Why Fly When You Can Float?  Behemoths in the Air - A New Age for Dirigible.

ZLT Zeppelin Luftschifftechnik

for details please see:

 http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/05/busine…

Ethiopian Sigd made official State holiday. Knesset decides to include Ethiopian holiday in official holiday calendar. Holiday’s history, traditions, ceremonies to be included in educational system’s curriculum

Published:     07.02.08, www.ynetnews.com

The Knesset plenum decided to formally add the Ethiopian Sigd holiday to the list of State holidays, and will be holding an annual state ceremony for it during the Hebrew month of Heshvan, which usually falls on October or November.

Sigd is a traditional Ethiopian day of fast, dedicated to prayers for the rebuilding of the Temple and giving thanks for the right to return to the Holy Land. The fasting ends in mid-day, in a Seder of sorts.

The Ethiopian community in Israel has been celebrating the holiday by holding a mass ceremony in Mount Zion in Jerusalem, topped with a procession to the Western Wall. In the past few years, the ceremony has been held in Jerusalem’s Armon Hanatziv Promenade.

The motion was brought before the House by Knesset Member Uri Ariel (National Union-National Religious Party) and was widely backed by MKs from Shas, Meretz, Labor and the Likud parties.

The motion passed its Knesset readings, effectively becoming a holiday by law. Its main ceremony will be funded by the Prime Minister’s Office; the holiday’s history, traditions and ceremonies will be included in the educational system’s curriculum and going to work during the holiday will be optional.

MK Ariel welcomed the Knesset’s decision, saying it was “upholding the sacred duty Israel has to the blessed Ethiopian immigration, which has enriched Israeli society.”

Energy Independence Not For The US - But For Iran (based on Natural Gas) and for Israel (based on electric cars) - Gal Luft of Washington Post.

At around $145 a barrel, the U.S., by my calculations, will spend more on imported oil this year than it will spend on its own defense budget, and much of that money will flow into the coffers of those who wish us ill.

Iran is moving quickly toward energy independence. The Islamic republic has lots of crude but little capacity to refine it, leaving Tehran heavily dependent on gasoline imports. Ahmadinejad is fully aware that this is Iran’s Achilles’ heel and worries that a comprehensive gasoline embargo could cause enough social unrest to undermine his regime. So Ahmadinejad has launched an energy-independence program designed to shift Iran’s transportation system from gasoline to natural gas, which Iran has plenty of. “If we can change our automobiles’ fuel from gasoline to [natural] gas during the next three-four years,” he said last July, “we won’t need gasoline anymore.” His plan includes a mandate for domestic automakers to make “dual-fuel” cars that can run on both gasoline and natural gas, a crash program to convert used vehicles to run on natural gas and a program to convert Iranian gas stations to serve both kinds of fuel.

Ahmadinejad’s plan means that within five years, Iran could be virtually immune to international sanctions.

Last year, Israel launched an electric-car venture designed to turn it into an oil-free economy. Israelis will be able to replace their gasoline-fueled cars with battery-operated ones, which they’ll plug into thousands of recharging points to be erected throughout the country. Motorists will be able to swap their batteries in a matter of minutes at dedicated stations or recharge them at home or at work.

The writer is executive director of the Institute for the Analysis of Global Security. (Washington Post)

World News Desk – July 3, 2008 - www.realtruth.org
AFRICA

African Union Seeks to Resolve Zimbabwe Crisis.

The African Union (AU) held its 11th summit, primarily to discuss the political crisis in Zimbabwe. The result wa a call for a national unity government, following the widely condemned run-off re-election of incumben President Robert Mugabe. To escape the ensuing violence, the challenging opposition leader, Morgan Tsvangirai, has withdrawn a week earlier, taking refuge in the Dutch embassy for more than a week.

The meeting of the pan-African summit highlighted a deep division among the continent’s other countries regarding what to do about the Zimbabwean crisis, particularly Mr. Mugabe, who has historically been considered a “liberation hero.” The summit’s resolution fell short of a much stronger statement wanted by some nations.

