boilingspot

Can REDD save the forests of Muara Tae in East Kalimantan, Indonesia?

2012-01-27T22:36:00.000+07:00

The Dayak Benuaq Indigenous People of Muara Tae in East Kalimantan are defending their last remaining area of forest against two palm oil companies. “This is the last remaining forests that we have and the only land we have to survive. If my forests are gone, our lives will end,” says Pak Singko, a leader of the Dayak Benuaq of Muara Tae

By Chris Lang | REDD-Monitor | 26th January 2012

The villagers of Muara Tae have lost more than half of their land and forest to mining and plantation companies. There are currently five companies with concessions in Muara Tae’s forests. The destruction started in 1971, with a logging company called PT Sumber Mas. In 1995, PT London Sumatera cleared forests for oil palm plantations. The following year, a coal mining company PT Gunung Bayan Pratama Coal started operations in the forests around Muara Tae. In January 2010, the local authorities issued concessions to two palm oil companies: Malaysian-owned PT Munte Waniq Jaya Perkasa and PT Borneo Surya Mining Jaya, a subsidiary of Sumatran logging, mining and plantation conglomerate Surya Dumai.

The plantation companies cleared the forest replacing it with oil palm monoculture. The coal mining company excavated a huge hole in the ground, destroying the forest and their rivers. “The Gunung Bayan’s mining areas got rid of many rivers,” Petrus Asuy a community leader in Muara Tae told Indonesian NGO Telapak.

“The Nayan River had Jebor, Tae, Telonyok, Telaga, Tengeliwai as its tributaries, so many of these rivers are completely closed. Quite sad if we look back to the times before the mining company came we had a peaceful life. The forest was vast, we found plenty of animals and fish to catch and the river was still all it was.”

Last year, Telapak produced a video about the villagers of Muara Tae and their struggle to protect their forests:

Our Forest, Our Lives: A Story from Muara Tae from Gekko Studio on Vimeo.

Telapak is working with the local community. In a November 2011 article that broke the story about Muara Tae, the Environmental Investigation Agency (EIA) explained that according to Telapak, PT Munte Waniq Jaya Perkasa does not yet have a Commercial Usage Right permit issued by the National Land Agency (Badan Pertanahan Nasional, or BPN). Telapak “is seeking to work with the BPN to accommodate the community’s land claims in any final permit,” EIA wrote.

In theory at least, recognising the community’s land rights should be straightforward. In July 2011, at an international conference in Lombok, Kuntoro Mangkusubroto, head of both the Indonesian President’s Special Delivery Unit (UKP4) and the REDD+ Task Force, announcedthe Government’s intention to “recognise, respect and protect Adat [customary] rights”. He added that “Indonesia is committed to longer-term forest and land tenure reform.”

In an interview with Al Jazeera earlier this month, Hadi Daryanto, Secretary General at the Ministry of Forestry, explained that,

“If the provincial government has recognised this forest as an ancestral forest it means the government can take ownership on behalf of the community so nobody is allowed to sell these trees anymore, the government can intervene and tell the companies to stop working.”

Al Jazeera reported that the villagers “have applied for the special status, but the bulldozers are moving fast”.

The concessions in Muara Tae were awarded before Norway and Indonesia signed the Letter of Intent that established the US$1 billion REDD deal. The May 2011, two-year moratorium on new forest concessions cannot do anything about existing concessions (although the lack of a Commercial Usage Right permit must surely give some wiggle room for including at least one of the concessions in the moratorium).

Unfortunately, this is another example of Norway’s two-faced approach to forest protection. Norway actually stands to profit from PT Munte Waniq Jaya Perkasa’s forest destroying operations. EIA reports that as of December 2010, Norway’s Government Pension Fund Global (GPFG) had US$6.7 million invested in TSH Resources, a palm oil and timber-focused holdings group in Malaysia, which since 31 October 2011 has owned 90% of PT Munte Waniq Jaya Perkasa.

EIA notes in its article from November 2011 that,

During the past year, EIA has been pressing Norway to address the serious conflicts of interest generated by GPFG’s financial investments. Muara Tae is a stark case in point, with GPFG having ethically compromising investments in the activities of the very firm carrying out deforestation.

In October 2011, EIA and Rainforest Foundation Norway wrote to Jens Stoltenberg, Norway’s prime minister, requesting that Norway takes action to address the issue of GPFG investing in rainforest destroying companies. Action is long overdue.

Meanwhile, the destruction of the forests in Muara Tae raises many issues of importance in the REDD debate in Indonesia, particularly the issue of land rights. While land rights is a complex issue, Muara Tae would be as good a place as any to implement the following clause in theLetter of Intent: “Take appropriate measures to address land tenure conflicts and compensation claims.”

Faith Doherty, EIA Forests Team Leader sums up the situation:

“The rhetoric from the President of Indonesia on curbing emissions by reducing deforestation is strong but on the front line, where indigenous communities are putting their lives at risk to protect forests, action is sorely missing.

Giving these communities, such as the Dayak Benuaq, the rights they deserve is a vital step to reduce catastrophic levels of deforestation in Indonesia.”

REDD-Monitor is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-Share Alike 3.0 Unported License

Finance for biodiversity is a “new face for capitalism”: Sign on letter to CBD from Acción Ecológica

2012-01-27T22:27:00.001+07:00

“Conserving the planet’s species and habitats is central to sustainable development yet the global decline in biodiversity is accelerating,” says UN Secretary General, Ban-Ki Moon

By Chris Lang | REDD-Monitor | 27th January 2012

“The United Nations decade on biodiversity is an opportunity to reverse this trend, under the theme living in harmony with nature.”

From 6-9 March 2012, the Convention on Biological Diversity and the Governments of Ecuador, India, Japan, Norway and Sweden will be holding a Global Dialogue Seminar on Scaling up Finance for Biodiversity. The meeting will take place in Quito, Ecuador.

But not everyone is convinced that the UN’s approach to protecting biodiversity is going to work. Acción Ecológica is launching a call to collect signatures for the letter below, to be presented to the participants at the meeting in Quito. Acción Ecológica sees the UN approach to financing biodiversity as part of a “new face for capitalism” through the creation and marketing of new commodities. And REDD is part of “A tangled web of proposals that essentially seek control over land, forests, water and biodiversity as means to compensate for the loss of biodiversity or as raw materials for new technologies.”

To sign on to Acción Ecológica’s letter, please send an email to iramos@accionecologica.orgwith a copy to ivonney@accionecologica.org. If you want to take part in the meeting in Quito, the deadline for nominations for participants is 31 January 2012 – see the CBD Secretariat’snotification about the meeting for details. REDD-Monitor welcomes discussion in the comments about the letter and the issues it raises.

OPEN LETTER

TO THE SECRETARIAT OF THE CONVENTION ON BIOLOGICAL DIVERSITY AND THE GOVERNMENTS OF JAPAN, INDIA, NORWAY, SWEDEN AND ECUADOR

On 6 to 9 March 2012 the Global Dialogue Seminar on Scaling Up Finance for Biodiversity, co-hosted by the Convention on Biological Diversity and the Governments of Ecuador, India, Japan, Norway and Sweden, will be held in Quito, Ecuador with the aim of exploring financial mechanisms and resources for biodiversity. This is part of an agreement among the signatory countries to the Convention on Biological Diversity to mobilize financing to facilitate implementation of a strategic plan and the achievement of the Aichi Biodiversity Targets, in which Strategic Goal D aims to enhance the benefits from biodiversity as a commodity and from environmental services. The meeting in Quito is one more step in this direction.

In the midst of the current environmental, financial and economic crisis, biodiversity has gained enormous importance because of the role it can play for the “green economy”, which will be consolidated through the agreements reached at the upcoming Rio+20 summit. This economic proposal is nothing more than a new face for capitalism, through which biodiversity, water, soils, biogeochemical cycles, photosynthesis, and all the other functions and structures of nature can be converted into commodities.

Forming part of this process are the false solutions to climate change such as REDD (Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation) and so-called TEEB (The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity). A tangled web of proposals that essentially seek control over land, forests, water and biodiversity as means to compensate for the loss of biodiversity or as raw materials for new technologies.

In practice, they promote the implementation of neoliberal measures to address the climate problem, biodiversity management and protection of forests. They extol the paradigm that the solution lies in the market, in property rights, in the proper assignment of prices and the commodification of all of nature, traditional knowledge and cultures associated with it, to the detriment of justice, sovereignty and respect for human rights and the rights of nature.

At the meeting in Quito, as well as during the run-up to Rio+20 and at the CBD COP-11 in India, steps will be taken to define the financial instruments, policies and public-private partnerships needed to achieve the biggest land grab and trampling of people’s rights ever seen in the history of humanity. Due to the scale and sphere of action, what is proposed will have devastating effects on territories and rights.

Just as the Green Climate Fund is aimed at promoting market mechanisms to ineffectively confront the climate crisis, financing for biodiversity is being diverted towards means of privatization and control of biodiversity.

With the same discourses of poverty relief, conservation and sustainability that have benefited the industrial, military and financial sectors, they are once again trying to convince us that the “green economy”, promoted by the same actors, is the solution.

In view of this situation, we the undersigned organizations, networks and social movements urge the governments hosting the meeting in Quito to stop the commodification of nature; likewise, we call on the participants in the meeting to prevent the further advance of the green economy that is being hatched and to act instead in line with models of society that differ from the capitalist system and are built on the principles of community and on relationships with nature based on the protection of life.

SIGNATURES

…/

To sign on to the letter please write to:
iramos@accionecologica.org
with a copy to:
ivonney@accionecologica.org

CARTA ABIERTA A LA SECRETARÍA DE LA CONVENCIÓN DE DIVERSIDAD BIOLÓGICA Y A LOS GOBIERNOS DE JAPÓN, INDIA, NORUEGA, SUECIA Y ECUADOR

Entre el 6 al 9 de marzo de 2012 se llevará a cabo en Quito-Ecuador el “Seminario de Diálogo Global sobre el Aumento del Financiamiento para Biodiversidad”, co-convocado por la Convención de Diversidad Biológica y los Gobiernos de Ecuador, Suecia, Noruega, India y Japón, con el fin de acordar “mecanismos y recursos financieros” para la biodiversidad. Esto hace parte de un acuerdo entre los países signatarios del Convenio de Diversidad Biológica para incrementar los recursos económicos que permitan la aplicación efectiva de un plan estratégico y alcanzar las metas de Aichi, cuya Estrategia D incluye cómo mejorar los beneficios de la biodiversidad como mercancía y de los servicios ambientales. La reunión de Quito, es un paso más es este camino.

En medio de la actual crisis ambiental, financiera, económica, la biodiversidad ha cobrado una enorme importancia por el papel que ella puede jugar para la “economía verde” que quedará consolidada a través de los acuerdos de la Cumbre Rio+20. Esta propuesta económica no es sino una nueva cara del capitalismo en la que la biodiversidad, el agua, los suelos, los ciclos biogeoquímicos, la fotosíntesis, las funciones y estructuras de la naturaleza podrán ser convertidas en mercancía.

Parte de este proceso son las falsas soluciones al cambio climático, como los Mecanismos REDD (Reducción de Emisiones por Deforestación y Degradación Evitadas) o la economía llamada TEEB (Economía de los Ecosistemas y la Biodiversidad). Marañas de propuestas que buscan en esencia el control de tierras, bosques, agua y biodiversidad como recurso de compensación por la pérdida de biodiversidad, o como materia prima de nuevas tecnologías.

En la práctica, se pretende profundizar la aplicación de medidas neoliberales frente al problema del clima, al manejo de la biodiversidad o a la protección de los bosques. Exalta el paradigma de que la solución está en los mercados, en los derechos de propiedad, la correcta asignación de precios y la mercantilización de toda la naturaleza, de los conocimientos tradicionales o las culturas asociadas a ella, en desmedro de la justicia, las soberanías y el respeto a los derechos humanos y de la naturaleza.

Tanto en la reunión de Quito, como durante el camino hacia Rio+20, y en la COP11 de la CDB de la India, se darán pasos para definir instrumentos financieros, políticas y asociaciones público-privadas que se requieren para obtener la mayor apropiación de territorios y despojo de derechos de los pueblos como jamás se ha dado en la historia de la humanidad. Debido a su escala y ámbito de acción, lo que se propone tendrá efectos devastadores en los territorios y los derechos.

Al igual que con el Fondo Climático se pretende continuar con los mecanismos de mercado para enfrentar ineficazmente la crisis climática, el financiamiento para la biodiversidad está derivando hacia formas de privatización y control de la biodiversidad.

Con los mismos discursos de alivio de la pobreza, conservación y sustentabilidad que beneficiaron a los sectores industriales, militares y financieros, tratan de convencernos nuevamente que la “economía verde”, impulsada por los mismos actores, es la solución.

Ante esta realidad, las organizaciones, redes y movimientos sociales abajo firmantes exhortamos a los gobiernos convocantes a la reunión de Quito a que detengan la mercantilización de la naturaleza; de igual manera, hacemos un llamado a los participantes en el evento a impedir el avance de la Economía Verde que se está fraguando y actuar en concordancia con modelos de sociedades distintos del sistema capitalista depredador y que son construidos sobre principios comunitarios y formas de relación con la naturaleza basadas en el cuidado de la vida.

SIGUEN FIRMAS

…/

Para suscribir la carta puede escribir a:

iramos@accionecologica.org
con una copia a:
ivonney@accionecologica.org

REDD-Monitor is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-Share Alike 3.0 Unported License.

Wind power: Clean energy, dirty business?

2012-01-27T22:19:00.000+07:00

In the developing world, where land-intensive wind turbines are being rapidly constructed, wind power has often turned clean energy into dirty business

By Erik Vance | Christian Science Monitor | January 26, 2012

Wind power is sweeping the globe: It's clean energy, but it does have some dirty business aspects that hit the developing world particularly hard. This is part of the cover story package in the Jan. 30 issue of The Christian Science Monitor magazine. Reuters photo

Like the oil drilling rig that became an icon of the Industrial Age, the giant, spinning wind turbinehas become a global image of clean power.

No longer a futuristic dream of environmentalists, wind power has become a big business: Since the signing of the Kyoto Protocol on climate change in 1998, wind-generated electricity has grown 20-fold: from only enough to power the equivalent of two New York Cities, to 200,000 megawatts today – enough to power six Britains. (In an address today about "American energy," linking clean energy to economic and national security,President Obama said that his administration would allow the development of green energy such as wind and solar on enough public lands to power 3 million homes.)

Wind's biggest impact may be in the developing world – indeed, according to the Global Wind Energy Consortium, 2011 was the first year the developing world installed more wind power facilities than the developed world. India is now fifth in wind power production. China, the global wind leader, installed more wind power in 2009 than existed on the planet prior to 2003. Morocco recently finished its first wind farm (200 megawatts) and, with plans to grow its capacity 10-fold by 2020, expects to export electricity to Europe.

IN PICTURES: The dirty side of wind energy

For all the hope that wind energy offers a world eager to move away from costlier, more environmentally disruptive forms of electric power production, the industry is barreling into some of the same controversies and conflicts that its predecessors in natural resource exploitation faced, particularly in the developing world.

On one hand, says Paul Veers, chief engineer at the National Renewable Energy Laboratory: "The wind business is doing something no new electricity source has done in almost half a century – it's beginning to make an impact."

On the other hand, says Dan Kammen, a University of California, Berkeley, renewable energy scholar working on leave at the World Bank: "The conflicts that come up [with wind] are exactly the same ones that come up in basically every other land-based activity. We have done this in the past over Manifest Destiny and national security. The issue of the moment happens to be green energy, but there has been a history of this."

Towering turbines, often with blades as long as 30 yards, are installed in huge groups – wind farms – and require large tracts of land. Acquisition of that land has been a sometimes violent flash point in the new "wind rush," as explained in detail in the accompanying Monitor case study ofMexico's wind-rich Isthmus of Tehuantapec.

While energy and environmental experts note that the conflicts are still relatively few, they are cautionary lessons for the industry.

Wind takes off

"Much of Africa, Asia Pacific, and Latin America – as far as we see it – is on the verge of taking off," says Shruti Shukla, policy director of the Global Wind Energy Council.

The growth of wind power is driven partly by demand: China's electric power demand has doubled in just a decade, and India's peak demand is 12 percent higher than its available supply.

But also, national and international subsidies and incentives – such as carbon offsets that allow companies to invest in clean energy to "offset" carbon emissions in their dirtier businesses – have driven wind industry growth. Critics of the incentives say that every new turbine represents a blank check to pollute elsewhere. Supporters say it's a market-based solution meant to ease business into clean energy.

For Kyoto signatory nations it has meant a global rush to acquire land for wind turbines. Wind projects have been successful – notably, in Tamil Nadu, India, which experts like Ms. Shukla and Mr. Kammen cite as a model of responsiveness to local need and manageable scale.

Indeed, wind energy projects do generally inject economic benefits wherever they're built, but the development process often sparks anger, especially among poor landowners.

"What we see in many places, if not most places around the world, is very much what I would describe as the colonial model, where Europeans would go to Africa and other places and they say 'OK, we are going to develop this,' " says James Anaya, United Nations Special Rapporteur on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. "And the deal that is being offered, in the end, is not a good one."

In 2001, Mr. Anaya won a landmark case in the Inter-American Court of Human Rights that involved logging rights in Nicaragua and established that indigenous people have exclusive right to their lands. He says that too often a government or business acquires land through unequal negotiations, in which indigenous people aren't given all the information or options.

Negotiating any wind contract is complex. Often in the developing world, communities are poorly educated or largely illiterate and don't understand the implications of a contract. They may simply have no access to legal and technical advice and they may be powerless to negotiate. And because parcels are small, they can be destroyed by turbine construction.

Kammen, a strong supporter of wind power, says that by comparison, biofuels have a far worse record than wind development for land grabs. Rampant abuses in Tanzania, he says, recently led to a ban there on all new biofuel investment. He says that most conflicts involving wind energy deal with land occupied – but not owned – by indigenous groups, such as in the Kutch District of India, where a case pitting local herders against Indian wind giant Suzlon Energy Ltd. went to the high court there. He worries about such conflicts arising with Morocco's nomadic herders.

Monitor reports abuse in India

In 2010, the Monitor documented a case in Dhule, India, where 2,000 adivasi – or tribesmen – were forced to accept hundreds of wind turbines on their traditional lands. They'd lived on the land for generations but had dubious title. The government gave the land to Suzlon, which, in some cases, bought out owners.

However, ownership doesn't guarantee fair treatment. In Honduras a wind energy company recently forced indigenous Lenca people who did have land title to take on a wind farm, paying each farmer as little as $80 per year to lease the land. In many cases, the owners were barred from their land.

Cases like this, in which landowners are either coerced into a contract or don't understand what they are signing, are beginning to worry indigenous rights activists.

"You are talking about land that is the basis for the existence and survival of cultures – of entire social-culture dynamics that define a people," says Anaya. "You are talking about the cultural survival of these people."

Elsewhere, it's not clear what effect the wind boom is having on civil rights. China has doubled production capacity in each of the past five years. It has a history of driving people from land for hydropower, but wind experts say China's grip on information makes it hard to know if the same goes for wind projects.

Asked about the conflicts cited here, Shukla says her industry organization is unaware of any wind development projects that have caused poor landowners any strife.

As the wind boom continues, indigenous ownership is a key issue.

Taking wind into their own hands

In the Great Plains of the United States, many native American communities have joined a movement to direct all development on their lands.

"The tribes were no longer satisfied with business as usual ... other people coming in, building some economic development project, owning it, taking the profits out, and leaving the tribe with it at the end of its life," says Robert Gough, a consultant with the Intertribal Council on Utility Policy, which represents 10 Great Plains tribes.

Many tribal communities there say they pay high electricity costs or have no electricity at all. So the council decided no wind farms will be built on tribal land unless the tribe has controlling interest.

Mr. Gough says the tribes have struggled to find partners because of these demands and because federal investment incentives are designed for businesses, not municipalities or reservations.

But communal bargaining is catching on. In southern Wyoming, 2,000 owners have pooled 2 million acres in "wind associations."

Many countries are trying to start domestic wind industries. For example, 15 years ago, foreigners built China's turbines; now Chinese corporations do it.

"At the end of the day, developing countries are energy deficient. And they do need power," says Shukla. "You want to be able to give them energy that is cleaner than what we have been providing across the world."

© The Christian Science Monitor. All Rights Reserved

Green economy and growth: Fiddling while Rome burns?

2012-01-26T00:45:00.001+07:00

“Fiddling while Rome burns” may seem a stale analogy, but when talking of “green growth” and “green economy” (GGE, for short), it is appropriate. Despite assertions to the contrary, the only thing innovative about the GGE concepts is the buzz that surrounds them

by Manu V. Mathai | OurWorld 2.0 | January 25, 2012

Getting excited about them when they are hardly new or creative notions blithely ignores their critical limitations for dealing with the social and ecological challenges facing us today.

The modern environmental movement emerged in the 1960s as a reaction to two centuries of industrial growth that produced everything in varied and vast quantities — including pollution. As political scientist Albert Weale has helpfully discussed, the initial policy strategy to emerge from this disquiet was confrontational. Governments sought to regulate corporations whose effluents despoiled nature and human health. Regulations were designed to mandate certain practices and penalize pollution in an attempt to change business behaviour. The confrontational arrangement of the 1970s was obviously problematic, inefficient and even ineffective.

The alternative was to frame environment and economic growth as mutually supportive partners. Indeed, “Our Common Future” (the report of the World Commission on Environment and Development, also known as the Brundtland Report) of 1987 observed, somewhat inexplicably, that “poverty reduces people’s capacity to use the environment in a sustainable manner; it intensifies pressure on the environment” and therefore suggested that rapid economic expansion is essential for a healthy environment. In the same breath, though, the report also recognized that there are “ultimate [biophysical] limits” and pinned its hopes of resolving this contradiction and realizing sustainability in the world on “ensuring equitable access to resources and reorienting technological efforts to relieve the pressure” long before these limits are reached.

The practical implementation of this prescription relied on realizing greater efficiencies and technological sophistication, and the appropriation of nature under expert management and market-based allocation. The report was less explicit — and subsequent policy even more so — on exactly how to enable “equitable access to resources” in practice.

The sustainable development agenda has been around for more than two decades. However, apart from some successes at cleaning up air and water, largely at the local level in affluent societies, its accomplishments in bringing about an arrangement of nature–society relations that is on the whole equitable and sustainable still appears limited. The basic problem is that the implementation of sustainable development unevenly emphasizes economic growth, and equity is seen as a managed outcome of applying modern science and technology to expand the economic pie and its subsequent allocation through free markets.

This approach has been unable to engage equity as a politically negotiated arrangement of fair social relationships. It should be evident to a casual observer today that while this strategy has succeeded in growing the economic pie, it has failed in arriving at a fair allocation of affluence and it effluents.

Fast-forward to 2011 and the recent attention to “green growth” and “green economy”. The United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs (UNDESA) describes GGE as an economic arrangement that “enhances growth, social progress and environmental stewardship”. It recognizes biophysical limits and notes that the “objective of the green economy is to ensure that those limits are not crossed”. It proposes a “Great Green Technological Revolution” to make technologies “more efficient in the use of energy and other resources and minimize the generation of harmful pollutants”.

In a similar vein, UNEP’s Toward a Green Economy observes that GGE is an arrangement where “growth in income and employment should be driven by public and private investments that reduce carbon emissions and pollution, enhance energy and resource efficiency, and prevent the loss of biodiversity and ecosystem services”. Reviewing these foundational assumptions of GGE, one must ask: What has changed in over two decades?

These ideas were innovative in 1987 when“ Our Common Future” was released. But to talk of them in 2011 as new solutions for persistent, unresolved problems is, to put it generously, unhelpful. They are good strategies, and policy must continue to emphasize them and expand their applicability. However, efficiency is a necessary but insufficient condition today, when the imperative is to find sufficiency in a finite and deeply inequitable world.

The scope of this challenge is unprecedented. The recent “great recession” revealed our inability to arrange an acceptable society without constant economic growth. Prevailing against this challenge requires a wellspring of imagination and creativity. Focusing on more efficient growth without situating questions of ecological limits, equity and distribution into the foundations of these discussions is rather futile.

Science and technology for sustainable societies

Ideally, the puzzle that GGE should help solve is how sufficiency can be approached practically, creatively and institutionally. Toward that end, some reflection on the dynamic interrelationships between technology and society is helpful.

Developing countries, especially low-income ones, with relatively low rates of electricity usage, may be able to “leapfrog” into electricity generation based on renewable forms of primary energy, for instance. As this assertion from UNDESA illustrates, the GGE discourse holds that developing countries and transition economies can advance directly to a green economy. The problem with the assertion of “leapfrogging”, however, is it fails to recognize that putting in place more efficient technology does not necessarily bring about the goals of equity and sustainability. This is because technology implicitly embodies normative positions and engenders patterns for mediating the interaction between nature and society.

Modern human’s encounter with fossilized energy illustrates this attribute of technology and the unprecedented social, political and economic dynamics that ensued. Long ago, Lewis Mumford eloquently reported on this sudden encounter that put “mankind in a fever of exploitation”, so much so that the logic of mining pervaded the “economic and social organism” and became the norm for subsidiary economic and industrial organization. This logic of “disorderly exploitation and wasteful expenditure” acquired a life of its own and continued to propagate quite independently of whether or not the initial mine of energy was depleted.

Two attributes of the relationship between technology and society must be highlighted here. First is their reciprocal influences, wherein a portfolio of technical capabilities and an accompanying economic logic lit that “fever of exploitation” and subsequently the “animus of mining affected the entire economic and social organism.”

The second attribute is the phenomenon characterized as “technological momentum” by Thomas Hughes (1994), wherein “disorderly exploitation and wasteful expenditure remained, whether or not the source of energy itself disappeared”. Whether we consider a specific instance such as breaking the addiction to oil, or the considerable difficulties of figuring out a steady-state economic arrangement, the momentum of past choices is evident.

In this context, the common duality of technology as socially “neutral” (its impacts are largely accidental and, therefore, society only needs to focus on fiddling with it so as to avoid or mitigate its unwanted consequences), or of society as being “technologically determined” (its social impacts are inherent to its design) are half-truths that reduce it to a spectator sport controlled by the key players in the field. Yet, the evolution of technology choices ought to be anything but a spectator sport.

In certain forms, technology holds the potential to be liberating and emancipatory and is at par with, or even more influential than, politics and legislation in shaping society. Thus, it is imperative for society to have at least a comparable (if not greater) influence on its evolution and form.

As Andrew Feenberg eloquently offered in 1991, “the design of technology is thus an ontological decision fraught with political consequences. The exclusion of the vast majority from participation in this decision is the underlying cause of many of our problems”. He further notes that “technology is not a thing in the ordinary sense of the term, but an ambivalent process of development suspended between different possibilities. It is a social battlefield … a parliament of things on which civilizational alternatives are debated and decided”.

Thus, fundamentally, what appears to be lacking is the ability for society to influence the evolution of technology and to impart to it values of sufficiency that are already visible in some conceptions and practices of human development and economic organization. The crucial need is for emerging green technology infrastructure to be able to embody these changes from the status quo. An attendant emergent requirement for green technology innovation, then, is that it be “democratic” as opposed to being “authoritarian” (after Lewis Mumford).

A democratic technological infrastructure

In addition to addressing the question of scale (discussed above), a democratic technological infrastructure is also crucial for pursuing equality. Democratic technologies are particularly helpful in distributing means to generate wealth, a theme that was central to Mahatma Gandhi’s critique of modern technology.

This vision was eloquently captured by the gifted polymath D. D. Kosambi in the context of debates over the choice of civilian nuclear power in India. In 1960, Kosambi reasoned that there were significant difficulties in centralized generation and subsequent supply of electricity to a population as vast and dispersed as that of the sub-continent. In this context, he noted that the solar energy brought with it the distinctive advantage of “decentralization”, not just from the technical point of view but for a political and economic perspective as well. He argued that solar power was particularly conducive to “dispersed small industry and local use…” and that “if you really mean to have socialism in any form, without the stifling effects of bureaucracy and heavy initial investment, there is no other source so efficient”.

Going forward, our great faith in technological fiddling must be balanced by the burning fact that an unconditionally expanding economy (efficiency notwithstanding) is no longer feasible, not least because of the biosphere’s energy and material limits and the inequality it presupposes. Thus, as countries seek material infrastructures to mediate nature-society relations, the focus must move so that designs being considered can internalize and engage valuations of sufficiency, and realize a realignment of control over production and consumption arrangements from capital to community.

A truly green economy, in short, must be a revolution of democracy and equality as manifest in the technology infrastructure that is shaped by society, and which, in turn, is shaped by it.

Fracking: Anatomy of a free market failure

2012-01-26T00:34:00.001+07:00

A recent New York Times article reported that rural landowners who had signed leases with gas and oil companies exchanging drilling rights on their property for royalty payments have discovered that they may have been misled

By Robin Hahnel | Real Climate Economics | January 12, 2012

Many are now experiencing buyers regret. A review of more than 111,000 leases, addenda and related documents by The New York Times revealed:

Fewer than half the leases require companies to compensate landowners for water contamination after drilling begins. And only about half the documents have language that lawyers suggest should be included to require payment for damages to livestock or crops.
Most leases grant gas companies broad rights to decide where they can cut down trees, store chemicals, build roads and drill. Companies are also permitted to operate generators and spotlights through the night near homes during drilling.
In the leases, drilling companies rarely describe to landowners the potential environmental and other risks that federal laws require them to disclose in filings to investors.
Most leases are for three or five years, but at least two-thirds of those reviewed by The Times allow extensions without additional approval from landowners. If landowners have second thoughts about drilling on their land or want to negotiate for more money, they may be out of luck.

If all this sounds reminiscent of ex post revelations about predatory lending in the housing market that contributed to our recent housing bubble and crash, it should. It is the classic tale of fast-talking salesmen working for well-heeled companies taking advantage of disadvantaged individuals who are less than fully informed about the options presented to them.

A follow-up article in The Times detailed the battle between town and state governments over who will, or will not police the exploding market in fracking leases. “As energy companies move to drill in densely populated areas from Pennsylvania to Texas, battles are breaking out over who will have the final say in managing the shale gas boom. The fight, which pits towns and cities against energy companies and states eager for growth, has raised a fundamental question about the role of local government: How much authority should communities have over the use of their land?” A second interesting question addressed in the article is what communities are opposing fracking and why? “Only a small minority of towns in Pennsylvania’s Marcellus Shale area — about 80 of approximately 1,800 — had, or were developing regulations, and most of them were affluent.” The spectacle of only the wealthy proving capable of protecting themselves from predatory businesses is as old as capitalism itself.

A Living Experiment in Economic Decision Making

Social scientists often cite the handicap that we are not permitted to conduct experiments on humans as an excuse for why social science advances more slowly than the physical sciences. But fracking provides an interesting social experiment playing out right before our eyes. In Pennsylvania, gas and natural resource companies have been sufficiently powerful to prevent passage of a statewide ban on fracking; as a result 8000 permits have been issued and 4000 wells dug since 2008. Just across the Delaware River, New York State has issued a temporary ban on fracking in Marcellus Shale pending release of a study and new regulations by the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation.The issue has become so controversial that the NYSDEC report may now be delayed until 2013.

As a result, south of the Delaware River in Pennsylvania some private landowners are signing fracking leases with gas companies, some are refusing to do so, and where the latter outnumber the former, some towns have begun to pass their own local, anti-fracking laws putting them on a collision course with the state over who has the legal right to regulate. North of the Delaware River in New York there is no fracking, some residents are pleased that what they consider to be an environmental and health hazard has been prevented, while others are complaining that their freedom to contract however and with whomever they please has been stolen from them. We have a classic case of government regulation in one state vs. market freedom in another state. Which arrangement for making decisions is proving to be more democratic, more efficient, more fair, and last, but not least, more environmentally sustainable?

