|
Posted on Sustainabilitank.info on March 16th, 2010 A new BLOG AT WORDPRESS.COM. | THEME: PRESSROW BY CHRIS PEARSON.
For six weeks, Political Climate has been finding its feet in the blogosphere. Much of what we’ve written hitherto has been aimed at making our views clear on some of the most important issues in the climate change debate. Thus we’ve covered growth, innovation, the underlying politics of climate change and geo-politics. We are also developing a Political Climate manifesto and a set of proposals for work in areas in which thinking needs to be developed, such as innovation policy and finance. In the meantime, we’ve been working on the appearance of the site. March 15, 2010A New Response to Climate Change
It’s hard to reflect on the shortcomings of conventional environmental wisdom without sounding negative, but this blog’s main aim is to contribute towards a renewal in thinking about climate change. Indeed, it is our desire to see the negative language and imagery of climate change replaced by a resolutely optimistic debate. The ‘About‘ link above will take you to a longer explanation of our aims. We are also developing a Political Climate manifesto and a set of proposals for work in areas in which thinking needs to be developed, such as innovation policy and finance. In the meantime, we’ve been working on the appearance of the site and we owe its new smoothness to Lawrence. If you like what you see, we urge you to sign up to receive notification of new posts using the box at the top of the column on the right-hand-side of the page. THE CONTRIBUTORS:
For a further idea about the people involved with this web we post an article I picked from the material:
After Copenhagen, we need to change the climate argument
The advert, paid for by the international ‘tcktcktck’ climate campaign was intended to galvanise people and leaders into agreeing a strong and worthwhile climate change accord in the Danish capital. Instead, it served as an uncomfortable reminder to departing delegates of the summit’s failure. However, in truth, the underlying political conditions are still not conducive to global deal-making and so the CoP15 stage was never set for high drama; farce was always likely to be top of the bill. Inside the Bella Convention Center, the venue for the talks, one campaigner was heard to declare “these leaders are not representing their people”. In fact, the very problem is rather the opposite. For while the polling evidence suggests people are on the whole not climate sceptic and generally in favour of inter-governmental action, they are manifestly less keen on economic pain and physical disruption. Talk of targets, reductions, contraction, limitation and all the green hair-shirtism has not only failed as a convincing political narrative, it has also given people to fear the impact of climate change policies. In the teeth of such politics and in light of the failure of the UN process to yield anything of significant enough ambition and then its failure to get an unambitious accord past all 192 countries, there are important lessons to be learned. First, national politics – despite all the talk of global solutions to global problems – still trump internationalism. By this I do not mean the vague notion of national identity nor even mercantilism, although both play a part. Rather it is straightforward national politics that have been lurking on the sidelines of the negotiation since the Bali meeting in 2007 when they began. Governments simply cannot sign an agreement they know will lead to the kind of pain and disruption the polling data shows people are averse to; at least not without a guiding political narrative at the national level; such explanation remains elusive even in countries such as the UK. One evening in week two of COP 15 I sat down to dinner next to an adviser to Senator Jay Rockefeller, a Democract representing West Virginia. While the Senator is in favour of action on climate change, the adviser told me, coal is intrinsic to the economy of West Virginia, which means Rockefeller will struggle to support the Kerry-Graham-Lieberman climate bill when it is put before the upper house in the US Congress next year. For China, the implications are no less profound. Throughout the two weeks of Copenhagen, the Chinese delegation, eventually led by Premier Wen Jiabao, insisted that it would not commit to actions that would harm its economic growth or development. While global leadership is clearly of increasing importance to China – hence its participation in the accord agreed in the chill of Copenhagen – the stability of a large, diverse and disparate country depends on continued high growth. Even the usually tight-lipped Communist Party officials began to express concern at the impact of weakened global demand at the zenith of the finance crisis in 2008. Second, no matter how many green campaigners shout and regardless of how loud their cries, climate change campaigning has failed – not through want of effort or funding – to mobilise anything other than an enthusiastic minority and is a turn off for the majority. The dire warnings from the science and the threats to our children and our children’s children have also failed. So too has the axiomatic stitch in time arguments from the likes of Lord Stern. Third, the world has changed; there are two global hegemons and so post-colonial, post cold war bullying has less effect. What was significant about Copenhagen was how little others really mattered. In the final hours, the US and China were left to slug it out. It was widely rumoured that the EU would move unilaterally to a 30 per cent reduction in emissions by 2020, but no-one cared. Copenhagen’s last stand was all about the language on China’s willingness to allow outside scrutiny of its climate policies. So where to now? An orgy of climate scepticism awaits many of the leaders upon their return home. Somehow, the failure of an always wildly hopeful negotiation on climate change policy can be spun by some as proof that climate change is not man made. Hopefully this will prove short-lived. Of more profound concern is where to go next. The final Copenhagen result – more like a the outcome of a toddlers’ painting party than an international agreement – contains nothing whatsoever of substance apart from the finance promised by developed countries (which requires some scrutiny; anyone who’s worked on aid and Third World debt knows that the first question to ask about such pledges is ‘are they new?’). Many will want to cling to the wreckage of the UNFCCC, but we should ask whether it is now beyond salvation. Aside from everyone involved taking a long break, what’s needed is nothing short of a total refit of climate argumentation. Even President Obama’s lustre was dulled by the Copenhagen climate fug and yet he swept to power one-year-ago on a wave of optimism. He did so by persuading people to believe that ‘we can’ do things rather than frightening people into thinking we better had. People didn’t vote for him because they were afraid, but because they believed he would turn a dog-eared and bankrupt US back into the beacon of hope Americans believe their nation should be. One thing we most definitely can do is start somewhere different. When John F. Kennedy announced in 1961 that the US would put a man on the moon by the end of the decade, the technology to do so did not exist. So let’s set ourselves a series of inspiring challenges that are also central to ensuring climate security. The first should be to make low-carbon electricity cheaper than fossil fuels, focussing particularly on bringing power to poorer communities by 2015. Unlike the space race, this will not be rocket science as to a significant extent, the US, China, EU and India are already committed to something like it. The challenge is to force the pace of innovation – R&D, demonstration, commercialisation and deployment – by employing a whole range of policies including regulation, government subsidy and subsidy removal, tax incentives, borrowing and leveraging of private finance capital. Current ‘cap and trade’ type policies look at the problem from the wrong end, threatening to make all energy more expensive in order to bring parity for low-carbon types. Different priorities, such as carbon capture and storage for the US, South Africa and China, and wind and solar energy for the EU and India, can be pursued through bilateral and ‘mini-lateral’ processes. Through these, governments can work together to tender different parts of the challenge out to private companies either through collaborative procurement or, in the case of innovation, offering big prizes to those who overcome technical and commercial barriers. The groups and organisations that coalesce around the UN process have long been wary of an overt technology focus, in no small part because its use as a fig leaf by George W. Bush. But it is apparently the case that we need a driving, positive narrative to overcome climate ennui and that this is offered through technology. It is also a fact that if we don’t get current climate friendly inventions into wide usage and invent and commercialise new stuff, targets and treaties – even if we can agree them – will not be worth the paper they’re printed on (or perhaps ‘noted’ on). Our guest writer is Andrew Pendleton, Senior Research Fellow at ippr The article was first published on Left Foot Forward. —————– The Institute for Public Policy Research (IPPR) is a UK think-tank, variously described as centre-left, left-wing or progressive, with strong ties to the Labour party that claims to produce progressive ideas committed to upholding values of social justice, democratic reform and environmental sustainability. IPPR is based in London and also has a branch in Newcastle, IPPR North. The Institute edits a quarterly journal called Public Policy Research (formerly New Economy), published by Blackwell, which features articles from academics and politicians. Matthew Lockwood is Acting Director of Research Strategy at IPPR m.lockwood at ippr.org In February 2010 he published two articles on “The Limits to Environmentalism.” The accent is on Innovation. Permalink |
| ### | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Andrew Pendleton <a.pendleton@ippr.org>
Matthew Lockwood
andrewpendleton
chilesl
In Copenhagen’s glitzy airport, there’s a brightly lit billboard bearing a picture of an ageing President Obama. ‘I’m sorry,’ says the legend. ‘We could have stopped climate change. We didn’t.’