According to a Reuters report, Botswana, which borders Zimbabwe’s west, called for Mr. Mugabe to be barred from both the AU and the Southern African regional body SADC. Mompati Merafhe, vice-president of Botswana, said that Mr. Mugabe’s participation in African meetings “would give unqualified legitimacy to a process which cannot be considered legitimate.” He added that the government and opposition must be treated as equal in any mediation. Kenyan Prime Minister Raila Odinga made a similar call.

South Africa, the regional power, resisted the stronger statement for the AU, and called for the crisis to be resolved by the SADC, which it chairs. South African President Thabo Mbeki, however, has been criticized for what has been seen as ineffective mediation and favoritism towards Robert Mugabe. The Movement for Democratic Change (MDC), an opposition party to Mr. Mugabe’s Zimbabwe African National Union – Patriotic Front (ZANU-PF), issued a statement: “The MDC’s reservations about the mediation process under President Mbeki are well known. It is our position that unless the mediation team is expanded to include at least one permanent representative from the African Union, and the mediation mechanism is changed, no meaningful progress can be made toward resolving the Zimbabwean crisis. If this does not happen, then the MDC will not be part of such a mediation process.”

In addition, French President Nicolas Sarkozy, who just began his six-month presidency of the European Union, said the EU would only accept a Zimbabwean government led by Mr. Tsvangirai, who is generally accepted to have beaten Mr. Mugabe in the first round of the March 29 election.
The AU’s position is tenuous at best, as Mugabe representative George Charamba had earlier rejected any Kenyan-style power-sharing deal, and MDC Secretary-General Tendai Biti more recently said there was no chance of negotiations.

A Christian Science Monitor article pointed out that the AU’s inability to directly rebuke Robert Mugabe regarding an election that its own monitors say “fell short” of AU standards (e.g., due to acts of violence) shows that the body is unable to live up to promises of “African solutions for African problems.”

“This clearly indicates that there are no shared and common values around what good governance is, what democracy is,” said Chris Maroleng, a security analyst at the Institute for Security Studies in Tshwane, South Africa. “A lot of our leaders have questionable democratic credentials, so it’s not surprising that the AU fell short of the mark” (ibid.).

“A government of national unity at this stage is a nonstarter,” Mr. Maroleng added. Unless there is a complete restructuring of the Zimbabwean constitution, a change in the executive powers of the presidency, any power-sharing deal at this point would permanently tilt the advantage, in the favor of Mr. Mugabe. “It’s placing icing over a rotten core. It would look nice, but underneath, it would still be rotten” (ibid.).

In the meantime, the U.S. was preparing a United Nations resolution calling for economic sanctions against Robert Mugabe and 11 of his compatriots, as well as imposing an embargo on arms sales or military hardware to Harare. The position was to express “deep concern at the gross irregularities during the June 27 run-off presidential election (and) the violence and intimidation perpetrated in the run-up to the election that made impossible the holding of free and fair elections” (Reuters).

All the while, the people of Zimbabwe continue to endure severe financial and social hardship.

We received an e-mail showing how little costs to buy gasoline (in German called Benzin) and diesel fuel if you live in a so called developing oil-exporting country or in the USA

Date: July 4, 2008

1 Liter = 0.264174 gal (US Liq)
US$ 1 = Euro 1.5682 as of 7/4/2008

The Austrian e-mail evokes the following list. We went then and looked up other countries and found that Austria is actually a bargain when compared to other developed economies.

The Austrian 1.32 Euro/liter is 2.16 times what the complaining American sissies are paying, but only 78.7% of what Norwegians are paying or 80.7% of what the Dutch are paying.

On the other hand Japan at 0.99 Euro/liter is another chaeap-shot so is Canada at 0.88 Euro/liter.

And you know already what we think? Those that pay more for their gasoline have also decreased their dependence on oil by efficiency methods and conservation - they also developed alternatives to oil and have started building the economy of the future. So, it is actually the US that is falling behind while it transfers its funds to the Gulf States hoping that the increased National Debt will devalue the US$ to the point that it remains valueless paper in their hand.The problem is that they do not sit on the money anymore. They actually buy assets with that money - among that buying spree they also buy up chunks of America. So what then? Will they agree to American taxation without representation - or the US will eventually find out that Bush made a Faustian Deal with the US oil companies and with his Arab friends.