The Economics

Many cite economic theory to support claims of market efficiency. The fundamental theorem of welfare economics states that markets allocate scarce resources and distribute goods and services efficiently – but only under very restrictive conditions. As is often the case, the devil is in the details. As the market for fracking leases reveals, we neglect the necessary assumptions behind “fundamental theorems” at our peril. What any economist can tell you is that the efficient markets theorem is true only if: (1) All markets are in equilibrium. (2) All buyers and sellers have perfect knowledge. (3) All buyers and sellers behave rationally. (4) All markets are perfectly competitive. And last, but not least, (5) there are no “externalities” in any markets. The real world conditions that satisfy these conditions are the exception not the norm. Moreover, the first theorem of welfare economics says nothing about whether or not outcomes will be fair. Even if an outcome is “efficient”, it still may well be grossly unfair if efficiency gains are distributed inequitably.

Market Bubbles: Right now everybody knows that energy sources are key to our economic future, but nobody knows what sources will turn out to be the “winners” or “losers” in the short, medium, or long-run. Unless renewable sources dominate in the long-run, most knowledgeable observers believe we are in a lot of trouble. But what energy sources will dominate in the medium and short-run is very much up in the air. Again, scientists may tell us that unless renewables are playing a dominant role in the medium-run, and a much more important role in the short-run than they currently do, we are in more trouble than we should find comfortable. But betting odds on whether that will prove to be the case are much less certain than scientific opinion about what needs to happen.

What role does natural gas play in this scenario? To make a long story short: Oil has peaked, coal is plentiful but most likely to lead to cataclysmic climate change, and natural gas is cleaner than coal but a fossil fuel nonetheless. Which is what makes betting odds on the role natural gas will – as opposed to should play – in our energy future so difficult to predict. If wise political forces seize control over energy policy it will play a limited role, and only as a “bridge technology” as renewables replace all fossil fuels ASAP. If the fossil fuel industry continues to exert as much political power as it has over the past hundred years, natural gas may become the new “king” for many decades.

This is the stuff that market bubbles – and crashes – are built on. So, get ready for a roller coaster ride! The odds that we will see a great deal of volatility in the natural gas market are high. Economics tells us that market bubbles and crashes leave a great deal of economic inefficiency in their wake.

Perfect Knowledge: Perfect knowledge means actors know what all relevant prices are and will be, and correctly predict what the consequences of any choice they make will be for them. In light of the uncertainty explained above about what role natural gas will play in the short, medium, and long-run as a source of energy, clearly energy companies as well as landowners must operate with less than perfect knowledge about key prices. It is also surely the case that energy companies can predict more accurately what the consequences of drilling will be than landowners can. So we not only have imperfect knowledge about prices for both buyer and seller in the market for fracking leases, we have asymmetric knowledge about consequences of drilling as well. Economic theory predicts that imperfect knowledge creates inefficiency and asymmetric knowledge creates additional inefficiency along with inequity.

Rational Behavior: Many take economic theory to task for assuming actors will behave rationally – defined as behavior that best serves a decision maker’s own interests – when sometimes it is obvious they do not. I believe we can rely on large energy companies to more consistently behave in accord with their own self interest than small rural landowners always do. However, in this situation I suspect that when landowners fail to act “rationally” they do more good than harm! The most prevalent irrational behavior rural landowners are exhibiting in Pennsylvania is refusing to sign fracking leases out of solidarity with their neighbors who would be harmed, even though a lease would benefit them individually. Such individually irrational behavior promotes more, rather than less efficient outcomes by preventing leases with negative expected net socialbenefits from being signed – as explained below.

Market Power: Landowners in rural New York and Pennsylvania are often hard pressed to make a go of it as farmers, and alternative employment in the rural Northeast is hard to come by, particularly since the onset of the Great Recession. In Eastern Oregon where many farmers are also hard pressed, there are energy companies offering to pay royalties to farmers to allow them to erect wind turbines on their property. In both cases powerful corporations who will play a big role in tomorrow’s energy markets are negotiating via an army of smooth talking salesmen with landowners, many of whom are desperate for income and know far less about the true market value of what they are selling than energy companies do about the true market value of what they are buying. In both cases large corporations will more than likely get the better of many deals, which will generate inequities — like the buyer’s regret stories reported in the New York Times.

Both wind turbines and fracking operations disturb what we might call a landowner’s rural solitude to some extent, albeit in different ways. However, in the case of fracking the downside risks for landowners are greater since fracking can also pollute one’s own well water. Presumably, any negative personal consequences are what landowners weigh in the balance when negotiating and deciding whether or not to sign leases. So we would expect landowners to require somewhat greater compensation to allow fracking than wind turbines on their property. But if the knowledge and market power asymmetry is the same in Oregon and Pennsylvania one would expect roughly the same degree of inequity in the contracts negotiated in both cases.

The importance of knowledge and power asymmetries is illustrated by the fact that most of the communities in Pennsylvania attempting to ban fracking through local regulations are affluent. Affluent communities can afford the time and money to investigate the risks of fracking more thorougly to reduce knowledge asymmetry. Affluent communities are also not so desperate for additional income that they are willing to risk damaging their health and high property values.

Externalities: But far and away the most important reason the free market solution to fracking yields undesirable outcomes is because there are significant external costs unaccounted for in the market for fracking leases:

As a fossil fuel, natural gas contributes to global warming even if it is cleaner than burning coal. And if methane, which is a more potent greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide, leaks from wells as new studies suggest, the effects on global warming may be even worse.
Fracking has also been associated with earthquakes.
The risk of contaminating well water is not confined to the land of the lease, but extends to neighbors’ wells and can potentially damage an entire aquifer. A major reason the NYSDEC report is delayed is concern over contaminating the water supply for New York City.

In contrast, when leases for wind turbines are signed in Oregon there are significant positive externalities associated with substituting a clean renewable source of energy for a dirty fossil fuel. So while there are positive externalities associated with erecting wind turbines there are multiple negative externalities associated with fracking, and consequently when all the external effects are taken into account wind turbines yield more social benefits than the market signals, whereas fracking yields less social benefits than the market would lead us to believe. Therefore, economic theory predicts that when we leave the decision about fracking to individual negotiations between energy companies and landowners many deals will be struck with expected negative net social benefits. (Economic theory also predicts that absent any subsidy, when we leave the decision about leasing wind turbines to individual negotiations between energy companies and landowners, many deals will fail to be struck even though they have expected positive net social benefits.)

If economic theory predicts that because of asymmetries in information and market power the free market solution to fracking will lead to inequitable outcomes; if economic theory predicts that because of multiple externalities the free market solution to fracking will lead to inefficient and possibly dangerous outcomes; if economic theory predicts that numerous external parties with significant interests at stake will be disenfranchised by the free market solution to fracking, what are we to do instead? Common sense would suggest we should proceed as New York State has thus far.

Common Sense Solutions

(1) Undertake more research to investigate how great the negative consequences from fracking may be, how high the probability of damage is, and place the burden of proof on those who argue that dangers are minimal. In other words, apply the precautionary principle. This is a situation where there is no need to rush. The gas trapped in the shale is not like a crop that could rot in its silo, but will only become more valuable with time.

(2) Only if it turns out that the dangers are minimal and the benefits of natural gas as a transition fuel are substantial, should the technology known as fracking be allowed. Otherwise – as is quite likely the case – fracking technology should remain banned just as we ban other technologies where the risk to the public interest is simply too great.

(3) If, after careful research and testing the state determines that fracking should be permitted, it should be strictly regulated by government to ensure that it is done safely. The safety of fracking operations should be guaranteed by the state, not left to be negotiated by energy companies and individual landowners since landowner ignorance about possible consequences is too great, and many more than the landowner will be affected if something goes wrong. And of course, to avoid moral hazard energy companies should be held fully liable for any and all damages due to unforeseen events.

(4) If fracking is permitted standard leases should be negotiated between the state government and energy companies specifying that most of the royalties go to the state treasury, with only enough to compensate for inconvenience going to individual landowners and affected communities. This is the only lease individual landowners should be free to sign or not sign. Moreover, if local communities wish to pass ordinances banning such contracts they should be free to do so.

In the case of fracking the resource we are talking about possibly exploiting — if and only if we are sure it can be done safely — is gas trapped in shale rock deep under tens of thousands of square miles of land owned by hundreds of thousands of landowners. Hydaulic fracking on a piece of property is drilling into this vast shale formation to insert pressurized water and chemicals to break open pockets of trapped gas for capture. Increasingly “horizontal drilling” extends past property lines, and even when drilling is “vertical,” much of the gas captured is gas released from an area extending far beyond the property lines of the lease. Moreover, the amount most owners paid for their property does not reflect its potential value as a fracking site because this possibility was not widely foreseen when the land was purchased. An unforeseen technology has generated a large potential windfall gain for any who happen to own land through which a hole can be punctured. There is no reason the public at large should not seize this windfall. Capturing this windfall for the citizens of the state is not unfair to property owners and generates no perverse incentives. One could even make a good case that the bulk of the royalties should go to the national rather than state treasuries, but we can leave that to be debated later.

In conclusion, New York State, which has chosen to ban a dangerous new technology with very large potential risks to the environment and human health until such time as it is proved safe beyond reasonable doubt, is pursuing a much more equitable, efficient, and environmentally sustainable course than is Pennsylvania, which is allowing fracking to proceed under free market conditions that a careful reading of economic theory predicts will lead to unfair, inefficient, and quite likely dangerous outcomes that are irreversible.

Robin Hahnel is Professor Emeritus at American University and Visiting Professor of Economics at Portland State University.

New video: “A Darker Shade of Green: REDD Alert and the Future of Forests”

2012-01-26T00:26:00.000+07:00

A new video by the Global Forest Coalition and the Global Justice Ecology Project is deeply critical of REDD. Much of the criticism focusses on carbon trading, but through interviews with communities in Chiapas, Mexico, the video illustrates the perverse impacts that REDD can have on the ground

By Chris Lang | REDD-Monitor | 25th January 2012

A Darker Shade of Green: REDD Alert and the Future of Forests

The video starts with a description of the impacts of climate change. “We call it the climate crisis,” says the narrator. “And we understand its primary cause,” she says over a shot of a chimney’s emissions silhouetted by the sun. REDD is a false solution, because it does not reduce greenhouse gas emissions from fossil fuels.

The introduction to the video questions the whole idea of REDD, arguing that “REDD appears to be more about making money than about protecting forests or saving the climate.” To illustrate this point, the video includes a clip from Pavan Sukhdev former head of Head of UNEP’s Green Economy Initiative speaking on a UN video, “REDD as part of the solution”:

“We should have the developed world allocate significant funds in this direction because it is to the benefit of their future economies as well as to the benefit of the local communities and economies of the developing world. In fact studies have been done which estimate that the value of ecosystem goods and services from the hundred thousand odd protected areas on earth are somethign of the order of four and a half to five trillion dollars per annum. That’s four and a half to five million, million dollars per annum. That’s a huge amount of the economy.”

The video moves to drumming protesters in Cancún, with banners reading “No REDD” behind them. Alberto Saldamando of the International Indian Treaty Council explains that,

“REDD is a programme, is supposed to create this gigantic market for carbon sequestration in trees. But who owns the trees? What are they buying when they buy the carbon in the trees? Are they going to restrict indigenous life ways? Are they going to restrict subsistence? It turns out that yes, that’s part of the plan.”

Much of the video focusses on the REDD agreement signed in 2010 between the Governor of California, Arnold Schwarzenegger, and the governors of Chiapas, Mexico and Acre, Brazil. With video footage and interviews from each of the three states, it illustrates how REDD has impacts on local communities livelihoods (particularly in Chiapas) and through the offset mechanism on local communities living near polluting industry in California.

The strongest part of the video is the footage from Chiapas. “The governor plans to put the entire surface of the state of Chiapas into the carbon market,” says the narrator. Under this programme, the governor plans to evict so-called illegal settlers from the Montes Azules Biosphere Reserve. The video features several interviews with villagers in Amador Hernádez, Chiapas. The interviews demonstrate the strong feelings against REDD and put the carbon market proposals clearly in the context of a complex, ongoing struggle between indigenous communities and the state:

Abelardo: “Our grandparents suffered for many years, ever since they were on the plantations, but after a while they couldn’t tolerate the exploitation there, so they had to decide to look for a place. So they came to this community. They had to suffer many illnesses, and a lot of injustice from the government. And we’re still living this way. The government doesn’t support us. They treat us as if we’re not human beings, as if we’re not part of Mexico. The government doesn’t give us the things that the people really need. Instead, they give us projects that don’t give life, but that bring death. They are projects that want us to plant oil palm and all of this, to reforest, to plant trees that we don’t even recognize. This doesn’t serve us, we don’t need it.”

Francisco: “They see our Mother Earth as a business, and for us you should never see it like that, it’s our Mother, she can’t be sold. Now they’re developing this REDD Project that’s about carbon capture, it doesn’t serve us. We struggle simply to feed ourselves.”

Santiago: “They have always blamed us as destroyers. They have always looked for ways to speak badly about us. Now it’s not only the government that is thinking about this, these are international plans. Our grandparents struggled for many years, and they’ve always resisted and they’ve always continued living here. As our grandparents always said, there is nothing else, this land is our home, and without our home we can’t live.”

The video moves on to the Amazon and the state of Acre in Brazil. “REDD is not being discussed with the indigenous movement,” says Jose Luis Kassupá, First Secretary of the Indigenous Movement of Rhodonia. “They are not informing the village about the intention of REDD. This project comes imposed from above to below.”

Osmarino Rodriguez, President of the Rubber Tappers Union, says,

“Here in our region, we are receiving a new mechanism, called REDD, which is yet another way of putting the environment into the market. . . . Whoever is promoting REDD today, is proposing the privatisation of the natural world, is proposing the privatisation of water, forests, wood, is promoting the merchandising of nature.”

The video returns to California, to look at the impact of the polluting industries that are hoping to benefit from cheap REDD offsets. Alegria de la Cruz, an attorney at the Center on Race, Poverty and the Environment explains why she opposes offsets:

“California is one of the richest places in the world. And at the same time, communities that live near sources of pollution are overburdened by those costs. Those costs come out in their health and their enjoyment of the places where they live, work, play and pray. . . . Carbon offsets recreate the injustices that happen on a local level for communities that are overburdened by pollution and puts those, and externalises those costs that are similarly vulnerable outside of California.”

Dr. Henry Clark, of the West County Toxics Coalition, Richmond California adds that,

“From an environmental justice community perpective, we want polluting companies like Chevron here and others in our community to not to produce the pollution in the first place and reduce it.”

REDD-Monitor is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-Share Alike 3.0 Unported License

The scientist: Jim Hansen risks handcuffs to make his research clear

2012-01-26T00:21:00.001+07:00

NASA's chief climate scientist built his career studying Earth's atmosphere and modeling humans' potential impacts on climate. Then he realized that laboratory work was only part of the equation

Interview conducted and condensed by Douglas Fischer | DailyClimate.org | Jan. 24, 2012

James E. Hansen never thought his decision to study atmospheric models would lead to his arrest. But there he was in handcuffs last summer, protesting at the White House against a pipeline that would carry crude oil from Alberta's oil sands to the Gulf of Mexico.

It wasn't the first arrest, either. Hansen, who has directed NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies for 31 years, earned the sobriquet "father of global warming" after testifying before Congress in 1988 on the dangers of global warming. He appeared again in 1989. Then he quietly returned to his work, turning aside television and media requests for the next 15 years because, as he said, "you have no time to do the science if you're talking to the media."

That approach changed in 2004, when he realized government climate policies worldwide failed to reflect the dangerous story his science was telling. Emerging from his lab, Hansen attacked Bush Administration officials for censuring and watering down climate findings. In 2008 he testified in British court on behalf of the "Kingsnorth Six," a group of Greenpeace activists who successfully claimed their effort to shut down a power plant was justified under British law because it prevented the greater harm of climate change. In 2009 and 2010, Hansen was arrested protesting mountaintop-removal coal mining.

DailyClimate.org editor Douglas Fischer caught up with Hansen in December at the American Geophysical Union meeting in San Francisco, where the scientist previewed findings about impacts the world courts with its unslacked appetite for carbon-based fuels.

Do you fear you have lost some of your scientific credibility by protesting at the coal plants or by becoming more of a voice in the climate debate?

If I was not publishing papers in the peer reviewed literature, then that would be a valid criticism. But I am still publishing. I'm trying to make that science clear to the public. It's not easy: The scientific evidence has really become very clear, and we're not doing a very good job of communicating that.

Climate policy has become less a scientific question and more a cultural marker. How can science influence those values and attitudes?

We need to make clear to the public what's really going on. If they just listen to politicians, they don't understand the story because nothing is being done.

Do reporters ever say, "Look, I can't touch you as a source because you're involved in 350.org or the coal plants or these protests"?

The fossil fuel industry and those who prefer business as usual – they will use that. But look at my coauthors. I've got some of the best scientists in the world.

Let's flip the question: Do scientists ever say, "Jim, I wish I could get out there the way you are, but I'm afraid, I don't have the support"?

There are consequences of becoming a target. Look at the people who have been the principal targets: Phil Jones, Michael Mann, Ben Santer. Their science has been confirmed. And yet (the attacks) took a toll on them. Of course that's going to cause other scientists not to step out.

Failure to develop a climate policy isn't a fault of just one party or one person.

That's right, and that's not understood. If you say, "Democrats are the ones who favor doing something," look at the records of the last several administrations: Emissions increased fastest during the Clinton/Gore administration. And (Democrats) proposed a policy that is not going to do anything significant. It's designed by big banks and it favors big oil and big coal and big utilities.

You've never liked a "cap-and-trade" approach.

The only way you can solve the problem is with a simple, honest price on carbon. There's no reason to bring banks into this.

Where's the clear climate message?

Obama could've done it if he had started out when he had 70 percent approval and if he followed a policy like Franklin Roosevelt and had fireside chats. It's not that difficult. It can be explained.

How long can emissions increase before we risk serious impacts?

We really should be aiming to keep CO2 no higher than about 350 parts per million and possibly somewhat less than that if we want to maintain stable ice sheets and stable shore lines and avoid many other issues. That would require starting today. We'd have to reduce CO2 emissions at six percent a year if we began next year. If we began five years ago, it would've been three percent. If we wait until 2020, it becomes 15 percent.

So if we're hoping to maintain a planet that looks like the one that humanity has known, we're out of time right now.

Editor's note: Climate Query is a semi-weekly feature offered by Daily Climate, presenting short Q&A's with players large and small in the climate arena. Read others in the series here.

This work by The Daily Climate is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-No Derivative Works 3.0 United States License.

Only Civil Society Can Save Rio+20, Say Activists

2012-01-26T00:11:00.001+07:00

Large-scale social mobilisation, including street protests and parallel activities, is the only thing can save the United Nations Conference on Sustainable Development (Rio+20) from ending in nothing but frustration, according to activists and analysts

By Mario Osava* | Inter-Press Service | Jan 24, 2012

Environmental activists from around the world will be gathering in Porto Alegre this month. Credit:Clarinha Glock/IPS

A repeat of the failure of recent conferences to negotiate an international climate change pact seems inevitable, said Cândido Grzybowski, the director general of the Brazilian Institute of Social and Economic Analysis (IBASE) and one of the founders of the World Social Forum, the largest global civil society gathering.

Grzybowski based his pessimistic outlook on a number of factors. Chief among them is the economic/financial crisis in the wealthy nations, combined with the fact that this a year of elections in many of them, including France and the United States, moving international commitments to the bottom of their leaders’ agendas. He also blamed what he calls the limited convening power of Brazilian President Dilma Rousseff, particularly when it comes to environmental issues.

Only strong pressure from civil society as a "unified voice" at parallel events to Rio+20 can potentially force clearer commitments out of the world’s governments to tackle global imbalances, beginning with "financial hegemony", Grzybowski told Tierramérica.

The Thematic Social Forum taking place Jan. 24-29 in the southern Brazilian city of Porto Alegre will bring together representatives of social movements and organisations from around the world to prepare for their participation in the UN summit to be held Jun. 20-22 in Rio de Janeiro.

The meeting in Porto Alegre is one of the many local forums or gatherings addressing a specific theme that are linked to the World Social Forum (WSF) and take place in even-numbered years. The WSF itself is now held every two years.

However, according to Eduardo Viola, a professor at the University of Brasilia who studies the consequences of climate change on international relations, the WSF movement has lost strength and will be unable to attract the numbers needed for a march that could make Rio+20 more than a "mega-meeting" devoted exclusively to declarations and have a "major impact on Brazil" in terms of environmental awareness.

Bringing together "a million demonstrators on the streets" is a "rather unlikely but not impossible" feat that could revive the impact of the original 1992 Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro, which first brought environmental issues to the attention of the Brazilian public in a major way, Viola commented to Tierramérica.

He sees little chance of the Rio summit making a significant impact internationally, however. It will be a largely "reiterative" conference with "diffuse" objectives, at a time of "enormous international impasses," he said.

But civil society actions must not be limited to Rio de Janeiro, say activists. The Brazilian Forum of NGOs and Social Movements for the Environment and Development (FBOMS) is planning to promote demonstrations in many other cities around the world, with the aid of the internet and social networks.

"Rio has global significance," and a great deal of successful experience has been accumulated in the organisation of large mobilisations through social networks, stressed FBOMS activist Ruben Born.

The Thematic Social Forum in Porto Alegre will help to coordinate these initiatives, with the participation of representatives of civil society movements like the Indignados (Indignant) movement in Spain and the Occupy movement in the United States, Born told Tierramérica.

Civil society attendance at Rio+20 is to be facilitated by the Brazilian government, which is reportedly interested in promoting strong "popular" participation at least, given the likely absence of heads of state and government at the conference’s official activities.

The People’s Summit, a parallel event to Rio+20 being held Jun. 15- 23, will bring together three times the number of participants in the intergovernmental conference, according to observers. Its slogan, like that of the Thematic Social Forum this month, is "Social and Environmental Justice".

"To propose a new way of life, in solidarity, against the commodification of nature and in defense of the commons" is the objective of the summit, according to the Brazilian Civil Society Facilitating Committee for Rio+20, which is organizing this major international event.

The People’s Summit aims to build a Permanent People’s Assembly with the goal of "reinventing the world" through the convergence of the different struggles against capitalism, class divisions, racism, patriarchy and homophobia. It is highly critical of the agenda of the official conference, which focuses on the so-called green economy and a global institutional framework.

But these views do not enjoy a consensus of support from civil society. Born, who is also the founder of Vitae Civilis, a non- governmental group active in climate-related issues, highlighted the ideological discrepancies with those who consider environmental initiatives that do not begin with the overthrow of capitalism to be "false solutions".

Grzybowski stressed the divergence of focus between those who place priority on environmental or social justice, categorising his organisation, IBASE, among the latter.

Chico Whitaker, another World Social Forum founder and radical defender of its egalitarian and participatory principles, was critical of the name chosen for the parallel event: "People’s Summit" maintains a traditional hierarchical vision as opposed to the horizontal structure defended by the WSF from its very inception, he said.

But all of them concur in their rejection of the current world order, described as the "large-scale production industrial model" by Whitaker, as capitalism by the members of the Civil Society Facilitating Committee, and as financial hegemony by Grzybowski, who also attacked such current world "disorders" as transporting millions of tons of Brazilian iron ore to Asia and then bringing it back in the form of steel.

And they are all critical of the official Rio+20 conference itself and the recently released "zero draft" meant to serve as a starting point for a final declaration, because they believe it evades the real challenges.

The whole format of big United Nations summits is no longer viable, said Viola. It is impossible for over 190 countries with "different perceptions of vulnerability" and divergent interests to reach a consensus on climate issues, he explained.

In the meantime, indigenous activists plan to express their cultural and ethnic identity at Rio+20 by calling on their counterparts around the world to participate in the Carioca Village to be set up in Rio de Janeiro.

Around 350 indigenous representatives from different regions of Brazil and 700 from abroad will gather in four "ocas" (traditional houses), one of which will be used for plenary meetings, while another will be equipped for videoconferencing with indigenous peoples in other countries and continents, Marcos Terena told Tierramérica. Terena is one of the organisers of indigenous participation at Rio+20, reprising a role he played 20 years ago at the Earth Summit.

*The writer is an IPS correspondent. This story was originally published by Latin American newspapers that are part of the Tierramérica network. Tierramérica is a specialised news service produced by IPS with the backing of the United Nations Development Programme, United Nations Environment Programme and the World Bank.

Copyright © 2012 IPS-Inter Press Service. All rights reserved

In Famatina, Water Is Worth Far More Than Gold

2012-01-26T00:05:00.000+07:00

Thousands of people in the northwest Argentine province of La Rioja are mobilising to stop an open-cast gold mining project in the Nevados de Famatina, a snowy peak that is the semi-arid area's sole source of drinking water

By Marcela Valente | Inter-Press Service | Jan 24, 2012

La Rioja "is a dry province and we have just enough clean water to live on, but not to share with miners," one of the protesters, Héctor Artuso, a resident from the small town of Villa Pituil, in the Famatina area, told IPS.

Residents of Famatina and neighbouring Chilecito have set up a partial roadblock at Alto Carrizal, a stop located 4,000 metres above sea level on a gravel road leading up to the highest point of this mountain chain, Cerro General Belgrano (better known as Nevados de Famatina), which stands at 6,250 metres.

Still visible in Famatima as historical reminders of nineteenth- century mining activities is the abandoned mining site "La Mejicana", which includes a tramway system built by a British company in 1905 to transport gold and other metal extracted for export.

Back then mining was done in underground pits. Today, modern mining methods require large explosions, huge volumes of water, and the use of cyanide to extract the mineral, which is why local residents are protesting.

The activists maintain the Alto Carrizal roadblock day and night, but are selective in whose passage they block. Local residents and tourists are allowed through, while provincial authorities are stopped, along with anyone representing the Canadian company authorised by the Argentine government to mine the area.

Protesters are backed by a number of national and international environmental NGOs, including Fundación Ambiente y Recursos Naturales, Greenpeace, and Los Verdes, which in recent days voiced their concern about the activists' safety, reporting threats and harassment. Political parties from the opposition and celebrities are also stepping forward to support the anti-mining campaign.

The conflict was sparked in October 2011, when local residents learned that the La Rioja state-owned mining and energy company Energía y Minerales Sociedad del Estado (EMSE) had signed an agreement with the Quebec-based Osisko Mining Corporation, to mine Nevados de Famatina.

The agreement was never made public, and the government failed to hold the public hearings and perform the environmental impact studies stipulated under the 2002 General Environmental Act. Even Famatina authorities were left out of the agreement.

Mayor Ismael Bordagaray, in fact, supports the demonstrations against the mining project. "I'm doing it basically because I have to stand by my community and this is what the majority of the community wants," he told IPS.

But the mayor said he was also concerned as a citizen. "I have the same fears and misgivings about the risks of pollution, indiscriminate use of water, and lack of controls that come with this kind of project," he said.

Bordagaray also said he had read the agreement, which he found very vague, and does not know why it has not been made available to the public. It was Osisko that gave him a copy, and not the provincial government, which is headed by Bordagaray' own political group, the Frente para la Victoria, the majority faction of the centre-left Justicialist Party of President Cristina Fernández.

La Rioja Governor Jorge Beder Herrera's position on mining has shifted since coming into office. During his 2011 campaign he had spoken against it, but after the election he announced the agreement signed with the mining corporation.

Now, despite overwhelming opposition, EMSE Director Héctor Durán Sabas declared that they will be going ahead with the project "because it's a state decision and a matter of public policy".

In Argentina, provinces have jurisdiction over their natural resources, and the national government's regulatory role is limited to setting basic guidelines on which each province then bases its own specific legislation.

Héctor Artuso explained why the local population opposes the project. "We're not environmental or anti-mining activists. We're just regular people who reject this foreign-led model of natural resource extraction, which uses cyanide and large volumes of water."

"Our community is fully aware (of what the project entails) because we've been through this before," he said, recalling how in 2006 the local population succeeded in stopping a similar project by another Canadian mining company, Barrick Gold Corporation, and later a Chinese venture.

Many people who are participating in the current demonstrations were also involved in the anti-mining rallies, marches and roadblocks that began in 2006, and the reasons are the same: the fear their water will be polluted.

However, there are also groups that have been won over by the mining companies and claim they support the project. "The worst problem is the social contamination these projects generate, because they create deep rifts in these small communities," Artuso said.

According to Artuso, while a great deal needs to be improved in terms of production in this part of La Rioja, the region has excellent vineyards and produces world-class wines for export, as well as "the country's finest nuts", and olives, peaches, apricots, plums, figs, and quinces.

"We also have enormous untapped potential for mountain tourism, which is an activity that is sustainable in the long-term, unlike mining, which will be here 10 or 20 years, contaminating, and then it will be gone," he said.

In addition to blocking the road and garnering support across the country - with marches and rallies held in eight other provinces and Buenos Aires - on Jan. 16, the protesters organised a large caravan from the city of Famatina to the site of the roadblock.

Some 6,400 people live in Famatina and Monday's demonstration attracted more than 4,000 people from the district and from Chilecito, which is also sourced by water from the glaciers and the mountain's eternal snows.

Carina Díaz Moreno, a teacher from Famatina who has two pending lawsuits against her for opposing the large mining projects in her province, spoke to IPS on the phone, as she came off the night shift at the Alto Carrizal roadblock.

"We take turns, and we're going to hold our ground until the government and the company drop this project," she said.
Díaz is one of the people singled out as a leading activist by the company, according to a list found by chance in a folder left behind by company officers and government officials after hastily leaving a meeting in a public building.

When a local resident started spreading the word that a meeting was underway, Father Omar Quintero, a Catholic priest who supports the protest, rang the church bells in the Famatina parish, attracting some 200 people who gathered spontaneously to voice their disapproval.

"We started chanting slogans like 'Hands off Famatina' and they had to wrap up the meeting quickly. In their rush to leave they forgot a folder, which is where we found the list," Díaz said.

The list contains the names and personal information of several activists, and next to each name is a phrase describing what the company claims they are after: "economic compensation", "fame" or "a government position".

Another activist, Jenny Luján, told IPS that "negotiating with them means settling for more or less contamination, more or less benefits for the community, and we're not interested in that."

"We know there's gold in Famatina, and rare earth and other minerals, but we've made our decision. We're not lifting the roadblock; they'll have to clear us out of Alto Carrizal by force," Luján said.

Copyright © 2012 IPS-Inter Press Service. All rights reserved

In Brazil, Fears of a Slide Back for Amazon Protection

2012-01-25T23:58:00.001+07:00

Brazil has made great strides in recent years in slowing Amazon deforestation and showing the world it was serious about protecting the mammoth rain forest

By ALEXEI BARRIONUEVO | The New York Times | January 24, 2012

Deforestation in Brazil, driven largely by clearing land for cattle, as in Mato Grosso, above, has lessened. But there has been a shift under President Dilma Rousseff. Damon Winter/The New York Times

The rate of deforestation fell by 80 percent over the past six years, as the government carved out about 150 million acres for conservation — an area roughly the size of France — and used police raids and other tactics to crack down on illegal deforesters, according to both environmentalists and the government. Brazil’s former environment minister, Marina Silva, became an internationally respected defender of the Amazon. She ran for president in 2010 on the Green Party ticket and won 19.4 percent of the votes.

But since Dilma Rousseff was elected president in late 2010, there have been signs of a shift in the government’s attitude toward the Amazon. A provisional measure now allows the president to decrease the lands already created for conservation. The government is granting more flexibility for large infrastructure projects during the environmental licensing process. And a proposal would give Brazil’s Congress veto power over the recognition of indigenous territories.

The government has used police raids, as in the state of Pará, above, to find illegal deforesters. Paulo Santos/Reuters

“What is happening in Brazil is the biggest backsliding that we could ever imagine with regards to environmental policies,” said Ms. Silva, who now devotes her time to environmental advocacy.

Now, a bill seeking to overhaul the 47-year-old Forest Code, a central piece of environmental legislation, is the most serious test yet of Ms. Rousseff’s stance on the environment.

The debate over the law has revealed the stark disconnect between a population that is increasingly supportive of conserving the Amazon and a Congress in which agricultural interests in the country’s rural north and northeast still hold sway. The furor comes as Brazil is set to hold a United Nations conference on sustainable development in Rio de Janeiro in June.

Before taking office last January, Ms. Rousseff promised to veto any revision of the Forest Code that granted amnesty to landowners who had previously deforested illegally. Then her government negotiated a version of the code, approved by the Senate in December, that would give amnesty to farmers who broke the law before 2008 — provided they agreed to plant new trees. The House is expected to debate the legislation once again in March, with Ms. Rousseff holding final veto power.