|
Posted on Sustainabilitank.info on March 15th, 2010 From: openDemocracy Watch Amartya Sen’s Demos lecture live on openDemocracy tonight at 18.30 GMT.
Amartya Sen, Nobel Prize winning economist, gives the Demos Annual Lecture today at 18.30 GMT. In debate with Ed Miliband, Shirley Williams and Aryeh Neier, he explores the themes of power, justice and capabilities in the contemporary political landscape. Catch the Lecture and debate here, and post your question to the panel chair here or follow the debate on Twitter. Also today, the Inquiry into the Future of Civil Society publishes its report calling for a radical devolution of power and active voice from parliament to the family. Geoff Mulgan, Inquiry Chair, in the first of this week’s series of articles – which are all being published on openDemocracy – argues that three crises have triggered a major civil society challenge. Read the first Making Good Society article here Rosemary Bechler, Contributing editor, openDemocracy Permalink |
| ### |
|
Posted on Sustainabilitank.info on March 12th, 2010 Climate science: a peace-studies lesson. Involves – Civil society Democracy and government International politics; global security globalisation; the politics of climate change. by Paul Rogers, 11 March 2010. OpenDemocracy from the UK. The doubters of global warming are emboldened by their new ability – as in the “climategate” affair – to put climate researchers on the defensive. But the experience of comparable assaults on the discipline of peace studies in the 1980s suggests that hostile scrutiny can have longer-term benefits for the target. The author mentions – “The articles in this series try to throw light on recent or current developments in international security. Just occasionally an element of personal experience creeps in. This is one of those.” Soon after the furore, Associated Press tasked a team to examine 1,073 emails from the CRU material in order to provide an independent view of what had happened. The result showed no evidence that climate change was faked (see “’ClimateGate’ Doesn’t Show Global Warming Was Faked, AP Reports”, Huffington Post, 12 December 2009); but amid a deluge of negative comment this attracted little attention, and the impression persists that the whole case for human-induced climate change has been severely hit. For many of the researchers involved, the period of late 2009-early 2010 has been traumatic; they may have had to contend with controversy over the years, but this is something outside their experience. The intensity of the coverage, and the zealotry of many sceptics in pressing their case, stem in part from changing global circumstances. There has long been deep opposition to any international move towards a low-carbon economy, from reasons both ideological (free-market true-believers) and commercial (the more retrograde transnational corporations, especially fossil-fuel companies). There was no great risk of such a move as long as George W Bush was in the White House; but the election of Barack Obama and the prospect of Copenhagen agreeing a successor to the Kyoto protocol made 2009 potentially a dangerous year. In this context, “climategate” has been a gift. The peace benefit The lesson of my own experience in the 1980s suggests that the longer-term impact might be rather different from what the architects of this affair intend. I got into working in the field of international security from teaching environmental science and resource-conflict at Huddersfield Polytechnic, west Yorkshire, in the early 1970s (and recently came across some of my thirty-five-year-old lecture notes dealing with rising atmospheric CO² levels!). I moved to Bradford’s department of peace studies at the end of the decade, just as the cold war was entering a particularly tense period; from around 1980 onwards, several of us there saw the need for independent research and writing on nuclear issues. An early outcome (with co-authors Malcolm Dando and Peter van den Dungen) was a book about the risks and consequences of nuclear war: As Lambs to the Slaughter: The Facts About Nuclear War (1981). It struck a chord; 25,000 copies were sold in a few weeks, and that year around 500,000 people purchased an accompanying leaflet published by the environment group Ecoropa. As Lambs… was part of a wider body of writings, much of it for an academic rather a general readership. This was the case with A Guide to Nuclear Weapons (1981) which ran to several editions and led eventually to a reference work: The Directory of Nuclear, Biological and Chemical Arms and Disarmament 1990. The core purpose of this writing was to be as accurate as possible; this meant (for example) always analysing Soviet as well as western systems and postures, and having a particular focus on the actual consequences of a nuclear war. What strikes me in retrospect – and when thinking about the problems that climate scientists now face – is how widely varied were the reactions to our work. Military officers, for example, were actually very interested in it and very ready to engage in intensive debates. I was first invited to lecture at the Royal Air Force staff college in 1982 and have continued frequently to lecture at defence colleges to the present day. Senior civil servants in Britain’s ministry of defence were also willing to discuss our work. The reaction on the political right – then very much in the ascendancy during Margaret Thatcher’s long premiership (1979-1990) – was very different; it was bitter and sustained opposition to what we were doing. In the Thatcherite view of the world, peace studies was “appeasement studies”, indulgent to official enemies and undermining of the nation’s moral fibre. Many articles and pamphlets were written about the Bradford department’s dangerous and subversive nature; one noble member of the House of Lords (the upper chamber of Britain’s parliament) even described us as a “rest home for urban guerrillas”. Some critics preferred a more personal touch: I was called “Dr Death”, and we regularly got abusive mail (which, on one or two occasions, went as far as death-threats). It was known that Margaret Thatcher wished “something to be done” about peace studies; but this was politically difficult, since universities still retaine considerable independence (a situation that subsequent governments have done much to redress). than now. But the University Grants Committee (UGC) came under pressure to investigate us and to its credit agreed to do so only if Bradford’s vice-chancellor allowed it; he too was prepared to say yes, but – also to his credit – only if the peace-studies staff gave their consent. We certainly would! What followed was the equivalent of today’s “subject review”. It was thorough and exacting, and the UGC made public its verdict – that the department was maintaining high standards. That outcome lifted the pressure off peace studies for the rest of the 1980s. With the end of the cold war by the end of the decade, much of the other work our staff and research students already did – on peacekeeping, environmental conflict, and mediation, among other issues – came to the fore; this created the foundation for an expansion of our work in the 1990s. The landscape after battle How does this relate to “climategate”? A key factor is that we were exposed to intensive criticism and persistent scrutiny of our work virtually from day one, and this in direct consequence made us hugely aware of the need for very high levels of accuracy and impeccable referencing of sources. Access to a wide range of military and defence journals, and a huge amount of information in the public domain, meant that this was actually not so difficult; but under so much external pressure we learned to be very cautious in our analysis at a time when exaggeration on the issues we addressed was common enough. Many of us now think that the experience made us better academics. If almost everything you write is going to be exposed to detailed examination by relentless and often politically-motivated critics, then you have to set unusually exacting standards for your work. The likely – and beneficial – implication is that climate researchers who have gone through their own test-by-fire will in future take even greater care over published assessments and analyses. In many ways we were luckier than today’s climate researchers: for there was an intense focus on our peace-studies work from the very beginning – whereas critics of climate science are able to retrieve work published a decade and more ago, when the issue was far less controversial, in order to pinpoint a minor laxity and use it to great effect to damn the whole enterprise. The overall effect of the setbacks to climate-science’s public face may amount to the loss of a year in the transition to a low-carbon future, but the good work being done in this area offers many grounds for optimism. The New Economic Foundation’s The Great Transition project, and Tim Jackson’s book Prosperity Without Growth: Economics for a Finite Planet (Earthscan 2009) are but two examples. Alongside the evidence that continues to emerge about the accelerating impact of climate change, the flow of impressive research and compelling argument based on even more rigorous standards will ensure that the refusenik stance will in future become harder to make. In the end, peace studies was made stronger by those who sought to expose it. In a similar way, the travails of climate researchers may well end up reinforcing the integrity of the science and the necessity of the low-carbon transition. Permalink |
