vestberg and Matthew Bishop

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

MORE INFORMATION:

Kevin Krajick, The Earth Institute
212-854-9729
kkrajick@ei.columbia.edu

Dayna De Simone, The Economist

Daynadesimone@economist.com

Ericsson Corporate Public & Media Relations

Phone: +46 10 719 69 92

The Earth Institute, Columbia University mobilizes the sciences, education and public policy to achieve a sustainable earth. Through interdisciplinary research among more than 500 scientists in diverse fields, the Institute is adding to the knowledge necessary for addressing the challenges of the 21st century and beyond. With over two dozen associated degree curricula and a vibrant fellowship program, the Earth Institute is educating new leaders to become professionals and scholars in the growing field of sustainable development. We work alongside governments, businesses, nonprofit organizations and individuals to devise innovative strategies to protect the future of our planet.

The Economist, edited in London since 1843, is a weekly international news and business publication offering clear reporting, commentary and analysis on world politics, business, finance, science, technology, culture, society, media and the arts.  The Economist has a North American circulation of 813,000, a global circulation of more than 1.4 million and 4 million monthly unique visitors at The Economist online.  Because of its international editorial perspective, it is read by more of the world’s political and business leaders than any other magazine.

Ericsson is a world-leading provider of telecommunications equipment and related services to mobile and fixed network operators globally. Over 1,000 networks in more than 175 countries utilize its network equipment, and 40 percent of all mobile calls are made through its systems. It is one of the few companies worldwide that can offer end-to-end solutions for all major mobile communication standards. Ericsson is advancing its vision of being the “prime driver in an all-communicating world” through innovation, technology and sustainable business solutions. More than 80,000 employees around the world generated revenue of SEK 206.5 billion (USD 27.1 billion) in 2009. Founded in 1876, with the headquarters in Stockholm, Sweden, Ericsson is listed on OMX NASDAQ, Stockholm and NASD

Have Fuel Cells Finally Turned the Corner?
Now by Darren O’Dowd, Manager, Smart Grid, March 10, 2010.
Sunnyvale, California-based Bloom Energy, founded in 2001, was one of the feature stories on the February 21 edition of CBS Television’s “60 Minutes.” The subject of the story was the public unveiling of the Energy Server™, which is refrigerator-sized generating units containing solid oxide fuel cells. Bloom Energy claims that this type of advanced fuel cell holds greater potential for real distributed generation applications than its predecessors due to its use of lower cost ceramic materials as well as due to a breakthrough in engineering design challenges that previously hindered the development of solid oxide fuel cells.

The Energy Server™, according to the Bloom Energy web site, is “fuel flexible,” able to run on Natural Gas, or on renewable bio-fuels. Each one has a generation capacity of 100 kilowatts (kW), and the servers can be deployed modularly to provide greater generation capacity if needed (a Bloom Energy press release from February 24 details modular deployments of 400 kW and two deployments of 500 kW).

One of the most unique and remarkable elements of this public “debut” is that it is nothing of the sort from a production and operational standpoint. Bloom Energy, on its web site and in press releases, already counts such prominent companies as Bank of America, Coca-Cola, eBay, FedEx, Google, Staples, and Walmart as its customers with already installed and operating servers. Among the uses cited for the Energy Servers™ are replacements for on-site diesel generators (typically for back up or peak time period generation) and replacement of traditional grid-delivered power, including for the purpose of reducing these companies’ respective greenhouse gas emissions/carbon footprints through the use of bio-gas as fuel.

However, amid the hype and buzz generated from the “60 Minutes” story and subsequent public unveiling of the Energy Server™ on February 24th, many questions remain as to whether or not this new offering is the “game-changer” that, to date, in regard to fuel cells, has been more promise than delivery. The Energy Server™ was developed largely in secret since Bloom Energy’s founding in 2001, with no substantive information on the product coming from the company until last month’s public coming-out party. Bloom Energy’s headquarters are a non-descript office building in Sunnyvale with no signage indicating their presence there.

Furthermore, while most often such new technologies are tested in cooperation/collaboration with the utility industry, Bloom Energy chose not to do so with the Energy Server™ at least not that is publicly known. A representative from The Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI) declined specific comment to a blog posting for the Wall Street Journal, indicating that, “we haven’t had access to it.” Therefore it is unclear how the server will function if interconnected to the grid in a net-metering scenario (similar to what’s happening now in many jurisdictions with smaller Solar PV distributed generation). It’s also unclear how exactly the Energy Server™ would function in residential areas, as its capacity would dictate its deployment at the sub-station level.