The fight over the Forest Code has stoked the age-old struggle over development versus conservation in Brazil, a country that bears the weight of international pressure to protect the Amazon from deforestation because its sheer scale could affect global climatic conditions. Ms. Rousseff, a former energy minister, has so far flashed a more pro-development stance, environmentalists say, shifting the balance from the administration of her predecessor, Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva, who appointed Ms. Silva.

Agriculture represents 22 percent of Brazil’s gross domestic product. The so-called ruralists in Congress say that the old code is holding back Brazil’s agricultural potential and that it needs updating to allow more land to be opened up to production. Environmentalists counter that there is already enough land available to double production and that the proposed changes would open the door to a surge in deforestation.

Last May, the House approved a more sweeping amnesty for those who had illegally deforested, outraging environmentalists and scientists. It did not help that the deputies refused to receive a group of respected Brazilian scientists that issued a report condemning the changes.

“In the House, there was very little consultation with scientists,” said Carlos Nobre, a scientist at Brazil’s National Institute for Space Research who specializes in climate issues. Still, he said, scientists “waited too long to realize that the House wanted to radically change the Forest Code, creating a broad and unrestricted license to deforest.”

Ms. Silva, who was raised in the Amazon, resigned in 2008 after a backlash by rural governors to restrictions on illegal deforestation she had put in place. But she left what environmentalists consider an effective policy to control Amazon deforestation. Among other tactics, Mr. da Silva’s government used satellite images to home in on deforesters, organized police raids and blacklisted the worst offenders.

“The ruralists have pushed so much to change the Forest Code because the government actually started enforcing it under Marina Silva,” said Stephan Schwartzman, director for tropical forest policy at the Environmental Defense Fund in Washington.

The vote in the House showed how heavily represented the less developed north and northeast are in Brazil’s Congress, a relic of the military dictatorship.

“The skewed proportional representation in Brazil has shown that the environmentalists have much less power in Congress than they have in public opinion,” said Gilberto Câmara, director of the National Institute for Space Research, which monitors Amazon deforestation.

Days after the House vote last May, a poll by Datafolha showed that 85 percent of Brazilians believed the reformed code should prioritize forests and rivers, even if it came at the expense of agricultural production.

After weeks of debate, the bill the Senate approved in December was somewhat more palatable to environmentalists. Rather than outright amnesty for past illegal deforestation, the Senate version lets farmers replant to avoid fines. The legislation now goes back to the House.

“We have to reconcile the generation of income with sustainability,” Izabella Teixeira, the current environment minister, said after the vote.

For Marcos Jank, president of the Brazilian Sugarcane Industry Association, a major reason to change the code is to legalize countless Amazon properties lacking land titles that have complicated the tracking of illegal activity. “When you have a Forest Code that legalizes land titles, then that has the effect of reducing deforestation, not increasing it,” he said.

The government claims the code will reforest about 60 million acres, much of it in the Amazon, which the Environment Ministry calls “the largest reforestation program in the world.” But who will pay for all those new trees? And will the government enforce the replanting requirements?

“The small producers don’t have the money to replant,” Mr. Jank said. “You need to develop programs to help them.”

There are also questions about the size of lands being exempted from the legal requirement to preserve 80 percent of the trees in Amazon properties. The new law would exempt “small” properties of up to four “fiscal modules,” which in the Amazon are almost 1,000 acres combined.

“That is a large property in any part of the world,” Mr. Nobre said. “I see great risk here if this definition is maintained.”

Despite the concerns, there is no denying that deforestation in Brazil, driven largely by clearing land for inefficient cattle grazing, has been on a downward trend. Beyond that, a new generation of satellites over the next two years will give Brazil access to images from seven satellites, up from the current two.

If people abide by the law — a big if — Mr. Câmara and other scientists are predicting that the Brazilian Amazon has a chance by 2020 to become a “carbon sink,” in which the amount of forest being replanted is larger than the amount being deforested.

“President Rousseff is extremely aware of this,” Mr. Câmara said. “When I told her, she almost fell off her chair.”

But to make that happen, “there has to be very strong government financing and support for people to recover the forest,” he said.

© 2012 The New York Times Company

FAO/UNEP Asia-Pacific Forest Meeting Identifies Climate Change Adaptation Strategies

2012-01-25T09:39:00.001+07:00

The UN Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) Regional Office for Asia and the Pacific, the UN Environment Programme (UNEP) and RECOFTC - The Centre for People and Forests have released a policy brief resulting from a meeting on forests and climate change adaptation in Asia, held in October 2011

International Institute for Sustainable Development | 18 January 2012

The brief stresses that forest adaptation activities that assist migration should be eligible for carbon financing, and that the adaptive capacity of forest-dependent people can be improved by the allocation of forestland use rights, local-level capacity building and improving forest-based products' access to markets. It also underscores that national adaptation strategies should address adaptation within a broader framework of sustainable forest management (SFM) activities.

The brief highlights the impacts that climate change will have on the forest ecosystems of Asia. It also outlines key components of a forest-based climate change adaptation strategy for the region, which includes use of forest services and improved access for local communities, implementing SFM, and inter-sectoral planning. [Publication:Forests and Climate Change Adaptation in Asia]

All content copyright © 1990 - 2012 - IISD

Complications of Hacking the Planet

2012-01-25T09:33:00.000+07:00

As scientists, with some reluctance, begin to study the idea of “geoengineering” the planet to slow or halt global warming, they are finding that any such program would quite likely have a complex array of effects, not all of them to humanity’s benefit

Green Blog NY Times | January 23, 2012

Laborers in Suchate Garh, India, near the border with Pakistan, planting rice seedlings. European Pressphoto Agency

In a paper released on Sunday by the journal Nature Climate Change, four California researchers used computer analysis to test the idea of managing incoming sunlight and predicted what that would do to crop yields. As an example of the strategies that might be employed, some sunlight could be deflected away from the earth by using planes or rockets to scatter sulfur compounds into the upper atmosphere on a routine basis, mimicking the effect of big volcanic eruptions. It is a potential response to global warming so cheap that it fascinates even some groups that have tried to block action on reining in carbon dioxide emissions.

Fears have long been expressed, however, that while a strategy like this might slow the overall warming, it could wreak havoc on global food security by altering rainfall patterns and other aspects of climate. Particular concern centers on the effects that such a strategy might have on the Asian monsoon, the source of water for crops that feed billions of people. The monsoon is driven by heating over land from strong sunshine in the summertime.

The new work, led by Julia Pongrantz of the Carnegie Institution for Science, found the opposite of these longstanding fears: managing incoming sunlight would probably benefit crop yields over all. The reason is that the technique would limit some of the damaging climate changes that are expected to hurt yields, like excessive temperatures in the growing season, but would nonetheless allow plants to benefit from higher levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. The latter are rising, of course, because of fossil-fuel burning and are the main reason for global warming in the first place, but extra carbon dioxide does act as a kind of plant fertilizer.
The sunlight-limiting strategy would indeed weaken the Asian monsoon, the paper found, but not enough to offset the other benefits of the approach.

Despite their findings, the researchers suggested that much more work would be needed to understand the likely effects of a sunlight management strategy on agriculture. And they pointed out that the true consequences of such a program would be hard to foresee, producing regional winners and losers even if overall food output did increase. “The safest option to reduce the climate risks to global food security may be to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases,” they wrote.

(Aside from the paper itself, a news release is available here, and short videos with some of the authors can be viewed here and here.)

In contrast to that work, another recent paper found potentially severe problems with using geoengineering to limit the effects of sea-level rise.

The ocean is rising as the planet warms and land ice melts, and scientists expect that rise to accelerate in the future — perhaps to the point of becoming a global crisis, given that many of the world’s major cities are in low-lying coastal regions. So a complex set of questions revolves around whether a geoengineering approach could slow the rise.

The new paper, published online on Jan. 8 by the journal Nature Climate Change, was led by Peter J. Irvine at the University of Bristol in Britain, working with collaborators at Pennsylvania State University. They found that a sunlight-limiting strategy would pose a potentially major conflict between managing air temperatures and managing sea level.

That is because air temperatures are believed to respond quickly to changes like reduced sunlight, whereas sea level — involving the slow melting of land ice and the gradual absorption of heat by the ocean, causing it to expand — responds much more slowly. In the language of the paper, “surface air temperatures react faster than sea levels to changes in earth’s radiative balance.”

That means that to halt sea-level rise quickly, a program of managing sunlight would have to be so aggressive that it would produce a rapid cooling of the planet’s air temperature — perhaps too fast for organisms and agriculture to adjust well. Conversely, a sunlight management program designed to produce a gentler reduction in the air temperature might fail to halt sea-level rise.

The scientists doubt that any optimal strategy could be found that would benefit all of humanity. Instead, they foresee potential conflicts between countries that care most about sea level (think of the Netherlands, for instance) and those that care most about temperature changes (think of tropical countries where higher temperatures would be a severe risk for agriculture).

The bottom line of these studies is that even as they dive into research questions on geoengineering, scientists are perhaps inevitably coming to the conclusion that we would be better off limiting our emissions now rather than handing future generations a mess that may not be at all easy to clean up.

© 2012 The New York Times Company

Featured video: music in Madagascar to protest illegal logging

2012-01-23T07:50:00.000+07:00

A new video highlights the plight of Madagascar's protected tropical forests, which are falling prey to illegal logging and foreign contractors. Featuring Razia Said, Malagasy singer and songwriter, the video shows concerts to raise awareness about illegal logging, especially near Maosala National Park

Jeremy Hance | mongabay.com | January 22, 2012

In February 2007, musician Razia Said returned to Madagascar to reconnect with the land she left as an eleven year-old child. For 6 weeks Razia and her band traveled around the island, and discovered the environmental damage taking place as the result of unfettered slash and burn agriculture, illegal logging and climate change

Said has recently founded the group Musicians Against Illegal Logging to support the Lacey Act, which prohibits the sale and importation of illegally logged wood in the U.S.

"Illegal logging for wood used in guitars and other instruments is helping to eat away at the irreplaceable forests of my country and the communities that depend on them. Why would musicians want to weaken laws that ensure the continued supply of our instruments?" Said stated in a recent press while protesting at the NAMM Show (the National Association of Music Merchants), which is lobbying for a law, known as the RELIEF Act (HR 3210), that would undercut essential provisions in the Lacey Act.

Copyright mongabay 2010

Corporate Rule Is Not Inevitable

2012-01-23T07:42:00.001+07:00

7 signs the corporatocracy is losing its legitimacy ... and 7 populist tools to help shut it down

by Sarah van Gelder | YES! Magazine | Jan 20, 2012

A parody of corporate personhood in D.C.

You may remember that there was a time when apartheid in South Africa seemed unstoppable.

Sure, there were international boycotts of South African businesses, banks, and tourist attractions. There were heroic activists in South Africa, who were going to prison and even dying for freedom. But the conventional wisdom remained that these were principled gestures with little chance of upending the entrenched system of white rule.

“Be patient,” activists were told. “Don’t expect too much against powerful interests with a lot of money invested in the status quo.”

With hindsight, though, apartheid’s fall appears inevitable: the legitimacy of the system had already crumbled. It was harming too many for the benefit of too few. South Africa’s freedom fighters would not be silenced, and the global movement supporting them was likewise tenacious and principled.

In the same way, the legitimacy of rule by giant corporations and Wall Street banks is crumbling. This system of corporate rule also benefits few and harms many, affecting nearly every major issue in public life. Some examples:

Powerful corporations socialize their risks and costs, but privatize profits. That means we, the 99 percent, pick up the tab for environmental clean ups, for helping workers who aren’t paid enough to afford food or health care, for bailouts when risky speculation goes wrong. Meanwhile, profits go straight into the pockets of top executives and others in the 1 percent.
The financial collapse threw millions of Americans into poverty. 25 million are unemployed, under-employed, or have given up looking for work; four million have been unemployed for more than 12 months. Poverty increased 27 percent between 2006 and 2010. And students who graduated with student loans in 2010 had borrowed 5 percent more than the previous year’s graduating class—owing more than $25,000. Meanwhile, those who caused the collapse continue the same practices. And the unwillingness of the 1 percent to pay their fair share of taxes means the the public services we rely on are fraying.
Scientists say that we are on the brink of runaway climate change; we only have a few years to make the needed investments in clean power and energy efficiency. This transition could be a huge job creator—on the order of the investments made during World War II, which got us out of the Depression. But fossil fuel industries don’t want to see their investment in dirty energy undermined by the switch to clean energy and conservation. So far, by paying millions to climate deniers, lobbyists, and political campaigns, they’ve succeeded in stymieing change.
Agribusiness get taxpayer subsidies for foods that make us sick; for farming practices that destroy rivers, soils, the climate, and the oceans; and for trade practices that cause hunger at home and abroad.
Through ALEC, the private prison industry crafts state laws that boost the numbers behind bars, lengthen sentences, and privatize prisons.
Big Pharma jacks up prices; insurance companies raise premiums and delivers fewer benefits; the burden of inflated care drags down the economy and bankrupts families. But only a very few politicians stand up to the health care industry's war chests and advocate for Canadian-style single-payer health care, which would go a long way toward solving the cost problem.
Corporations and wealthy executives fund an army of lobbyists and election campaigns, spreading untruths and self-serving policy prescriptions.

It’s not that we, the people, haven’t noticed all this.

In a recent poll by the Pew Research Center, 77 percent of Americans said too much power is concentrated in the hands of a few rich people and large corporations. In a poll by Time Magazine, 86 percent of Americans said Wall Street and its lobbyists have too much influence in Washington.

And 80 percent of Americans oppose Citizens United, the pro-corporate Supreme Court ruling that turns two years old today. Eighty percent—that’s among Republicans, Democrats, and Independents.

Some say corporations have such a strong grip on politicians and big media that it is impossible to challenge them, no matter how many of us there are.

But I believe we can do it. In the past few months, YES! Magazine has been researching ways that ordinary people can challenge corporate power (look for strategies in our spring issue, out in February). And we found that there are actually a lot of tools at our disposal:

Corporations were created by public law to provide a public benefit. If we the people no longer feel that a corporation is providing a benefit—or if we feel that it is operating in a lawless and destructive manner—we can revoke their charter. That’s what Free Speech for People has asked the attorney general of Delaware to do to Massey Energy, which has been one of the worst culprits in mountaintop removal and which has operated its mines in a lawless and negligent manner, resulting in 29 deaths at the Upper Big Branch Mine.
We can insist that, in exchange for use of our public airwaves, broadcasters provide free airtime to candidates for public office. If they don’t need to raise millions for media buys, they don’t need to be as beholden to the 1 percent.
We can get our governments to quit banking with Bank of America and Chase, and start our own state banks—14 states, including California and Washington, are considering such a move. And while we're at it, we can localize food, energy, and other aspects of our economy so local, independent businesses and cooperatives can thrive.
We can stand up to specific parts of the corporate agenda by engaging in the sort of direct action that halted the KXL Pipeline.
We can call for a constitutional amendment overturning Citizens United, corporate personhood, and the ridiculous notion that money is the same thing as speech. So far, Los Angeles, New York City, and about 50 other towns and cities have done so far.
We can use mechanisms like clean elections, electoral transparency, citizen review of legislation, and recalls to keep corporate control of our democracy in check.
Finally, the reason I am most hopeful today: We can take a cue from Occupy Wall Street and continue to name the source of political corruption—something the political establishment and mainstream media have refused to do. We can occupy homes that are slated for foreclosure, as people have been doing all over the country. We can mic check places like Walmarts that intimidate and fire workers who want to unionize. We can set up tents in public places and in other ways join with the Occupy movement to take a stand for a world that works for the 100 percent—a world where we all benefit.

None of these actions will be easy. It will take time—potentially years of work—to make big change. But just as the legitimacy of apartheid crumbled well before the institutions of apartheid went down, the legitimacy of corporate rule is crumbling. So I’m convinced that, with you and me and all the others out there creating alternatives and taking a stand, we will see change.

Sarah van Gelder will deliver these comments at Seattle's rally on the second anniversary of the Citizens United ruling. Sarah is YES! Magazine's co-founder and executive editor, and editor of the new book: "This Changes Everything: Occupy Wall Street and the 99% Movement."

YES! Magazine encourages you to make free use of this article by taking these easy steps. This work is licensed under a Creative Commons License

Wind Power Without the Blades: Big Pics

2012-01-22T22:24:00.001+07:00

Noise from wind turbine blades, inadvertent bat and bird kills and even the way wind turbines look have made installing them anything but a breeze. New York design firm Atelier DNA has an alternative concept that ditches blades in favor of stalks. Resembling thin cattails, the Windstalks generate electricity when the wind sets them waving

By Alyssa Danigelis | January 22, 2012

The designers came up with the idea for the planned city Masdar, a 2.3-square-mile, automobile-free area being built outside of Abu Dhabi. Atelier DNA’s "Windstalk"project came in second in the Land Art Generator competition a contest sponsored by Madsar to identify the best work of art that generates renewable energy from a pool of international submissions.

The proposed design calls for 1,203 "“stalks," each 180-feet high with concrete bases that are between about 33- and 66-feet wide. The carbon-fiber stalks, reinforced with resin, are about a foot wide at the base tapering to about 2 inches at the top. Each stalk will contain alternating layers of electrodes and ceramic discs made from piezoelectric material, which generates a current when put under pressure. In the case of the stalks, the discs will compress as they sway in the wind, creating a charge.

“The idea came from trying to find kinetic models in nature that could be tapped to produce energy,” explained Atelier DNA founding partner Darío Núñez-Ameni.

In the proposal for Masdar, the Windstalk wind farm spans 280,000 square feet. Based on rough estimates, said Núñez-Ameni the output would be comparable to that of a conventional wind farm covering the same area.

“Our system is very efficient in that there is no friction loss associated with more mechanical systems such as conventional wind turbines,” he said.

Each base is slightly different, and is sloped so that rain will funnel into the areas between the concrete to help plants grow wild. These bases form a sort of public park space and serve a technological purpose. Each one contains a torque generator that converts the kinetic energy from the stalk into energy using shock absorber cylinders similar to the kind being developed by Cambridge, Massachusetts-based Levant Power .

Wind isn’t constant, though, so Núñez-Ameni says two large chambers below the whole site will work like a battery to store energy. The idea is based on existing hydroelectric pumped storage systems. Water in the upper chamber will flow through turbines to the lower chamber, releasing stored energy until the wind starts up again.

The top of each tall stalk has an LED lamp that glows when the wind is blowing -- more intensely during strong winds and not all when the air is still. The firm anticipates that the stalks will behave naturally, vibrating and fluttering in the air.

“Windstalk is completely silent, and the image associated with them is something we're already used to seeing in a field of wheat or reeds in a marsh. Our hope is that people living close to them will like to walk through the field -- especially at night -- under their own, private sky of swarming stars,” said Núñez-Ameni.

After completion, a Windstalk should be able to produce as much electricity as a single wind turbine, with the advantage that output could be increased with a denser array of stalks. Density is not possible with conventional turbines, which need to be spaced about three times the rotor's diameter in order to avoid air turbulence. But Windstalks work on chaos and turbulence so they can be installed much closer together, said Núñez-Ameni.

Núñez-Ameni also reports that the firm is currently working on taking the Windstalk idea underwater. Called Wavestalk, the whole system would be inverted to harness energy from the flow of ocean currents and waves. The firm’s long-term goal is to build a large system in the United States, either on land or in the water.

Copyright © 2012 Discovery Communications, LLC

Why are convicted criminals driving the EU’s defence agenda?

2012-01-22T22:16:00.001+07:00

Spare a thought these icy days of January for the arms industry. Recession has had such a devastating effect on makers of tanks and warplanes that the European Defence Agency is holding a conference later this month to mull over what can be done

David Cronin | New Europe | JANUARY 21, 2012

According to the EDA, military spending has been “declining steadily” on this continent since 2005. Pause for a moment. Is that really something to be exercised about? There is little to celebrate about the economic downturn but lower expenditure on the tools of war and oppression might offer one reason to be cheerful.

Unfortunately, the EDA’s own data hints that the situation is not as dramatic as the words “declining steadily” imply. In 2006, the 26 countries belonging to the agency spent €201 billion on the military. That fell to €194bn in 2010.

Significantly, though, the figure for 2010 was the same as that for the previous year. You don’t need to be a mathematical whizz-kid to discern a pattern here: rather than declining steadily, expenditure appears to be levelling off. The EDA’s number-crunchers have calculated that at €520bn, the US spent 2.7 times more on the military than the agency’s participating states in 2010.

The suits and uniforms of Brussels seem to regard this imbalance as a bad thing. I, on the other hand, take solace in the fact that Europe isn’t aping that imperial Leviathan across the Atlantic as wholeheartedly as it could.

My solace is nonetheless slender. Over the Christmas break, I read Andrew Feinstein’s book The Shadow World: Inside the Global Arms Trade. It traces how the firms which pushed for the establishment of the EDA have become bywords for corruption. When the EDA was launched in 2004, the three giants of Europe’s weapons industry – Thales, EADS and BAE Systems – issued a joint statement predicting that the agency would play a “vital role” in stimulating greater investment in war (OK, I have resorted to paraphrasing).

Feinstein devotes several chapters of his 672-page tome to the shenanigans of BAE. In 2010, BAE was fined $400 million in the US, the largest ever penalty imposed on a British corporation. That followed BAE’s admission of guilt that it had written false letters to the American authorities ten years earlier. The authorities were investigating kickbacks that the company had paid while seeking deals in Saudi Arabia, Hungary and the Czech Republic. Feinstein explains meticulously how BAE not only gave bribes, it was granted permission to do so by Britain’s powers-that-be. Back in 1977, Britain issued the 'Cooper Directive' – named after an official in its ministry of defence – which authorised the payment of secret commissions by British firms angling for government-togovernment contracts. The directive was a response to an official memo, stating that the Saudi royal family expected money under the table if they were to buy weapons from the West.

A one-time member of parliament for the African National Congress, Feinstein indicates that the human cost of arms sales can’t merely be totted up using casualty figures from the battlefield (where such figures exist). As a legislator, he took part in a probe over a major arms purchasing decision announced by the South African government in 1999. Feinstein calls BAE

“the villain in the piece”, citing estimates that $300m was paid in bribes and commissions to senior politicians, middlemen, civil servants and the ANC itself (Feinstein came under intense pressure from party colleagues not to cause them embarrassment but – pun intended – stuck by his guns).

By 2018, the total price tag for this deal could exceed $6bn. In the five years following the decision, 365,000 South Africans perished from AIDS; for every rand spent on keeping people with HIV alive, 6.75 rand went on buying weapons. Do you remember how Tony Blair
decided that eradicating African poverty should be the central theme of Britain’s presidencies of the EU and G8 in 2005? Blair doubled up as a “saviour” of Africa and a salesman for BAE during his term as prime minister.

One of his most disgusting acts was to persuade the president of Tanzania, one of the world’s poorest countries, to spend $40m on a radar system for military aircraft. BAE is not the only company on Feinstein’s radar screen (pun intended, once again). He highlights how Thales of France was ordered in 2010 to pay a fine of more than $800m to Taiwan after being convicted of inflating the price of frigates supplied as part of an arms deal struck in the early 1990s.

On paper, the European Union’s institutions and offices have a strong policy against fraud. Yet they remain happy to court arms companies, even when those firms are implicated in large-scale corruption. Thales recently gave a demonstration to Frontex, the EU border management agency, of a pilotless drone (or unmanned aerial vehicle) in a Greek military base. Named theFulmar, the plane in question is Spanish-owned but uses equipment designed by Thales. Intriguingly, it can be launched from a catapult, rather than a runway.

Frontex sees its role as keeping foreigners out of Europe and doesn’t appear perturbed by how the people in question are usually impoverished and in need of help. It comes as no surprise, then, that its racist endeavours are being aided by others who are far better known for corruption than compassion.

David Cronin is an Irish journalist and political activist living in Brussels. His book Europe’sAlliance With Israel: Aiding the Occupation is published by Pluto Press. He is a contributing editor with The Electronic Intifada, an online publication focused on Palestine

Copyright © Brussels News Agency SPRL 2011. All rights reserved

The future of food

2012-01-22T22:11:00.000+07:00

By 2050 there will be another 2.5 billion people on the planet. How to feed them? Science's answer: a diet of algae, insects and meat grown in a lab

John Vidal | The Observer | 22 January 2012

Seaweed harvesting in Bali. From seaweed to slime, algae is the future of food, says Professor Mark Edwards Photograph: Ed Wray/AP

How can we feed the 2.5 billion more people – an extra China and India – likely to be alive in 2050? The UN says we will have to nearly double ourfood production and governments say we should adopt new technologies and avoid waste, but however you cut it, there are already one billion chronically hungry people, there's little more virgin land to open up, climate change will only make farming harder to grow food in most places, the oceans are overfished, and much of the world faces growing water shortages.

Fifty years ago, when the world's population was around half what it is now, the answer to looming famines was "the green revolution" – a massive increase in the use of hybrid seeds and chemical fertilisers. It worked, but at a great ecological price. We grow nearly twice as much food as we did just a generation ago, but we use three times as much water from rivers and underground supplies.

Food, farm and water technologists will have to find new ways to grow more crops in places that until now were hard or impossible to farm. It may need a total rethink over how we use land and water. So enter a new generation of radical farmers, novel foods and bright ideas.

Algae

How do you free up huge amounts of farmland to grow more food for humans? Easy – switch to commercial algae farms. Algae are simple, single-cell organisms that can grow very rapidly at sea, in polluted water and in places that would normally kill food crops. Major airlines and shipping companies are now investigating a switch to algae oil, and smart clean tech money is pouring in to the nascent technology.

The prize is huge: scientists say that under optimum conditions, commercial algae farms can produce 5,000-10,000 gallons of oil per acre, compared to just 350 gallons of ethanol biofuel per acre grown with crops like maize. In addition, algae could feed millions of animals and act as a fertiliser. Replacing all US ethanol (biofuel) production with algae oil would need around 2m acres of desert, but, says Arizona State university professor Mark Edwards, it would potentially allow 40m acres of cropland to be planted with human food, and save billions of gallons of irrigation water a year.

Algae are at the bottom of the food chain but they are already eaten widely in Japan and China in the form of seaweeds, and are used as fertilisers, soil conditioners and animal feed. "They range from giant seaweeds and kelps to microscopic slimes, they are capable of fixing CO₂ in the atmosphere and providing fats, oils and sugars. They are eaten by everything from the tiniest shrimp to the great blue whales. They are the base of all life and must be the future," says Edwards.

Artificial meat

It looks like meat, feels like meat and it is meat, although it's never been near a living, breathing animal. Instead, artificial or "cultured" meat is grown from stem cells in giant vats.

Scientists say the hunt for meat substitutes is critical because western eating habits are now spreading to China and other rapidly emerging economies, putting intense pressure on governments and farmers to fell more forests and open up new farmland. Cattle now occupy nearly one quarter of all cultivable land, and growing crops for animal feed takes up another 25%. In the US, nearly 70% of the grain and cereals grown are now fed to farmed animals.

Much of the research into artificial meat is being done in Europe with scientists in Holland and Britain developing edible tissue grown from stem cells in laboratories. But while the first artificial hamburger could be developed next year, it might taste of nothing at all. Meat needs blood and fat to give it colour and taste, and while stem cells for blood and fat have been identified, this is slow, complex and expensive work.

Nevertheless, studies show that artificial meat wins hands down in the environmental stakes, using far less water, energy and land. In addition, few ethical objections have been raised, largely because mass production of animals in factory farms and use of growth hormones and antibiotics is already considered questionable.

New crops

Few people have heard of Zhikang Li, but history may judge the Chinese plant breeder to be one of the most important people of the century. Last year, after 12 years' work with the Chinese Academy of Agricultural Sciences and the International Rice Research Institute in the Philippines, he and his team developed "green super rice", a series of rice varieties which produce more grain but which have proved more resistant to droughts, floods, salty water, insects and disease .

Zhikang Li achieved this without GM technology, working instead with hundreds of researchers and farmers in 16 countries and using only conventional plant breeding techniques to cross-breed more than 250 rice varieties.

Green super rice, which could increase yields in Asia enough to feed an extra 100 million people, will be rolled out in the coming years. But better plant breeding – with or without GM – will be key to increasing the yields of all other crops.

However, most research money has gone into GM in the past 20 years. Here, the global agrichemical industry has promised new crops enriched with extra vitamins, enzymes or healthy fatty acids, as well as drought-tolerant corn, and crops that can save carbon emissions. But while it looks ahead to bananas that produce human vaccines, fish that mature more quickly and cows that are resistant to disease, its promise to feed the world has been patchy in terms of results.

Last year more than 350m acres – about 10% of global cultivated area, or the same area as Germany, France and the UK together – were planted with GM crops, but this mainly covered only three big foods – maize, oilseed rape and soya – most of which went to animal feed.

Desert greening

Much of the world is arid, with its only nearby water being the sea. So could a technology be found to green coastal deserts in places such as Chile, California, Peru and the Middle East using salt water?

Charlie Paton, a British inventor, has a vision of vast "seawater greenhouses" to grow food and generate power. The idea is simple: in the natural water cycle, seawater is heated by the sun, evaporates, cools to form clouds, and returns to earth as refreshing rain. It is more or less the same in Paton's structures. Here, hot desert air going into a greenhouse is first cooled and then humidified by seawater. This humid air nourishes crops growing inside and then passes through an evaporator. When it meets a series of tubes containing cool seawater, fresh water condenses and is then collected. And because the greenhouses produce more than five times the fresh water needed to water the plants, some of it can be released into the local environment to grow other plants.

Seawater greenhouses have been shown to work and this year a large-scale pilot project backed by the Norwegian government will be built near Aqaba in Jordan. The Sahara Forest project will combine different technologies to grow food and biofuel crops and be up and running by 2015.

But this is just one of many technologies being developed to enable food to be grown in unlikely places. One of the simplest, but most ambitious plans, may be the long-mooted Great Green Wall of Africa. This linear forest would be 15km wide and 7,775km long, and stretch from Senegal in the west to Djibouti in east Africa. It would, say the 11 countries through which it would pass, help to stop the southward spread of the Sahara, slow soil erosion and wind speeds, help rain water filter into the ground and create micro-climates to allow fruit, vegetables and other crops to be grown.

Insects

Locusts, grasshoppers, spiders, wasps, worms, ants and beetles are not on most European or US menus but at least 1,400 species are eaten across Africa, Latin America and Asia. Now, with rising food prices and worldwide land shortages, it could be just a matter of time before insect farms set up in Britain.

Not only are many bugs rich in protein, low in fat and cholesterol and high in calcium and iron, but insect farms need little space. Environmentally, they beat conventional farms, too. The creatures are far better at converting plant biomass into edible meat than even our fastest growing livestock, they emit fewer greenhouse gases and they can thrive on paper, algae and the industrial wastes that would normally be thrown away.

The advantages of "micro-livestock" farming are great, say the UN and EU, both of which are keen to see if insect rearing could be greatly expanded. The Dutch government is studying how to set up insect farms. But aware of western squeamishness, they have asked researchers to see if they can just extract the protein that many bugs contain.

Meanwhile the EU is offering its member states $3m to promote the use of insects in cooking, and has asked food standards watchdogs to investigate their potential to supplement diets.

© 2012 Guardian News and Media Limited or its affiliated companies. All rights reserved

Theme and variations

2012-01-21T21:50:00.000+07:00

State capitalism is not all the same. It is easy for a casual visitor to China to be fooled into thinking that he is in a normal capitalist country. The big cities are dotted with Starbucks and Kinkos. The newspapers run stories about small businesspeople falling prey to loan sharks

The Economist | Jan 21st 2012

Business executives are whisked around in Mercedes cars with blackened windows. Their wives and mistresses idle their afternoons away in doga classes—yoga that includes the pet dog.

But the form of capitalism on display is highly idiosyncratic. Company bosses are routinely moved to rival companies without any explanation. Company headquarters have space set aside for representatives of the armed forces. And the deeper you look, the queerer things become. In his indispensable book, “The Party”, Richard McGregor points out that the bosses of China’s 50-odd leading companies all have a “red machine” sitting next to their Bloomberg terminals and family photographs that provides an instant (and encrypted) link to the Communist Party’s high command.

