Democrats Abroad New Zealand
6.25.2007
The Melting Ice Man Cometh (Guardian.co.uk)
He believes his support for Kyoto lost him the coal states of Kentucky and West Virginia - and the 2000 race for the presidency. But Hurricane Katrina and his Oscar-winning documentary, An Inconvenient Truth, changed all that. Now, on the eve of his Live Earth global concerts, climate change could put Al Gore back in the White House
James Traub
Sunday June 24, 2007
The Observer
One afternoon in February, Al Gore was waiting to board a flight from Nashville to Miami, where he was to deliver the slide show that forms the basis of An Inconvenient Truth, his Academy Award-winning documentary on global warming. Gore was telling me about Ilya Prigogine, a Belgian chemist who won a Nobel Prize in 1977 for his insights into the thermodynamics of open systems, an intriguing subject that has very little to do with global warming. Every minute or so he flashed a microgrin at a passer-by without interrupting his oratorical flow. We had moved on to complexity theory, in which Gore would really immerse himself if only he had the time, and then to the concept of nested systems, which of course had been developed by the late psychologist Uri Bronfenbrenner, when a woman in a blazing orange shirt emerged from her flight, did a double take and cried, 'Isn't that AL GORE?!' There was no ignoring this fan. As she came over to thank Gore for trying to save the planet, I saw that my bags were in the way. 'I'll move them,' I said; and Gore, before he could think, said: 'No, don't.'
Six years after the Supreme Court declared him the loser of a presidential race that seemed his for the taking, Al Gore has attained what you can only call prophetic status; and he has done so by acting as he could not, or would not, as a candidate - saying precisely what he believes, and saying it with clarity, passion, intellectual mastery and even, sometimes, wit. Everywhere he goes, people urge him, almost beg him, to run for the American presidency. He probably won't - though he might. ('It's complicated,' he told me, 'but it's not mysterious.') He says he thinks he'd be better at it this time than he was last time. And he probably would be: Gore really does know how to hold 6,000 people in a room. But sometimes one person is one person too much for him.
Gore is a gifted, and remorseless, explainer. Over the past three decades he has been trying to explain a complicated and unattractive idea that scarcely anyone in America wanted to hear - that mankind has threatened its future on the planet by massively increasing the level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. Now, thanks in part to Gore himself, fewer and fewer people dispute this premise. But winning the argument - the smoking-causes-cancer part - is only the beginning. Gore and the US's major environmental groups have now embarked on a three-year effort to persuade the American people of the need for drastic action to curb greenhouse gases. It is a campaign of such vast ambition you could almost imagine passing up a run at the presidency in order to pursue it. 'The central challenge,' he said to me later that evening as he was waiting to go onstage at the University of Miami, 'is to expand the limits of what's now considered politically possible. The outer boundary of what's considered plausible today still falls far short of the near boundary of what would actually solve the crisis.
(More ... Guardian > The Observer Magazine)
James Traub
Sunday June 24, 2007
The Observer
One afternoon in February, Al Gore was waiting to board a flight from Nashville to Miami, where he was to deliver the slide show that forms the basis of An Inconvenient Truth, his Academy Award-winning documentary on global warming. Gore was telling me about Ilya Prigogine, a Belgian chemist who won a Nobel Prize in 1977 for his insights into the thermodynamics of open systems, an intriguing subject that has very little to do with global warming. Every minute or so he flashed a microgrin at a passer-by without interrupting his oratorical flow. We had moved on to complexity theory, in which Gore would really immerse himself if only he had the time, and then to the concept of nested systems, which of course had been developed by the late psychologist Uri Bronfenbrenner, when a woman in a blazing orange shirt emerged from her flight, did a double take and cried, 'Isn't that AL GORE?!' There was no ignoring this fan. As she came over to thank Gore for trying to save the planet, I saw that my bags were in the way. 'I'll move them,' I said; and Gore, before he could think, said: 'No, don't.'
Six years after the Supreme Court declared him the loser of a presidential race that seemed his for the taking, Al Gore has attained what you can only call prophetic status; and he has done so by acting as he could not, or would not, as a candidate - saying precisely what he believes, and saying it with clarity, passion, intellectual mastery and even, sometimes, wit. Everywhere he goes, people urge him, almost beg him, to run for the American presidency. He probably won't - though he might. ('It's complicated,' he told me, 'but it's not mysterious.') He says he thinks he'd be better at it this time than he was last time. And he probably would be: Gore really does know how to hold 6,000 people in a room. But sometimes one person is one person too much for him.