| ### |
|
Posted on Sustainabilitank.info on March 8th, 2010 Why the euro will continue to weaken.By Wolfgang Münchau Published in The Financial Times, March 7, 2010. If you want to unnerve a European, the revelation of a secret dinner of New York-based hedge funds conspiring against the euro is hard to beat. Europeans are right to worry – but not about the collusion itself. They should be much more concerned that some of the world’s smartest investors are convinced the euro has only one way to go: deep down. At first sight, this flies in the face of a previous consensus. In Europe, in particular, the predominant view has been that the infidels at the Federal Reserve and the Bank of England will ultimately inflate themselves out of their debt, while the European Central Bank will hold firm. That scenario would be consistent with an overvalued euro. So what has prompted some sophisticated investors to think the opposite? Greece? Probably not. This is a story about what will happen to the eurozone beyond Greece. Without political and legal constraints, this would be much easier. The eurozone would prescribe itself a crisis resolution mechanism, a procedure to manage internal imbalances, and perhaps move towards a common eurozone bond. Several economists have made concrete proposals: Daniel Gros, director of the Centre for European Policy Studies, and Thomas Mayer, chief economist of Deutsche Bank, have argued the case for a European Monetary Fund. Yves Leterme, the Belgian prime minister, has proposed a European debt agency. While all of this sounds sensible, none of it may ever happen because of political and legal constraints. Some member states would argue that a new European treaty would be needed to implement such proposals. The route to getting the Lisbon treaty ratified was so tortuous that Brussels would rather go to hell and back than negotiate and ratify another treaty. In any case, German constitutional law imposes such tight constraints that any dilution of the no bail-out clause in the Maastricht treaty or the price stability target of the ECB might trigger a forced German exit. The most one can hope for during the next 10 years is improved voluntary co-ordination in the European Council. So the question then becomes: what economic adjustment mechanisms are feasible against this political and constitutional backdrop? The options are limited. The one policy response we can almost take for granted will be an attempt to reduce budget deficits back towards the Maastricht treaty’s upper ceiling of 3 per cent of gross domestic product. This will be achieved, if not by 2012, then a year or two later. Meanwhile, Germany has unilaterally prescribed itself a deficit-to-GDP ceiling of 0.35 per cent from 2016. There will be some slippage here as well. But there can be no doubt that the eurozone will try – and probably succeed – to consolidate its fiscal position. The budget committee of the German Bundestag started last Friday, in fact, by cutting the finance minister’s 2010 budget by almost €6bn ($8.2bn, £5.4bn). If we assume further budgetary consolidation as a given, how then will the eurozone economy adjust? It is an economic fact that the sum of public and private sector balances must equal the current account balance. So forcing up public sector balances implies either an offsetting fall in private sector balances, an offsetting improvement in the current account balance, or some combination of the two. In scenario one, the eurozone’s current account balance remains broadly unchanged, and all the adjustment comes through a fall in private sector balances. In a similar way, Greece last week solved its fiscal problem by creating a private sector problem of identical size. The Greek state – the sum of its public and private sectors – is just as bankrupt today as it was a week ago. This means that, by following the fiscal policy rules, the eurozone would risk a private sector depression, which would almost certainly be concentrated heavily in Europe’s south. This scenario would greatly increase the probability of a eurozone break-up at some point in the future. Investors who believe in this scenario would be very afraid to hold euros. In scenario two, all the adjustment comes through the eurozone’s current account balance, which would turn from slightly negative to strongly positive. It is difficult to see how this could be done without a significant further devaluation of the euro. The euro would join the long list of currencies that have seen their problems solved through competitive devaluation. So the consequences would be a significant devaluation of the euro against the dollar and a reversal of its appreciation against sterling. It would make life more difficult for the British. But, most importantly, it would contribute to a resurgence in global imbalances. Whichever scenario you choose, the euro is going to be weak. Even if the eurozone were to allow more serious slippage in budgetary consolidation than I have suggested, that would probably not help the euro either, as markets would start to doubt the longevity of the currency union for political reasons. We have always known that a monetary union cannot exist without political union in the long run. Those smart New York investors are betting that the long run is closer than we thought. Permalink |
| ### |
|
Posted on Sustainabilitank.info on March 5th, 2010 Thursday, 04 March 2010
IPI to Hold 60th Anniversary World Congress in Vienna and BratislavaThinking the Unthinkable: Are We Losing the News?The International Press Institute (IPI) will hold its annual World Congress in Vienna, Austria, and Bratislava, Slovakia, from 11-14 September 2010, the organisation today officially announced. The 2010 World Congress will mark the 60th anniversary of the founding of IPI, and the organisation will celebrate 60 years of defending press freedom in a series of events, culminating in the World Congress in the “twin cities” of Vienna and Bratislava. Under the overall theme, “Thinking the Unthinkable: Are We Losing the News? (Media Freedom in the New Media Landscape),” the three-day conference will focus attention on the state of the news media itself, providing new business models and solutions for the media, and the unique opportunity to meet and interact with major players from both traditional and new media outlets. The Congress will also look at the new ways of delivering information and how new technologies are proving to be a powerful ally of freedom of opinion and expression. “The new information platforms are having an enormous impact not only on mainstream journalism, but also on press freedom in countries where authoritarian regimes seek to curtail freedom of opinion and expression,” said IPI Director David Dadge. At a special Gala Dinner and Ceremony, to be held at Vienna City Hall, IPI will honour “60 World Press Freedom Heroes” to commemorate the 60 years of its existence. IPI’s Press Freedom Heroes are individuals who have made a significant contribution to the defence and promotion of press freedom, especially – but not only – if this involved acts of resistance or bravery under hardship conditions. “We will pay tribute to these brave men and women, who displayed the utmost courage in defending press freedom in their country or region,” said Dadge. “Many of them paid the ultimate price, murdered for what they wrote or said.” IPI intends to invite all surviving Heroes to the ceremony in Vienna. For the first time, IPI will also hold – parallel to the Congress – a “New Media & High-Tech Innovations Exhibition”, showcasing the latest in new media technologies and information platforms. The Congress programme features a roster of world-class speakers, including Alex Jones, Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist and director of the Shorenstein Center on the Press, Politics and Public Policy at Harvard University’s Kennedy School of Government; Jeff Howe, contributing editor at Wired Magazine and author of the best-selling book, “Crowdsourcing”; Jim VandeHei, co-founder and executive editor of the influential Politico website; Martin Figueiredo, publisher and editor-in-chief of i Daily in Portugal; Guy Black, executive director of the Telegraph Media Group in the United Kingdom; Alexandra Föderl-Schmid, editor-in-chief of Der Standard in Austria; Sarah Montague, presenter, BBC, London, and many more. The event is expected to draw over 400 participants and their guests from around the world. Confirmed partners for the Congress are: Google; OMV; Samsung; Telekom Austria Group; City of Vienna; Twin City Liner; and Austrian Airlines, as official carrier. IPI’s media partners for the Congress are: ORF; Der Standard & APA. Permalink |