What might be called “the party state” exercises a degree of control over the economy that is unparalleled in the rest of the state-capitalist world. The party has cells in most big companies—in the private as well as the state-owned sector—complete with their own offices and files on employees. It controls the appointment of captains of industry and, in the SOEs, even corporate dogsbodies. It holds meetings that shadow formal board meetings and often trump their decisions, particularly on staff appointments. It often gets involved in business planning and works with management to control workers’ pay.

The party state exercises power through two institutions: the State-Owned Assets Supervision and Administration Commission (SASAC) and the Communist Party’s Organisation Department. SASAC, which holds shares in the biggest companies, is the world’s largest controlling shareholder and the state-capitalist institution par excellence. It has been spearheading the policy of creating national champions by consolidating and pruning its portfolio: the number of companies under its supervision has declined from 198 in 2003 to 121 today. It has also been implementing the party’s policy of creating a “harmonious society” by regulating pay. In 2009 the average SOE boss earned $88,000 and the highest-paid, the chairman of China Mobile, $182,000. High pay in SOEs has been a big source of disharmony.

SASAC can be something of a paper tiger. It has been trying for years to force the SOEs to pay higher dividends to the government, with only limited success. Similarly, nobody believes that the SOE bosses’ nominal pay bears any relation to their real remuneration. However, nobody would apply the term “paper tiger” to the Organisation Department. Created by Chairman Mao in 1924, it has become the world’s mightiest human-resources department. It appoints all the senior figures in China Inc. In 2004 it reshuffled the heads of the three biggest telecoms companies. In 2009 it rotated the bosses of the three biggest airlines. In 2010 it did the same to the chiefs of the three biggest oil companies, each of which is a Fortune 500 company. Even the most successful top executives of China’s SOEs are cadres first and company men second. They care more about pleasing their party bosses than about the global market.

The party state has reinforced its power by creating “vertical” business groups. In most emerging markets (including Hong Kong next door) business groups are “horizontal”: companies sprawl into adjacent businesses—telecoms companies into hotels, shipping companies into property—in order to exploit their local connections. In China business groups focus on particular industries. The party state encourages companies to band together into industry clusters by giving them preferential access to contracts and stockmarket listings. It also encourages them to establish subdivisions such as a domestic holding company, a finance company, a research institute and a foreign division. SASAC typically owns 100% of the shares in the holding company. The holding company in turn owns a smaller proportion of shares—say 60%—in the foreign division. This makes it possible for business groups to present lots of different faces—for instance, an inward-looking one in the form of the holding company and an outward-looking one in the form of the international division. It also allows the party state to exercise control of an entire chain of companies. Thus PetroChina might look like a regular Western company, with a listing on the New York Stock Exchange. But in fact it is the international division of a huge group called China National Petroleum Corporation, the foreign head of a dragon whose body and raison d’être lie in Beijing.

The Kremlin as capitalist-in-chief

In Russia the past decade has seen a remarkable strengthening of the power of the state, which during Boris Yeltsin’s period of “wild privatisation” looked as if it might crumble. The Kremlin has turned scattered companies into national champions. Aeroflot reabsorbed regional airlines spun off in the 1990s. Russian Technologies rolled up hundreds of state companies, many of which had little to do with technology, into a vast conglomerate. The government has also renationalised industries that were privatised in the 1990s. Rosneft, an oil company, took over most of Yukos from Mikhail Khodorkovsky, once Russia’s richest man, and Gazprom bought Sibneft from Roman Abramovich.

As a result the Russian state once again controls the commanding heights of the economy—only this time through share ownership rather than directly. The state holds huge chunks of the shares of the country’s biggest and most strategic companies, including Transneft, a pipeline company; Sukhoi, an aircraft-maker; Rosneft; Sberbank; Unified Energy Systems, an electricity giant; Aeroflot; and Gazprom.

The Kremlin has also established control over Russia’s oligarchs, reducing once-mighty rottweilers to shivering chihuahuas and transforming supposedly private companies into organs of the state. The brutal persecution and imprisonment of Mr Khodorkovsky helped to instil obedience, and periodically the state waves a bloody stick at the oligarchs to keep them in their place. They dutifully pick up the tab for public works (such as the 2014 Winter Olympics) and keep out of politics.

The private-sector oligarchs have been replaced at the heart of the economy by state-sector bureaugarchs, most of them former KGB officials who have close ties with Vladimir Putin and have spent the past decade steadily accumulating power (though not personal stakes in the businesses). Mr Putin, currently the prime minister, is chairman of the supervisory board of Vnesheconombank, a state development bank. Igor Sechin, the deputy prime minister, was chairman of Rosneft until Dmitry Medvedev, Russia’s president, ordered government ministers to step down as chairmen of state companies’ boards of directors last year to tidy things up. Such people form the board of Russia Inc, a company that is headed by Mr Putin, dominated by the KGB and dedicated to controlling the country’s most lucrative assets, from oil and gas to nuclear power, diamonds, metals, arms, aviation and transport.

The result is a highly unusual form of capitalism, dominated by a handful of gigantic firms and controlled by a clique of security officials. Two state-controlled companies, Sberbank and Gazprom, account for more than half of the turnover of the Russian stock exchange. Russian capitalism would have been concentrated even if the Kremlin had not been so ruthless. Oil and gas companies, which account for 20% of the country’s GDP and 60% of its exports, thrive on economies of scale and scope. Poor infrastructure encourages vertical integration; for example, metal companies have been buying ports to ensure that they can get their goods out on time. Still, having so much political power in so few hands has enormously increased this concentration.

This quintessentially Russian form of state capitalism has nevertheless been embracing the global market. Oil and gas companies have been buying similar firms abroad or listing on foreign stock exchanges. In July 2006 Rosneft raised $11 billion by selling 15% of its shares on the London stock exchange. Russia’s sovereign-wealth funds have been particularly keen on buying foreign companies, in part because Russia’s own business practices are so murky. And Russian businesspeople have bought lots of property abroad, particularly in London.

Petrostate capitalism

Oil and water may not mix, but oil and royalty mix very well to create petrostate capitalism. Middle Eastern monarchs have been using oil to keep themselves in funds for decades. But these days some of them are taking a remarkably sophisticated approach to managing their economies, embracing professional management.

The al-Maktoums, who rule Dubai, created Dubai World, a huge state-owned holding company, to run their projects. The Saudis have handed the day-to-day management of their biggest companies, Saudi Aramco and Saudi Basic Industries, to professional managers. The petro-royals have also become enthusiastic practitioners of state-sponsored modernisation. The al-Maktoums have been trendsetters because they never had much oil to begin with. It now accounts for under 5% of the emirate’s GDP. They have provided Dubai with a world-class airport, an important financial hub and a scattering of “knowledge villages” and “silicon centres”. Even conservative Saudi Arabia claims to be building four tech-enabled cities.

But the Gulf model of modernisation from above has been plagued by two familiar curses, cronyism and bubbles. There is only so much that professional managers can do to prevent the local royals from damaging the region’s companies. Bahrain’s Gulf Air and Kuwait Airways have been albatrosses. Dubai World accumulated $80 billion in debt building the world’s tallest skyscraper and a palm-shaped artificial island. The state of Dubai had to be rescued by neighbouring Abu Dhabi.

The problems of cronyism and corruption have proved even more toxic in other parts of the Middle East. In Egypt Hosni Mubarak, the president until the Arab spring, handed the management of the state companies to incompetent people while making sure his cronies did well out of privatisation. In Algeria SOEs are notorious dens of patronage and typically run at only 50% of capacity. In Syria the overwhelming majority of the country’s top 250 SOEs have been in the red for many years.

Leviathan as a minority investor

Brazil is the most ambiguous member of the state-capitalist camp: a democracy that also embraces many of the features of Anglo-Saxon capitalism. But it is worth examining for two reasons. First, it is a weather vane for state capitalism, a leading privatiser in the 1990s that is now forcing its biggest mining company, Vale, to keep workers it does not need, and obliging a bunch of smaller companies to embark on subsidised consolidation. And second, it has invented one of the sharpest new tools in the state-capitalist toolbox.

Brazil has spent most of its modern history in pursuit of state-driven modernisation. A survey in the early 1980s showed that it had more than 500 SOEs. Brazil launched a privatisation drive in the 1990s to deal with hyperinflation, surging deficits and general sclerosis. But more recently it has moved in a new direction. The government has poured resources into a handful of state champions, particularly in natural resources and telecoms. It has also produced a new model of industrial policy: replacing direct with indirect government ownership through the Brazilian National Development Bank (BNDES) and its investment subsidiary (BNDESPar); and swapping majority for minority ownership by acquiring shares in a broad spectrum of different companies. Sergio Lazzarini, of Brazil’s Insper Institute of Education and Research, and Aldo Musacchio, of Harvard Business School, have christened this model “Leviathan as a minority shareholder”.

This minority-shareholder model has several advantages. It limits the state’s ability to use SOEs to reward clients or to pursue social policies. Private shareholders have just enough power to kick up a fuss. But it also gives the state more influence for its money. By 2009 BNDESPar’s holdings were worth $53 billion, or just 4% of the stockmarket. Yet the state spoke with a loud voice across corporate Brazil. Messrs Lazzarini and Musacchio have also shown, in a detailed study of 296 firms traded on the São Paulo stock exchange between 1995 and 2003, that this model can increase firms’ returns on their assets. Brazilian companies typically underinvest in productivity-boosting equipment because the capital markets are so underdeveloped. State holdings provide them with money that they cannot get elsewhere.

Yet this clever version of state capitalism is currently in danger of overreaching itself. Petrobras’s discovery, in November 2007, of huge deposits of oil buried deep beneath the Atlantic seabed has filled politicians’ heads with dreams of grand projects. The shift in the world’s balance of power from America to China has also helped to persuade many Brazilians that the future lies with state capitalism. The result has been a burst of unwise interventionism. The government is trying to force Petrobras to use expensive local equipment suppliers despite doubts about their competence. It removed Roger Agnelli from his post as CEO of Vale despite his outstanding record. It has also taken to creating national champions through forced mergers: BRF (Sadia and Perdigão) in the food sector; Oi (which was made to buy Brasil Telecom) in telecoms; Fibria (VCP and Arucruz) in pulp and paper. Even the most sophisticated models of state capitalism are not safe from over-zealous politicians.

The new elite

These varieties of state capitalism all have one thing in common: politicians have far more power than they do under liberal capitalism. In authoritarian regimes they can restructure entire industries at the stroke of a pen. Even in democratic ones like Brazil they can tell the biggest companies what to do. In China party hacks can find themselves running the country’s biggest companies (and SOE bosses sometimes get big jobs in the party). In Russia they may be running the biggest companies while also sitting in the cabinet. But there are nevertheless limits to Leviathan’s power.

State-owned enterprises often have a good deal of operational freedom. Edward Steinfeld, a professor at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology who spent many years serving on the board of China National Offshore Oil Corporation, recalls that the company’s relationship with its political bosses had “less to do with rigid top-down control than with mixed signals, ambiguity and even outright silence”.

Such enterprises can also wield a lot of influence over their supposed political masters. China’s SOEs have successfully frustrated attempts to make them pay more dividends. State-owned energy companies arguably have more influence over energy policy in state-capitalist countries than private energy companies have in liberal countries. Over a drink Russians will happily speculate about whether the Kremlin runs Gazprom or Gazprom runs the Kremlin.

State-owned enterprises are also producing a more sophisticated generation of managers: people who have learned about business in the world’s best business schools, who have worked abroad and have a far less blinkered view of the world than their predecessors. Katherine Xin, of China Europe International Business School (CEIBS) in Shanghai, says that many SOEs want their managers to have a world-class business education. Baosteel has been sending its senior managers on executive MBA courses for more than a decade. It also brings in academics from Switzerland’s IMD business school to provide tailor-made courses. CNPC has been sending high-flyers to get MBAs in America since 1999. Ms Xin points out that the Chinese version of the Harvard Business Review is a must-read in the upper echelons of state-owned companies.

Members of this new generation of managers are changing the management of the public sector, too, as they alternate between the corporate domain and government. There are currently 17 prominent Chinese political leaders who have held senior positions in large SOEs. Conversely, 27 prominent business leaders are serving on the party’s Central Committee. If state capitalism allows politicians to shape companies, it also allows companies to shape politicians.

Copyright © The Economist Newspaper Limited 2012. All rights reserved

Why now? What’s next? Naomi Klein on Occupy

2012-01-21T21:43:00.000+07:00

Naomi Klein in discussion with Occupy Wall Street activist Yotam Marom

Naomi Klein, Yotam Marom | Red Pepper | January 2012

Naomi Klein: One of the things that’s most mysterious about this moment is “Why now?” People have been fighting austerity measures and calling out abuses by the banks for a couple of years, with basically the same analysis: “We won’t pay for your crisis.” But it just didn’t seem to take off, at least in the US. There were marches and there were political projects and there were protests like Bloombergville, but they were largely ignored. There really was not anything on a mass scale, nothing that really struck a nerve. And now suddenly, this group of people in a park set off something extraordinary. So how do you account for that, having been involved in Occupy Wall Street since the beginning, but also in earlier anti-austerity actions?

Yotam Marom: Okay, so the first answer is, I have no idea, no one does. But I can offer some guesses. I think there are a few things you have to pay attention to when you see moments like these. One is conditions—unemployment, debt, foreclosure, the many other issues people are facing. Conditions are real, they’re bad, and you can’t fake them. Another sort of base for this kind of thing is the organizing people do to prepare for moments like these. We like to fantasize about these uprisings and big political moments—and we like to imagine that they erupt out of nowhere and that that’s all it takes—but those things come on the back of an enormous amount of organizing that happens every day, all over the world, in communities that are really marginalized and facing the worst attacks.

So those are the two kind of prerequisites for a moment like this to take place. And then you have to ask, What’s the third element that makes it all come together, what’s the trigger, the magic dust? Well, I’m not sure what the answer is, but I know what it feels like. It feels like something has been opened up, a kind of space nobody knew existed, and so all sorts of things that were impossible before are possible now. Something just got kind of unclogged. All sorts of people just started to see their struggles in this, started being able to identify with it, started feeling like winning is possible, there is an alternative, it doesn’t have to be this way. I think that’s the special thing here.

NK: Do you feel that there is an organic discussion happening about fundamentally changing the economic system? I mean we know that there is a strong, radical, angry critique of corruption, and of the corporate takeover of the political process. There’s a really powerful calling out happening. What’s less clear is the extent to which people are getting ready to actually build something else.

YM: Yeah, I definitely think we’re in a unique moment in the development of a movement that’s not only a protest movement against something but also an attempt to build something in its place. It is potentially a very early version of what I would call a dual-power movement, which is a movement that’s—on the one hand—trying to form the values and institutions that we want to see in a free society, while at the same time creating the space for that world by resisting and dismantling the institutions that keep us from having it. Occupation in general, as a tactic, is a really brilliant form of a dual-power struggle because the occupation is both a home where we get to practice the alternative—by practicing a participatory democracy, by having our radical libraries, by having a medical tent where anybody can get treatment, that kind of thing on a small level—and it’s also a staging ground for struggle outwards. It’s where we generate our fight against the institutions that keep us from the things that we need, against the banks as a representative of finance capitalism, against the state that protects and propels those interests.

It’s surprising and it’s really encouraging because that’s something that has been missing in a lot of struggles in the past. You usually have one or the other. You have alternative institutions, like eco-villages and food coops and so on—and then you have protest movements and other counter-institutions, like anti-war groups or labor unions. But they very rarely merge or see their struggle as shared. And we very rarely have movements that want to do both of those things, that see them as inseparable—that understand that the alternatives have to be fighting, and that fighting has to be done in a way that represents the values of the world we want to create. So I do think there’s something really radical and fundamental in that, and an enormous amount of potential.

NK: I absolutely agree that the key is in the combination of resistance and alternatives. A friend, the British eco-and arts activist John Jordan, talks about utopias and resistance being the double helix of activist DNA, and that when people drop out and just try to build their utopia and don’t engage with the systems of power, that’s when they become irrelevant and also when they are extremely vulnerable to state power and will often get smashed. And at the same time if you’re just protesting, just resisting and you don’t have those alternatives, I think that that becomes poisonous for movements.

But I’m still wondering about the question of policy—of making the leap from small-scale alternatives to the big policy changes that allow them to change the culture. A lot of people have come to the realization that the system is so busted that it really isn’t about who you get into office. But one of the ways of responding to that is to say, “Okay, we’re not going to form a political party and try to take power, but we are going to look at this system and try to identify the structural barriers to real change, and advocate for political goals that might begin to mend those structural flaws.” So that means things like the way corporations are able to fund elections and the role of corporate media and the whole issue of corporate personhood in this country. It is possible to find a few key policy fights that could conceivably create a situation where, ten years down the road, people might not feel so completely cynical about the idea of change within the political system. What do you think about that?

YM: Well, I think you’re right that we have to find ways to do that, but ways that don’t compromise what’s been so successful about this movement and this moment so far, which is that it’s so broad that so many different people can find themselves in it.

I think that within the broader movement, we do have different roles, and there is a particular role for Occupy Wall Street. I personally don’t want to have anything to do with people lobbying or running for office right now, nor do I want to focus all of my time winning small policy changes, and I don’t think that’s the role of Occupy Wall Street. But I sure as hell hope the people whose terrain that is do go and do it. I hope that they can recognize that what’s happening now is the creation of a climate where it’s possible for them to push left and win more. I’m not going to be happy with all the compromises those people have to make, and I don’t think we’re going to survive on reforms alone, but we need that too. If we want a real, meaningful social transformation, we need to win things along the way, because that’s how we provides people the foundations on top of which they can continue to struggle for the long haul, and it’s how we grow to become a critical mass that can ultimately make a fundamental break with this system.

And in the meantime, our role as Occupy Wall Street should be to dream bigger than that. I think it’s our job to look far ahead, to assert vision, to create alternatives and to intervene in the political and economic processes that govern people’s lives. We need to recognize that the institutions that govern our lives really do have power, but we don’t necessarily need to participate in them according to their rules. I think Occupy Wall Street’s role is to step in the way of those processes to prevent them from using that power, and to create openings for the alternatives we are trying to build. And then if politicians or others who consider themselves in solidarity with this movement want to go get on that, then they should use this moment to win the things that will help make us stronger in the long run, and they have a chance now to do that.

NK: You know, I’m torn about this. On one hand, OWS is so broad that a huge range of people has found a place in the tent. And there is certainly value in just having a very broad movement that is able to intervene in the political narrative at key junctures. Particularly because, looking at what is happening in Europe at the moment, I think we have to brace for the next economic shock. It’s a very big deal that when the next round of austerity measures comes down in the US, there will be a mass movement ready to say: “No way. We won’t pay—if you need money, tax the 1 percent and cut military spending, don’t cut education and food stamps.”

But we should be clear: that’s not making things better, it’s just trying to keep things from getting a whole lot worse. To make things better, there has to be a positive demand.

Look at the Chilean student protests, for instance. That’s a remarkable movement, and it’s historically hugely significant, because this is really the end of the Chilean dictatorship more than twenty years after it actually ended. Pinochet was in power for so long, and so many of his policies were locked in during the negotiated transition, that the left in Chile really did not recover until this generation of young people took to the streets. And they took to the streets sparked by austerity measures that were hitting education hard. But rather than just say, “Okay, we’re against these latest austerity cuts,” they said, “We are for free public education and we want to reverse the entire privatization agenda.” And that may seem like a narrow demand, but they were able to make it about inequality much more broadly. They did it by showing how the privatization of education in Chile, and the creation of a brutal two-tiered education system, deepened and locked in inequality, giving poor students no way out of poverty. The protests lit the country up, and now it’s not just a student movement. So that’s a completely different circumstance from OWS because it started with a demand. But it shows how, if the demand is radical enough, it can open up a much broader debate about what kind of society we want.

I think it’s more about vision than it is about demands. My worry is that there are so many groups trying to co-opt this movement, and trying to raise money off of its efforts, that the movement risks defining itself by what is not, rather by what it is or, more importantly, might become. If the movement is constantly put in a position of saying, “No, we’re not your pawn. We’re not this. We’re not that,” the danger is getting boxed into a defensive identity that was really imposed from the outside. I think some of that happened to the movement opposing corporate globalization post-Seattle, and I’d hate to see those mistakes repeated.

YM: I think you’re right about that. And you’re right about the question of demands versus vision. We don’t have demands in the way that other people want to hear them. But of course we have demands, of course we want things. When we reclaim a foreclosed home for a foreclosed-on family, or organize students to do flash mobs at the banks keeping them in debt, or environmental activists to do die-ins at banks that invest in coal, these are ways of speaking our demands in a new language of resistance. Occupy Wall Street is a really big tent that doesn’t have one voice, but that doesn’t mean all of our other groupings disappear when we enter it. There are still housing rights groups demanding an end to foreclosure, or labor unions demanding good jobs, and so on. We are trying to build a movement where individuals and groups have the autonomy to do what they need to do and pick the battles they need to pick, while being in solidarity with something much broader and far-reaching, something radical and visionary. And that’s part of the reason vision is so important, since it connects all those struggles.

But I do think we have to win things, you’re absolutely right about that. I guess the way I look at it is that we’re now about to make a transition, hopefully, from the symbolic to the real, both in the realms of creating the alternatives and fighting back. We need to reclaim homes, not just as symbols, but for people to live in them. Open the shut-down hospitals and put doctors in them. And same with the fighting: to actually disrupt business as usual, to move from protest to resistance. We’ll have an actual impact when Congress cannot pass those bills because there’s too much resistance, because there are people in the streets. We’ll have a real impact when it’s not only bank branch lobbies that we’re dancing around in but when we’ve blockaded the doors of the headquarters where they make their policies. We need to force policy-makers to re-evaluate their decisions, and we need to build power to eventually replace them altogether, not only in content but in form. If this is just about changing the narrative and it stops there, then we’re going to end up having missed an incredible opportunity to really affect people’s lives in a meaningful ways. This is not a game. A society where there are empty homes but people who don’t have homes is a fundamentally revolting thing and it’s unacceptable, can’t be allowed. You can say that for all the other things: for war, or for patriarchy, racism. We have an incredible responsibility.

NK: And nobody knows how to do what we’re trying to do. You can point to Iceland or something that happened in Argentina. But these are national struggles, somewhat on the economic periphery. No movement has ever successfully challenged hyper-mobile global capital at its source. So what we’re talking about is so new that it’s terrifying. I think people should admit that they’re terrified and that they don’t know how to do what they dream of doing, because if they don’t, then their fear—or rather our fear—will subconsciously shape our politics and you can end up in a situation where you’re saying, “No, I don’t want any structure,” or, “No, I don’t want to be making any kind of policy demands or have anything to do with politics,” when really it’s that you’re just completely scared shitless of the fact that you have no idea how to do this. So maybe if we all admit we are on unmapped territory, that fear loses some of its power.

YM: Yeah, that’s really important. We’re all just making it up. What you just said kind of reminded me of this moment that we had that was really a turning point for me. About three weeks in, sitting and talking with a bunch of people I had only just met, we were thinking about the movement and where it might be headed, and I remember this crazy moment when it hit me: “Oh, we’re winning.” It was surreal. And then that thought was immediately followed by the question: “So what do we want?” You know, we hadn’t won much, and we still haven’t, and we’re nowhere near the society we want to live in, but it was still that feeling—that the narrative was shifting, that the whole world was watching, that there was a lot of possibility before us. It was the first time that I’ve ever experienced that and I think probably the first time that a lot of people who are alive today have. And that was an incredibly empowering moment, really changed my life, but it was also an unbelievably terrifying moment, because, holy shit, that means it’s real, this is high stakes, this is no joke.

So, then, following that thread of what’s possible: all of this was impossible a few months ago. All of this was inconceivable. And I felt that very personally and I was cynical and I learned a lot from that. Turns out we know very little about what is possible. And that’s really humbling and important and it opens a lot of doors. What do you think is possible?

NK: First of all, it’s a moment of possibility like I’ve never seen because we never had as many people on our side as this moment does. I mean in the Seattle moment, we didn’t. We were marginal. We always were because we were in an economic boom. Now, the system has been breaking its own rules so defiantly that its credibility is shot. And there’s a vacuum. There’s a vacuum for other credible voices to fill that, and it’s very exciting.

Personally, I think the greatest possibility lies in bringing together the ecological crisis and the economic crisis. I see climate change as the ultimate expression of the violence of capitalism: this economic model that fetishizes greed above all else is not just making lives miserable in the short term, it is on the road to making the planet uninhabitable in the medium term. And we know, scientifically, that if we continue with business as usual, that is the future we are heading towards. I think climate change is the strongest argument we’ve ever had against corporate capitalism, as well as the strongest argument we’ve ever had for the need for alternatives to it. And the science puts us on a deadline: we need to have begun to radically reduce our emissions by the end of the decade, and that means starting now. I think that this science-based deadline has to be part of every discussion about what we’re going to do next, because we actually don’t have all the time in the world.

We should also be aware that this kind of existential urgency could be a very regressive force if the wrong people harness it. It’s easy to imagine autocrats using the climate emergency to sa, “We don’t have time for democracy or participation, we need to impose it all from the top.” Right now, the way the urgency is used within the mainstream environmental movement is to say, “This problem is so urgent that we can only ask for these compromised cap-and-trade deals, since that’s all we can hope to achieve politically.” Talking about the links between economic growth and climate change is pretty much off the table because, supposedly, we don’t have time to make those kinds of deep changes.

But that was a pre-OWS political calculation. And as you pointed out, OWS is in the business of changing what is possible. So what I’ve been saying when I speak to environmental groups is: start to imagine what would be possible if the climate movement were not out there on its own but part of a much broader political uprising fighting a greed-based economic model. Because in that context, it is practical to talk about changing this system. It’s much more practical, in fact, than pushing corrupt plans like cap-and-trade, which we know don’t stand a chance of getting us where science tells us we need to go.

I’m also excited about the fact that, over the past ten years since the peak of the so-called anti-globalization movement, a lot of work has been done that proves that economic re-localization and economic democracy are both feasible and desirable. Look at the explosion of the local food movement, of community-supported agriculture and farmers markets. Or the green co-op movement. Or community-based wind and solar energy projects. And then you have cities like Detroit, Portland or Bellingham, which are working on multiple fronts to re-localize their economies. The point is that there are living examples that we can point to now of communities that have weathered the economic crisis better than those places that are still dependent on a few large multinational corporations, and could just be leveled overnight when those corporations shut their doors. Most importantly: many of these models address both the economic and ecological crises simultaneously, creating work, rebuilding community, while lowering emissions and reducing dependence on fossil fuels.

Coming back to the idea of resistance and alternatives being the twin strands of DNA, I see a possible future where the resistance side of OWS could start to support the policies these economic alternatives need to get to the next level.

So, yeah, that’s where I see a lot of potential—both potential strength and also potential loss, lost opportunities. You?
YM: I think there is more possibility right now than I could have ever imagined. I think in the not-so-distant future, we can win a lot of things that actually improve people’s lives, we can continue to change the political landscape, and we can grow into a mass movement with the strength to propose another kind of world and also fight for it. I think we’re only in the beginning of that, and I think there is a ton of potential. And I also see that kind of possibility in the long term. I think we can win a truly free society. I think it’s totally possible to have a political and economic system that we have a genuine say in, that we democratically control, that we participate in, that is equitable and liberating, where we have autonomy for ourselves and our communities and our families, but are also in solidarity with one another. I think it’s possible, and necessary. That’s kind of the amazing thing about this moment and this movement, I guess. Right now, sitting here, I can’t even imagine the limits of possibility.

This piece first appeared in The Nation.

From Davos to Dystopia

2012-01-21T21:34:00.001+07:00

Not long ago the World Economic Forum (WEF) found itself in the sights of the global economic justice movement. At the turn of the last century, before anyone was “occupying” public spaces in protest at the growing inequalities between the top strata of society and the rest, a broad global coalition of environment, development, and peace activists were targeting the public meetings of major institutions such as the WTO, the IMF, and the G8

By Ben Zala | Foreign Policy in Focus | January 19, 2012

World Economic Forum in Davos

In September 2000, activists shut down the opening of the WEF’s Asia-Pacific Summit in Melbourne, Australia in protest against an unrepresentative and unaccountable elite gathering to set the economic agenda for the year in a region marked by enormously uneven income distribution.

A mere 12 years later, in an intriguing reversal, the WEF has released a new report calling for a “shift in mentality” to address a looming crisis typified by rebellion, protest, and political violence sparked by inequality and marginalisation across the world. The seventh edition of the organization’s Global Risks report highlights the increasing importance of marginalization as a security issue over the coming decades. It describes the “seeds of dystopia” threatening both social and political stability across the world.

“As the world grows increasingly complex and interdependent, the capacity to manage the systems that underpin our prosperity and safety is diminishing,” the report declares. This conclusion presents perhaps the most radical call to arms from what would normally be considered a key player of the global political “establishment,”

After decades of entrenched poverty, massive debt and struggling against an unfair global trading system, those who languish on the margins of the global communityare in revolt. Yet our existing frameworks and reference points for building a response to this sort of global insecurity provide little assistance. To put it simply, Washington, Brussels, even Beijing and New Delhi have been caught off guard. The time for some radical thinking is upon us. That such calls are now coming from one of the engine rooms of neoliberal economics is a sign that we may be reaching a tipping point.

Revolt of the Masses

A number of actors in the defense and security realm have begun to explicitly make the connection between marginalization and insecurity. For example the U.S. National Intelligence Council’s Global Trends: 2025 report predicts that in the years ahead “increasing interconnectedness will enable individuals to coalesce around common causes across national boundaries, creating new cohorts of the angry, downtrodden, and disenfranchised.” Similarly, the chief of the UK Defence Force, General Sir David Richards has discussed the Naxalite insurgency that has spread rapidly across India in recent years as a conflict with a “sense of hopelessness and economic envy at its core.” The effects are no longer merely local. Richards warns that “these are powerful instincts that today can be inflamed and communicated to other similarly dispossessed groups across the world at the touch of a button.”

Yet, thus far, the guardians of the global economic order have not begun to think through the long-term and serious consequences for peace and security of prolonged inaction on global inequality. This new analysis of the risks associated with the “seeds of dystopia” in the WEF report could be Davos finally catching up.

The WEF describes dystopia as “a place where life is full of hardship and devoid of hope.” The reality is that after years of unequal growth and a growing divide between elites and non-elites both between and within countries, this description has become a reality for the majority of the world’s population. The neoliberal economic consensus which has dominated the WEF’s own discussions for so long has finally come up against the long-term consequences of a global free market unable to effectively price externalities (be they social, environmental or even now, strategic).

The report’s analysis of the interconnections between a number of risks reveals “a constellation of fiscal, demographic and societal risks signalling a dystopian future for much of humanity.” This echoes the work a number of more progressive and forward-looking think tanks such as the Oxford Research Group,Institute for Policy Studies, and the Center for American Progress over the last few years. These groups have focused not only on large-scale trends affecting global politics but also on the ways in which these trends interact and the implications for policymakers trying to make sense of a more complex world. For example, dealing with a growing division between elites and non-elites on a global scale is difficult enough without the effects of a warming global climate. As The Nation’s Christian Parenti puts it:

Between the Tropic of Capricorn and the Tropic of Cancer lies what I call the Tropic of Chaos, a belt of economically and politically battered post-colonial states girding the planet’s mid-latitudes. In this band, around the tropics, climate change is beginning to hit hard…as a result, in this belt we find clustered most of the failed and semifailed states of the developing world.

Yet the risks are not just confined to the developing world. The WEF report warns that this dystopian future could extend to “developed economies where citizens lament the loss of social entitlements, emerging economies that fail to provide opportunities for their young population or to redress rising inequalities, or least-developed economies where wealth and social gains are declining.”

The report is part of a growing awareness of the linkages between events and flashpoints such as the Arab Spring, the Occupy movements worldwide, and civil unrest in countries from Thailand and Chile to Israel and India. The link, according to the report, is a common and “growing frustration among citizens with the political and economic establishment, and the rapid public mobilization enabled by greater technological connectivity.” This frustration and resulting mobilization together create a much larger global trend. As such, ad-hoc national approaches are no longer sufficient for genuinely addressing the challenges of a marginalized majority world.