Gore is a gifted, and remorseless, explainer. Over the past three decades he has been trying to explain a complicated and unattractive idea that scarcely anyone in America wanted to hear - that mankind has threatened its future on the planet by massively increasing the level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. Now, thanks in part to Gore himself, fewer and fewer people dispute this premise. But winning the argument - the smoking-causes-cancer part - is only the beginning. Gore and the US's major environmental groups have now embarked on a three-year effort to persuade the American people of the need for drastic action to curb greenhouse gases. It is a campaign of such vast ambition you could almost imagine passing up a run at the presidency in order to pursue it. 'The central challenge,' he said to me later that evening as he was waiting to go onstage at the University of Miami, 'is to expand the limits of what's now considered politically possible. The outer boundary of what's considered plausible today still falls far short of the near boundary of what would actually solve the crisis.
(More ... Guardian > The Observer Magazine)
Labels: Climate Change, Gore, Guardian
¶ 20:24 3 comments
6.18.2007
Barack the Renegade, Say Secret Service (Guardian.co.uk)
Simon Tisdall in Washington
Monday June 18, 2007
The Guardian
The Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama has been variously characterised as the bright young hope of the nation, a know-nothing upstart and a rebel without a cause. But for the wired-up, sunglassed, lapel-murmuring men and women of the US secret service, the senator from Illinois is known simply as "renegade", it was revealed yesterday.
If Mr Obama's aim is to present himself as an underdog outsider running against politics-as-usual, the secret service's codename could be a plus with undecided voters. But others in this race-sensitive country are certain to perceive a slight on Mr Obama's African-American background.
Secret service agents seeking a pithy, private way of identifying and protecting the candidate as he zips around the country say the choice of "renegade" is essentially no different from the tags chosen for past and present political high-fliers.
Former agents told the Washington Post that military officials chose the code names without particular reference to the characteristics of the politician. Despite such denials, the tags often appear strangely apposite.
(More ... Guardian)
Monday June 18, 2007
The Guardian
The Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama has been variously characterised as the bright young hope of the nation, a know-nothing upstart and a rebel without a cause. But for the wired-up, sunglassed, lapel-murmuring men and women of the US secret service, the senator from Illinois is known simply as "renegade", it was revealed yesterday.
If Mr Obama's aim is to present himself as an underdog outsider running against politics-as-usual, the secret service's codename could be a plus with undecided voters. But others in this race-sensitive country are certain to perceive a slight on Mr Obama's African-American background.
Secret service agents seeking a pithy, private way of identifying and protecting the candidate as he zips around the country say the choice of "renegade" is essentially no different from the tags chosen for past and present political high-fliers.
Former agents told the Washington Post that military officials chose the code names without particular reference to the characteristics of the politician. Despite such denials, the tags often appear strangely apposite.
(More ... Guardian)
Labels: 2008 election, Guardian, Obama
¶ 21:21 0 comments
6.11.2007
The Wrath of 2007: America's Great Drought (Independent.co.uk)
By Andrew Gumbel in Los Angeles
Published: 11 June 2007
America is facing its worst summer drought since the Dust Bowl years of the Great Depression. Or perhaps worse still.
From the mountains and desert of the West, now into an eighth consecutive dry year, to the wheat farms of Alabama, where crops are failing because of rainfall levels 12 inches lower than usual, to the vast soupy expanse of Lake Okeechobee in southern Florida, which has become so dry it actually caught fire a couple of weeks ago, a continent is crying out for water.
In the south-east, usually a lush, humid region, it is the driest few months since records began in 1895. California and Nevada, where burgeoning population centres co-exist with an often harsh, barren landscape, have seen less rain over the past year than at any time since 1924. The Sierra Nevada range, which straddles the two states, received only 27 per cent of its usual snowfall in winter, with immediate knock-on effects on water supplies for the populations of Las Vegas and Los Angeles.
The human impact, for the moment, has been limited, certainly nothing compared to the great westward migration of Okies in the 1930 - the desperate march described by John Steinbeck in The Grapes of Wrath.
Big farmers are now well protected by government subsidies and emergency funds, and small farmers, some of whom are indeed struggling, have been slowly moving off the land for decades anyway. The most common inconvenience, for the moment, are restrictions on hosepipes and garden sprinklers in eastern cities.
But the long-term implications are escaping nobody. Climatologists see a growing volatility in the south-east's weather - today's drought coming close on the heels of devastating hurricanes two to three years ago. In the West, meanwhile, a growing body of scientific evidence suggests a movement towards a state of perpetual drought by the middle of this century. "The 1930s drought lasted less than a decade. This is something that could remain for 100 years," said Richard Seager a climatologist at Columbia University and lead researcher of a report published recently by the government's National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA).
(More ... Independent > World > Americas)
Published: 11 June 2007
America is facing its worst summer drought since the Dust Bowl years of the Great Depression. Or perhaps worse still.
From the mountains and desert of the West, now into an eighth consecutive dry year, to the wheat farms of Alabama, where crops are failing because of rainfall levels 12 inches lower than usual, to the vast soupy expanse of Lake Okeechobee in southern Florida, which has become so dry it actually caught fire a couple of weeks ago, a continent is crying out for water.