Our advice to our Austrian readers is thus - DO NOT COMPLAIN ABOUT THE TAX ON FUEL - BUT MAKE SURE THE MONEY IS USED SO THAT EVENTUALLY YOU WILL HAVE TO BUY LESS OF IT.

The following is what we got in the mail - then look at what we added for the sake of analysis. if our other readers want to get the actual numbers in US dollars, please use the above conversion factors.

BENZINPREISE INTERNATIONAL

Benzin that is Gasoline - but much of the posting is about Diesel - this because in Europe the motor-fuel of choice is high quality Diesel.

Afghanistan Normalbenzin € 0,43

Algerien Diesel € 0,11

Aserbaidschan Diesel € 0,31

Ägypten Diesel € 0,14

Ãthiopien Super € 0,24

Bahamas Diesel € 0,25

Bolivien Super € 0,25

Brasilien Diesel € 0,54

China Normal € 0,45

Ecuador Normal € 0,24

Ghana Normal € 0,09 !!!!!!!

Grönland Super € 0,50

Guyana Normal € 0,67

Hong Kong Diesel € 0,84

Indien Diesel € 0,62

Indonesien Diesel € 0,32

Irak Super € 0,60

Kasachstan Diesel € 0,44

Katar Super € 0,15

Kuwait Super € 0,18

Kuba Normal € 0,62

Libyen Diesel € 0,08 !!!!!!!

Malaysia Super € 0,55

Mexico Diesel € 0,41

Moldau Normal € 0,25

Oman Super plus € 0,20

Peru Diesel € 0,22

Philippinen Diesel € 0,69

Russland Super € 0,64

Saudi Arabien Diesel € 0,07 !!!!!!

Südafrika Diesel € 0,66

Swasiland Super € 0,10 !!!!!!

Syrien Diesel € 0,10 !!!!!

Trinidad Super € 0,33

Thailand Super € 0,65

Tunesien Diesel € 0,49

USA Diesel € 0,61

Venezuela Diesel € 0,07 !!!!!

Vereinigte Arabische Emirate Diesel € 0,18

Vietnam Diesel € 0,55

Weißrussland Diesel € 0,51

EU und dem Finanzminister sei dank ist der Österreicher bzw. Europäer dumm
genug sich abzocken zu lassen (Mineralölsteuer und Mehrwertsteuer auf
Benzin).

Bitte dieses E-Mail weiter zu schicken damit wenigstens einige Leute
erkennen wie stark Österreich geneppt wird.

Benzinpreise auf der eigenen Webseite

And looking at international prices for July 4, 2008 at - http://benzinpreis.de/international.phtm…

Land Normalbenzin in € Superbenzin in € SuperPlus in € Diesel in €

Österreich 1,26 1,29 * 1,28 1,32 *

UK 1,40 1,46 1,50 1,58

Finnland 1,47 1,50 1,50 1,36

Frankreich 1,39 1,34 * 1,44 1,37 *

Irland 1,26 1,26 1,15 1,43

Island 1,35 1,40 1,47 1,50

Israel - 1,05 - -

Italien 1,36 1,46 1,34 1,45

Japan 0,99 1,08 - 0,79

Kanada 0,88 0.87 0.82  0.90

Neuseeland 1,03 0,97 - 1,46

Niederlande 1,56 1,61 1,69 1,31 **

Norwegen 1,60 1,61 1,46 1,56

Schweden 1,37 1,39 1,36 1,47

Schweiz 1,24 1,21 * 1,23 1,37 *

Ungarn 1,29 1,26 1,20 1,31

Groundbreaking Lawsuit Accuses Big Oil of Conspiracy to Deceive Public About Climate Change.  Now you see why the Bushies love “tort reform”…

Posted by Democracy Now!, www.Democracy Now!  on July 3, 2008.
Attorney Stephen Susman helped file a groundbreaking lawsuit earlier this year on behalf of 400 Inuit villagers in the Alaskan town of Kivalina who are being forced to relocate because of flooding caused by global warming. The suit accuses 20 oil, gas and electric companies–including ExxonMobil, Chevron, BP, ConocoPhillips and Peabody–of being responsible for emitting millions of tons of greenhouse gases causing the Arctic ice to melt.