Beyond Davos

It is one thing to examine a number of interlinked global trends which add up to a dangerous – or dystopian – global picture. It is quite another to have the courage to genuinely rethink the foundations of the global order that has produced them. Unfortunately there are no easy answers to the question of how to reverse these trends, particularly at a time of truly global economic crisis when the temptations of short-term, voter-friendly fixes are sotempting.

This makes the potential role of organizations such as the WEF aimed at promoting dialogue and leadership even more important if used in the right way. A summit focused not on growth and competitiveness but on practical steps on issues such as debt reduction and institutional reform would be a good first start. Central to this must be real attempts to tackle the seeds of dystopia at their source – even if this means asking difficult questions and hearing uncomfortable answers in the major financial capitals of the world.

If the dominant response to the risks outlined in the WEF report follows the formula of the last decade’s ‘war on terror’-- attempts to control insecurity through the use of high-tech military power -- then we best get used to living in a dystopian world. If however, global leaders and the citizens they represent can create responses that are aimed at addressing the underlying drivers of disenfranchisement and violence, then 2012 could be seen as the year that gives rise to a truly sustainable security. Then, when the powerful meet in Davos, they won’t simply be trying to save the old order but working cooperatively to create the new.

This work by Institute for Policy Studies is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 United States License.

Indonesia to set aside 45% of Kalimantan for conservation

2012-01-21T17:16:00.001+07:00

Indonesian President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono (SBY) on Thursday announced a regulation that would protect 45 percent of Kalimantan, the Indonesian part of Borneo, according to a statement issued by his office

mongabay.com | January 19, 2012

Rainforest in West Kalimantan

The regulation, which was issued January 5, aims to promote sustainable use of the natural resources of Kalimantan, and while light on details is ambitious in its goals, which include preservation of biodiversity and maintenance of ecosystem services; energy independence, including oil, gas, and coal development; sustainable oil palm and rubber plantations; expansion of ecotourism; improved transportation networks; and food self-sufficiency.

On the conservation front, the regulation calls for a network of conservation areas linked by ecosystem corridors and new efforts to limit expansion of monoculture plantations into protected zones. It seeks restoration and rehabilitation of degraded ecosystems, although it doesn't specify what ecosystems will be protected.

Area deforested for oil palm in Central Kalimantan, Indonesia's pilot province for its REDD program. Photo by Rhett A. Butler.

But as noted inThe Jakarta Globe, the conservation target may be difficult to achieve given the current state of Kalimatan's forests and seemingly conflicting goals of the regulation.

"It is unclear how this plan will fit in with a government push to see Kalimantan become self-sufficient in energy and a national energy producer by 2025," wrote Fidelis Satriastanti ofThe Jakarta Globe.

Deddy Ratih of the Indonesian Forum for the Environment (Walhi) told Satriastanti that "real forests" only cover 30 percent of Kalimantan, a fact that isn't acknowledged by the central government. Furthermore, some of the authority necessary to implement the regular lies in the hands of local governments, which doesn't always go along with central government pronouncements. For example district heads have the power to issue mining and plantation permits, while the Ministry of Forestry controls logging concessions.

Nevertheless, the emphasis on the conservation elements of the regulation reflect the Indonesian President's increasingly vocal support for reducing deforestation and promoting greener development through his 7/26 plan which aims to grow the Indonesian economy by seven percent annually while reducing emissions 26 percent from a projected 2020 baseline. Roughly 80 percent of Indonesia's emissions result from deforestation, forest degradation through logging, and peatlands loss.

Last year President SBY vowed to dedicate the rest of his term to protecting forests. He also issued an instruction banning new concessions in primary forest areas and peatlands, although that regulation was substantially weakened by interests in the forestry sector, which have fought reform efforts.

Copyright mongabay 2010

FAO-EC project to promote climate-smart farming

2012-01-21T17:06:00.001+07:00

Malawi, Vietnam and Zambia will benefit from collaborative effort

FAO | 16 January 2012

Farmers participating in an FAO land and water management project in Guthi, India, check a new drip irrigation system

FAO and the European Commission announced today a new €5.3 million project aimed at helping Malawi, Vietnam and Zambia transition to a "climate-smart" approach to agriculture.

Agriculture — and the communities who depend on it for their livelihoods and food security — are highly vulnerable to climate change impacts. At the same time agriculture, as a significant producer of greenhouse gases, contributes to global warming.
"Climate-smart agriculture" is an approach that seeks to position the agricultural sector as a solution to these major challenges.

It involves making changes in farming systems that achieve multiple goals: improving their contribution to the fight against hunger and poverty; rendering them more resilient to climate change; reducing emissions; and increasing agriculture's potential to capture and sequester atmospheric carbon.

"We need to start putting climate-smart agriculture into practice, working closely with farmers and their communities," said FAO Assistant Director-General for the Economic and Social Development Department, Hafez Ghanem. "But there are no one-size-fits-all solutions — better climate-smart farming practices need to respond to different local conditions, to geography, weather and the natural resource base," he added.

"This project will look closely at three countries and identify challenges and opportunities for climate-smart agriculture and produce strategic plans tailored to each country's own reality," Ghanem said. "While not all solutions identified will be universally applicable, we can learn a lot about how countries could take similar steps and begin shifting to this approach to agriculture."
Tailor-made solutions

The EU is providing €3.3 million to support the effort; FAO's contribution is €2 million.

Working closely with agriculture and other ministries in each of the partner countries, and collaborating with local and international organizations, the three-year project will:

Identify country-specific opportunities for expansion of existing climate-smart practices or implementation of new ones
Study the constraints that need to be overcome to promote wider adoption of climate-smart agriculture, including investment costs
Promote integration of national climate change and agricultural strategies to support the implementation of climate-smart agriculture
Identify innovative mechanisms for linking climate finance with climate-smart agriculture investments
Build capacity for planning and implementing climate-smart projects capable of attracting international investments

FAO will take the overall lead on the project, working in partnership with national policy and research institutions, as well as global organizations such as the Global Crop Diversity Trust.

By tackling the urgent need to incorporate climate change concerns into agricultural development planning, this new project represents a concrete step forward, said Ghanem. "The problems of climate change are increasingly being felt on the ground, and thus early actions to address the problem are needed, even as international negotiations continue in the search for a global climate agreement," he said.

© FAO, 2012

Fossil fuel subsidies: a tour of the data

2012-01-21T17:02:00.001+07:00

Fossil fuels are subsidised in much of the world, causing billions of tonnes of addition CO2 emissions

by Duncan Clark | guardian.co.uk | 19 January 2012

Fossil fuels are subsidised in much of the world, causing billions of tonnes of addition CO2 emissions. Photograph: AFP/Getty Images

• Fatih Birol says ending fossil fuel subsidies could provide half the answer to solving climate change

One of the most surprising and alarming issues in the climate and energy arena is the fact that the fossil fuels causing global warming continue to receive substantial government support, making them artificially cheap and encouraging more of them to be consumed. It's a form of madness that my colleague Damian Carrington put his finger on recently when he wrote that "the house is ablaze and we are throwing bucket after bucket at it – buckets of petrol."

What's particularly baffling is that while government support given to environmentally beneficial renewable power sources is subject toseemingly endless media and political scrutiny, the 500% larger subsidies given to oil, gas and (to a much lesser extent) coal rarely get much attention.

In case that 500% figure sounds hard to believe, here's a chart showing the IEA's estimate of all the energy subsidies given out globally over the last few years. As it makes clear, fossil fuels – and specifically oil and gas – account for the overwhelming majority.

It's worth pausing for a moment to take in the sheer amount of money we're talking about here: more than half a trillion dollars in 2008 (when energy prices hit record highs), equivalent to the total GDP of Sweden or Saudi Arabia. The figure was lower in 2010, but so far there's no obvious sign of a downward trend, seemingly because reductions in subsidies in some countries have been offset by rising energy prices, which can ratchet up the cost of the remaining subsidy schemes.

So where and how are all these fuel subsidies dished up? There are two main source of data: the IEA and the OECD. Let's look first at the IEA's analysis, which focuses on the more obvious type of subsidy: government policies designed directly to hold the end price of fossil fuels below the cost of supply. The bulk of these "consumption subsidies" are given out in developing and transitional economies. Here are the top 15 nations by total spend. (You can also see the data on a map if you prefer.)

One thing that's immediately striking here is that consumption subsidies tend to be biggest in nations that export a lot of fossil fuels, whether it's Saudi oil or Russian gas. According to the IEA's Fatih Birol, this is because countries such as these see fuel subsidies as a way to "share out" the benefits of energy exports among their population.

One rationale for subsidising fossil fuels is to help lift poorer members of society out of energy poverty. However, IEA data suggest that the poor receive a disproportionately small amount of the benefits. As the following chart shows, in most cases the poorest 20% of the population typically receive only around 5–10% of the benefits of the subsidies, suggesting that if the policies are designed for poverty alleviation, then they're not working properly.

So what would happen if all these subsidies were phased out? According to the IEA's models, we'd see a massive reduction in global fossil fuel use:

This in turn would lead to a huge reduction in greenhouse gas emissions. The following chart shows the IEA's estimated annual carbon cuts in 2015, 2020 and 2035 relative to a world in which the subsidy regime was left in place. Of course, models aren't infallible and these figures are necessarily based on a whole set of assumptions about the future, but nonetheless the numbers are strikingly huge. By 2035, the expected savings add up to 2.6bn tonnes of CO2. (To give a sense of quite how much carbon that is, I've put current total EU emissions on the graph for comparison.) According to IEA estimates, that kind of cut would be sufficient to provide around half the savings needed to limit global warming to 2C.

Clearly, then, if we're to have any chance of solving climate change, fossil fuel subsidies need to go. The case for urgently scrapping them seems particularly strong in countries such as Russia and Saudi Arabia where per capita carbon footprints are already higher than the global average.

Things feel less black and white in the case of poorer countries, purely because in a world where rich nations have done relatively little to cut their own emissions, it's difficult to see how they – or the international agencies they dominate – have the moral authority to demand an end to fuel subsidies in, say, India or Nigeria, where the average person has a footprint 20–40 times smaller than the typical American. This is especially true given that fossil fuel companies in rich countries still receive indirect support through a myriad of mechanisms such as tax credits and government underwriting of corporate risk.

The OECD identified a remarkable 250 such mechanisms in its heroically comprehensive inventory of estimated budgetary support and tax expenditures for fossil fuels. Exactly which of these counts as subsidies as such is open to debate, but by the OCED's reckoning the total value of government support to fossil fuel companies in its member countries is $45–75bn. I suspect that the sooner we in the developed world ditch these kinds of indirect subsidies, the sooner the rest of the world will be likely to agree to ditch their much larger direct ones.

It won't be easy, of course – not least because of the powerful influence of the fossil-fuel lobbying machine. I don't know of any good global data about the relative size of the fossil fuel and renewables lobbies, but where figures are available, the hydrocarbon brigade massively outspend those pushing for clean energy – by a factor of 12 in the US, according to one estimate.

But do it we must, because on a planet staring devastating climate change in the face, spending tax-payers' money on propping up fossil fuels really is as crazy as throwing buckets of petrol on a house fire.

Get the data

DATA: download the data as a spreadsheet

© 2012 Guardian News and Media Limited or its affiliated companies. All rights reserved

Greedy Lying Bastards: US filmmaker attacks oil industry

2012-01-21T16:53:00.000+07:00

Craig Rosebraugh's new documentary highlights the 'influence, deceit and corruption' of fossil fuel industry

by Leo Hickman | guardian.co.uk | 20 January 2012

Provocative, frank and impossible to ignore. And that's just the title

Craig Rosebraugh, a US filmmaker and political activist, has produced a feature-length documentary that demands to be seen. Greedy Lying Bastards is still awaiting a firm release date – sometime in 2012 is the current promise – but, if the trailer and impressive roster of interviewees are anything to go by, it's likely to cause quite a stir.

Filmed over the past two years and across nine countries, Greedy Lying Bastards claims to be a "searing indictment of the influence, deceit and corruption that defines the fossil fuel industry":

Rosebraugh documents the impact of an industry that puts profits before people, wages a campaign of lies to thwart measures to combat climate change, uses its clout to minimize infringing regulations and undermined the political process in the U.S. and abroad…By interweaving the stories of the victims of the Gulf oil spill and the global climate crisis, he lays bare the industry's deliberate pattern of irresponsibility. And, while oil companies worldwide exert influence over policies that will protect their revenues, those who speak out against the industry's reckless practices risk their livelihoods, and in some instances, their lives.

Rosebraugh's position is abundantly clear: he is aiming hard and fast at the oil industry and the network of influence that does its bidding. But, despite all the polemic and editorialising, it would appear that he has gone to some lengths to include a wide range of voices in the documentary:

"Greedy Lying Bastards" details the people and organizations casting doubt on climate science and claiming that greenhouse gases are not affected by human behavior and includes interviews with scientists, industry experts, international political delegates, climate change victims as well as deniers, and people affected by the practices of the fossil fuel industry. Among them: UN Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon; Rep. Henry Waxman; former EPA head Christine Todd Whitman; leading climate science skeptics Myron Ebell, Christopher Lord Monckton, and Jay Lehr; Ken Wiwa, the son of the slain Nigerian environmentalist; farmers in Peru and Uganda; and Mike Robichaux, one of the few doctors willing to treat Gulf residents sick with chemical poisoning from the BP spill, Republican Presidential candidates, Texas governor Rick Perry and Minnesota representative Michele Bachman, as well as other prominent politicians like Senator James Inhofe, from oil-rich Oklahoma.

It was announced this week that the composer Michael Brook – who scored Al Gore's An Inconvenient Truth - has signed up to pen the music for the film. And in recent weeks, the Greedy Lying Bastards YouTube page has started to host short extracts from some of the film's interviewees. The most viewed – somewhat inevitably given the hero worship he attracts online – is Noam Chomsky.

Noam Chomsky in Greedy Lying Bastard

But there are many other interesting contributions, too. For example, here are the thoughts of Pieter Tans, a senior scientist at the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, on why climate sceptics behave more like lawyers than scientists.

Pieter Tans, a senior scientist at NOAA

And here's Jacqueline McGlade, director of the European Environmental Agency, on how she responds to climate sceptics.

Jacqueline McGlade, director of the EEA

As yet, there are no video extracts on the YouTube page from any of the climate sceptics interviewed for the film, but the film's Twitter accountshows that Ian Plimer and Lord Monckton, as well as representatives from US thinktanks which routinely disseminate doubts about climate science, are among those who have been interviewed.

It will be interesting to see what they were asked, how they responded and how the interviews have been edited and incorporated into the film, not to mention how the oil industry responds to being labelled "greedy lying bastards".

© 2012 Guardian News and Media Limited or its affiliated companies. All rights reserved

UK 'subsidising nuclear power unlawfully'

2012-01-21T16:35:00.001+07:00

Green energy campaigners are attempting to block new nuclear power stations in the UK by complaining to the European Commission that government plans contravene EU competition regulations

By Richard Black | BBC News | 20 January 2012

The Fukushima accident illustrates why governments pick up the bills for nuclear disaster

They say financial rules for nuclear operators include subsidies that have not been approved by the commission.

These include capping of liability for accidents, which they say at least halves the cost of nuclear electricity.

The government says it is confident that policies do not provide subsidies.

The complaint, by the Energy Fair group, also says that the UK's carbon floor price and feed-in tarriffs amount to state aid for the nuclear industry.

“It's clear that this is a subsidy by another name”

Caroline Lucas MP Energy Fair

State coffers would also have to meet cost overruns on nuclear waste disposal, they argue.

Dorte Fouquet of the German legal firm BBH, who drew up the complaint, said that EU energy policy was based on having an open market with a level playing field.

"The commission has repeatedly underlined that distortion of the market is to a large extent caused by subsidies to the incumbents in the energy sector," she said.

"This complaint aims to shed some light on the recent shift in the energy policy of the United Kingdom where strong signals point to yet another set of subsidies to the nuclear power plant operators."

Last year, a committee of UK MPs also said that the government was subsidising nuclear power, despite promises that it would not.

It sees the construction of about eight new reactors within a decade as essential for meeting climate change and energy security goals.

Underwritten

Although most of the complaint concerns the UK, some of its ingredients would apply to other EU nations as well, especially the capping of nuclear liability.

The US is another country contemplating a nuclear renaissance, with government support

Estimates prepared for Energy Fair suggest that if operators had to buy insurance at the market rate, that would add at least 14 euro cents (12p) to the price of one kilowatt-hour (kWh) of electricity - and potentially 20 times that figure.

With electricity in the UK retailing around 12p/kWh, that would mean at least a doubling of the price.

Campaigners have repeatedly said down the years that all nuclear programmes are in fact underwritten by the state whether they are government-owned or private, because the clean-up costs from major accidents are enormous and the companies involved are considered "too big to fail".

Current UK proposals call for the operator to be liable for the first £1bn of cost from any accident.

This is about a seven-fold increase on previous levels, but still a long way below the costs of a disaster such as the one that befell the Fukushima Daiichi plant in Japan last year.

That has left the plant's owners, the Tokyo Electric Power Company (Tepco), facing a bill of multiple billions of dollars and reliant on state support - and perhaps eventual state ownership - to survive.

From a uniquely UK perspective, Fair Energy is focussing on elements of the Electricity Market Reform package that the Department of Energy and Climate Change (Decc) released last year.

"The introduction of a carbon price floor is likely to result in huge windfall handouts of around £50m a year to existing nuclear generators," said Caroline Lucas MP, leader of the UK Green Party.

"Despite persistent denials by ministers, it's clear that this is a subsidy by another name, which makes a mockery of the Coalition pledge not to gift public money to this already established industry."

A Decc spokesman said the government's policy of no subsidies for nuclear, established in 2010, still stood.

"We are confident that our proposals to reform the electricity market to incentivise all low carbon generation are entirely consistent with that policy of no subsidy," he said.

The European Commission could take up to 18 months to consider the complaint. A finding in Fair Energy's favour could potentially derail the UK's nuclear expansion plans - and those of other countries.

BBC © 2012

Gas no good to bridge coal and renewables, says study

2012-01-21T16:29:00.000+07:00

The amount of greenhouse gases released by unconventional gas drilling ''exceeds that of oil or coal'', an American study says in contradiction of some claims made by Australia's growing coal-seam gas industry

Ben Cubby | Sydney Morning Herald | January 21, 2012

Cornell University researchers analysed the volume of methane leaking from shale-gas wells in the US and concluded that using more gas would make climate change worse, rather than better.

The credibility of the study, to be published in the peer-reviewed Climatic Change, has been questioned by some American researchers and the Australian Petroleum Production and Exploration Association (APPEA), the industry body for coal-seam gas companies.

Advertisement: Story continues below

The authors said their findings undercut the idea that gas was a suitable low-emission ''bridging fuel'' between coal-fired electricity generation and large-scale renewable energy.

''We believe the preponderance of evidence indicates shale gas has a larger greenhouse-gas footprint than conventional gas, considered over any time scale,'' two of the authors, Robert Howarth and David Atkinson, said.

''The greenhouse-gas footprint of shale gas also exceeds that of oil or coal when considered at decadal time scales, no matter how the gas is used.''

They said the ''footprint of shale gas undercuts the logic of its use as a bridging fuel over coming decades, if the goal is to reduce global warming."

Part of the problem, they argue, is that methane is a far more potent heat-trapping gas than carbon dioxide, even though it does not last for as long in the atmosphere.

Over 20 years, the damage from methane thoroughly outstrips that of carbon dioxide. The United Nations considers the next two decades as the crucial period for reducing greenhouse gas emissions.

US shale gas is different from Australian coal-seam gas, being extracted from much shallower rock strata, although many of the technical challenges to preventing leakages are similar here.

The study follows similar findings by the same researchers last April. However, another Cornell University researcher, Lawrence Cathles, said the estimates for the amount of methane leaking from shale-gas wells was ''way too high''.

The APPEA's chief operating officer for eastern Australia, Rick Wilkinson, said the data was wrong. Emissions from coal-seam gas were up to 70 per cent lower than from brown coal.

''I expect that just as Howarth's last work in this field was discredited and disregarded by his peers and experts in this field … this, too, will come to be seen as a piece of activist science from an academic whose biography states, 'My training was in oceanography, and much of my research still focuses on coastal marine ecosystems,''' Mr Wilkinson said.

''Even if it was credible research, it has little or no relevance to the Australian CSG [coal-seam gas] sector due to the operational, geological and regulatory differences which exist.''

The APPEA said that coal-seam gas exported to China reduced emissions by up to 87 per cent compared to a similar amount of coal. It said it no longer regarded gas as a transitional fuel, useful until large-scale renewable power was cheap enough to fully replace coal.

''We see gas as an enduring, not a transitional, source of energy," Mr Wilkinson said.

The Department of Climate Change and Energy Efficiency did not respond to the Herald's questions about its methodology for measuring emissions from coal seam gas projects.

The federal government has previously told the newspaper that its parameters for measuring greenhouse emissions from gas drilling operations were updated every year, in consultation with the industry.

New US guidelines used in the latest Cornell study, and adopted by the US Environmental Protection Agency, are still being considered by the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change, which is expected to make a decision this year on how greenhouse emissions from gas drilling should be measured.

Copyright © 2012 Fairfax Media

Exxon Mobil to Pay $1.6 Million in Penalties for Yellowstone River Oil Spill

2012-01-21T16:24:00.001+07:00

Exxon Mobil has reached an agreement with the Montana Department of Environmental Quality to pay $1.6 million in penalties over the Yellowstone River oil spill, according to the Associated Press

Rachel Bogart | Yahoo! News | Jan 2, 2012

The agreement specifically details that the oil company will spend $1.3 million on future environmental projects, pay $300,000 in cash, and reimburse state agencies for $760,000 in emergency response costs. The penalty is the largest in the history of the agency.

With this landmark decision, here are some facts and information about the Yellowstone River oil spill and the following events leading up to Thursday's announcement:

* KTVQ Billings reported that the spill occurred on the night of Friday, July 1, 2011, after an underground line underneath the Yellowstone River broke and the initial spill estimates were 750 to 1,000 barrels.

* In less than 24 hours, the unrefined crude oil had spread from the town of Laurel, Mont., to Hysham, a town about 100 miles east.

* CNN added that the about 200 residents were evacuated after the oil company reported the spill but were allowed back to their homes the following morning.

* Ecological concerns have also been raised since the river is home to trout and helps provide habitat and food for geese, otters, and bald eagles, all of which could be at risk for ingesting toxins.

* Cleanup efforts included utilizing 48,000 feet of absorbent boom, 2,300 absorbent pads, and vacuum trucks and tankers.

* In light of the $1.6 million agreement, Exxon Mobil increased its estimate of the total number of crude oil spilled by 50 percent from the earlier estimate of 1,000 barrels to at least 1,509 barrels, according to the Billings Gazette.

* Gov. Brian Schweitzer had disputed with Exxon, saying that the 1,000-barrel estimate was too low and, in addition, only about 10 barrels of crude oil were recovered by cleanup crews.

* The New York Times reported that 10 days into the spill, Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) testing showed that air and drinking water quality did not pose safety risks.

* During the time of the spill, raging flood waters prevent water tested and the EPA was unable to proceed until flood waters receded.

* In October, eight landowners filed a lawsuit against Exxon seeking unspecified damages for harm to their property and businesses as a result of the oil spill, reported the Associated Press.

* The rupture happened in a pipeline buried 5 to 7 feet below the river and since the burst, a 12-inch pipeline was been reburied about 60 to 70 below the river and oil transport has resumed.

Rachel Bogart provides an in-depth look at current environmental issues and local Chicago news stories. As a college student from the Chicago suburbs pursuing two science degrees, she applies her knowledge and passion to both topics to garner further public awareness.

Copyright © 2012 Yahoo! Inc. All rights reserved

Rejecting Pipeline Proposal, Obama Blames Congress

2012-01-20T23:21:00.001+07:00

President Obama on Wednesday rejected, for now, the proposed Keystone XL oil pipeline, saying the $7 billion project could not be adequately reviewed within the 60-day deadline set by Congress. While the president’s action does not preclude later approval of the project, it sets up a baldly partisan fight over energy, jobs and regulation that will most likely persist through the November election

By JOHN M. BRODER and DAN FROSCH | The New York Times | January 18, 2012

House Republican leaders — Jeb Hensarling, Eric Cantor and Speaker John A. Boehner — said the decision would cost thousands of jobs. Stephen Crowley/The New York Times

The president said his hand had been forced by Republicans in Congress, who inserted a provision in the temporary payroll tax cut bill passed in December giving the administration only until Feb. 21 to decide the fate of the 1,700-mile pipeline, which would stretch from oil sands formations in Alberta to refineries on the Gulf Coast.

The State Department, which has authority over the project because it crosses an international border, said there was not enough time to draw a new route for the pipeline and assess the potential environmental harm to sensitive grasslands and aquifers along its path. The agency recommended that the permit be denied, and Mr. Obama concurred.

“As the State Department made clear last month,” the president said in a statement, “the rushed and arbitrary deadline insisted on by Congressional Republicans prevented a full assessment of the pipeline’s impact, especially the health and safety of the American people, as well as our environment.”

Mr. Obama said that his action was not a final judgment on the merits of the project, which the administration had been on a slow track to approving.

“I’m disappointed that Republicans in Congress forced this decision, but it does not change my administration’s commitment to American-made energy that creates jobs and reduces our dependence on oil,” he said.

He added that he would work with the oil industry to increase domestic production and perhaps build additional pipelines within the United States.

The trans-border pipeline has become a political flashpoint, with proponents saying it will create thousands of jobs and help wean the nation off of Middle Eastern oil, while opponents charge that it furthers dependence on dirty fuels, contributes to global warming and threatens ecological disaster.

Canada’s prime minister, Stephen Harper, who has been a strong advocate of the pipeline, told Mr. Obama in a telephone conversation on Wednesday that he was profoundly disappointed in the decision.

The White House spokesman, Jay Carney, at a briefing with reporters on Wednesday before the State Department released its announcement, was sharply critical of the Republican-sponsored legislation that he said had forced a decision before the project could be fully studied and might have unwittingly delayed it.

Brendan Buck, the spokesman for Speaker John A. Boehner said: “President Obama is about to destroy tens of thousands of American jobs and sell American energy security to the Chinese. The president won’t stand up to his political base even to create American jobs. This is not the end of this fight.”

The Republican presidential candidates have already made clear that they intend to use the Keystone issue to portray the Obama administration as an enemy of business that is doing the bidding of extreme environmentalists. The pipeline issue has also become part of a broader narrative that the Republican candidates are trying to develop about Mr. Obama, one that argues that his administration is vastly expanding regulation in ways that prevent private industries from expanding and hiring.

Mitt Romney, a former Massachusetts governor, criticized the decision in a statement.

“President Obama’s decision to reject the Keystone XL crude oil pipeline is as shocking as it is revealing,” Mr. Romney said. “If Americans want to understand why unemployment in the United States has been stuck above 8 percent for the longest stretch since the Great Depression, decisions like this one are the place to begin.

“By declaring that the Keystone pipeline is not in the ‘national interest,’ the president demonstrates a lack of seriousness about bringing down unemployment, restoring economic growth and achieving energy independence.”

On the stump and in debates, the Republican candidates have been using the possibility that Mr. Obama would block the pipeline construction as a reliable applause line about what they view as overregulation that is strangling the economic recovery.

At an event in Ottumwa, Iowa, on Dec. 31, Rick Santorum mocked the idea that the pipeline posed the threat of environmental damage, noting that there were already many other pipelines in the area it would go through. “This is just, again, pandering to radical environmentalists who don’t want energy production, who don’t want us to burn more carbon,” Mr. Santorum said.

TransCanada, the company proposing to build the pipeline, said that it would quickly apply for a new permit to build along a similar route.

“While we are disappointed, TransCanada remains fully committed to the construction of Keystone XL,” said Russ K. Girling, the company’s chief executive. “Plans are already under way on a number of fronts to largely maintain the construction schedule of the project. We will reapply for a presidential permit and expect a new application would be processed in an expedited manner to allow for an in-service date of late 2014.”

Kerri-Ann Jones, the assistant secretary of state for oceans and international environmental and scientific affairs, said Wednesday that any new application filed by TransCanada would trigger an entirely fresh review process, no matter how similar the pipeline route, and that the process could not be “expedited” as TransCanada hoped.

The American Petroleum Institute, the industry’s main lobbying group, has begun a multimillion-dollar lobbying and advertising campaign promoting the pipeline.

Jack N. Gerard, the group’s president, was unusually harsh in his remarks on Mr. Obama’s decision.

“How can you say you are for jobs and reject the largest shovel-ready project in America today?” Mr. Gerard said at an energy forum on Wednesday afternoon. “Mr. President, what are you thinking?”

The pipeline extension was designed to increase Canadian oil exports to the United States by 700,000 barrels a day, or about 4 percent of current United States demand. By connecting the oil sands to refineries on the Gulf Coast, it would provide new supplies to big East Coast markets. The pipeline, at least theoretically, could also increase exports of refined gasoline and diesel for export, especially to Mexico.

Canada has the world’s second-largest proven oil reserves after Saudi Arabia, with 170 billion out of its 174 billion barrels residing in oil sands in the West, according to the Canadian government.

John M. Broder reported from Washington, and Dan Frosch from Denver. Ian Austen contributed reporting from Ottawa, and Clifford Krauss from Houston.

© 2012 The New York Times Company

Rainforest in Transition: Is the Amazon Transforming before Our Eyes?

2012-01-20T23:12:00.001+07:00

A review suggests that the Amazon rainforest may be changing, courtesy of human impacts on the region's weather

By David Biello | Scientific American | January 18, 2012

RAINFOREST TO PASTURE: Deforestation, among other human impacts such as climate change, are having a rainforest-wide impact on the Amazon.Image: Courtesy of Compton Tucker, NASA GSFC

The Amazon rainforest is in flux, thanks to agricultural expansion and climate change. In other words, humans have "become important agents of disturbance in the Amazon Basin," as an international consortium of scientists wrote in a review of the state of the science on the world's largest rainforest published in Nature on January 19. (Scientific American is part of Nature Publishing Group.) The dry season is growing longer in areas where humans have been clearing the trees—as has waterdischarge from Amazon River tributaries in those regions. Multiyear and more frequent severe droughts, like those in 2005 and 2010, are killing trees that humans don't cut down as well as increasing the risks of more common fires (both man-made and otherwise).

The trees are also growing fast—faster than expected for a "mature" rainforest—according to a network of measurements.

The exact cause or causes of this accelerated growth—which means the Amazon's 5 million square kilometers of trees are now sucking in and sequestering some 400 million metric tons of carbon per year, or enough to offset the annual greenhouse gas emissions of Japan—"remains unknown," the researchers wrote in the review.

"When we measure that a particular stand of mature forest is accumulating carbon, it is difficult to say whether that might be due to recovery from some unrecognized disturbance long ago or whether it is due to more recent changes in climate and CO2," explained Woods Hole Research Center Senior Scientist and Executive Director Eric Davidson, lead author of the review, in an e-mail. Candidates include recovery from the potential wide-scale disturbance by pre-Columbian human societies now beginning to be uncovered or the increasing availability of some formerly limiting factor, such as atmospheric carbon dioxide.

In fact, increasing levels of CO2 in the atmosphere—now roughly 392 parts per million and rising—may be fertilizing the rainforest and preventing even greater impacts from reduced rainfall, although this question, Davidson and his colleagues wrote in the review, "may be one of the largest unknowns for the future of the Amazon forests."

What is known is that the forest clearing that has already gone on is decreasing forest rainfall. The Amazon produces roughly a third of its own precipitation—trees release moist air that then falls back as rain to nourish other trees (the rest comes from the Atlantic Ocean). But the air above cleared land warms faster and therefore rises more quickly, drawing the moist air from surrounding forested areas away. In fact, the conjunction of cleared and forested lands actually creates wind known as a vegetation breeze. But that breeze tends to blow rainfall away from the forest and over the surrounding pastures instead. It also weakens the continental-scale low-pressure system that draws rainfall over the Amazon.