Finally, there are many questions as to the specific costs associated with obtaining and operating the Energy Server™. Bloom Power’s web site mentions a 3-5 year payback model on owning the server, but the company has not publicly gone into any further detail on the costs of ownership. Any deployment at a “utility level” will likely attract the attention of and possibly require the approval of regulators, at which point the cost in comparison to other generation resources, renewable or otherwise, will come into play.

Despite these (and probably others not explored here) open questions, Bloom Energy and the Energy Server™ merit our industry’s interest and attention going forward. The fact that they have a deliverable product already being used in the market speaks volumes as to how far fuel cells have come from promise to reality.

———–

We think that the questions in above article are basically irrelevant – this because we hope the Bloom-boxes will develop a new decentralized market that is not based on the grid. In our best dreams we envision them make the grid itself a thing of the past – so that the present investment push for smart grid will have to be reconsidered.

When real scientists say they are uncertain about something because they know that nothing is matter – all is probability – they are called cooks and what they say is rejected by the real cooks – then when the scientists decide to be efficient by talking certainty rather then probability – the same real cooks call them charlatans. Is there any hope to a decent world led by decent government capable of saying that the uncertainty principle
becomes a must in dealing with the precautionary principle?

March 10, 2010   -  One Flew over…..The Sequel   {that must have been … the Cookoo’s Nest?}

http://jer-skepticscorner.blogspot.com/

UN to review errors made by Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change

—

STOP THE PRESSES !

Sanity in the Main Stream Media

Editorial: Global warming challenge

FROM-OC Register

The possibility of suspending California’s Global Warming Solutions Act, a law unlikely to change temperatures but certain to wreak economic havoc, appears to have increased dramatically.

Two large Texas-based refineries have pledged as much as $2 million to pay for signature-gathering to place an initiative on the November ballot that would suspend the global warming law if passed by voters, the Los Angeles Times reported, citing Sacramento sources.

California refineries of the two companies, Valero Energy Corp. and Tesoro Corp., would be forced to slash greenhouse gas emissions. But the initiative would delay implementation until unemployment level drops to 5.5 percent for at least a year.

Unemployment is now at 12.4 percent.
The last thing California needs is an unnecessary law that drives up costs for businesses, prices for consumers and could send many of both fleeing the state.

The Times reported Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger had asked businesses not to support the ballot measure. The initiative is sponsored by Assemblyman Dan Logue, R-Linda, Rep. Tom McClintock, R-Granite Bay, and the People’s Advocate, a Sacramento-based anti-tax group. They have until April 24 to gather 433,971 valid signatures.

It’s time the public vote on the increasingly questionable theory underlying California’s law. Leaked documents have shown climate scientists paid by government grants may have rigged data, suppressed conflicting information and blocked skeptical scientists from inspecting their studies and submitting alternate theories.

Global warming alarmism would penalize huge economic sectors by forcing the purchase of government permits to emit greenhouse gases, while imposing other costly conditions to switch to uneconomical, taxpayer-subsidized alternative fuels.

The science behind the global warming is highly speculative. Several disclosures in recent months have shown many catastrophic claims were based on slipshod documentation, not peer-reviewed studies. A recent disclosure from Sweden’s Goteborgs Universitet showed only 62 percent of sources cited by the U.N.’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change were peer-reviewed in the its 2001 report.

Meanwhile, Dr. Phil Jones, head of Britain’s Climate Research Unit was forced to step down after thousands of leaked e-mails revealed he may have suppressed and altered data. He testified last week in the House of Commons that he withheld data of countries including Sweden because those nations’ prohibited release. But he was almost immediately rebutted by the nonprofit Stockholm Initiative “for a rational climate policy,” saying “All Swedish climate data are available in the public domain” and “that fact has been clearly explained to Dr. Jones.”

Claims of catastrophic global warming are based on computer models derived from increasingly questionable data by a relatively small cadre of scientists, who have profited for years from government and private grants to study the alleged threat. We say, let’s have a vote.