| ### |
|
Posted on Sustainabilitank.info on March 5th, 2010
Permalink |
| ### | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Posted on Sustainabilitank.info on March 5th, 2010 The Institute of Development Studies in the UK is seeking to recruit a Head of Climate Change. Please could you pass on this link to anyone you think might be interested in applying, noting the application deadline of the 6th April: The Climate Change and Development Group works to reduce poverty, vulnerability and support social justice in a changing climate through research, teaching, communications and knowledge sharing on climate change, disasters and development issues. The Group’s work cuts across and involves collaboration with other IDS research and information teams. We are seeking a new Head of Climate Change to lead the Climate Change and Development Group and to play a strategic role in making climate change a key thematic issue in the future work of the institute. The successful candidate will be expected to have an outstanding background in economics or related social science and a PhD (although exceptionally, comparable research and practical experience may be taken as a substitute), and an excellent research and publication record related to or relevant to any of the above areas. A proven capacity to work in a multi-disciplinary team, in policy environments, with overseas partners and practical experience in the field are also essential, and language abilities beyond English will be an advantage. Salary: £41,057 – £60,000 per annum (depending on experience) Hannah Bywaters Permalink |
| ### |
|
Posted on Sustainabilitank.info on March 1st, 2010
Permalink |
| ### |
|
Posted on Sustainabilitank.info on March 1st, 2010 http://guest.cvent.com/EVENTS/Info/Summa…
In London – Cleantech Investor Breakfast on Brazil. Brazil, the fifth largest country in the world, is endowed with extensive natural resources. With an advanced ethanol infrastructure and massive hydro electric capacity, Brazil is a leader in terms of its renewable energy use. Investment in other renewable energy resources is also growing in interest: the Brazilian government aims to increase wind energy capacity to 10,000 MW over the next decade, taking its share of total energy supply to around 5 percent from 0.4 percent last year. Brazil recently held its first wind auction which resulted in a total of 71 projects signing on to provide 1,800 megawatts of generation capacity. Demand for biodiesel is being driven by domestic legislation: and there are also investment opportunities in biomass, driven in part by export demand. Brazil will host the World Cup in 2014 and Rio de Janeiro is the host city for the 2016 Olympics Games. Preparation for these events will involve extensive investment in sustainable infrastructure and will involve opportunities for international investors in fields such as waste to energy. This event will address some of the investment opportunities opening up in Brazil for UK investors – and will aim to provide a brief overview of the issues involved in doing business in Brazil. Cleantech magazine is compiling a series of features on cleantech/clean energy investment opportunities in Brazil. The first Brazilian focused issue of the magazine will be presented at the Brazilian breakfast. Investors interested in Brazil UK cleantech companies with products/services appropriate for the Brazilian market This event is free to attend, but registration is required. When Thursday, March 11, 2010 8:00 AM – 11:00 AM Where: Planner: Anne McIvor Permalink |
| ### |
|
Posted on Sustainabilitank.info on February 25th, 2010 The Latin Nations of the Western Hemisphere try to unite and discard the old world and the US and Canada infringement on what they see as their territory. It all started with the ALBA group. The US might try now to mend its ways with Cuba, but the UK is out for confrontation because of Antarctic oil. The US will have to take position when this issue reaches the Security Council. What if Argentina offers China rights to drill in the same areas that they consider part of their territorial waters?
We keep saying – the US will find it difficult to continue with wars in Asia if its backyard “south of the border” gets shaken up. * * * From: AS/COA Online <weeklyroundup@as-coa.org>
Date: Wed, Feb 24, 2010 Subject: Weekly Roundup: Latin America’s New Bloc. * * *
Permalink |
| ### | ||||||||||
|
Posted on Sustainabilitank.info on February 19th, 2010 from: Prof. Jinyue Yan The International Conference on Applied Energy (ICAE) looks set to become a truly integrated forum on research, development and application of energy technology and policy. ICAE2010 aims to facilitate debate on a wide range of topics under the theme, “Energy Solutions for a Sustainable World”. Besides the usual technical presentations and posters, the Conference will feature a number of keynote lectures and special focused sessions incorporating panel discussions and Q and A sessions. We invite specialists from all over the world to come and share experiences and contribute towards building the framework for sustainable development in the 21st century. As authors proceed to develop the full papers for the conference, I wish to inform all that a selection of the papers presented at ICAE2010 will be reviewed for publication in a special issue of Applied Energy and a number of other international peer-reviewed journals. In addition, best paper awards will be presented at the Conference. International Conference on Applied Energy, April 21-23, 2010, Singapore CONFERENCE TOPICS Renewable and Green Energy Resources and Technologies Energy Conservation in Buildings Advanced Energy Technologies Energy Systems for Power Generation Energy, Environment and Sustainable Development Please visit at www.icae2010.org for your registration to attend the conference. Professor J. Yan Editor-in-Chief of Elsevier Int. Journal, Applied Energy
International Conference on Applied Energy, Singapore April 21-23, 2010 ### |
|
Posted on Sustainabilitank.info on February 19th, 2010 from: Anna Karklina FIELD’s new briefing note entitled ‘Adaptation under the Copenhagen Accord’ is now available in PDF at http://www.field.org.uk/highlights/adaptation-copenhagen-accord. The note focuses specifically on the treatment of adaptation in the political declaration known as the Copenhagen Accord – the most discussed outcome of the December 2009 Copenhagen climate change conference. ? The FIELD Team The Foundation for International Environmental Law ans Development. ### |
|