The southern and eastern portions of the Amazon are the most affected, according to this review. For example, the southeastern Amazon around one of the local tributary rivers—the Tocantins—has seen pasture and cropland increase from 30 percent to 50 percent of the land between 1955 and 1995. As a result, that river now carries 25 percent more water. Another southeastern tributary, the Araguaia, now carries 28 percent more sediment—precious soil lost during downpours from surrounding, expanded agricultural fields.

Agroforestry and other techniques for better environmental management of such agriculture remain rare, despite their proven ability to help balance increased food production with ecosystem services like carbon sequestration. On the whole, cutting down trees so that the Amazon covers only roughly 80 percent of the land it once did seems to have tipped the rainforest from being a sink for global CO2 emissions to a net source, although this calculation remains highly uncertain, the scientists noted. In addition, the entire rainforest may be transitioning from a relatively undisturbed ecosystem to what scientists like to call a "disturbance-dominated regime," or a biome that has become an "anthrome"—a landscape dominated by human impact.

The good news is that Brazil has in recent years begun to restrain such deforestation: annual rates fell from 28,000 square kilometers in 2004 to less than 7,000 in 2011. "Brazil is poised to become one of the few countries to achieve the transition to major economic power without destroying most of its forests," the researchers wrote in their conclusion. New laws currently under consideration may put that potential in peril, however, by allowing a return of previously banned forest-clearing practices. "There is considerable progress toward improved management of the impacts of development in the region," Davidson noted in his e-mail, "but there is still much work to be done."

© 2012 Scientific American, a Division of Nature America, Inc.All Rights Reserved

The Dark Side of Serbia's Oil Shale Fairy Tale

2012-01-20T23:02:00.001+07:00

According to an old Serbian fairy tale, God tells a poor man who enters a gold mine that no matter what he chooses to do inside, he'll be sorry when he leaves. If he takes some gold, he'll be sorry for not taking more; if he doesn't, he'll be sorry for not taking any at all

By Vesna Peric Zimonjic | Inter-Press Service | Jan 19, 2012

Aerial image of oil-polluted waters. Credit: powerfocusfotografie/CC-BY-2.0

Modern Serbia now finds itself in a similar situation to the hero of that ancient tale.

Experts have revealed that parts of South-eastern Serbia lie on two billion tons of oil shale that could be processed into oil worth roughly 60 billion dollars in the next decade.

Further, the introduction and implementation of sufficient technology to turn the crude into derivates could reap between 120 and 180 billion dollars, according to studies by several domestic and international mining institutes and the Serbian ministry of environment and mining, which kept this secret carefully guarded until early January.

"It is our goal to introduce the most modern international technology so that oil shale can become a resource that will significantly improve the energetic balance of Serbia," Oliver Dulic, minister of environment and mining, said last week on a visit to the small town of Aleksinac, some 210 kilometres south-east of the capital.

The town and its surroundings coalmines, which have been closed since a fatal disaster in the 1980s claimed the lives of 90 miners, lie on the largest bulk of oil shale reserves.

"Our estimates say that oil shale could be exploited for several decades, with an annual production of between 500,000 and 600,000 tons of crude, 100 megawatts of electricity and enough thermal energy to heat Aleksinac and neighbouring villages," Dulic added.

Yearning for growth

For the last few years, Serbia has barely managed to stay afloat in the tides of the global economic downturn, paying the price for moderate economic improvement with high unemployment and modest salaries.

The country's unemployment rate soared to 23.7 percent in November 2011, up from just 19 percent in 2010. This is the highest level of unemployment since former dictator Slobodan Milosevic was ousted more than a decade ago, the national statistics bureau said Monday.

A breakdown of the data revealed the youth population to suffer the most, with an unemployment rate of 51.9 percent for the 15-24 age group and 32.0 percent for those between the ages of 25 and 34. But the discovery of shale deposits promises a leg-up for the struggling economy. Dulic proclaimed, "Several thousand people will be employed" once the operation is put into motion with the investment of between 700 and 800 million dollars.

In fact, Dulic’s visit to Aleksinac last week came after the media had a field day with the discovery of oil shale in the small, poor town, which is now gaining recognition as the frontier of what many hope will be a richer Serbia, once oil money starts to flow into state and municipal coffers.

The dirty side of progress

The celebration of imminent wealth notwithstanding, numerous experts have warned the "oil fairy tale" has a dark side that ordinary people are completely unaware of, namely, that the method ofshale extraction is "the dirtiest technology" in the world today, with irreversibly destructive environmental impacts.

A long and bloody history has left the bulk of the Serbian public either apathetic or unaware of environmental issues: the wars of the 1990s that tore apart former Yugoslavia, followed by 10 years of economic sanctions, coupled with the NATO bombing of Serbia in 1999 have all but decimated the economy and created an economically overburdened citizenry.

In fact, the Serbian media has paid little attention to the controversy surrounding oil shale exploitation or to the growing international call against it.

But there is no escaping the fact that the proposed extraction project will be hazardous to the environment.

Oil shale is the term used for sedimentary rock that contains solid bituminous materials called kerogen, which are released as petroleum-like liquids when the rock is heated either underground (in situ) or in complexes above the ground, in the chemical process of pyrolysis.

The process gives off a vapour, which, when cooled, turns into liquid shale oil, or unconventional oil, which is then processed into oil and used for a host of economic activities.

According to Dejan Skala, a professor at the technology faculty in Belgrade, "Environmental problems (resulting from shale extraction) are enormous, particularly in the case of underground exploitation, as underground waters are heavily contaminated."

He added that surface (or ex citu) exploitation, which is practically open pit mining, is also highly problematic, as it requires rock to be heated at incredibly high temperatures in special facilities, leaving the surrounding area looking much like Moon landscape.

Often, soil becomes too contaminated to host vegetation and the entire diverse ecosystem of the locality is destroyed.

The massive amounts of water consumed by the processing plants require the construction of protected deposition pools. The facilities also generate large quantities of carbon dioxide, which contribute significantly to global warming.

"Such processes should not be undertaken (in or) near densely populated areas," Skala stressed.

According to Zoran Majdin, one of the few Serbian journalists dealing with environmental issues, "oil shale mining calls for serious environmental concern due to the (careless) use of land and water, (insufficient) waste disposal and waste water management, green house gas emissions and air pollution that people are completely unaware of."

"So far people [are only concerned with the] economic progress associated with oil extraction," he added.

Residents of Aleksinac are particularly thrilled about the project and conversations about oil shale have begun to dominate daily life in the small town.

"It's high time someone did something for this part of Serbia," Vladan Milosavljevic (60), one of the 5,000 miners employed in the Aleksinac coal mines – the biggest employer of the town’s 17,000 people until the disaster in 1989 – told IPS.

"Since (the mine was shut down) we’ve seen only poverty and bare survival here but the story of oil shale brings new hope," he said.

Asked about the environmental hazards, Milosavljevic expressed little concern. "We survived the NATO bombing (in 1999)," he told IPS, "we can survive many other things as well."

Copyright © 2012 IPS-Inter Press Service. All rights reserved.

Cheap Chinese Panels Spark Solar Power Trade War

2012-01-19T23:50:00.001+07:00

There's a solar trade war going on inside the U.S., sparked by an invasion of inexpensive imports from China

by CHRISTOPHER JOYCE | NPR.og | January 19, 2012

Contractors with SunEdison install more than 1,000 Chinese-made solar panels on top of a Kohl's Department Store in Hamilton Township, N.J., in 2010. Energy generated by the solar system will cut the store's usage, on average, by 25 to 30 percent. Robert Nickelsberg/Getty Images

The U.S. solar industry is divided over these imports: Panel-makers say their business is suffering and want a tariff slapped on the imports. But other parts of the industry say these cheap panels are driving a solar boom in the U.S.

On the manufacturers' side, there's Gordon Brinser. He's an Oregon native who says the company he runs there, SolarWorld, is not only green, it's red, white and blue. "The mission that we have is to build products here in America, for America's community, for America's energy independence, and really leave the world a better place," he says.

Brinser claims China is threatening that vision by flooding the U.S. with cheap solar panels. He claims China subsidizes its solar panel industry to the tune of $30 billion a year, yet uses only a small percentage of the panels it makes. "So obviously," he says, "these subsidies have gone into the industry, and their full intention is to export and control markets in other countries."

Brinser claims the imports contributed to the collapse of some U.S. manufacturers. Three did go out of business in 2010, though the exact cause may or may not be cheap imports. But Brinser has petitioned the U.S. Department of Commerce and the International Trade Commission to slap tariffs on imported Chinese panels.

So far the feds say, yes, American panel-makers have been harmed by Chinese imports. Yet to be determined is whether China is doing anything illegal: for instance, subsidizing panel-makers so they can sell below cost, a practice called "dumping."

Brinser acknowledges that if he wins and tariffs are added, Americans will have to pay more for panels. "The prices will have to increase, you know, a little. They will find their new, natural balance in a competitive and legal environment," he says.

Higher Prices Could Hurt Installers

But CASE, the Coalition for Affordable Solar Energy, says higher prices are bad for companies that install solar power. These companies far outnumber panel manufacturers.

Kevin Lapidus works for CASE and is vice president of SunEdison, which builds and operates solar power systems.

"Fully 52 percent of the U.S. jobs are in the installation business," he says. "These are U.S. workers who wake up in the morning, put on a tool belt, and they go and build something." He says manufacturers of solar panels in the U.S. are only about a quarter of the domestic business.

Lapidus says solar power is just now shaking off its reputation as too pricey for regular people. "We're finally reducing the price of solar," he says. "We're driving down the cost to grow the solar base — installations, jobs, etc. And the SolarWorld trade case will increase the cost of electricity; it will set the industry back by years."

He says it could also start an international trade war with China. American solar industries export well over a billion dollars of products to China per year.

Most Customers Just Want The Best Price

At Solar Energy Services in Millersville, Md., a single stack of solar panels sits on the floor of a warehouse. Engineer Rick Peters says he got them cheap because the manufacturer folded — they couldn't compete. He's run out of Chinese panels for the moment. "Probably about 70 percent of what we install is Chinese panels," he says.

Peters points out that some homeowners like to buy American, but most, about 90 percent of his customers, just want the best price. And Chinese panels are about 10 percent cheaper.

A tariff could double their price, and Peters says that could push everyone's prices up.

"I'm very concerned about that," he says. "I think that it could significantly increase the price, because of the limited number of manufacturers in the U.S. Potentially, they could take advantage of the marketplace."

By raising their prices as well? "Absolutely," says Peters.

He fears that could have ripple effects for other U.S. manufacturers. He illustrates by cutting open a big cardboard box on the floor of the warehouse. Inside is an inverter, a device that every solar installation needs to convert direct current to the alternating current in your home. It costs about $4,500.

"This one is made by PV Powered," he says, "which is a U.S. manufacturer. A lot of the inverters are manufactured in the U.S." Fewer installations would mean fewer inverters sold.

Over the next several months, the federal government will decide whether China is playing fair or not.

Copyright 2012 NPR

McKinsey’s bad influence on REDD is decreasing – at least in Papua New Guinea

2012-01-19T23:45:00.001+07:00

Consulting firm McKinsey has played a key role in pushing a version of REDD that underestimates the role of industrial logging and agriculture on forest destruction, while painting local communities as forest destroyers. McKinsey’s advice, if taken seriously, would have had serious implications for local livelihoods and would do little to reduce deforestation

By Chris Lang | REDD-Monitor | 18th January 2012

In November 2010, Rainforest Foundation released a report criticising McKinsey’s REDD advice. This was followed by a Greenpeace report in April 2011. Meanwhile, the blog PNGexposed has done a great job in documenting McKinsey’s activities in Papua New Guinea. McKinsey was paid US$2.2 million to produce a draft “National REDD and Climate Change Plan” in the run up to the UN climate meeting in Copenhagen in 2009. This was followed by another US$500,000 in September 2010 for 10 weeks work. McKinsey’s report cost the PNG government more than US$11,000 a page. This work involved “very little actual time on the ground in PNG”, according to informed leaked from McKinsey and posted on the PNGexposed blog.

Greenpeace’s David Ritter quotes an anonymous well-placed source inside the PNG government as saying that,

“The McKinsey consultants are no longer working on reducing emissions from deforestation in Papua New Guinea. The last time I saw a McKinsey consultant at the Ministry was in September this year. To be honest, we’re relieved that they are gone, now our own national experts can take up a leading role again.”

Among the reasons the source gave for McKinsey’s dismissal were the new government in PNG and the NGO campaign, “although we joke that the real reason is that we can no longer afford their bills!” he added.

For the Durban climate meeting, Greenpeace asked illustrator Edd Baldry to produce a one-page comic about what would happen if the Democratic Republic of Congo took McKinsey’s advice (click on the image for full-size).

The comic is also available as a slideshow and a French version is available here (pdf file, 17.2 MB).

Greenpeace activists distributed the comic at a side-event in Durban where a McKinsey representative was speaking but were (politely) asked to leave.

One of the most serious problems with McKinsey’s analysis is that it is not transparent. What happens between the data entering McKinsey’s office and coming out as McKinsey’s “cost-curves” is a mystery to anyone outside McKinsey. McKinsey’s working method is a black box. McKinsey argues that how it works is subject to commercial confidentiality. But even Benoît Bosquet, the coordinator of the Forest Carbon Partnership Facility at the World Bank, hasnoted that “the blackbox is a problem for everybody”.

McKinsey has consultancy divisions for mining, pulp and paper and forest products. This is a potential conflict of interest, since these industries are important drivers of deforestation. But when journalist Johan Hari asked McKinsey about conflict of interest, they declined to reply.

McKinsey’s secrecy and conflicts of interest are not only a problem in its advice on REDD. In the US, McKinsey’s work on US health policy was criticised last year by Noble prize winner Paul Krugman. In his New York Times blog, Krugman wrote that,

“It’s pretty clear that McKinsey was trying to drum up/scout out business, and someone had the bright idea of weighing in on policy debate on the Republican side.”

In the UK, McKinsey was providing advice to the government on NHS reforms and to companies that hoped to profit from the reforms.

A series of companies that hired McKinsey have subsequently gone bust. Enron was paying McKinsey US$10 million a year, before its famous meltdown. BusinessWeek points out that Swiss-air, Kmart and Global Crossing are also on the list of McKinsey clients that have gone bankrupt. McKinsey was central in the AOL-Time Warner merger which Jeff Bewkes, the chairman and chief executive of Time Warner, described as “the biggest mistake in corporate history”.

As Greenpeace’s David Ritter notes, the most damaging revelation to hit McKinsey last year was the insider trading scandal involving Rajat Gupta, who was head of McKinsey from 1994 to 2003 and remained a senior partner until 2007, and another ex-McKinsey partner, Anil Kumar. McKinsey’s global managing director, Dominic Barton, acknowledged that the case is “incredibly distressing and embarrassing” for McKinsey.

As Yves Smith, who worked at McKinsey more than 20 years ago, writes on the Naked Capitalism blog, some of McKinsey’s problems are typical of the conflicts and perverse incentives inherent in the consulting industry:

“Remember the lofty goal is giving fact based, objective advice, which by implication means without fear or favor. But the problem with consulting is you are hired by the problem.”

Smith’s article on McKinsey reveals a serious conflict of interest every time McKinsey is hired to work on REDD. Greenpeace is no doubt correct in demanding that McKinsey should,

“Immediately publish all the data, assumptions and analysis underlying the international and national versions of its cost curve and include such disclosures in all future publications.”

But there is a structural problem involved with McKinsey’s advice on REDD. McKinsey is a consulting firm and as Smith notes, “consulting is project based”. The company is interested in winning future contracts from its clients. McKinsey is frequently hired by governments, pulp and paper companies, logging companies and mining companies. On the other hand, McKinsey is far less likely to be hired forest dwelling indigenous communities. While opening up McKinsey’s black box would not address these conflicts of interest it might at least make them more transparent.

REDD-Monitor is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-Share Alike 3.0 Unported License

One company behind U.S.'s top three biggest greenhouse gas emitters

2012-01-17T07:50:00.001+07:00

The Atlanta-based Southern company owns the top three biggest sources of greenhouse gas emissions in the U.S. according to recent data released by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)

Jeremy Hance | mongabay.com | January 16, 2012

Three of Southern's coal-fired plants—two in Georgia and one in Alabama—account for around 64.74 million metric tons of total greenhouse gas emissions, higher than all of Finland's carbon emission in 2008.

The EPA's report listed the top 100 "big emissions sources" in U.S., 96 of which were power plants. The top 20 were largely made up of coal plants. Another company, American Electric Power, also owned three coal-fired plants in the top twenty.

For its part, Southern Company told theAtlanta Journal-Constitutionthat their emissions are "indicative" of their power plants "being among the nations largest generators of electricity," adding that, "Southern Company complies with all environmental regulations and supports transparency in emissions reporting. The company is a leader in environmental research, development and implementation." Southern company serves around 4 million people. In 2014 it is opening a new coal plant in Mississippi that will reportedly capture 60 percent of its greenhouse gas emissions.

According to its records Southern Company gave spent over $8 million in lobbying the U.S. government last year. A profile of the company on OpenSecrets.org, run by nonpartisan Center for Responsive Politics, reads "Southern has been one of the biggest proponents for electricity deregulation" and "gives most of its money to Republicans."

Not only is burning coal one of the most significant inputs of global greenhouse gas emissions worldwide, it also has major impacts on human health and on water and land pollution. A recent study found that the hidden environmental and health costs of coal on U.S. society reached $523 billion annually—that's $1,698 per person in the U.S. every year.

"This is not borne by the coal industry, this is borne by us, in our taxes," Paul Epstein the study's lead author, told Reuters at the time. "The public cost is far greater than the cost of the coal itself. The impacts of this industry go way beyond just lighting our lights."

The Long Slow March to Nuke Abolition

2012-01-17T00:33:00.000+07:00

"We want a nuclear weapons free world." More than 80 percent of people around the globe have expressed this overwhelming desire to authors of a new report

By Jamshed Baruah | IDN-InDepth NewsAnalysis | Jan 16, 2012

But a close look shows that very little is happening rather slowly in terms of reducing nukes and putting a halt to proliferation. This is cause of profound concern also to atomic scientists.

The International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons (ICAN) released a study on January 16, which says that every country in Latin America, the Caribbean and Africa is in favour of a treaty banning nuclear weapons, as are most nations in Asia, the Pacific and the Middle East. But in Europe and North America, particularly among members of the NATO (North Atlantic Treaty Organization) nuclear alliance, support for a ban on nukes is weakest.

ICAN's report, titled 'Towards a Treaty Banning Nuclear Weapons', comes one week after the Doomsday Clock of the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists was moved one minute closer to midnight in response to growing nuclear dangers around the world and a lack of progress towards nuclear abolition. The last time the Doomsday Clock minute hand moved was in January 2010, when the Clock's minute hand was pushed back one minute from five to six minutes before midnight.

The Clock has become a universally recognized indicator of the world's vulnerability to catastrophe from nuclear weapons, climate change, and emerging technologies in the life sciences.

The Science and Security Board of the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists (BAS) moved the Clock one minute closer to midnight after reviewing the implications of recent events and trends for the future of humanity with input from other experts on nuclear weapons, nuclear energy, climate change, and biosecurity.

In a formal statement on January 10, the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists noted: "It is five minutes to midnight. Two years ago, it appeared that world leaders might address the truly global threats that we face. In many cases, that trend has not continued or been reversed. For that reason, the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists is moving the clock hand one minute closer to midnight, back to its time in 2007."

Commenting on the Doomsday Clock announcement, Jayantha Dhanapala, member of the BAS Board of Sponsors, former United Nations under-secretary-general for Disarmament Affairs, and ambassador of Sri Lanka to the United States, said:

"Despite the promise of a new spirit of international cooperation, and reductions in tensions between the United States and Russia, the Science and Security Board believes that the path toward a world free of nuclear weapons is not at all clear, and leadership is failing."

Dhanapala further pointed out that the ratification in December 2010 of the New START treaty between Russia and the United States had reversed the previous drift in US-Russia nuclear relations. "However, failure to act on the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty by leaders in the United States, China, Iran, India, Pakistan, Egypt, Israel, and North Korea and on a treaty to cut off production of nuclear weapons material continues to leave the world at risk from continued development of nuclear weapons."

The world still has over 19,000 nuclear weapons, enough power to destroy the world's inhabitants several times over, said Dhanapala.

An ICAN campaigner and the author of the study, Tim Wright, said: "The vast majority of nations believe it is time to ban nuclear weapons in the same way that biological and chemical weapons have been banned."

Abandon snail's pace

"Nuclear disarmament cannot continue at a snail's pace if we are to prevent the further spread and use of nuclear weapons. It must be accelerated, and the best way to achieve that is through a comprehensive nuclear disarmament treaty with timelines and benchmarks for eliminating nuclear stockpiles," Wright said, adding: "This must be the next big negotiating objective of the international community."

The pressing need for doing away with nukes was also stressed in a historic resolution in November 2011 by theInternational Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement, which has close to 100 million members and volunteers worldwide.

The resolution highlighted the humanitarian dangers of nuclear weapons and called on governments "to pursue in good faith and conclude with urgency and determination negotiations to prohibit the use of and completely eliminate nuclear weapons through a legally binding international agreement". [Read alo: Red Cross Movement Wants Nukes Abolished]

ICAN study finds that support for a treaty to abolish nuclear weapons has grown considerably since 2008, when the UN Secretary-General made such a treaty the centrepiece of his nuclear disarmament action plan.

"At the May 2010 review conference of the ailing Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, two references to a nuclear weapons convention made their way into the agreed outcome document, despite strong protestations from some nuclear-armed nations," notes ICAN.

Arielle Denis, a senior campaigner at ICAN’s office in Geneva, believes that governments have a clear popular mandate to ban nuclear weapons. "Right across the world, even in nations with large nuclear arsenals, opinion polls show that a majority of citizens support the elimination of these immoral, inhumane and illegal weapons. The people believe the time has come for their leaders to cast off the nuclear shadow," she said.

But, as Robert Socolow, member of the BAS Science and Security Board, says, "Obstacles to a world free of nuclear weapons remain. Among these are disagreements between the United States and Russia about the utility and purposes of missile defense, as well as insufficient transparency, planning, and cooperation among the nine nuclear weapons states to support a continuing drawdown."

Socolow adds: "The resulting distrust leads nearly all nuclear weapons states to hedge their bets by modernizing their nuclear arsenals. While governments claim they are only ensuring the safety of their warheads through replacement of bomb components and launch systems, as the deliberate process of arms reduction proceeds, such developments appear to other states to be signs of substantial military build-ups."

The way out of this morass is to mobilise public opinion. "Whether meeting the challenges of nuclear power, or mitigating the suffering from human-caused global warming, or preventing catastrophic nuclear conflict in a volatile world, the power of people is essential," says BAS executive director, Kennette Benedict.

"For this reason, we ask other scientists and experts to join us in engaging ordinary citizens. Together, we can present the most significant questions to policymakers and industry leaders. Most importantly, we can demand answers and action," she adds.

BAS points out that some of the key recommendations for a safer world have not been taken up and require urgent attention. These include ratification by the United States and China of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty and progress on a Fissile Material Cutoff Treaty;

There is a pressing need for implementing multinational management of the civilian nuclear energy fuel cycle with strict standards for safety, security, and nonproliferation of nuclear weapons, including eliminating reprocessing for plutonium separation;

BAS also pleads for strengthening the International Atomic Energy Agency's capacity to oversee nuclear materials, technology development, and its transfer.

BAS was founded in 1945 by University of Chicago scientists who had helped develop the first atomic weapons in the Manhattan Project. The Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists subsequently created the Doomsday Clock in 1947 using the imagery of apocalypse (midnight) and the contemporary idiom of nuclear explosion (countdown to zero), to convey threats to humanity and the planet.

The decision to move the minute hand of the Doomsday Clock is made by the Bulletin's Board of Directors in consultation with its Board of Sponsors, which includes 18 Nobel Laureates.

The Law Of Putin’s Jungle

2012-01-16T20:09:00.001+07:00

The Russian leader may be in for a surprise: he misjudges his adversaries

The Daily Beast in Newsweek Magazine | Jan 16, 2012

Vladimir Putin is a snake—he says so himself. At his latest four-hour press conference, the Russian prime minister compared himself to Kaa, the huge, hypnotic python from Rudyard Kipling’s The Jungle Book. And the growing ranks of protesters against his regime? He called them “monkeys.” As anyJungle Book fan (which includes most Russians) knows, Kaa is “everything that the monkeys feared in the jungle, for none of them knew the limits of his power, none of them could look him in the face, and none had ever come alive out of his hug.” Which leaves little doubt about Putin’s response to the series of protests that have brought 100,000 people into the streets of Moscow and 100 other Russian cities over the past month. Hypnotize them. Then crush them.

His plan has just one flaw: a large slice of Russia has unexpectedly snapped out of his spell. In the weeks since December’s clumsily rigged parliamentary elections, the Kremlin’s old political-control system has seemed as outdated and clunky as Putin himself. The state-controlled print and broadcast media that once helped him keep the public in line have grown irrelevant to the 60 million wired Russians who can swap news and details of protests using Facebook and Twitter. The rent-a-crowd pro-Putin “counterprotests” have looked crude and ridiculous next to the real rallies against the regime. And Putin’s biggest asset, the soaring oil market that buoyed Russia’s economy for much of the past decade, has shriveled amid a global recession that has pushed prices below the $115 a barrel Russia needs just to balance his budget.

Nevertheless, the former KGB colonel intends to return for a third term as president in March, no matter what it takes. Andrei Illarionov, a close Putin aide before the two fell out in 2005, says Putin feels threatened as never before—and is therefore uniquely dangerous. At home, Illarionov says, Putin’s young protégé and successor as president, Dmitry Medvedev, “demonstrated signs of independence,” forcing Putin to return reluctantly to the throne. And Putin’s closest allies and protectors outside Russia—Silvio Berlusconi, Gerhard Schröder, and Jacques Chirac—are no longer in power. “He is convinced that the West cannot wait to put an ugly end to him,” says Illarionov.

The fates of Egypt’s and Libya’s ousted dictators have haunted Putin lately, says Alexei Venediktov, who speaks with the Russian leader regularly as editor in chief of the radio station Ekho Moskvy. He was particularly troubled by the image of “Mubarak’s own generals putting handcuffs on him,” says Venediktov. “Putin could not comprehend such betrayal.” And Putin was hit hard by the defection of his former finance minister and longtime personal friend Alexei Kudrin to the opposition’s ranks. “Now Putin understands that the liberals are ready to abandon him,” says Illarionov. Russia’s “real ruling tandem” of liberals and ex-spooks “has fallen apart.”

Putin blames the rising unrest on foreign enemies, especially the U.S. State Department, and portrays himself as defending the Motherland against them. “Americans should know that Putin treats this situation as our 9/11,” says Yuri Krupnov, a Putin confidant who heads a pro-Kremlin think tank in Moscow. “This is a moment for tough action…Putin will take power into his hands before March in a way that 80 percent of Russians are going to admire him. Expect some exciting news.” Some Russians are bracing for a new war with Georgia; others anticipate a domestic security crisis like the rash of apartment bombings that first brought Putin to power in 1999—bombings that were widely believed to have been orchestrated by the KGB’s post-Soviet incarnation, the FSB.

Russians Take to the Streets—Photos

Widespread outrage over December’s parliamentary elections provoked the biggest street protests since the fall of the Soviet Union., Valeri Nistratov / Photographer.ru for Newsweek

Once started, the protests kept growing, despite all efforts to stop them. Health authorities warned people not to attend rallies because of the risk of flu. Moscow high schools set mandatory Saturday-morning Russian tests, and police let it be known that they would be on the lookout for young men who had dodged the draft. Courts dutifully handed down 15-day jail sentences to protest leaders arrested at an earlier rally for “refusing lawful instructions of police.” None of it worked. Rather than try to arrest 100,000 demonstrators in Moscow, Putin wisely allowed them to gather and shout their slogans. “Let them yell and march like they do in Paris” was Putin’s logic, says Krupnov. “The protesters will be condemned by their own citizens soon.”

Instead, dissent has only spread. Valery Zolotarev, head of the Union of North Urals Miners—hardly a citified weekend radical himself—has announced that his union will not support Putin’s candidacy. Protesters have marched through the streets of Novosibirsk with placards calling Putin an “Enemy of the People.” Even members of Putin’s inner circle have spoken out. “The best part of our society, the most productive part of society, is demanding self-respect,” said Vladislav Sur-kov, the Kremlin’s longstanding ideological chief and author of the idea of “sovereign democ-racy,” the Kremlin’s term for its fake elections. “Change is not just coming, it has already taken place. The system has already changed. This is a fait accompli…The tectonic structure of the society has been set in motion.”

Surkov was quickly demoted, but others have refused to be silenced. Valery Fadeev, a Putin adviser who edits Expert magazine, praises the protesters as “the best and bravest” of Russia’s people. “To keep the peace in the country, the Kremlin will have to outsmart the smartest people in Russia,” he warns. Moscow TV personality Ksenia Sobchak, daughter of Putin’s old mentor Anatoly Sobchak and an old family friend of Putin’s, declared at the Christmas Eve rally: “A lot of these people could afford to just sit on their sofas giving themselves a pedicure. Instead, they came here to protest. That makes me very proud.”

The protesters’ adversaries can hardly say the same. Some of their efforts have only been crude and reflexive, like the firings at media tycoon Alisher Usmanov’s publishing empire in the wake of Kommersant Vlast magazine’s critical coverage of the December elections. Others have been laughably embarrassing, like the clumsily doctored photograph that ran in a newspaper distributed by the pro-Putin Popular Front in the Ural Mountains city of Yekaterinburg. The picture showed anti-corruption campaigner and protest leader Alexei Navalny supposedly palling around with exiled Boris Berezovsky, a favorite Kremlin bogeyman. The accompanying text accused Navalny of accepting money from Berezovsky to stir up trouble. But within minutes after the photo appeared, bloggers found and posted the original images that had been mashed together, heaping derision on the Popular Front’s hamhanded attempt at “black PR.”

For Putin the online world is a strange and hostile environment. He regards the Internet with suspicion and knows as little about it as he can, taking obvious pride in the fact that he doesn’t even use a computer. Last month he publicly declared that he has “no time for” the Internet or television, both of which he evidently considers to be no more than forms of frivolous entertainment (though he did note that the World Wide Web is used by “a lot of pedophiles”). And sure enough, despite his denials that he would make any effort to censor the Web, the FSB has begun pressuring Pavel Durov, founder of Vkontakte, the Russian equivalent of Facebook, to block opposition pages. All the same, not all of Putin’s allies share his disdain for the cybersphere: on Election Day a team of pro-Kremlin hackers attacked the websites of Ekho Moskvy and the Golos election-monitoring think tank.

The one thing Putin doesn’t seem ready to do is listen to what the protesters are actually saying. If he did, he’d discover that much of their message is a revolt against rampant official corruption, a problem both he and Medvedev have promised—and failed—to address. Opinion polls (or even a casual browse of Medvedev’s Facebook page) show that most Russians’ overriding complaint is a response not to Putin himself but to the unmitigated venality of the country’s elite. That’s what’s made the anti-corruption blogger Navalny the clear hero of the protesting crowds rather than any of Russia’s longtime opposition politicians. Putin’s chief liability is not his nationalistic policies (which most Russians actually agree with). It’s his connection to “the party of crooks and thieves” (as Navalny calls the candidate’s United Russia party) and to the thoroughly corrupt police force and bureaucracy. Those sticky-fingered associates have sent Putin’s popularity plummeting from 80 percent in 2007 to to 42 percent today.

Twenty years after the Soviet Union’s collapse, Russia remains no more than half born. It has a semi-free press, free markets, and other trappings of a functional state, but greed reigns supreme. Laws are enforced selectively, and the police often work for the highest bidder. Most of the country’s biggest companies have found it necessary to incorporate outside the country, at least in part. Many commercial contracts between Russians stipulate arbitration in foreign courts because Russians can’t count on their own judicial system to deliver honest verdicts. in fact, the $5 billion legal battle between Berezovsky and his fellow oligarch Roman Abramovich—said to be the biggest private litigation in the world—is being fought out in London’s High Court, not Moscow’s.