Earlier this week a judge in Georgia blocked the construction of a coal-fired power plant because the plant did not set limits on carbon dioxide emissions.

In what is being described as an unprecedented ruling, the judge said the plant could not receive an air pollution permit unless it limits its emissions.

Today we are going to look at the rapidly growing field of global warming litigation.

I am joined here in Aspen, Colorado by the attorney Steve Susman. He is the founding partner of the law firm Susman Godfrey.

Earlier this year he helped file a groundbreaking lawsuit on behalf of 400 Inuit villagers in the Alaskan town of Kivalina who are being forced to relocate because of flooding caused by global warming.

The suit accuses 20 oil, gas and electric companies of being responsible for emitting millions of tons of greenhouse gases causing the Arctic ice to melt. Companies named in the suit include ExxonMobil, Chevron, BP, ConocoPhillips and Peabody. The suit also accuses eight of the corporations of being involved in a conspiracy to mislead the public about the causes of global warming.

Susman and his legal team have adopted a legal strategy similar to that used by lawyers who fought Big Tobacco in the 1990s. Susman was also involved in that litigation – he was an attorney for the tobacco giant Philip Morris.

Steve Susman also recently represented the Texas Cities for Clear Air Coalition in their successful effort to block the energy company TXU from building 10 new coal-burning power plants. The case was featured in Robert Redford’s documentary, “Fighting Goliath—Texas Coal Wars.” Attorney Steve Susman joins me here in Aspen.

Steve Susman is founding partner of the law firm Susman Godfrey. He recently filed a pioneering global warming lawsuit against Exxon Mobil, BP, Chevron, ConocoPhillips and 20 other oil, coal and electric companies on behalf of residents of the Alaskan Native coastal village of Kivalina.

On photo of rape-seed plants, it says “Biofuels are responsible for 75 percent of recent food price rises, according to a secret World Bank report.”

Food and fuel crises pushing world into ‘danger zone’, says World Bank’s Robert Zoellick.

LEIGH PHILLIPS, for the EUobserver, July 4, 2008.

As the head of the World Bank warns world leaders that the planet is entering the “danger zone” with millions thrown into extreme poverty by the twin food and fuel crises, a leaked report from his organisation shows that biofuels have pushed up global food prices by 75 percent - a much bigger role in the disaster than previously thought.

In a letter to Japanese Prime Minister Yasuo Fukuda, ahead of next week’s G8 summit, and copied to other G8 leaders, World Bank president Robert Zoellick has called on them to act immediately to address the “man-made catastrophe” of soaring food and oil prices.“What we are witnessing is not a natural disaster - a silent tsunami or a perfect storm. It is a man-made catastrophe and as such must be fixed by people,” he said in the letter.

There has been an 82 percent rise in food commodity prices since 2006, with the crisis worsening since April, Mr Zoellick warned.

This has pushed an additional 100 million people worldwide into extreme poverty, he said, noting that some 41 countries have lost three to ten percent of their GDP from rising food, fuel and commodity prices since January 2007. Over 30 countries have been hit by food riots, as the impact of the crisis reaches the household level, said Mr Zoellick.

He described the current situation as an “unprecedented test” for the international community and called on wealthy countries to stump up €6.4 billion ($10 billion) in immediate short-term emergency aid for the countries hardest hit by the crisis.

Over the medium term, an additional €2.2 billion ($3.5 billion) is needed for agricultural supports and social programmes for the poor in a further 50 countries, he said.

Meanwhile, Mr Zoellick’s organisation has produced a confidential report leaked to a UK newspaper that says that the rush for biofuels, particularly by the EU and US, is responsible for 75 percent of the rise in global food prices.