Posted on Sustainabilitank.info on February 19th, 2010 The correction – Yes – the Press Conference was at 7:30 am with the UNSG and four journalists present, but the two leaders – Gordon Brown and Meles Zenawi were present only via video-conference. They were at confortable hours back there in London and Addis Ababa. =============== The most important issue in our opinion that the following shows that the UN is incapable to address, is the question if it will be unavoidable to bribe China into being more effective in its efforts to curb CO2 emissions in its development and manufacturing-for-export policies – and use for this the funds that the UN tries to raise for helping developing countries in joint projects with the old industrialized nation. We think that the UN Secretary-General owes the funding countries a clear answer on this and the UN needs an open PRESS CORPS that is capable of asking such questions. Obviously, Matthew Lee points out also other issues – some of which in our opinion are really non issues – but nevertheless they become issues if clear answers are not provided by the UN – such as the IPCC problems. Also, the snow-in-New York issue could have been handled better by turning it into science from the intended background of a joke. This is why we will post the following also in our “cartoons” categoty on our website. ——– At UN, Climate Change Financing Discussed, IPCC Glacier and Pachauri Questions Not Taken, China Eligibility Debated. By Matthew Russell Lee UNITED NATIONS, February 12, 2010 — At an ill-attended press conference held at 7:30 am Friday in UN Headquarters in New York, Secretary General Ban Ki-moon introduced Ethiopian prime minister Meles Zenawi and his UK counterpart Gordon Brown as chairs of an Advisory Group on Climate Change Financing. In a tightly controlled media Q &A session that followed, Mr. Ban did not address the controversy swirling about the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s scientific blunders and chairman Doctor Pachauri. Rather, Mr. Ban took on a straw man question, about whether the snow in New York undermined climate science. He also said that he will ask the heads of state of Guyana and Norway to join. Of the four journalists at the UN in New York who raised their hands to ask questions, three were called on by Ban’s spokesman Martin Nesirky. Before a softball question about the snow outside, one asked repeatedly if any of the climate change financing would be given to China. As Mr. Ban looked uncomfortable, both Prime Ministers denied it. Despite hand raised from the beginning of the question and answer session to the end, Inner City Press was not allowed to ask a question. In fact, the question had back on February 3 been asked and dodged by Nesirky: Inner City Press: There has been a lot of controversy around the finding of the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) about the Himalayan glaciers, and they have essentially back-tracked and said that they apologized; it was unverified information. Mr. Pachauri has said he won’t apologize. But, I wonder what, given the importance of climate change and the IPCC to the Secretary-General’s agenda, what does he make of this controversy and how can the IPCC process be reformed to not create this kind of controversy on the issue? Spokesperson: The Secretary-General is obviously aware of these reports and what’s been happening in the last few days and weeks. But, you know, ultimately it’s for the IPCC to address this. It’s for the IPCC to talk about this, and they have talked about this in some detail. They have said that they regret what happened, and reaffirming their strong commitment to a high level of performance in their reporting and so on. So, therefore, it’s not really for the Secretary-General to weigh in on this specific report. There are many reports, there are many other aspects to the work on climate change, which is absolutely vital, as you’ve mentioned; it’s one of his priorities. So, I think that the most important thing is to focus on the road to Mexico and how you can improve the prospects for that meeting and what needs to be done between now and then. Inner City Press: [inaudible] because… in the last 24 hours… Mr. Pachauri…. Spokesperson: IPCC regrets, Matthew, IPCC regrets. Question: So, I mean, Mr. Pachauri says he wasn’t responsible for it. So, I guess what I’m saying is, who is in charge of the agency on which Ban Ki-moon rests his, you know, the case has been made by that agency [inaudible].
Spokesperson: No, no, Matthew, the Secretary-General does not rest his case purely on the IPCC. There is an enormous body of evidence and information out there from various different sources, not just from the IPCC, however important that may be. And an error in one report does not undermine the entire science that is clearly proven. So who apologized — the IPCC’s website? To have nothing to say about the various scandals surrounding the IPCC and Pachauri seems strange. To not allow the question a week later is worse. Update: in the hallway after the press conference, away from the screen of the Spokesperson, UN climate advisor Janos Pasztor at least took Inner City Press’ other question, on the way to Ban’s next appearance, signing compacts with some senior officials, on which we will later report — how this UN Panel would interact with the IMF’s idea of using SDRs. It will consult, Pasztor said. Possible duplication of effort? Also after the press conference, a senior Chinese official told Inner City Press that the question about China taking climate change funding was “stupid” and “insulting.” He said, “We are entitled to it!” * * *
UN’s Ban Has No Comment on Himalayan Glacier Gaffe, Doesn’t Rely on IPCC By Matthew Russell Lee UNITED NATIONS, February 3 — With various ice research related scandals opening up around UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon’s signature issue of climate change, Inner City Press on Wednesday asked his spokesman Martin Nesirky for Ban’s views on the misleading of the public about the melting of Himalayan glaciers. While Nesirky dodged the question, Ban’s climate change advisor later in the day told Inner City Press that Ban may have something to say later on the topic. Meanwhile Doctor Pachauri, with no guidance from Ban, it attacking those who question him, refusing to answer questions or apologize. From the UN’s transcription of its February 3 noon briefing, video here: Spokesperson Nesirky: Last question, Matthew. Inner City Press: There has been a lot of controversy around the finding of the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) about the Himalayan glaciers, and they have essentially back-tracked and said that they apologized; it was unverified information. Mr. Pachauri has said he won’t apologize. But, I wonder what, given the importance of climate change and the IPCC to the Secretary-General’s agenda, what does he make of this controversy and how can the IPCC process be reformed to not create this kind of controversy on the issue? Spokesperson: The Secretary-General is obviously aware of these reports and what’s been happening in the last few days and weeks. But, you know, ultimately it’s for the IPCC to address this. It’s for the IPCC to talk about this, and they have talked about this in some detail. They have said that they regret what happened, and reaffirming their strong commitment to a high level of performance in their reporting and so on. So, therefore, it’s not really for the Secretary-General to weigh in on this specific report. There are many reports, there are many other aspects to the work on climate change, which is absolutely vital, as you’ve mentioned; it’s one of his priorities. So, I think that the most important thing is to focus on the road to Mexico and how you can improve the prospects for that meeting and what needs to be done between now and then. Inner City Press: [inaudible] because… in the last 24 hours… Mr. Pachauri…. Spokesperson: IPCC regrets, Matthew, IPCC regrets. Question: So, I mean, Mr. Pachauri says he wasn’t responsible for it. So, I guess what I’m saying is, who is in charge of the agency on which Ban Ki-moon rests his, you know, the case has been made by that agency
Spokesperson: No, no, Matthew, the Secretary-General does not rest his case purely on the IPCC. There is an enormous body of evidence and information out there from various different sources, not just from the IPCC, however important that may be. And an error in one report does not undermine the entire science that is clearly proven. So who apologized — the IPCC’s website? To have nothing to say about the various scandals surrounding the IPCC and Pachauri seems strange. It’s why some say Ban is now shifted to rolling the dice on a trip to North Korea — our next story, forthcoming. Footnote: The UN’s and Ban’s climate unit under Janos Pasztor, which was told there was no room for it in the UN’s Temporary North Lawn Conference Building where Ban has his office, is now looking at space in the Alcoa Building on 48th Street, Inner City Press is told. For now, they are left behind in the nearly empty UN skyscaper where asbestos removal has already begun. Meanwhile, Pachauri has wished asbestos on his critics…. * * * Permalink |
| ### |
|
Posted on Sustainabilitank.info on February 18th, 2010 Climate Change and Business Success Tuesday 23rd February 2010