FROM-The Times

The United Nations is to announce an independent review of errors made by its climate change advisory body in an attempt to restore its credibility.

A team of the world’s leading scientists will investigate the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and ask why its supposedly rigorous procedures failed to detect at least three serious overstatements of the risk from global warming.

The review will be overseen by the InterAcademy Council, whose members are drawn from the world’s leading national science academies, including Britain’s Royal Society, the United States National Academy of Sciences and the Chinese Academy of Sciences.

The review will be led by Robbert Dijkgraaf, co-chairman of the Interacademy Council and president of the Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and Sciences.

He has been asked to investigate the internal processes of the IPCC and will not consider the overarching question of whether it was right to claim that human activities were very likely to be causing global warming.

The review, which will be announced in New York by Ban Ki Moon, the UN Secretary General, and Rajendra Pachauri, the IPCC chairman, is expected to recommend stricter checking of sources and much more careful wording to reflect the uncertainties in many areas of climate science.

The IPCC’s most glaring error was a claim that all Himalayan glaciers would disappear by 2035. Most glaciologists believe it would take another 300 years for the glaciers to melt at the present rate.

It also claimed that global warming could cut rain-fed North African crop production by up to 50 per cent by 2020. A senior IPCC contributor has since admitted that there is no evidence to support this claim.

The Dutch Government has asked the IPCC to correct its claim that more than half the Netherlands is below sea level. The environment ministry said that only 26 per cent of the country was below sea level.

The allegations about climate scientists are believed to have contributed to a sharp rise in public scepticism about climate change. Last month an opinion poll found that the proportion of the population that believes climate change is an established fact and largely man-made has fallen from 41 per cent in November to 26 per cent.

The Met Office, which produces the global temperature record used by the IPCC in its reports, has proposed a separate review of its data after admitting that public confidence in its findings had been undermined.

The Met Office relies on analysis by the University of East Anglia’s Climatic Research Unit, which is under investigation over allegations that its director manipulated raw data and tried to hide it from critics.
 http://jer-skepticscorner.blogspot.com/

————

We find in above the repetition of the figure 26 quite amusing. Actually we think that while at present perhaps indeed only 26% of the Netherlands is under sea level, but then, with sea level rise thanks to the melting of the ice at the poles, and in the mountain glaciers like in the Himalaya’s (what we call the three poles) – rest assured – half of the Netherlands will be under the water line. So what is your problem with that or with what the scientists said? By that time maybe 50% of the population will accept that this was an anthropogenic event – that is that they themselves caused it – and the only fault of the scientists was their shortage of words.

from: Americas Society <communications@as-coa.org> date: Tue, Mar 9, 2010 at 12:19 PM subject: The Ford Foundation Awards Americas Society Grant to Promote Social Inclusion in the Western Hemisphere

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.

Freedom for Sale: Why the World Is Trading Democracy for Security

Location:	OSI-New York
Event Date:	March 18, 2010
Event Time:	6:00 – 8:00 p.m.
Speakers:	John Kampfner, Corey Robin, Joel Simon

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.

In Southern California homeowners are now required to replace grass with drought-tolerant, native plant species or install permeable surfaces which filter water back into the ground. Common permeable surfaces that are allowed include:  flagstone, brick, and gravel. The rebate is $1 per square foot, up to a maximum of 2,000 feet.

Cyberhomes blogger Marcie Geffner writes:
The rebate might not be enough to persuade homeowners who really love their lawns. But for me, the offer was a no-brainer as I wanted to replace my big boring lawns with flagstone walkways, cactus and other plants that are more natural to the climate, if not necessarily native.

Other water-saving rebates available through LADWP include incentives to replace toilets and clothes washers with high-efficiency models, timer controlled irrigation, and pressure-reduced sprinkler nozzles. If you’re willing, there is even a rebate for installing synthetic turf.

Kathie McCaskey suggests – “Check with your local utility company or DSIRE.org to see what environmentally-conscious rebates are available in your area.”