Until now, the US has claimed that biofuels policies have resulted in only three percent of the rise in food prices, while European Union officials have repeatedly claimed their policies have had a “negligable” impact, without attaching any percentage.

Other international institutions have assigned considerably more blame to such policies. The UN Food and Agriculture organisation says that biofuels explain 10 percent of recent price rises.

The International Monetary Fund puts this figure at 30, the same number reached in assessments from the International Food Policy Research Institute.

“Without the increase in biofuels, global wheat and maize stocks would not have declined appreciably and price increases due to other factors would have been moderate,” the report says.

EU and US leaders have argued that it is not biofuels, but rather higher demand from India and China as incomes there rise, alongside increased oil costs and droughts in parts of the world such as Australia.

The World Bank report, produced by Don Mitchell, a senior economist at the institution, argues that emerging economies are not to blame. “Rapid income growth in developing countries has not led to large increases in global grain consumption and was not a major factor responsible for the large price increases,” reads the report, adding that droughts in Australia have had a marginal impact.

Higher energy and fertiliser prices were responsible for an increase of only 15 percent says Mr Mitchell, while biofuels have been responsible for 75 percent of the price rise of 140 percent between 2002 and February 2008.

This happened in three ways, the report explains: the diversion of grain from food to fuel; the encouragement of farmers to set aside land for biofuel production; and the speculation in grains.

The report also says that other estimates of the role of biofuels have come to smaller estimates because they analysed the crisis over a longer period. Mr Mitchell instead studied food price rises month by month.

Separately, international development NGO ActionAid on Tuesday (1 July) published a report that claims that the “biofuels juggernaut” is responsible for leaving some 290 million people hungry or at risk of chronic hunger.

Additionally, on Thursday at a Brussels conference hosted by the French EU presidency, John Holmes, UN undersecretary-general for humanitarian affairs, called on the EU to “look again” at its target that would see biofuels to fuel 10 percent of vehicles by 2020.

www.SustainabiliTank.info has argued for a long time that agricultural-land set-asides were invented to “support” prices of the commodities. The bio-fuels can thus safely be produced from putting back into production those already existing set-asides.

If the World Bank would like to do something for the world’s poor, it would start helping those poor directly with microcredit type of lending rather then seeking out large corporate-based government credit-seekers. Go out and study Malawi - learn how help comes only for those that are ready to help themselves - not their Mugabe kind of despots. Zoelick, Don Mitchell, and George Bush are doing disservice to humanity by not laying bare a reality study and instead talk of symptoms rather then the underlying cancer. US and EU agriculture have caused the destruction of autonomous production in places like Africa - first by underselling them, then by keeping them dependent of “benevolent” hand-outs when teaching to fish is much more important then shipping away free fish. NGOs’ help has also been misconstrued so it makes the philanthropists feel good by having around dependent poor - why in the world don’t you go to Malawi and learn how to make a whole country independent? Why don’t you not simply say to Africa - if you do not get rid of your Mugabes we will not dish food to you anymore. Without your Mugabes we are ready to come help you organize your self-help - and by god - we are really intent to help you this time.

———–

In total 15 EU states (out of 27) have nuclear power plants, accounting for nearly a third of electricity generated in the EU. So, 12 States do not have nuclear plants, but being part of the European grid get their electricity from such plants anyway.
Support for nuclear power in Europe growing, says commission survey
RENATA GOLDIROVA, from Brussels, for the EUobserver, July 3, 2008

Although nuclear energy continues to be a “strongly” divisive subject in the European Union, support for the controversial source of electricity generation has grown “significantly” over the last three years, a new European Commission survey suggests. A “permanent, safe solution” to managing radioactive waste seems to be the decisive factor when it comes to a possible shift in opinion about nuclear energy.

Should such a solution be found to safely storing the waste, some 39 percent of people say they would change their mind about nuclear energy, according to the poll released by the commission on Thursday (3 July). { What about the decommissioning of these plants when time has come for their closing? Do you have any solution for this problem ? }

Dutch, Belgians, Lithuanians, Britons, the French, Slovenians and Finns are the most open to new arguments. Half the opponents in these countries would change their view regarding nuclear energy should a solution to waste be developed.