The whole situation leaves many Russians ashamed and disgusted. “They want to build a new Russia on cynicism, lies, theft, and cruelty,” says opposition leader Boris Nemtsov. “But a cesspit is not the best foundation for a house, let alone a whole country.” A recent report published by him lists half a dozen old friends of Putin’s who have become billionaires over the last 10 years, mostly thanks to government oil- and gas-trading contracts.

So far, the protesters’ demands remain relatively modest—if Putin has the guts to meet them. Specifically, they’re calling for free and fair elections. “There is a possibility today, without any sort of revolution, to make a transformation to ensure fair elections and real representation in Parliament,” Kudrin told crowds at the largest opposition rally so far, on Christmas Eve.

Putin could get away with it, if he chose. Dented as his popularity is, he’s still miles ahead of any possible challenger. It’s possible that he wouldn’t get an outright majority in the first round of a fair vote, but at present there’s no one who could beat him in a runoff. A legitimately elected Putin would be the opposition’s worst nightmare. But Putin is a man of the shadows; his milieu is the corridors of power, not the political stage. He’d rather steal an election than fight a clean one. Whatever he might think, however, his critics aren’t monkeys. And he might do well to remember that Kaa is despised for good reason by all the other creatures.

Is Latvia an Example to Other States in Economic Crisis?

2012-01-16T20:04:00.001+07:00

Latvia is the model economy that can teach the world how to survive the financial crisis

By Julia Heath | Foreign Policy in Focus | January 16, 2012

Latvian bank run.

That, at least, is the opinion of renowned economics columnist Robert Samuelson, who published a Washington Postarticle praising the Latvian economy. In “What We Can Learn from Latvia’s Economic Recovery,” he argued that Latvia, which suffered an economic collapse in 2008-2009, turned around because Latvian authorities implemented “tax increases, layoffs, salary cuts and other spending reductions.” It also cut its budget by 16 percent of GDP, fired 29 percent of government workers, and reduced wages for the rest by 26 percent.

Latvian banks must maintain stability and public interest in order to avoid disrupting the Latvian economy. The Krājbanka and Swedbank crises call into question Samuelson’s previous arguments that the IMF’s fiscal austerity packages saved the Latvian economy. Despite positive improvements to unemployment statistics quoted by Samuelson, these banking crises suggest that Latvia is no model for other countries to follow.

Recent economic news out of Latvia seems to contradict Samuelson’s rosy assessment. On the weekend of December 9-11, 2011 Swedbank clients in Latviawithdrew nearly $30 million, or seven times more than usual, due to a false rumor spread via text message and social media. Swedbank boasted of $2.9 billion in deposits in Latvia and $82 billion internationally showing that the run was not a significant threat for the bank. Less than a month before, the Latvian government nationalized Krājbanka, a subsidiary of the Lithuanian Snoras bank, when the Lithuanian bank’s two owners stood accused of embezzlement. These recent crises exemplify the lack of faith Latvians have in their banking system.
But it’s not just the current Latvian banking news that undercuts Samuelson’s arguments. According to Jason Bush writing in Der Spiegel, “Latvia is suffering because it followed orthodox economic advice, liberalizing its financial sector and opening the economy to outside capital and investment.” When Bush asked lending institutions how this happened, Erik Berglof of the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development told him, “The model wasn't the mistake. The mistake was the lack of architecture to support the model.” Berglof was speaking more specifically about the lack of credit monitoring, which had resulted in the bubble economy. Only three years previous, Parex, then the second-largest bank in Latvia, had also been nationalized. Latvia had to take $2.35 billion in aid from the IMF to bail out Parex.

These banking crises, as well as a long history of financial problems dating back to the Soviet period, have undercut consumer confidence in the Latvian banking system. The Parex banking crisis should have taught Latvian and international authorities to increase transparency, monitoring, and evaluation of the Latvian banking sector.

However, the Krājbanka and Swedbank crises illustrated that austerity packages and job cuts have not solved the lack of consumer confidence in the Latvian banking system or financial officials. According to the Wall Street Journal’s Gustav Sandstrom, “a poll from Latvian research institute SKDS last month [showed] that only 14% of the population trust what top-level officials say about issues relating to financial stability.”

Julia A. Heath is an intern at Foreign Policy in Focus.

This work by Institute for Policy Studies is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 United States License.

1% increase in forest cover

2012-01-16T11:02:00.001+07:00

Since the adoption of Millennium Development Goals (MDGs), the government took measures to enhance forests cover from 5% to 6% including approval of forestry mega projects at the cost of Rs12 billion, said Muhammad Javed Malik, Federal Secretary, Ministry of National Disaster Management

The News International | January 13, 2012

He said this while inaugurating a workshop on “REDD + Safeguards” organized by the Ministry of National Disaster Management. Pakistan joined UN REDD as a partner in 2011, and is set to operational and mainstream REDD+ in its forest management practices. This is aimed to bring benefits of REDD+ to curb deforestation, enhance tree cover, realize multiple benefits, generate employment to the forest dwelling and dependent communities without compromising on environmental and social integrity.

He mentioned that REDD+ is indeed an important financing mechanism bringing more opportunities for developing countries like Pakistan to conserve natural forests to control greenhouse gasses’ emission.

Muhammad Javed Malik appreciated the efforts of workshop organisers especially the IG Forests in taking all stakeholders on board and assured his commitment on behalf of the government to follow all those recommendations whatever the participants would calibrate during the proceeding.

Syed Nasir Mehmood, Inspector General of Forests, said that while developing a national programme on REDD+ they have to take into account the social and environmental safeguards, especially in the context of biodiversity conservation in Pakistan. Earlier, Dr Amjad Tahir Virk, National Project Coordinator, Sustainable Land Management Programme, while welcoming the participants highlighted that how land degradation and desertification is linked with climate change and REED + initiative.

Somali famine 'will kill tens of thousands'

2012-01-16T06:30:00.001+07:00

The UN in Somalia says tens of thousands of people will have died of starvation by the time the famine in the Horn of Africa ends

BBC News | 15 January 2012

Many Somalis have fled across the border into Ethiopia to seek aid

The food crisis was declared in Somalia six months ago and levels of need are expected to remain high until July or August.

UN aid chief in Somalia, Mark Bowden, told the BBC malnutrition rates there were the highest in the world.

He said a quarter of a million Somalis were still suffering from the famine.

"We know that tens of thousands of people will have died over the last year," Mr Bowden, said, describing the rates of malnutrition as "amazingly high".

"Children will have suffered the most, malnutrition rates in Somalia were the highest in the world, and I think the highest recorded... up to 50% of the child population suffered from severe or acute malnutrition."

'Very high mortality'

Mr Bowden said malnutrition rates have begun to drop but the crisis was likely to continue for the next six or seven months.

"Fortunately they've started to come down across the board, but that does mean that there will have been a very high mortality," he said.

Somalia has not had a functioning central government for more than 20 years and has been wracked by fighting between militias.

Although $1.3bn (£84mn) worth of aid has been poured into the country, the BBC's Africa editor, Martin Plaut, says the scale of the suffering is immense.

Last year, tens of thousands of Somalis fled rural areas - many over the borders to Ethiopia and Kenya - in search of food. The UN estimates that a total of 1.5 million people have been displaced by the crisis.

The UN is calling for additional funds to replenish flocks of sheep, goats and camels so that people can re-build their lives.

Aid agencies have warned in recent months that conflict was jeopardising the aid effort, with Kenyan troops crossing into the country to fight al-Shabab - al-Qaeda-linked militants it blames for a spate of kidnappings.

Al-Shabab, which controls much of central and southern Somalia and has banned many Western aid agencies from its territory, has denied the allegations.

BBC © 2012

German funds plan $2-bln Oman solar project

2012-01-16T01:44:00.001+07:00

Private investment funds Terra Nex of Switzerland and Germany's Middle East Best Select (MEBS) plan to build 400 megawatts (MW) of solar power generating capacity in Oman, the European investors said on Sunday

Reuters | Jan 15, 2012

Terra Nex, a wealth management company specializing in Middle East investment, and MEBS plan a 2-billion dollar integrated project to develop solar technology in the oil and gas exporting country, including facilities to manufacture solar panels for Oman and for export.

"Oman's stable business environment and pro-environmental policies makes the Sultanate a natural partner to this project," David Heimhofer, chairman of Terra Nex, said in a statement.

"The government's aim to produce 10 percent of its energy needs from renewable energy resources by 2020 is laudable and this project will go a long way in making that vision a reality."

The project would be financed largely by investors from Germany, with MEBS mainly funded by a group of German institutional and individual investors.

Heimhofer said about 600 million dollars of the overall investment would come from direct equity capital, with the remainder covered by loans from European financial institutions.

Despite plentiful sunshine the Middle East region's solar power production is tiny compared with that of Europe, China or the United States.

Driven by huge subsidies, Germany has become one of the world's largest solar markets but the country has been cutting financial support in an effort to get the industry to reduce its costs.

(Reporting by Daniel Fineren; Editing by Greg Mahlich)

Mexico pipeline oil spill may take month to clean

2012-01-15T20:46:00.001+07:00

Two weeks after a pipeline leak in coastal Mexico sent oil gushing into a river, state oil monopoly Pemex has recovered about two-thirds of the spilled crude, but the full clean-up could take another month

By Julie Gordon | Reuters | Jan 14, 2012

Mexico's environmental protection agency, Profepa, is supervising containment of the 1,500-barrel spill that killed fish, injured wildlife and left greasy slicks in the Coatzacoalcos river.

"Right now it is more about containing the emergency," Profepa official Sergio Herrera told Reuters. "There will be further actions to clean the river, the banks of the river, and the zone where the damage has happened."

Pemex blamed the December 31 leak in Veracruz state on vandalism. Fuel thieves routinely tap into Mexico's network of pipelines to steal oil and gas for sale on the black market, often causing small spills.

The company has contracted 140 workers to clean up the mess, which it said was mostly contained in a lagoon near the affected valve.

In December 2010, 28 people were killed when a massive spill caused by an illegal pipeline tap east of Mexico City caught fire and exploded.

The spill in Veracruz is the biggest since then. The latest images of fouled river banks and black sludge in the water have environmental groups questioning Pemex's spotty safety and environmental record just as it embarks on an ambitious plan of oil exploration in the deep waters off the Gulf of Mexico.

"If Pemex is incapable of dealing with an oil spill in a river, how would they contain one at a deepwater project in the Gulf of Mexico?" Greenpeace Mexico's Beatriz Olivera said.

DRILLING DEEP

Pemex is eyeing the estimated 29 billion barrels of oil beneath its territorial Gulf waters as it aims to replace lost output from aging fields.

But upstream production and exploration poses different risks than overland transport of oil for refining, said Mexico-based energy analyst David Shields.

"The main onshore problem that Pemex is having with pipelines is vandalism. If you have some kind of problem with deepwater platforms, it's very unlikely to be vandalism," Shields said.

The 1,500-barrel pipeline spill is tiny compared with the 4 million barrels that gushed into the Gulf of Mexico after an explosion at BP's Deepwater Horizon well in 2010.

Mexico, the world's No. 7 oil producer, has stabilized output at around 2.6 million barrels per day after a sharp decrease at its largest fields. Pemex plans to have some 50 deepwater oil wells by 2015.

Mexico's oil industry watchdog, the National Hydrocarbons Commission (CNH), said Pemex has not yet acquired all of the necessary safety equipment to deal with deepwater accidents.

The CNH does not regulate downstream operations, so the Veracruz leak is out of its jurisdiction, but the watchdog said it was concerned about spills upstream.

"We have not seen spills decline," CNH president Juan Carlos Zepeda told Reuters. "In the past three years the number of incidents have increased, which is a risk factor."

(Additional reporting by Mica Rosenberg; Editing by John O'Callaghan)

With $116 Million Pledged, Ecuador Moves Forward With Plan to Protect Rainforest

2012-01-15T20:43:00.001+07:00

After receiving pledges totaling more than its goal of $100 million by a year-end deadline, the Ecuadorian government last week announced that it would move forward with the so-called Yasuni ITT Initiative, an innovative plan to leave untapped more than 900 million barrels of crude oil beneath a pristine Amazonian nature reserve, in exchange for annual international donations

by Eric Marx | Science Insider | 13 January 2012

Last summer, there were fears that Germany would back away from a nearly $50 million pledge to the effort, but $116 million in contributions has now been collected from it, other foreign governments, individuals, and foundations, according to Ivonne Baki, the head of the Yasuni ITT Initiative. "We've created amazing momentum," says Baki. That momentum will be needed as the Ecuadorian government has now set a new goal of securing $291 million in contributions in both 2012 and 2013 to keep the initiative going.

Launched in mid-2010 after 3 years of technical consultation, the Yasuni ITT project was lauded by foreign governments and environmental groups as an innovative way to fight global warming: Not exploiting the Ishpingo-Tambococha-Tiputini (ITT) oilfields in Yasuni National Park will, according to the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP), prevent the emissions of around 410 million metric tons of carbon dioxide—equivalent to the annual emissions of France and accounting for 20% of Ecuador's known oil reserves. The project could also prevent the extermination of at least two indigenous tribes that live in voluntary isolation, while conserving a forested area that scientists say is the most biodiverse place on earth.

But for a variety of reasons, donor countries initially declined to support the initiative, which is supposed to be financed through a trust fund overseen by UNDP. Many have questioned commitment of Ecuador's President Rafael Correa, citing expanded oil and mining in other parts of the Amazon. Still another impediment has been fear that the initiative's "avoided emissions" strategy would lead to similar plans being considered as part of future global warming/climate change treaty negotiations.

This last concern appeared to scare off Germany's Secretary for Economic Cooperation and Development Gudrun Kopp, who in June 2011 told a German parliamentary commission that "a direct payment into a fund of this type would set a precedent that could ultimately prove very costly." Per the agreement signed with UNDP, however, Yasuni's precedent is "very limited in scale," says Pamela Martin, author of Oil in the Soil: The Politics of Paying to Preserve the Amazon. It only applies to countries situated between the Tropics of Capricorn and Cancer which have tropical forests, a certified high level of biodiversity, and a credible program for investment in sustainable energy programs, she notes. Germany is now tentatively back in the initiative, agreeing to a one-time, nonrefundable commitment of $47 million in bilateral technical assistance to be paid over 3 years. The contribution is not an all out endorsement of Correa's vision, say analysts, because Germany's monies will not pass through the UNDP Trust Fund but will be invested instead directly in the park. The other funding committed to the Ecuadorian Government amounted to approximately $69 million, including pledges from provincial governments such as the Belgian region of Wallonia and the French department of Meurthe-et-Moselle. The Initiative was previously open to only governments and corporations pledging more $100,000. Now, individuals and businesses wishing to contribute amounts as small as $25 may become involved.

In Ecuador, Baki notes, a recent poll indicates that nearly 90% of the public approves of the project. Baki says the next step is to launch an aggressive advertising, social networking, and promotional campaign focused on Europe, North America, and Australasia. Insiders say the new strategy is an attempt to put public pressure on elected officials, while also drawing upon the financial resources and discontent of a global population that finds itself increasingly frustrated with slow-paced climate negotiations. "The next 2 years are going to be telling because we know there is now finally a budget to carry out a real publicity campaign," says Kevin Koenig, the Amazon oil campaign coordinator for Amazon Watch based in Quito.

Koenig says environmental campaigners are deeply concerned about stepped up drilling plans in other parts of the Ecuadorian Amazon but they see merit in supporting the Yasuni Initiative as a means by which to enable Ecuador to extricate itself from its current "oil debt trap." At present, Ecuador relies upon oil income for more than half of its annual export revenue. "If the world is so concerned about preserving biodiversity, protecting indigenous rights and trying to find solutions to climate change, this proposal merits support," he adds. "It's not perfect but, regardless, it's important for Ecuador and the world."

Biofuels Land Grab: Guatemala's Farmers Lose Plots and Prosperity to "Energy Independence"

2012-01-15T20:40:00.000+07:00

Across the globe, local farmers are being displaced to make way for energy crop plantations

By Eitan Haddok | Scientific American | January 13, 2012

THE DISPOSSESSED: In Guatemala, peasants have been evicted--often forcibly--from land where they had been living, like this young couple and their son taking shelter in a maize field and subsisting on gourd seeds.Image: © Eitan Haddok

Echoes from armed raids still seem to resound in this valley, eight hours north of the capital city. In early 2011 military and paramilitary forces forcibly evicted 13 communities of indigenous Mayan peasants—some 300 families were dispossessed of disputed land they had been living on for three years to secure the property rights of one powerful local family, the Widmanns, and its agribusiness company Chabil Utzaj.

"They came in great numbers and heavily armed," says 18-year-old Tecla Kuxh while holding her one-year-old infant, via a translator. (Names in this story have been changed to protect those involved from any reprisals.) "They don't respect anything or anyone, not even babies. We cried, there were shots and screaming." Further evictions are planned for villages and lands where these communities have been living for some 60 years.

In the middle of a maize field, a piece of fabric held up by four wooden stakes makes for the roof of her family's makeshift shelter. Their only possessions: gourd seeds, two bottles of water and a patched radio.

"We are not thieves," argues Marco Kuxh, her husband. "If we occupied this land, it was only for a living. We didn't destroy anything, these lands were not even used for years. We cleared and reclaimed the land and sowed some milpa [corn], beans and a bit of tomatoes. Without land we have no future, nowhere to sow."

The Kuxhs, like many other farming families around the world, are the victims of a land grab for agribusiness. The land they used to work will soon grow sugarcane or palm oil intended for U.S. and European biofuel markets that have developed in response to those nations' governments goals for alternative transportation fuels.

View a slideshow of this biofuel land grab

Since 2008 more than 56 million hectares worldwide—an area of land the size of Italy—have been subject to "land negotiation," according to the World Bank. This land grab is not all dedicated to biofuel production, of course: China, India, Japan, Korea and the United Arab Emirates as well as others have purchased vast tracts of agricultural land in Africa and elsewhere for food production for their home markets. Private investors, such as Goldman Sachs and BlackRock, Inc., have also gotten into the game via funds to speculate in agricultural commodities and land. "Nobody believes that these investors will feed Africans," says Obang Metho from Solidarity Movement for a New Ethiopia, an Ethiopian human rights nongovernmental organization (NGO). In other words, food-producing fields worked by and for locals are expected to be converted to serve international business interests.

In Guatemala the goal is biodiesel, and its production is now key for national and international agro-industrial companies and, consequently, local incomes. "It's sad, but we all depend on palm [oil] now. There is no other solution," says a peasant in Arroyo Santa Maria in the Peten Department. That village, in the northern part of the country, is a tiny island in the middle of a vast palm grove belonging to agro-industrial company Hame. That peasant adds: "They came over and over to the village and said we'd better sell our land before they will take it from us. So we all sold our parcels. Today, we can't go through the land; it all belongs to the palm. We have no firewood, no access to water and, even if we do, it's all polluted because of their chemicals flowing in their canals. They just kill us slowly."

But the palm oil plantations are intended to create economic opportunity and jobs, according to investors. "To fight poverty and the food crisis, we are going to create here 2,000 [jobs], directly and indirectly, thanks to a $50-million investment in this little valley," says Carlos Widmann, the agribusiness leader. "Otherwise, the contrary is condemning them to misery. What can they do with some 'maizito'" the traditional small-plot agriculture?

Power Plants Accounted for 72 Percent Of Greenhouse Gases Reported in 2010

2012-01-15T20:37:00.001+07:00

Power plants emitted 2.3 billion metric tons of carbon dioxide-equivalent (CO2e) in 2010, 72.3 percent of reported emissions nationwide, according to data released by the Environmental Protection Agency Jan. 11

By Andrew Childers and Avery Fellow | Daily Environment Report™ in Bloomberg News | January 12, 2012

EPA released data for calendar year 2010, the first year industries were required to report their greenhouse gas emissions to the agency. Petroleum refineries emitted 183 million metric tons of carbon dioxide-equivalent in 2010, the second-largest category at 5.7 percent of emissions. Chemical manufacturers were the third-largest source with 175 million metric tons of emissions, or 5.4 percent of all reported emissions.

More than 6,700 entities reported their greenhouse gas emissions to EPA. The data collected represent 80 percent of all U.S. emissions, EPA said. Carbon dioxide accounted for 95 percent of direct greenhouse gas emissions, followed by methane at 4 percent.

‘Powerful Resource for Decisionmaking.'

Gina McCarthy, EPA assistant administrator for air and radiation, told reporters the data provide “a powerful resource for better decisionmaking.”

“Better information will always lead to a better-informed public, which will lead to better environmental protection,” she said.

EPA developed a web tool that allows users to access facility-level data from reporting entities.

David Doniger, policy director for the Natural Resources Defense Council's Climate Center, told Bloomberg BNA the tool will “personalize and localize” greenhouse gas emissions.

EPA's 2009 mandatory greenhouse gas reporting rule requires facilities such as power plants, petroleum refineries, and manufacturers with emissions greater than 25,000 tons per year to report their emissions annually (74 Fed. Reg. 56,260; 209 DEN A-6, 11/2/09)..

Power Plants Largest Emitters

According to EPA, 100 facilities individually reported emissions greater than 7 million metric tons of carbon dioxide-equivalent. Of those, 96 were power plants.

The three largest emitters in 2010 were the Georgia Power Scherer power plant in Juliette, Ga., emitting 22.9 million metric tons of carbon dioxide-equivalent; the Georgia Power Bowen plant in Cartersville, Ga., emitting more than 21 million metric tons of carbon dioxide-equivalent; and the Alabama Power James H. Miller Jr. plant in Quinton, Ala., emitting 20.7 million metric tons of carbon dioxide-equivalent. Georgia Power and Alabama Power are both subsidiaries of Southern Co.

“The emissions reported for plants Scherer, Bowen, and Miller are indicative of those being among the nation's largest generators of electricity,” Southern Co. spokesman Steve Higginbottom said in a statement.

Higginbottom said the company began disclosing its greenhouse gas emissions to EPA in 1995, and its 2010 emissions were included in its corporate responsibility report.

Scott Segal, director of the Electric Reliability Coordinating Council, a power plant trade group, told Bloomberg BNA the power sector's emissions are “attributable to the demands of our entire national economy.”

“It is really no surprise that electric power production is a significant source of greenhouse emissions,” he said. “Electric power is literally the lifeblood of our communities and over 20 different competitive manufacturing sectors.”

Texas Leads in Emissions, Sources

Twelve of the largest 100 emitters were located in Texas. Texas also had the most facilities reporting with 673, followed by California with 456 and Louisiana with 265. Texas had 124 reporting power plants, 29 reporting refineries, and 115 reporting chemical facilities.

Texas also had the largest reported emissions, with 387 million metric tons of carbon dioxide-equivalent. Indiana had the second largest total reported emissions, with 163 million metric tons. Ohio and Pennsylvania each had approximately 156 million metric tons.

McCarthy said EPA anticipates proposing its first source-specific emissions standard for greenhouse emissions from power plants by the end of January.

The agency agreed to issue new source performance standards for emissions from power plants and petroleum refineries as part of two separate settlements with states and environmental groups in 2010 (New York v. EPA, D.C. Cir., No. 06-1322, 12/23/10; American Petroleum Institute v. EPA, D.C. Cir., No. 08-1277, 12/23/10).

EPA sent its proposed performance standards for power plants to the White House Office of Management and Budget for review Nov. 7 ( 217 DEN A-3, 11/9/11).

The power plant rule would only apply to new facilities, and McCarthy said there are no pending applications that would be affected by the performance standards requirements.

“It continues to be an interagency review,” she said. “Frankly, we have a rule that deals with new facilities. We don't see why we can't be deliberative with that.”

EPA has missed court deadlines to propose both rules, and the agency continues to work with the litigants in the lawsuits on new deadlines for the regulations.

Petroleum Rule Called Unnecessary

EPA said its performance standards would target the largest emitters of greenhouse gases, beginning with power plants and petroleum refineries. However, refineries account for 5.7 percent of reported emissions.

Howard Feldman, director of regulatory and scientific affairs at the American Petroleum Institute, told Bloomberg BNA that raises questions about the need to regulate refineries' greenhouse gas emissions. He said the petroleum industry is in the “pee wee league relative to the major leagues of utilities.”

The top three emitting refineries in 2010 were the ExxonMobil BT Site in Baytown, Texas, which emitted 10.7 million metric tons of CO2e; the Texas City refinery in Texas City, Texas, which emitted 7.6 million metric tons of CO2e; and the ExxonMobil Baton Rouge Refinery and Chemical Plant in Baton Rouge, La., which emitted 6.6 million metric tons of CO2e.

Chemical Industry Anticipates Regulations

Lorraine Gershman, director of regulatory and technical affairs at the American Chemistry Council, told Bloomberg BNA she anticipates the chemical sector's greenhouse gas emissions will be regulated in the future.

“We certainly anticipate us being the next wave of” performance standards she said.

Taken together, the chemical sector accounted for 5.4 percent of all reported emissions. However, Gershman said that figure aggregates several different chemical production processes that EPA regulates separately. EPA will probably regulate chemical production emissions “piecemeal,” she said.

The top three emitting chemical facilities in 2010 were the Donaldsonville Nitrogen Complex operated by CF Industries Inc. in Donaldsonville, La, which emitted 6.4 million metric tons of CO2e; the Dow Texas Operations facility in Freeport, Texas, which emitted 5.7 million metric tons of CO2e; and the Ascend Performance Materials LLC facility in Cantonment, Fla., which emitted 5.6 million metric tons of CO2e.

EPA to Begin Collecting 2011 Data

McCarthy said EPA will begin collecting 2011 emissions data in February.

Another 12 industries will be required to report their 2011 emissions, including electronics manufacturers, underground coal mines, industrial waste landfills, and fluorinated gas producers (229 DEN A-1, 11/29/11).

EPA's reporting rule will capture between 85 percent and 90 percent of all United States emissions once those industries are added, the agency said.

For More Information

More information on the 2010 emissions reporting is available at http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/emissions/ghgdata/index.html.

Bulgarians protest, seek moratorium on shale gas

2012-01-15T20:33:00.001+07:00

Thousands of Bulgarians protested throughout the Balkan country on Saturday against exploration for shale gas, worried it would poison underground waters, trigger earthquakes and pose serious public health hazards

Reuters | Jan 14, 2012

Protesters rallied in more than six major Bulgarian cities calling for a moratorium on shale gas tests through hydraulic fracturing, known as fracking, and demanding a new law to ban unconventional drilling for gas in the southeastern European country.

"I am opposed because we do not know what chemicals they will put in the ground. Once they poison the water, what shall we drink?" said Olga Petrova, 24, a student who attended a protest in Sofia.

In June, the centre-right government granted a license to U.S. energy major Chevron to test for shale gas in northeastern Bulgaria, with the hope that it could reduce the country's almost complete dependence on gas imports from Russia's Gazprom.

Shale gas is natural gas locked in rock formations that in the past decade has been found in abundance around the world and is considered a major source of future energy, but its drilling method has raised environmental concerns globally.

Fracking involves injecting water mixed with sand and chemicals into shale formations at high pressures to extract fuel. Critics worry that fracking fluids might get into groundwater-holding aquifers and contaminate them.

The possibility for shale gas wells in the Dobrudzha region, Bulgaria's main grain producer, is stirring growing opposition by environmentalists who want to safeguard drinking water and land.

They worry the fracking may also trigger earthquakes and cause cancer and other diseases to those who would live near the shale wells.

The government has tried to ease concerns by saying the tests for shale gas are not the same as actual drilling.

Under pressure by green groups, however, it decided to seek an environment impact study prior to tests after consulting with the European Commission.

Neighboring Romania and Serbia are also planning shale gas tests, and Poland expects its first shale gas production to start in 2014-15.

The impact from shale gas exploration, which has revolutionized the U.S. natural gas industry, has been put under scrutiny globally.

Public health professionals and advocates in the United States called recently for rigorous studies on public health effects.

France banned fracking in July, while Britain suspended the deep-excavation practice near Blackpool after minor tremors in the spring.

(Reporting by Tsvetelia Tsolova, editing by Jane Baird)

Oil's Trouble Spots

2012-01-14T08:12:00.001+07:00

At a time of rising dependence on oil, the potential for supply disruptions and the stability of energy-rich regions pose major concerns. While disruptions can happen anywhere along the supply chain, certain areas are particularly vulnerable

Toni Johnson | Council on Foreign Relations | January 13, 2012

Introduction

At a time of rising dependence on oil, the potential for supply disruptions and the stability of energy-rich regions pose major concerns. While disruptions can happen anywhere along the supply chain, certain areas are particularly vulnerable. Perhaps the best known of these is the Strait of Hormuz in the Persian Gulf, through which tankers carry 20 percent of the world's oil. In late 2011, the strait was threatened with closure by Iran in response to ramped up Western sanctions related to its nuclear program. Libya unexpectedly experienced a major supply disruption in 2011, after an armed uprising that eventually ousted former leader Muammar al-Qaddafi. The Niger Delta and Venezuela remain vulnerable as well. With global supplies of oil already tight, potential supply disruptions could lead to significant increases in already volatile oil prices.

When Oil Doesn't Flow

Since the oil embargo of the 1970s, a number of countries have set up plans to mitigate the impact of a supply disruption. Some have their own strategic reserves to protect against short-term oil shortages. The International Energy Agency, a membership organization to address energy issues, also coordinates national reserves among twenty-seven member countries including the United States to share oil reserves during emergencies. In 2011, after Libya's oil output dropped from nearly 1.6 million barrels per day (bpd) to just 100,000 bpd (Reuters), IEA countries agreed to a coordinated short-term release from their strategic oil reserves to ease the impact on global oil supplies.

Supply disruptions, or fear of such, are due to everything from political instability and terrorism to the weather and a lack of long-term investment, says Sarah O. Ladislaw, an energy fellow at the Center for Strategic and International Studies. Accidents can disrupt oil supplies, as can a lack of reinvestment of oil revenues into infrastructure, a problem some experts say is exacerbated by the rise in resource nationalism. Ladislaw says the best ways to protect against disruptions are to diversify supplies and suppliers, to ensure the economy is running efficiently, and to carefully manage geopolitical relationships.

Energy Trouble Spots

Major oil and gas production exists in some of the world's most volatile regions. Here is a look at some that generate the most concern:

• Strait of Hormuz. The strait--the waterway that leads from the Persian Gulf into the Arabian Sea--is just twenty-one miles wide at its narrowest and is considered the world's most worrisome chokepoint. It is a vital shipping route for some of the world's biggest oil producing nations, including Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Kuwait, Oman, and Iran. The Gulf region holds more than 60 percent of the world's proven oil reserves and as much as 40 percent of the world's proven natural gas reserves. In 2011, about 17 million bpd flowed through the strait, representing about 35 percent of the world's ocean oil shipments, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration.

One of the biggest perils to strait traffic continues to be a longstanding threat by the Iranian government to blockade oil shipments should its nuclear facilities be attacked. Iran's threat was renewed in 2011 following a new set of economic sanctions imposed by Western countries as a lever to try to stop its nuclear program, which is a suspected cover for building nuclear weapons.

Some analysts say that although Iran does not have the military might for a full-blown blockade (Stratfor), it could disrupt traffic significantly and raise oil prices. The U.S. military says it has the capabilities to prevent a blockade. However, some experts say closing the strait even for two weeks would have significant global economic consequences. It could also raise oil prices by as much as $50 a barrel within days (NYT) and precipitate major revenue losses for Gulf countries that rely on oil wealth.

• Iran. As the world's third-biggest oil exporter behind Russia and Saudi Arabia, Iran ships about 2.5 million barrels per day, the bulk going to Asia. In addition to issues related to the Strait of Hormuz, the use of international sanctions against Iran or a military confrontation (ForeignAffairs) over its nuclear activities are significant oil disruption concerns. In early 2012, the United States placed unilateral sanctions on any financial institutions that do business with Iran's central bank. The EU is also considering an embargo on oil shipments, which represents about 17 percent of Iranian oil trade (RFE/RL). If implemented, both moves could considerably hit oil revenue, which comprises more than half the Iranian government's revenue.