This Earthcast will examine the challenges posed by measuring, reducing, and offsetting emissions and the innovative solutions to common challenges currently being employed by businesses across the world. Practical tips will cover everything from the easy actions that will cut waste of materials, water and energy and save you money, to the big changes in processes, products and business models. Join the authors of The Three Secrets of Green Business and Doing Business in a New Climate for an event focusing on the challenges and opportunities that climate change poses for businesses of all sizes. Gareth Kane, an environmental consultant, has worked with hundreds of organizations to improve their environmental performance. He has appeared as a media pundit on sustainability issues on the BBC Six O’Clock News, Countryfile and The Politics Show. In 2008 The Journal newspaper named Gareth as a ‘Rising Star, Future Leader’ for his work on sustainability. Paul Lingl and Deborah Carlson both work for The David Suzuki Foundation, developing climate change solutions and greenhouse gas management strategies for businesses and other organizations. 20% Discount by typing EARTHCAST when ordering any book at www.earthscan.co.uk. Praise for the Earthcasts Series: “Earthscan is performing a really valuable public service by enabling us all to listen to some the world’s best sustainability consultants and to be able to ask them questions.” “Brilliant! I found the session to be informative and very relevant to current events. Keep up the good work.” “Well timed, well chaired, well presented – smoothest webcast I’ve seen!” “An excellent way of hearing about recent developments from leading thinkers in the field.” Further information To view an archived version of all previous events, visit www.earthscan.co.uk/earthcasts The slides used in each presentation are also available. Permalink |
| ### |
|
Posted on Sustainabilitank.info on February 17th, 2010 The problem with our media is that the reporting does not highlight what is really important. I happened to watch President Obama’s speech and what stroke me was his assertion that while coming to an understanding with the Republicans on the inclusion of nuclear power in the new energy mix – he wants them to help him make nuclear power economical by putting a price on CO2 emissions – as simple as that – nuclear power being uneconomical – causes at this time an increase in deficit that the economy cannot afford. So – President Obama took his decision knowing that Nuclear is Snake Oil and he passes the onus on the Republicans to help him avoid the blow to the economy that comes from doing anything that increase the deficit and does not create an industry that stands on ite own – private – feet. What kind of Conservatives could go for this program only half-way? President Obama does not seem to have in his pocket the Republicans agreement to go for a complete solution that he points out, and it seems that by going with them just half way – that is how far they are ready to go – he left behind the environmentalists that backed him to his starting point. If the Republicans do not join for the whole trip – he ends up losing also politically by losing the environmentalists. Nobody assumed that being a President is going to be easy, but life for the President could be made easier by taking a guiding map first and starting to walk according to the path he draws on that map for all to see. The first step on that map could start with a regulatory move that puts a clear cost on carbon – drives up the cost of polluting energy sources and then allows private enterprise to swim on their own. These first steps will surely create enemies but also friends. Not taking these decisive path – only enemies. Further evidence to day came from two oil companies that President Obama had on board when promising to fight for a clear price of carbon, have left him right after his pro-nuclear statement of yesterday. These are BP America and ConocoPhillips that left the US Climate Partnership (USCAP) of industry, some Environmentalists, and labor interests that came out for a Climate legislation that includes a Cap&Trade element. The only Oil company that is still on board is Royal Dutch Shell Oil PLC, while the other majors – ExxonMobil and Chevron were never part of it. So why did BP and Conoco leave? That is clear – without an effort of providing a level playing field that comes from a CARBON TAX why should they just stand by watching an Administration that is ready to buy Republicans by serving them as breakfast subsidized nuclear power as a way to decrease the dependence on oil? The oil companies that were ready to move into the renewable energy market, and know that nuclear is hopelessly uneconomic, have no interest in nuclear, so they will just join now rather the other US oil sisters to oppose the President. The Wall Street Journal reporting, to help befuddle the issue, mentions also Caterpillar as third company that left USCAP – true as it might be – it just hides the true reason of what is going on. The Editorial is better, but does not believe in the whole CAP & TAX idea – so it campaigns against it. General Electric Co. and Honeywell International Inc. continue their membership in USCAP – makes sense. The Washington Post has good reporting – but the crucial paragraphs are somewhere at the end of the article in the follow up page. You know, lots of people read the headlines and the front page piece only – they will never know that Obama spoke also beyond those billions he throws into a fire that is yet to catch on for a couple of years hence – this while jobs are needed before November 2010 – and the Republicans may or may not want to help him before that. From the Washington Post: ———————— Obama backs loans for new nuclear plant – President Barack Obama announced a guarantee of $8.3 billion in loans for the first new U.S. nuclear power plant in nearly three decades, underscoring the administration’s efforts to reduce dependence on foreign oil. (Feb. 16) By Michael D. Shear and Steven Mufson President Obama seized a key Republican energy initiative as his own Tuesday, promising $8.33 billion in federal loan guarantees for a pair of Georgia reactors that he said would give new life to the U.S. nuclear power industry and create a surge of high-skill jobs. By helping to finance the construction of the reactors — the first new U.S. nuclear power units in more than 30 years — Obama is hoping to jump-start his efforts to pass comprehensive climate-change legislation, which has stalled in Congress in the face of GOP opposition. The president is also casting the nuclear initiative as a centerpiece of his plan to produce clean-energy jobs, although construction on the two reactors would not begin for more than a year. Nonetheless, after touring a Maryland training facility for energy jobs, Obama said the competition for those positions worldwide will be fierce. But Obama’s announcement set up a clash with environmentalists who remain worried about the safety of nuclear power and waste disposal. And it drew criticism from some conservatives who called it a risky move that could cost taxpayers billions if construction costs spiral, electricity demand sags and utilities default. Jack Spencer, a fellow at the Heritage Foundation and a supporter of nuclear power, warned: “Loan guarantees do not a nuclear renaissance make.” He said the guarantees would “perpetuate the problems that have plagued nuclear energy for 30 years: the regulatory structure and nuclear waste [disposal] and too much government dependence.” The loan guarantees announced Tuesday would sharply lower borrowing costs to finance new reactors at the Alvin W. Vogtle Electric Generating Plant in eastern Georgia near the South Carolina border, where two units are being operated by the Atlanta-based Southern Co., a large utility. The loan guarantees would cover part of the $14 billion in financing needs; Japanese export loan guarantees would cover another portion. Southern, which owns 46 percent of the plant, and its partners would have equity interests as well. The companies would “definitely have skin in the game,” said Energy Secretary Steven Chu. Administration officials said that the loan guarantees would not cost taxpayers anything and that companies would pay fees to cover the risk of default. But critics said the administration was vastly underestimating the likelihood of the loans going bad. Jobs would be created, but not right away. The nuclear units would require 3,500 construction positions and later 800 jobs for operating the plant. But Southern chief executive David Ratcliffe noted that the company would not draw the loan guarantees and begin construction until the NRC grants a license, which it does not expect until late 2011. Moreover, the Energy Department and Southern are still negotiating terms of the guarantees. To deflect critics, the president promised efforts to make the technology even safer and asserted that nuclear power must be a significant part of global attempts to reduce reliance on polluting, carbon-based fuels. “It’s