However, 48 percent of Europeans - mainly in Austria, Greece, Bulgaria, Portugal and Germany - would stick to a firm No irrespective of any solution to waste. Eight percent are convinced there is no solution to be found. The European Commission itself stopped short of saying what a permanent and safe solution should be, saying it instead is promoting expert discussion on the issue.

Brussels has recently set up a high-level group designed to establish common criteria on ways how radioactive waste should be treated. One of the possible methods discussed has been “geological storage facilities”, currently used in Finland, the commission spokesperson said.

He also referred to a piece of EU legislation on radioactive waste that “is still on the table of the council [representing EU capitals] and has not been addressed”.

According to the survey, 93 percent of Europeans say a solution for high level radioactive waste “should be developed now and not left for future generations”.

In general, some 44 percent of Europeans express support for nuclear energy, while a nearly identical number, 45 percent, oppose it. The figures represent quite a shift in views compared to 2005, when 37 percent of people were in favour and 55 percent were against nuclear power.

There is a clear link between the level of citizens’ support and whether their home country operates nuclear power plants. The Czechs, Lithuanians and Hungarians are most in favour.

Currently, 15 EU states have nuclear power plants - something that accounts for nearly a third of the electricity generated in the EU.

The current European Commission, under the leadership of Jose Manuel Barroso, has not shied away from supporting the nuclear path, a controversial option in many parts of Europe. Brussels says that nuclear energy has a role to play in meeting the EU’s growing concerns about security of supply and CO2 emission reductions.

For this year’s summit, the G8 has invited China, India, Brazil, Indonesia, South Africa, Mexico, Australia and South Korea to its “outreach” session on climate change.

Apart from the G8’s inability to come up with anything on global warming, some world leaders have questioned the value of the summit’s current framework.

During a meeting with Prime Minister Yasuo Fukuda on June 3, French President Nicolas Sarkozy vehemently argued that the G8 forum should be expanded to include such countries as China and India, according to Japanese diplomats.

British Prime Minister Gordon Brown also appears to be positive about expanding the group, although he has not explicitly discussed it, they said.

Fukuda strongly disagrees, saying the G8 should remain a forum for a small number of states bearing a large responsibility for the international community.

Tokyo fears expanding the meeting would diminish Japan’s clout on the world stage.

“Japan, Germany and Italy are reluctant about expansion. They do not want to weaken the power of the G8 to send out political messages,” said a senior Foreign Ministry in charge of European affairs.

“President Sarkozy is of the opinion that the G8 was originally started as a forum for economic discussions, and talking about economic issues without the participation of the BRICs (Brazil, Russia, India and China) is meaningless. He believes noneconomic issues should be discussed at the U.N. Security Council,” the official said.

But Japan, Germany and Italy are not permanent members of the Security Council and attach greater political value to the G8 forum, the official said.

Another senior Foreign Ministry official argued that expanding the G8 membership would only increase political taboos that member states can’t touch on during the closed-door summit.

For example, adding China would make it impossible to discuss human rights issues and world currency issues related to the yuan, the official said.

Despite speculation that the G8 leaders may discuss the expansion issue in Hokkaido, Japanese officials insist it will not be a formal topic.

“I guarantee that will never be on the formal agenda,” Foreign Minister Masahiko Komura said Tuesday. “None of (the foreign ministers) of the G8 has discussed the issue yet.

At least Japan has not said it wants to expand the G8.”

—–

Really, if they want relevancy, why not create first the United European Group of States Federation or whatever they want to call it, so little States like Italy are not allowed to interfere with the work of the big ones. So - EU, US, Russia, China, India, Japan, Brazil are a good start for a relevant compact G7. Candidates-in-waiting or whatever you want to call it are then - Australia, South Africa, Canada, Indonesia, Korea. 

OK, not to have another upset State - probably the inclusion of Canada could give us the new starting G8.

In any case, it seems that unless Japan gets a seat on the UN Security Council, the G8 will continue to show its irrelevancy for all to see.