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.

munchau@eurointelligence.com

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
WASHINGTON – The end game at hand, President Barack Obama took command Wednesday of one final attempt by Democrats to enact bitterly contested health care legislation, calling for an “up or down vote” within weeks under rules denying Republicans the ability to kill the bill with mere talk.
Appearing before a White House audience of invited guests, many of them wearing white medical coats, Obama firmly rejected calls from Republicans to draft new legislation from scratch. “I don’t see how another year of negotiations would help. Moreover, the insurance companies aren’t starting over,” the president said, referring to a recent round of announced premium increases affecting millions who purchase individual coverage.
While Obama said he wanted action within a few weeks, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., seemed to hint a final outcome could take far longer. “We remain committed to this effort and we’ll use every option available to deliver meaningful reform this year,” he said.
The results will affect nearly every American, mandating major changes in the ways they receive and pay for health care or leaving in place current systems that leave tens of millions with no coverage and many others dissatisfied with what they do get. With Republicans united in opposition, there is no certainty about the outcome in Congress — or even that Democrats will go along with changes Obama urged on Wednesday in what he described as a bipartisan gesture.
With polls showing voters unhappy and Democrats worried about this fall’s elections, Obama also sought to cast the coming showdown in terms larger than health care, which is an enormously ambitious undertaking in its own right. “At stake right now is not just our ability to solve this problem, but our ability to solve any problem,” he said.
Republicans dug in for another struggle on an issue that they agreed would echo into the fall campaign.
The Senate GOP leader, Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, said a decision by Democrats to invoke rules that bar filibusters would be “met with outrage” by the public. “This is really not an argument between Democrats and Republicans. It’s an argument between Democrats and the American people,” he said.
At its core, the legislation under discussion still is largely along the lines Obama has long sought and GOP critics attack as a government takeover of health care. It would extend coverage care to tens of millions of uninsured Americans while cracking down on insurance company practices such as denying policies on the basis of a pre-existing medical conditions.
A new “insurance exchange” would be created in which private companies could sell policies to consumers under terms fixed by the federal government. Much of the cost of the legislation, nearly $1 trillion over a decade, would be financed by cuts in future Medicare payments to hospitals and other providers and higher payroll taxes on individuals earning more than $200,000 and couples over $250,000.
The president’s appearance marked a presumably final pivot point in a long, uphill effort by Obama and other Democrats to enact far-reaching changes to the health care system — and with his own administration at an important crossroads. Eager to turn attention to efforts to stimulate the economy and create jobs, the president is seeking a victory on health care that can also give him a boost on other priority legislation.
At the same time, a defeat could damage Obama’s ability to help fellow Democrats heading into the fall campaign. Failure on health care could well lead to a shake-up of the president’s White House team, which has received criticism recently from Democratic lawmakers.
After nearly a year of struggle, the House and Senate passed separate bills late last year, and appeared on course for approving a final compromise version early in 2010. But those efforts were abruptly abandoned when Republicans unexpectedly won a special election in Massachusetts. Sen. Scott Brown’s victory gave the GOP an ability they had lacked, the strength to sustain a filibuster, a form of opposition that requires supporters of a bill to post 60 Senate votes in order to cut off debate and force a final decision.
Democrats went into something of a political fetal position, and have begun to stir in recent days only as Obama asserted his determination with a bipartisan summit followed by a revised set of proposals.
Obama said the use of rules that deny the minority the right to a filibuster had been used numerous times in recent years, including on passage of welfare reform legislation in the 1990s and twice when President George W. Bush pushed tax cuts to passage. Health care “deserves the same kind of up or down vote” as those earlier measures, he said.
Under the rather complicated approach under discussion, the House would be asked to approve the bill that passed the Senate late last year, despite objections by many members of the rank and file to several provisions. Simultaneously, both houses would also vote for a companion measure whose purpose would be to make changes in the first bill sought by either House Democrats or the White House.
Obama said he was exploring GOP proposals for cracking down on fraudulent medical charges, revamping ways to resolve malpractice disputes, boosting doctors’ Medicaid reimbursements and offering tax incentives to curb unnecessary patient visits to doctors.
The ideas include an experiment that would establish special courts in which judges with medical expertise would decide malpractice allegations. The idea has been criticized by the Center for Justice & Democracy, a consumer group that prefers the current system of awarding damages. It said health courts would be “anti-patient.”
The White House and Democratic leaders said they hoped that Obama’s maneuvering would at least win the votes of wavering conservative and moderates in their own party, even if it didn’t entice Republicans.
But there was no guarantee of success, despite Obama’s vow to do everything in his power to succeed — and a White House announcement that he would travel to Pennsylvania and Missouri next week to campaign for the legislation.