Although some analysts believe Iran will still find buyers for its oil—though likely at a discount, other analysts note that a loss in Iranian exports of 1 million bpd would need to be made up through increasing Saudi output and potentially tapping oil reserves (Reuters) as was discussed when Libya's output fell in early 2011. However, they also note such measures would make it impossible to weather other oil emergencies.

Sanctions also hurt the country's long-term output.Projections suggest output could decline by nearly 1 billion bpd in the next few years without new investment (NYT). In 2008 during increasing tensions, the head of OPEC warned (AP) that the cartel would not be able to make up the difference in a loss of output from Iran, which represents about 10 percent of OPEC's production.

• Niger Delta. Nigeria is the second-largest oil producer in Africa and the fifth-largest oil supplier to the United States. Due to a rise in civil strife, it dropped from being the world's eighth-largest producer to its twelfth-largest between 2006 and 2008. In 2009, Nigeria's government reconciled with militants in the Niger Delta, who had been significantly disrupting oil production by attacking workers and oil facilities as well as stealing oil. But a resurgence of violence is still possible. Nigeria in early 2012 also faced a nationwide strike after the government declared an end to fuel subsidies. Such a strike could impede oil production.

The distribution of oil wealth is a central factor in the conflict. Despite its vast oil wealth, 70 percent of Nigeria's population lives on less than a dollar a day and government corruption, especially at the state level, remains a problem. Oil companies must also contend with the large-scale stealing of crude oil, in which powerful politicians and senior military officials are implicated.

• Libya. The country dropped output to near 100,000 bpd during its conflict to oust former leader Muammar al-Qaddafi and by early 2012, was producing 840,000 bpd, about half of its pre-conflict production levels (BBC). Libyan officials hope to return to full production by the end of 2012, but the political situation remains in flux.

• Venezuela. The rise of energy wealth has brought with it increased resource nationalism in major Latin American oil producers such as Venezuela, Bolivia, and Ecuador. In the past several years, these states have renegotiated contracts with international oil companies to give state-run oil companies a controlling interest. Venezuela, the world's ninth-largest producer of oil, has taken over some projects entirely. It supplies about 1 million bpd of oil to the United States. The United States has also placed limited sanctions on Venezuela's state-run oil firm PDVSA for doing business with Iran (CNBC). And President Hugo Chavez has threatened to cut off exports in several diplomatic disputes.

Some experts worry that Venezuela is not investing enough in oil exploration and infrastructure and instead using oil money to fund other government priorities. PDVSA, which reportedly earned more than $88 billion in 2011, spent $15 billion on social programs in the first six months of the year and transferred at least another $14 billion to the country's central bank. Experts also worry that reduced investment by nationalized firms in new oil and gas infrastructure will lead to production declines over time as maturing wells are not replaced by new exploration.

• Iraq. It has the third-largest proven oil reserves in the world, but Iraq's oil production has not returned to the levels of the early 1990s, before the first of two wars against the United States, when output was slightly less than 3 million bpd. Since the 2003 war began, oil infrastructure has been a target for insurgent attacks and has yet to recover from fifteen years of decline. Iraq has steadily improved output, and exports are expected to increase from 2.2 million bpd to 2.6 million bpd (BusinessWeek) by the end of 2013. However, oil infrastructure remains a target of attacks and political stability is tenuous, particularly with the exit of U.S. troops at the end of 2011.

• Russian and Caucasus Pipelines. In the last decade, Russia has emerged as an energy superpower. Russia is the world's second-largest oil producer and the world's biggest producer of natural gas. Other states in the region, including Kazakhstan and Azerbaijan, also have emerged as significant producers with massive reserves of oil and natural gas. This energy wealth has troubled the Kremlin's relations with some former Soviet states, including Georgia, Belarus, Turkmenistan, and Ukraine. For instance, 80 percent of Russian gas (BNet) is routed through Ukraine. At the end of 2008, relations further soured over discussions about prices for gas shipments to Ukraine and pipeline transit fees for gas flowing through Ukraine. In the first days of 2009, Russia's state-controlled energy company, Gazprom, cut off natural gas shipments to Ukraine. Ukrainian officials in turn blocked shipments of gas from Russia into other parts of Europe.

There are a number of plans to bypass the Russian pipeline network including linking Kazakhstan to the Baku Tbilisi Ceyhan (BTC) pipeline, which runs through Georgia from Azerbaijan into Turkey and can carry more than one million barrels of oil per day. In late 2011, Russia sought to block the trans-Caspian pipeline that would carry Turkmenistan gas to the Nabucco pipeline, another system bypassing Russia. Such plans come at a time when Russian pipelines operate at near capacity and some are deteriorating with age. Beyond Russia, analysts also note that the region has historically been a source of ethnic and political conflicts that could disrupt the flow of oil and gas.

• Gulf of Mexico. The United States is one of the largest oil and gas producers in the world. A significant portion of the nation's production infrastructure--30 percent of oil production and more than 20 percent of gas production--sits in the Gulf of Mexico, a region of frequent major hurricanes. The Louisiana Offshore Oil Port (LOOP) is also the nation's biggest oil import terminal. Following Hurricanes Katrina and Rita in 2005, the country experienced a supply disruption of about 8 percent. The storm caused a jump in crude prices that was somewhat eased by a release of oil from emergency petroleum reserves.

Will New Zealand be the first developed country to evolve a steady-state economy?

2012-01-14T08:07:00.001+07:00

New Zealand will inevitably make a transition to a steady-state economy. The onset of energy descent — having less and less energy to use with each passing decade — will push it to do so sooner rather than later. The critical question is whether the transition to a steady-state economy will be by design or disaster

by Jack Santa Barbara | Jan 11 2012 by Feasta in Energy Bulletin | Jan 13 2012

It is a safe prediction that New Zealand will eventually develop a steady-state economy, one characterised by stable or mildly fluctuating levels in population and consumption of energy and materials, with birth rates on par with death rates, and production on par with depreciation, all within levels of material throughput that do not exceed ecological limits.[1]

This is the inevitable outcome for all nations whether they set this goal or not. The reality of a steady-state economy will be determined in the end by non-negotiable natural laws rather than government edicts. How well human needs will be met in this process will be determined by whether we accept the challenge of ensuring our policies and practices are compatible with these natural laws. If they are, we have some chance of evolving a desirable steady-state economy that meets human needs into the foreseeable future — the good design scenario. If we continue policies which violate these natural laws we will also get to a steady-state economy — but one which is so degraded that it provides little output for human wellbeing — the disaster scenario.

Human civilisation’s current economic growth paradigm is unsustainable and headed for the disaster option. Our economic activities are totally dependent on the global ecosystems they are currently destroying. Governments may delay the disaster scenario with inadequate “green initiatives”, but only at the cost of yet more life-supporting ecosystems and the human carrying capacity of Mother Earth. The critical question is whether the transition to a steady-state economy will be by design or disaster.

As a “developed” country, New Zealand is highly dependent on fossil fuels for its economy: international tourism, the production and export of food and timber, domestic transportation, agriculture and housing. New Zealand’s economy will change dramatically as it loses access, whether through geologic depletion or market exclusion, to relatively cheap hydrocarbon energy. Energy is key to a sustainable and just society.

New Zealand’s geographic isolation will be a major factor in its experience of energy descent. A relatively small market at the far end of the energy supply chain, New Zealand is particularly vulnerable to both reduced supplies and high energy prices — one of the easiest customers to drop in favour of larger, closer and more lucrative markets. A market-driven energy decline could be both unexpected and abrupt.

A serious danger is that New Zealand will increase its foreign debt to maintain energy and other vital supplies. The ensuing debt slavery would quickly erode the nation’s autonomy and accelerate the depletion of its natural resources. New Zealand’s natural endowments may attract imperial powers willing to use both economic and military advantages to secure its resources for their own use. This “disaster” path to a steady-state economy will enrich a few in the short term but devastate New Zealand’s land, impoverish its people and ensure a bleak future for generations to come. Unless it is challenged, the current growth-oriented political mindset, influenced as it is by wealthy vested interests, will see this course vigorously pursued.

There is an exciting and inspiring alternative to this negative scenario: New Zealand appreciates that it will be the first developed country to seriously suffer from energy descent and prepares accordingly. New Zealand has a unique opportunity to provide global leadership in the transition to a steady-state economy unfolding by design rather than disaster.

If New Zealand is to make the transition to a culture and economy that is ecologically sustainable, socially just, healthy and invigorating, it will need to dramatically change the structure of its economy. Instead of exporting natural resources, it will need to export practical sustainability knowledge and expertise for all facets of an energy-descent economy — an expertise likely to be in high demand as the world wakes up to the impending crises ahead.

Self-protection is another reason for New Zealand to make the transition. As the world’s impending climate, economic and social crises unfold, a business-as-usual New Zealand will attract climate refugees and wealthy security-seekers, hastening the destruction of our ecosystems. Setting a national goal of transitioning to a steady-state economy would attract instead those eager and able to contribute to such a transition.

Becoming a unique global resource for practical sustainability education and consulting may afford New Zealand international protection and its best chance of retaining its sovereignty and controlling its own destiny. Can New Zealand make this transition to a steady-state economy? And what would it take to do so?

New Zealand has many advantages over other nations in terms of becoming a leader in practical sustainability:

The capacity to feed itself (although it currently imports about half its food)
Geographical isolation from most population centres, making mass migration difficult
A small population relative to the biocapacity [2] of its land
A climate likely to be less affected by climate change than that of many highly populated areas
A minimal number of large cities obliged to undergo radical adaptations in the face of global change
Many small rural communities that could be expanded and redesigned to be sustainable
Traditional frugality and practicality, still flourishing in much of the population
A residual core of knowledge and skills required to restart essential local industries
A literate and well-educated population with access to technical training facilities
A tradition of parliamentary democracy helping to facilitate the increased levels of cooperation required for various groups to contribute to the transition.

A strategy also requires an honest assessment of liabilities. Some of the obstacles to such a new vision for New Zealand include:

A widespread commitment to economic growth which has been responsible for the crises New Zealanders now face (New Zealanders have all benefited from this economic model and a new paradigm will challenge some basic beliefs about what constitutes the good life — for example, the role of material goods for wellbeing; the efficiency and innovativeness of corporations; the possibility of a highly industrialized economy.)
Some vested interests intensely committed to maintaining the growth paradigm as it gives them considerable power (for example, some politicians and the elites that have undue influence over them)
International pressures to provide for needs abroad, such as food, coal and immigration
The nation’s current foreign debt and any additional debt it takes on
Uncertainty about the magnitude and timing of the impending crises on New Zealand (This makes planning difficult as planning at leisure is different from planning on the brink of disaster and New Zealand has little way of knowing how close it is to the latter.)
The possibility that the rate and magnitude of changes coming will overwhelm people and push the country to a disaster steady state faster than it can manage a transition that allows it to optimise its physical and social resources
Inertia and despair as a result of coming to understand the profound harm humans have collectively done to Mother Earth and the extent of change required for a healthy, sustainable future.

Daunting as the challenges may be, New Zealand has little choice but to eagerly and earnestly take them on, as the longer they are left the more difficult it will be as the country’s options diminish.

No developed country has yet made the transition to a steady-state economy. What might such an economy look like, and what kinds of policy initiatives would be required to move in that direction?

The rationale for such an economy and how it might function has been outlined by the Centre for the Advancement of a Steady State Economy.[3] All of the policy initiatives identified have already been used in one jurisdiction or another, but they have not yet been integrated into a policy suite specifically designed to transition to a steady-state economy. An economic simulation in Canada has demonstrated that an industrialised economy without growth can lead to many benefits: high employment, no inflation, poverty reduction — even meeting Kyoto GHG emission targets.[4]

A similar exploration of the implications for the New Zealand economy is currently being sponsored by Sustainable Aotearoa New Zealand (SANZ). SANZ has also developed a comprehensive set of national goals for a strong sustainability[5] scenario for New Zealand, taking into account the profound changes that will flow from a significant decline in energy availability over the coming decades.

Currently, the average New Zealander uses the energy equivalent of several dozen “energy slaves” — the energy output of an average person on a 24/7 basis. Without fossil fuels this level of use cannot continue, not even with a combination of renewable energy sources — the only ones which are sustainable.[6] Consequently, as fossil fuels decline there will be massive changes to more animal and human power, as well as renewables, to meet basic necessities.

Food is our most basic energy source. Food production will require many more hands and a programme of re-ruralisation to bring people and production sites together. Other basic items — clothing, furniture and tools — will also need to be made locally. The more skilled labour that can be applied to these tasks, the more effectively and efficiently this can be done. So the questions become: what work is most essential for human wellbeing? How do people obtain the skills to succeed at this work? And how do people get distributed to where the work is (in rural areas, for example)?

The traditional Kiwi is multiskilled and practical. But with less energy available per capita, New Zealanders will have to stretch their creativity and relearn skills relating to simpler and more durable technologies. There will be many fewer white- and pink-collar jobs, more manual labour, more use of animals for work and transport. Relocating human infrastructure as a result of rising sea levels will affect much of New Zealand. Continuing to build infrastructure in areas of risk is a waste of increasingly precious resources.

An energy descent perspective recognises that the industrialised model of civilisation will eventually disappear. Without fossil fuels, much of industrial production will significantly decline. Our global culture based on a “mining” paradigm needs to be transformed to optimise a sustainable harvesting culture. Whatever remaining industrial production and goods we can muster need to be directed to this end. Simply prolonging industrial culture for its own sake will leave future generations with much less to harvest.

Learning to provide locally for necessities will be crucial. Business models will change dramatically as business becomes localised. Local community firms will become more environmentally sensitive, rating environmental impact over efficiency as they adopt sustainable business processes.

The idea that large corporations can or should continue is questionable. Large corporations suck in resources from afar, for the benefit of the few and the detriment of the many. In less than a decade there will be less than half the petroleum currently available from conventional sources. Less and less energy will actually be available to do work other than to extract more energy. The only kinds of corporations able to continue working in this environment may be state-controlled ones. There is considerable danger that only the privileged few will have access to state- or corporate-controlled goods and services.

Healthy market competition involves many small producers, none of whom can set prices or make excessive profits. The subsidiarity [7] principle suggests that firms should be local or regional unless a larger scale is required. Corporations for specific purposes that cannot be met by small local or regional firms may emerge if there are essential goods or services that require some very specialised inputs or economies of scale. Such enterprises will likely be few and far between and could be versions of the temporary corporations originally established a few centuries ago to spread risk and dissolved as soon as the projects were completed. Different corporate structures such as cooperatives or employee-owned businesses may also be desirable.

Trade rules need to change. Sustainable trade requires that trade should occur only if a region is not exporting biocapacity required for its own basic needs; similarly, imports should occur only if they are not depleting biocapacity needed in the region where the goods are produced. Learning to live within the biocapacity of one’s region will become essential.

For New Zealand this means a complete review of its export model to ensure that biocapacity ceases to be exported and degraded. Forestry currently degrades soil, dairy farming degrades water and stock production degrades both. New Zealand’s current biocapacity excess will shrink as Kiwis living abroad return home and new immigrants arrive. Preserving this excess will be an increasing challenge; continuing its current export model will bring New Zealand to a biocapacity deficit.

To continue exporting non-renewable resources to raise revenue is self-defeating, because New Zealand will never again have access to resources it trades away. Retaining resources provides greater security than fiat currencies vulnerable to national or global financial market collapse. Above all, land, water and ecosystems should not be destroyed to extract non-renewable resources for profit or economic growth. Energy descent requires that New Zealand become much more self-sufficient.

Energy descent will impact governments dramatically. Less energy means less economic growth, less government revenue and fewer government support services. The unravelling of the global economy is already evident in the rising national debt and widening austerity programmes of several nations.

Crises increase the risk of more authoritarian governments, the shrinking of individual freedoms and the confiscation of resources for the use of the elite few. In the aftermath of Christchurch’s 2011 earthquake, for example, the New Zealand parliament passed legislation waiving individual ministers’ accountability to parliament.[8] Could such powers be continued or extended to confiscation of public and private resources in times of “national emergencies”, however defined?

Strategies for change which focus exclusively on politicians and the media will miss the real power centres which have the capacity to make, or obstruct, the kinds of radical changes needed — the largely invisible oligarchy.[9] An effective change strategy must include a focus on identifying who they are, how they operate, how they disproportionately benefit from the existing growth paradigm and how they are disproportionately responsible for many of the ills this paradigm has wrought on Mother Earth.[10] While New Zealanders support and benefit from the current growth paradigm in many ways, the oligarchs ensure that policies are in place to make it continue and expand — they are the only ones who have the influence to make, or obstruct, significant changes as rapidly as needed.

It is prudent, given the uncertainty about the timing and magnitude of impending changes, to adopt a risk management approach — to assume that significant change can be rapid and to be as prepared as possible as soon as possible. The majority of New Zealanders is in denial about the nature and scale of the problems the country faces. When crises hit the majority, people will need massive support. Preparing stores of essential resources such as food and water, along with a capacity to teach the basic skills people will need to survive and thrive, would be both prudent and helpful.

To prepare is to take significant steps toward a sustainable lifestyle — such as participating in a Transition Towns initiative [11] or starting an ecovillage.[12] Such actions would: 1) offer some security for a family; 2) provide a secure setting from which to continue broader work on a steady state economy; 3) constitute an example for others to follow or at least learn from; 4) lighten the burden on ecosystems. Bold actions will be noted — ‘being the change we wish to see’ can be a powerful and inspiring motivator. Conferences and books are useful only insofar as they lead to action toward strong sustainability and a steady state economy.

The significant changes all New Zealanders need to make will not be easy. But the most important changes are under personal control, for they are internal — for example, where to place priorities and where to expect our genuine happiness, wellbeing and security to come from. Both planning and monitoring progress in this transition requires a focus on meeting universal human needs: survival (food, water, shelter), comfort or freedom from drudgery, freedom (of association, beliefs and expression), and identity (language, religion and ethnicity).[13]

For fellow New Zealanders: however challenging the path ahead, it will be joyous and satisfying to work with other like-minded families and communities to ensure our collective survival and wellbeing. We know what has to be done — let’s do whatever aspects are in our power, now.

Endnotes

Daly, H. (1991) Steady-State Economics, 2nd edition. Island Press, Washington, DC.
Biocapacity is the capacity of natural ecosystems to provide services important to human wellbeing — from food, fuel and fibre to flood control and biodiversity, etc. (See Wachernagel, M., and Rees, W. (1996) Our Ecological Footprint, Gabriola Island, B.C., Canada: New Society Publishers)
See www.steadystate.org
See Victor, P. A. (2008) Managing Without Growth: Slower by Design Not Disaster, Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar.
Strong sustainability is defined and described in Strong Sustainability for New Zealand: Principles and Scenarios, published by Sustainable Aotearoa New Zealand Inc (SANZ) (2009), Nakedize Limited publication. See also the SANZ website www.phase2.org
See Heinberg, R. (2009) Searching For a Miracle: Net Energy Limits and the Fate of Industrial Society. Forum on Globalisation and The Post Carbon Institute.
Subsidiarity is an organising principle that matters ought to be handled by the smallest, lowest or least-centralised competent authority. This is the level with the most intimate knowledge of the situation, the level with the greatest interest in the issues, and the level most likely to be affected by the issues.
See “Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Bill”
ww.beehive.govt.nz/release/canterbury-earthquake-recovery-bill-passes
See Domhoff, G. W. (2011) Wealth, Income, and Power, September 2005 (updated January 2011)http://sociology.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/wealth.html; Winters, J.A. (2011) Oligarchy, Cambridge University Press; McQuaig, L. And Brooks, N. (2010) The Trouble with Billionaires, Viking Canada.
See Kempf, H. (2007) How the Rich are Destroying the Earth. Editions du Seuil.
See Hopkins, R. (2008) The Transition Handbook: From oil dependency to local resilience, Green Books Ltd, Totnes, Devon, and the Transition Towns New Zealand website
www.transitiontowns.org.nz
Santa Barbara, J. (2011) “Design for surviving Vesuvius — Atamai, a permaculture village”,
[This book]; also visit www.atamai.co.nz
Galtung, J. (1980) “The Basic Needs Approach”, in Lederer, K., Antal, D. and Galtung, J. (Eds), Human Needs: A Contribution to the Current Debate, Cambridge, MA. Oelgeschlager,
Gunn & Hain; Königstein: Anton Hain, (Science Center Berlin, Publications, 12.)

Energy Resources Saudi oil output 'stretched to the limit'

2012-01-14T08:02:00.001+07:00

Saudi Arabia, the world's leading oil exporter, has for decades used spare production capacity to cover shortfalls in output by other oil states and prevent prices spiraling in times of crisis

United Press International | Jan. 13, 2012

But questions are being asked now whether the kingdom will be able to come to the rescue if Iran blocks Persian Gulf exports -- at least one fifth of the world total -- in its current confrontation with the West.

On paper, Saudi Arabia has spare capacity totaling around 2 million barrels per day.

Earlier this year, it raised its output to 10 million bpd, in part to pick up the slack from the drop in output by Libya because of its seven-month civil war and other drops in strife-torn Syria, Yemen and South Sudan.

That's the highest level for the kingdom in 30 years.

On Dec. 14, the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries, which includes Saudi Arabia, increased its production ceiling from 24.84 million bpd to 30 million bpd.

But apart from Saudi Arabia and possibly the United Arab Emirates, no OPEC member has any spare production capability to act as a cushion in the event of a major supply crisis.

So the kingdom, as it has so often in the past, will be expected to play a crucial role if the global oil supply is heavily disrupted, as it would be if the Strait of Hormuz is closed.

In November, Khalid al-Falihj, chief executive of state-owned Saudi Aramco, disclosed that Riyadh has halted a planned $100 billion expansion after the kingdom had reached 12 million bpd capacity.

He said the pressure on Saudi Arabia to raise its output capacity had "substantially reduced."

The kingdom launched the expansion program in the early 2000s, when production was pegged at 8.5 million bpd. The target was 15 million bpd.

Energy analysts said the decision to curtail the drive to boost production capacity may have stemmed from pressing budgetary problems as the ruling House of Saud grapples with the pro-democracy uprisings that have convulsed Arab republics for the last year.

"The current focus of Saudi Arabia is on domestic social spending on the back of the Arab Spring," observed Amrita Sen, an oil industry analyst with Barclays capital in London.

King Abdallah announced a social welfare and public spending package worth $130 billion earlier this year in a bid to stifle any demand for political reform by the kingdom's 12 million citizens.

Industry sources say Saudi Arabia would have difficulty sustaining production rates higher than its declared capacity for lengthy periods.

It has declared reserves of 262 billion barrels of oil, the highest in the world. But these are what the Saudis say they are, and there have been suspicions for some time that Riyadh's reserves may not be what they seem.

In February 2011, diplomatic cables from the U.S. Embassy in Riyadh to the State Department, released by WikiLeaks, cited Aramco's senior vice president for exploration, Abdallah al-Saif, as claiming Saudi Arabia had 716 billion barrels of total reserves, of which 51 percent was recoverable.

He further claimed that in 20 years Aramco would have reserves of 900 billion barrels.

That's roughly the combined reserves of the seven other leading producers, including Venezuela, Canada, Iran, Iraq and Russia.

But the U.S. diplomats quoted Sadad al-Husseini, a geologist and Aramco's former head of exploration, as warning in November 2007 that the kingdom's production capacity target of 12.5 million bpd, needed to keep a lid on prices, could not be achieved.

This, he said, was because the kingdom's reserves may have been over-estimated by as much as 300 billion barrels, nearly 40 percent.

One cable said that in al-Husseini's view, "once 50 percent of original proven reserves had been reached … a steady output in decline will ensue and no amount of effort will be able to stop it."

The U.S. consul in Riyadh observed that al-Husseini "is no doomsday theorist. His pedigree, experience and outlook demand that his predictions be thoughtfully considered."

Al-Husseini, who had publicly questioned Saudi Arabia's state reserves before his encounter with the U.S. diplomats, later claimed he had been misrepresented in the cables.

It's possible he was pressured into doing that. But even so, gulf-based sources believe Riyadh could have a tough time covering shortages stemming from a serious confrontation in the gulf.

Metal tissue holders contain radioactivity

2012-01-14T07:59:00.001+07:00

12 metal tissue box holders containing low levels of cobalt-60 radioactivity were removed from four store

United Press International in Disasater News Network | January 13, 2012

New York state health officials say 12 metal tissue box holders containing low levels of cobalt-60 radioactivity were removed from four stores.

Dr. Nirav R. Shah, New York state commissioner of health, said the level of radioactive exposure from holding the product against the body for one hour would be equivalent to a chest X-ray, but there were no reports of prolonged exposure.

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission notified Bed, Bath and Beyond and state health officials that the shipment of metal box tissue holders contained the radioactive material and the products were pulled from the stores.

The state and local health officials and the New York state Office of Emergency Management visited the Bed, Bath and Beyond stores at 950 Merchants Concourse, in Westbury; 25 Waterfront Place, Port Chester; 251 Tarrytown Road, Elmsford; and 340 Walt Whitman Road, Huntington Station -- and confirmed all 12 boxes were secured.

"State health department and other state agencies are working closely with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Bed, Bath and Beyond and local health officials to ensure consumers are safe," Shah said in a statement.

The product -- Dual Ridge Boutique model, model number DR9M -- was not in other Bed, Bath and Beyond stores, Shah said.

Cobalt-60 is man-made and used for medical treatment, industrial uses, research, medical equipment and sterilization of medical equipment. It has a half-life of 5.27 years.

boilingspot

Can REDD save the forests of Muara Tae in East Kalimantan, Indonesia?

Our Forest, Our Lives: A Story from Muara Tae from Gekko Studio on Vimeo.

REDD-Monitor is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-Share Alike 3.0 Unported License

Finance for biodiversity is a “new face for capitalism”: Sign on letter to CBD from Acción Ecológica

“Conserving the planet’s species and habitats is central to sustainable development yet the global decline in biodiversity is accelerating,” says UN Secretary General, Ban-Ki Moon

OPEN LETTER

TO THE SECRETARIAT OF THE CONVENTION ON BIOLOGICAL DIVERSITY AND THE GOVERNMENTS OF JAPAN, INDIA, NORWAY, SWEDEN AND ECUADOR

CARTA ABIERTA A LA SECRETARÍA DE LA CONVENCIÓN DE DIVERSIDAD BIOLÓGICA Y A LOS GOBIERNOS DE JAPÓN, INDIA, NORUEGA, SUECIA Y ECUADOR

REDD-Monitor is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-Share Alike 3.0 Unported License.

Wind power: Clean energy, dirty business?

In the developing world, where land-intensive wind turbines are being rapidly constructed, wind power has often turned clean energy into dirty business

By Erik Vance | Christian Science Monitor | January 26, 2012

Wind power is sweeping the globe: It's clean energy, but it does have some dirty business aspects that hit the developing world particularly hard. This is part of the cover story package in the Jan. 30 issue of The Christian Science Monitor magazine. Reuters photo

IN PICTURES: The dirty side of wind energy

Wind takes off

Taking wind into their own hands

Green economy and growth: Fiddling while Rome burns?

“Fiddling while Rome burns” may seem a stale analogy, but when talking of “green growth” and “green economy” (GGE, for short), it is appropriate. Despite assertions to the contrary, the only thing innovative about the GGE concepts is the buzz that surrounds them

by Manu V. Mathai | OurWorld 2.0 | January 25, 2012

Science and technology for sustainable societies

A democratic technological infrastructure

Fracking: Anatomy of a free market failure

A recent New York Times article reported that rural landowners who had signed leases with gas and oil companies exchanging drilling rights on their property for royalty payments have discovered that they may have been misled

A Living Experiment in Economic Decision Making

The Economics

Common Sense Solutions

New video: “A Darker Shade of Green: REDD Alert and the Future of Forests”

A new video by the Global Forest Coalition and the Global Justice Ecology Project is deeply critical of REDD. Much of the criticism focusses on carbon trading, but through interviews with communities in Chiapas, Mexico, the video illustrates the perverse impacts that REDD can have on the ground

REDD-Monitor is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-Share Alike 3.0 Unported License

The scientist: Jim Hansen risks handcuffs to make his research clear

NASA's chief climate scientist built his career studying Earth's atmosphere and modeling humans' potential impacts on climate. Then he realized that laboratory work was only part of the equation

Do you fear you have lost some of your scientific credibility by protesting at the coal plants or by becoming more of a voice in the climate debate?

Climate policy has become less a scientific question and more a cultural marker. How can science influence those values and attitudes?

Do reporters ever say, "Look, I can't touch you as a source because you're involved in 350.org or the coal plants or these protests"?

Let's flip the question: Do scientists ever say, "Jim, I wish I could get out there the way you are, but I'm afraid, I don't have the support"?

Failure to develop a climate policy isn't a fault of just one party or one person.

You've never liked a "cap-and-trade" approach.

Where's the clear climate message?

How long can emissions increase before we risk serious impacts?

Editor's note: Climate Query is a semi-weekly feature offered by Daily Climate, presenting short Q&A's with players large and small in the climate arena. Read others in the series here.

This work by The Daily Climate is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-No Derivative Works 3.0 United States License.

Only Civil Society Can Save Rio+20, Say Activists

Large-scale social mobilisation, including street protests and parallel activities, is the only thing can save the United Nations Conference on Sustainable Development (Rio+20) from ending in nothing but frustration, according to activists and analysts

In Famatina, Water Is Worth Far More Than Gold

Thousands of people in the northwest Argentine province of La Rioja are mobilising to stop an open-cast gold mining project in the Nevados de Famatina, a snowy peak that is the semi-arid area's sole source of drinking water

In Brazil, Fears of a Slide Back for Amazon Protection

Brazil has made great strides in recent years in slowing Amazon deforestation and showing the world it was serious about protecting the mammoth rain forest

By ALEXEI BARRIONUEVO | The New York Times | January 24, 2012

Deforestation in Brazil, driven largely by clearing land for cattle, as in Mato Grosso, above, has lessened. But there has been a shift under President Dilma Rousseff. Damon Winter/The New York Times

The government has used police raids, as in the state of Pará, above, to find illegal deforesters. Paulo Santos/Reuters

FAO/UNEP Asia-Pacific Forest Meeting Identifies Climate Change Adaptation Strategies

The UN Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) Regional Office for Asia and the Pacific, the UN Environment Programme (UNEP) and RECOFTC - The Centre for People and Forests have released a policy brief resulting from a meeting on forests and climate change adaptation in Asia, held in October 2011

All content copyright © 1990 - 2012 - IISD

Complications of Hacking the Planet

As scientists, with some reluctance, begin to study the idea of “geoengineering” the planet to slow or halt global warming, they are finding that any such program would quite likely have a complex array of effects, not all of them to humanity’s benefit

Laborers in Suchate Garh, India, near the border with Pakistan, planting rice seedlings. European Pressphoto Agency

Featured video: music in Madagascar to protest illegal logging

Jeremy Hance | mongabay.com | January 22, 2012

Corporate Rule Is Not Inevitable

7 signs the corporatocracy is losing its legitimacy ... and 7 populist tools to help shut it down

by Sarah van Gelder | YES! Magazine | Jan 20, 2012

A parody of corporate personhood in D.C.

YES! Magazine encourages you to make free use of this article by taking these easy steps. This work is licensed under a Creative Commons License

Wind Power Without the Blades: Big Pics

Copyright © 2012 Discovery Communications, LLC

Why are convicted criminals driving the EU’s defence agenda?

Spare a thought these icy days of January for the arms industry. Recession has had such a devastating effect on makers of tanks and warplanes that the European Defence Agency is holding a conference later this month to mull over what can be done

David Cronin | New Europe | JANUARY 21, 2012

David Cronin is an Irish journalist and political activist living in Brussels. His book Europe’sAlliance With Israel: Aiding the Occupation is published by Pluto Press. He is a contributing editor with The Electronic Intifada, an online publication focused on Palestine

Copyright © Brussels News Agency SPRL 2011. All rights reserved

The future of food

By 2050 there will be another 2.5 billion people on the planet. How to feed them? Science's answer: a diet of algae, insects and meat grown in a lab

John Vidal | The Observer | 22 January 2012

Seaweed harvesting in Bali. From seaweed to slime, algae is the future of food, says Professor Mark Edwards Photograph: Ed Wray/AP

Algae

Artificial meat

New crops

Desert greening

Insects