that simple,” he said. “This one plant, for example, will cut carbon pollution by 16 million tons each year when compared to a similar coal plant. That’s like taking 3.5 million cars off the road.” The reactors would be able to power 550,000 homes, providing electricity to 1.4 million people. Obama has long been amenable to new nuclear power and said throughout the presidential campaign that it had to be part of a comprehensive energy strategy. The loan guarantee he promised Tuesday would come from $18.5 billion in money authorized during President George W. Bush’s administration under the Energy Policy Act of 2005. But in the latest budget proposal, Obama has proposed tripling that to $54.5 billion, an amount that Chu said could help jump-start seven to 10 new nuclear power reactors. The United States has 104 commercial nuclear reactors. White House press secretary Robert Gibbs acknowledged later that the push for an increased use of nuclear power “might not make everybody in [the president's] party completely comfortable.” But he said the announcement demonstrates to Republicans Obama’s “willingness to be part of this dialogue.” “The president believed throughout the campaign, and said as much, that we need a balanced approach,” Gibbs said. “He made good on that balanced approach today.” After a meeting with Republican leaders at the White House last week, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) cited construction of nuclear power plants as one of the areas that “we might be able to work on together.” In his speech at a training center in Lanham run by the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Obama called the new loan guarantees “just the beginning” and noted that his budget proposal calls for billions more in federal subsidies. But he urged Republican supporters of nuclear power to “recognize that we’re not going to achieve a big boost in nuclear capacity unless we also create a system of incentives to make clean energy profitable.” He said that “as long as producing carbon pollution carries no cost, traditional plants that use fossil fuels will be more cost-effective than plants that use nuclear fuel.” That, he said, is why Congress should pass comprehensive energy and climate legislation. After talks last week with GOP congressional leaders, Obama said, “I believe there’s real common ground here, and my administration will be working to build on areas of agreement.” But, he said, the money would be better spent retrofitting buildings and reducing energy consumption. “The loan guarantees announced today may ease the politics around comprehensive clean-energy and climate legislation, but we do not believe that they are the best policy.” Permalink |
| ### |
|
Posted on Sustainabilitank.info on February 15th, 2010 from f.urban@ids.ac.uk The China Low Carbon Platform (CLCP) has been launched by the Climate Change and Development Centre at the Institute of Development Studies IDS. CLCP is a new knowledge-sharing platform for low carbon energy and low carbon development for China. The aim of CLCP is to disseminate and share information in Chinese and English on low carbon energy systems and low carbon development strategies that reduce poverty and tackle climate change in China. A specific focus of the platform is on Chinese communities. The platform is open to practitioners, researchers, policy-makers, businesses and everyone who is interested in energy and low carbon development in China. Members are encouraged to contribute to the platform by posting blog items, participating in discussions and uploading their own publications in English and/or Chinese. ———- Permalink |
| ### |
|
Posted on Sustainabilitank.info on February 15th, 2010 Happy Valentines,
As predicted by everyone who knows us, we have so far completely failed to retire from a) Age of Stupid, b) filmmaking, c) climate change and d) indie film distribution. We also failed to close down our office, to wade through the enormous backlog of sorting’n'filing or to go on holiday.
Lizzie, tho, has managed to make a big life decision, deciding to take on another mega-project - think Global Premiere but with more timezones – which she’ll no doubt be filling you in on soon. She starts her new job any day, but in the meantime is currently on a train to the Berlin film festival to talk about Stupid’s crowd-funding model, which is genuinely a hot topic of conversation in the world of indie filmmaking: at the Rotterdam festival last week her talk was introduced with “If you’re not obsessed with The Age of Stupid, you will be after you hear how they did it” – and then the festival proceeded to launch their own crowd-funding scheme to allow their festival-goers to support new filmmakers.
Indie Screenings
We’ve decided to re-launch our Indie Screenings website (through which 1,314 screenings of Age of Stupid have so far been organised) on March 9th with eight other save-the-world films. We’re busy getting the films licensed and rebuilding the site, but were wondering which films people particularly fancied seeing? All the obvious big docs of the last few years will either be on there or not on there cos of problems with the rights (ie a distributor/broadcaster owns the film and doesn’t want it on Indie Screenings, which means there’s nothing the filmmaker can do about it). Any thoughts? The only criteria is that they have to have a clear social action message. (BTW, apologies if you’ve written to Indie Screenings recently and not got a response. It’s been in transition and there hasn’t been a spare person to answer all the emails for a couple of weeks. But Rhiannon’s on the case now.)
Food Inc on at your local movie house – MONDAY 15th ONLY
Remember the wonderful and brilliant Eric Schlosser from McLibel? He who wrote Fast Food Nation and is able to summarise corporate wrongdoing more niftily than anyone else currently alive on the planet. Now he’s only gone and produced America’s smash-hit (10th biggest all-time @ box office and No 1 DVD after a big Oprah splash) doc of the year, Food Inc. We schmoozied along to the UK premiere last week and can confirm that a) it’s a fab film and b) nobody who sees it will ever be able to eat factory farmed meat again. So probably best to go for that curry before heading to the movies: Food Inc plays in a handful of cinemas round the country all week (Dundee, Bristol, Edinburgh, Inverness, London, Liverpool) and on Monday 15th it will be in cinemas across the country for one night only. List of cinemas here and audio interview with Eric and director Robert Kenner describing the film here.
Valentines 1: Carbon Speed Dating
Edinburgh Uni hearts 10:10 sooooooo much. The lucky students and academics are getting busy with practical winter gardening workshops, bike maintenance sessions, film screenings (no prizes for guessing which) and carbon speed dating, whatever that may be, as part of the Edinburgh University 10:10 Week. Alarmingly, the budget they’ve raised to run the university 10:10 campaign is bigger than the pot of cash we’ve managed to come up with to run the whole campaign across the whole country. Ha ha ha. Eek. (Please donate here.)
Valentines 2: Making Babies
The Guardian have brought up the environmental issue which dare not speak its name in a big feature article: ”Eventually we’ll be extinct anyway, but it would be so much nicer if we phased ourselves out through natural attrition… you know – the way a company reduces its workforce without firing anyone.” I was interviewed for the piece during the Copenhagen Stupid Show madness and then spent the next few days worrying about what I’d said. But my quote is fine and I have to admit that this is about the only subject which tickles my filmmaking fancy… You heard it here first…
Animation 1: The Impossible Hamster
Stupid animating dude Leo Murray – who worked on the opening formation-of-the-universe sequence – has joined forces with the New Economic Foundation’s top dude Andrew Simms – who’s also on the 10:10 board, it’s an incestuous world – to produce the youtube sensation known as The Impossible Hamster: “crazy consumption and really gross domestic product”
Animation 2: Coalition of the Willing
V cool new climate change project made by animators linked only by the interweb: ”‘Coalition of The Willing’ is a film that discusses how we can use new internet technologies to leverage the powers of activists, experts, and ordinary citizens in collaborative ventures to combat climate change. Through analyses of swarm activity and social revolution, ‘Coalition of the Willing’ makes a compelling case for the new online activism and explains how to bring the fight against global warming to the people.”