—————-

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.”

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.

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.

“The government should not be prosecuting Mostafa at all, much less before a military court, with no possibility of appeal,” said Joe Stork, deputy Middle East director at Human Rights Watch.  “Instead of looking into his accusations, the government is trying to silence him.”

Writing that exposes corruption is protected under Egypt’s international obligations, Human Rights Watch said. Article 9 of the African Convention on Human and People’s Rights, and article 19 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, both ratified by Egypt, require Egypt to protect freedom of expression.

Mostafa, a student at Kafr El Sheikh University, in northern Egypt, is a member of “April 6,” a political activist youth group, and has a blog called “Maza Asabuki Ya Watan” (What is Ailing You, My Country?). On February 15, 2009, his post, “Scandal in the Military Academy,” contended that a teacher whose son was forced to leave the Military Academy later discovered that this was to make room for the son of an influential individual who would make financial contributions to the academy.

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 concluded the investigation on February 28 and referred the case to the military court in Nasr City, Cairo.   The trial began March 1. At the first session, the judge agreed to defense lawyers’ request for an adjournment to study the court documents, but only by one day.

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.

Defense lawyers from the Arab Network for Human Rights Information and the Association for Freedom of Thought and Expression told Human Rights Watch that the judge only allowed them a brief review of the court file and refused to allow them to see a memo regarding the case from the military academy or to take any notes.

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:
 http://www.hrw.org/en/middle-eastn-afric…

For more information please contact:
In Cairo, Heba Morayef (English, Arabic, French): +201-2381-0319; or  morayeh at hrw.org
In Washington, DC, Joe Stork (English): +1-202-612-4327; or +1-202-299-4925 (mobile)

Better than sliced bread?

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

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

• Posted on Sustainabilitank.info on March 1st, 2010
  by Pincas Jawetz (PJ@SustainabiliTank.com)

  A Film Screening and Conversation on New Muslim Cool

  Is America Really Post-Racial?

  Location:	Baltimore, MD
  Event Date:	March 2, 2010
  Event Time:	7:00 p.m.

  Featuring an interactive spoken word performance, film screening, and panel discussion with the film’s protagonist and the film maker, this event will examine the emerging worldview of a new generation of Americans.

  The film New Muslim Cool is told through the lens of Hamza Pérez, a Puerto Rican independent hip-hop artist who converts from Catholicism to Islam in the aftermath of 9/11. The documentary traces Pérez’s journey from the East Coast to the post-industrial Midwest. From marriage and parenting to his art and activism, this snapshot of Pérez’s life highlights the diverse experiences and generational changes that are shaping the new American Dream.

  After the screening of New Muslim Cool, Bakari Kitwana, author of The Hip-Hop Generation, will moderate a panel discussion. The panel will include Nura Maznavi, staff attorney from Muslim Advocates; filmmaker Jennifer Taylor; and independent hip-hop artist MC Hamza, who is the subject of the film.

  Location

  Brown Center
  Maryland Institute College of Art
  1301 Mount Royal Avenue
  Baltimore, MD 21217

  The event is free and open to the public.

  ——————————————————–
  March 14, 3:00PM-5:00PM
  Oakland Mills Interfaith Center, The Meeting House, 5885 Robert Oliver Pl, Columbia, MD
  Author Event: Why Fund War?

  Maryland’s 7.4 percent unemployment rate is worse than it has been in a generation. The state’s unemployment trust fund is so depleted it will be insolvent within six months. Foreclosure claims are up 67 percent from 2008, 16,000 new claims in the last quarter alone.

  In the midst of severe economic crisis, why are we still funding war?

  All polls indicate the majority of Americans oppose the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. 95 service members from Maryland have been killed in Afghanistan and Iraq. Taxpayers in Maryland will pay $17.6 billion for Iraq & Afghanistan wars since 2001.

  What can we do about it in Howard County? Phyllis Bennis and Kevin Martin, executive director of Peace Action, will start the conversation. Bring your ideas for action to the discussion!

  This event is sponsored by the Howard County Coalition for Peace and Justice. Contact Virginia Rodino at (202) 465-0918 for more information.
  

  Permalink | |  Email This Article
  Posted in Future Events, Reporting from Washington DC, The US States

  Discuss this article