Depressing 1
Anyone who’s been reading this mailing list for the last few years may have a chronic case of climate fatigue, but we’re delusional if we think the general public is suffering too. A scary piece in the New York Times explains that, rather than 2009/Copenhagen being the moment that climate went mainstream, what actually happened was that the number of media stories went down compared to 2008. Whoops.
Depressing 2
10:10’s No 1 cheerleader, the Guardian’s Ian Katz, convincingly explains why the situation as of February 2010 is desperately worse than the desperate situation we were in just three months ago: “[the effort to secure a global deal] is like asking a jellyfish to climb a flight of stairs; you can poke and prod all you want, you can cajole and you can threaten. But you are asking for something that you just can’t get”.
On that cheery note, I hope the attached amuse.
See you
Franny
HUNDREDS GATHER TO PROTEST GLOBAL WARMING  _______________________________________________ Permalink |
| ### |
|
Posted on Sustainabilitank.info on February 11th, 2010 Post-Copenhagen – ALDE MEPs Corrine Lepage (MoDem, France) and Chris Davies (Liberal Democrat, UK) have called on the EU to be bolder in its strategy to help forge a legally binding global deal on carbon emission cuts in the wake of the failed Copenhagen Climate Change Summit. Speaking after the European Parliament voted today to set a target of cutting EU emissions by more than 20% Lepage, vice-chair of the Environment Committee said: “This resolution should be considered as a first step. Our priority must be to re-establish the trust of our citizens in scientific data. It is vital to convince them that the promotion of a low carbon economy is a response both to the effects of climate change and, in part, to the economic crisis. It is equally crucial that Europe speak with one voice in favor of an agreement with the main emitters of CO2, notably the US and China. Finally, it is essential to stick to our financial commitments with regard to developing countries.” “After the disappointment of Copenhagen the EU has to raise its game and take a lead. By saving energy and improving energy efficiency we will save resources, drive down emissions, and make our economy more competitive.” Permalink |
| ### |
|
Posted on Sustainabilitank.info on February 6th, 2010 Shackleton’s Whiskey Found Buried Near South Pole. Lauren Frayer Researchers from New Zealand found the crates while restoring a hut Shackleton built and used during the expedition. He and his team were forced to cut short the trip and abandon supplies, including their booze, to sail away before winter ice trapped them there. The second trip was backed by the same Scottish company that distilled Shackleton’s whiskey, Mackinlay’s Rare Old Scotch. It could be the longest booze run in history. The Whyte and Mackay distillery hopes to replicate the whiskey, which hasn’t been made in a lifetime after the original recipe was lost. “If the contents can be confirmed, safely extracted and analyzed, the original blend may be able to be replicated,” Paterson said. Shackleton’s expedition ran short of supplies on a long trek to the South Pole that began in 1907. He had to turn back about 100 miles from the pole in 1909. The team had to move quickly to escape as winter ice began to form, so they were forced to abandon all but essential equipment and supplies – including their whiskey. No lives were lost. A Norwegian explorer, Roald Amundsen, was first to reach the South Pole two years later, in 1911. As for what the future holds for Shackleton’s whiskey, there are international treaties preventing the removal of artifacts from Antarctica, but Paterson wrote on his blog that he hopes to get his hands on at least a sample of the whiskey, if not a couple bottles. “What you all want to know is: How will it taste?” Paterson wrote. “To which the answer is: Cold.” Permalink |
| ### |
|
Posted on Sustainabilitank.info on February 4th, 2010 In a room where members of the Security Council met after us, the subject was “GLOBAL CRISIS, MORE THAN JUST ECONOMICS,” and we learned it is actually a Triple Crisis – Finance, Food, Climate – Crises – a global security problem. The Presenters were from the World Institute for Development Economics Research (WIDER) of the UNU-WIDER in Helsinki: Professor Finn Tarp the Director of WIDER who is also Chair of Development Economics at the Department of Economics at the University of Copenhagen, and Professor Tony Addison the Chief Economist/ Deputy Director of WIDER who hails from the Universities of Manchester and London. The Discussant was Joseph H. Melrose Jr., a retired US Ambassador with an illustrious career and stays with the UN during the 61st to 64th UNGA Sessions (2006-2009) and now Professor of International Relations at Ursinus College in Pennsylvania. The Event Brief read: “As the global economy is passing through a period of profound change, the immediate concern is the financial crisis, originating in the developed world. The global South is affected by lower demand and decreasing prices for their exports, reduced private financial flows, and remittances. Simultaneously, climate change remains unchecked with the growth in greenhouse gas emissions exceeding previous estimates. Finally, malnutrition and hunger are on the rise, propelled by the recent inflation in global food prices. Seeking potential policy solutions, the discussion will address threats to development arising from the global economic crisis, food shortages and climate change. To put this in simple words – there is a Triple Crisis: (1) a Finance Crisis These three crises sit in their separate “POLICY SILOS” and undermine World Peace. A voice must be heard that this is not just a question of economics but it is a series of social problems that undermine World Peace. The present economic downturn is the deepest in 60 years and let us remember that the UN is only 65 years old. Just a short few weeks ago we used to say that the world crisis has engulfed the whole world except MENA – now came the Dubai crisis and we see that nobody is safe. I would like to add here that the globalization process got us to this situation and now clearly – when there is a sneeze in one corner of the world its echo will thunder all over. Will the North respond to the need of increased assistance for development? The World Pie, or cake, has shrunk – but that means that the percentage for foreign aid must increase if the pace is to be held in place in what regards the needs by the poorer peoples of the world. Their needs become a question of security for all – Is it likely that the richer countries will increase their aid percentage wise? But see – aid did not increase since the late 80’s. We even look now at a world that will call for CARBON TAXES because of the need to react to climate change. What will be the impact on the economic development in the emerging countries?
A question from the room – Nobody mentioned demography & population increase – the population explosion! Tony Addison – on the global food architecture & population – at $80/barrel of oil going to $200 – biofuels becomes attractive – so global food architecture calls for higher efficiency. 1.5 billion people in high poverty – institutions are needed – even remittance flows are drying up. Fossil fuels subsidies are much higher then is the ecosystem aid. Watch the origins of conflict and energy resources and follow the lines of fossil fuels. That was the greatest finale I witnessed at a UN show. This could happen only in a Think tank environment and one would wish every country to send someone to these sessions – they might learn something about what makes human disasters happen. You just cannot paint man made catastrophes with the natural disaster hazard colors. I am also thinking of our recent posting about Ethiopia, a country with 5.2 million people needing food help from abroad, while plans are being made to turn it into a new bread-basket for exports. Is this something that we should also look at closely? Is there someone who will help integrate local needs with export potential? Permalink |
| ### |