In the south-east, usually a lush, humid region, it is the driest few months since records began in 1895. California and Nevada, where burgeoning population centres co-exist with an often harsh, barren landscape, have seen less rain over the past year than at any time since 1924. The Sierra Nevada range, which straddles the two states, received only 27 per cent of its usual snowfall in winter, with immediate knock-on effects on water supplies for the populations of Las Vegas and Los Angeles.
The human impact, for the moment, has been limited, certainly nothing compared to the great westward migration of Okies in the 1930 - the desperate march described by John Steinbeck in The Grapes of Wrath.
Big farmers are now well protected by government subsidies and emergency funds, and small farmers, some of whom are indeed struggling, have been slowly moving off the land for decades anyway. The most common inconvenience, for the moment, are restrictions on hosepipes and garden sprinklers in eastern cities.
But the long-term implications are escaping nobody. Climatologists see a growing volatility in the south-east's weather - today's drought coming close on the heels of devastating hurricanes two to three years ago. In the West, meanwhile, a growing body of scientific evidence suggests a movement towards a state of perpetual drought by the middle of this century. "The 1930s drought lasted less than a decade. This is something that could remain for 100 years," said Richard Seager a climatologist at Columbia University and lead researcher of a report published recently by the government's National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA).
(More ... Independent > World > Americas)
Labels: Climate Change, Independent
¶ 22:07 0 comments
6.06.2007
Global Sea Levels Will Rise Quicker Than Thought -- Study (NZHerald.co.nz)
12:05PM Wednesday June 06, 2007
By Steve Connor
Fears that global sea levels this century may rise faster and further than expected are supported by a study showing that 300 glaciers in Antarctica have begun to move more quickly into the ocean.
Scientists believe that the accelerated movement of glaciers in the Antarctic Peninsula indicates a dramatic shift in the way melting ice around the world contributes to overall increases in global sea levels.
Instead of simply adding huge volumes of meltwater to the sea, scientists have found that rising temperatures are causing glaciers as far apart as Alaska, Greenland and now Antarctica to break up and slip into the ocean at a faster rate than expected.
The findings are likely to raises concerns within the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) which earlier this year downplayed the so-called "dynamic" nature of melting glaciers - when rising temperatures cause them to break up quickly rather than simple melt away slowly.
(More ... NZ Herald > News > World)
By Steve Connor
Fears that global sea levels this century may rise faster and further than expected are supported by a study showing that 300 glaciers in Antarctica have begun to move more quickly into the ocean.
Scientists believe that the accelerated movement of glaciers in the Antarctic Peninsula indicates a dramatic shift in the way melting ice around the world contributes to overall increases in global sea levels.
Instead of simply adding huge volumes of meltwater to the sea, scientists have found that rising temperatures are causing glaciers as far apart as Alaska, Greenland and now Antarctica to break up and slip into the ocean at a faster rate than expected.
The findings are likely to raises concerns within the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) which earlier this year downplayed the so-called "dynamic" nature of melting glaciers - when rising temperatures cause them to break up quickly rather than simple melt away slowly.
(More ... NZ Herald > News > World)
Labels: Climate Change, NZ Herald
¶ 21:24 0 comments
6.04.2007
Lula Rejects Bush Move on Climate Change (Guardian.co.uk)
John Vidal and Julian Borger
Monday June 4, 2007
The Guardian
Brazil's President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva, has flatly rejected President Bush's proposals for parallel global negotiations to combat climate change, insisting that countries come to agreement at the United Nations, and not under US leadership.
In a rare interview with a British newspaper, President Lula told the Guardian that Brazil, a fast developing country whose support is critical to a global deal on emission cuts, had not even been informed that Mr Bush was contemplating a new negotiating framework, before the US president made his announcement last Thursday.
"The Brazilian position is clear cut," Mr Lula said. "I cannot accept the idea that we have to build another group to discuss the same issues that were discussed in Kyoto and not fulfilled.
"If you have a multilateral forum [the UN] that makes a democratic decision ... then we should work to abide by those rules [rather than] simply to say that I do not agree with Kyoto and that I will develop another institution," said Mr Lula, who was in London to watch Friday's England-Brazil international football friendly.
The Bush administration has sought to cultivate President Lula as an ally, seeing the former trade unionist as a centre-left alternative in Latin America to the more radical anti-American socialism espoused by Cuba's Fidel Castro and Venezuela's Hugo Chavez. Presidents Bush and Lula also share an enthusiasm for the potential for "bio-fuels" made from plants as a substitute for fossil fuels.
However, on overall climate change policy, President Lula was dismissive of the Bush approach, calling it "voluntarism", meaning a reliance on "coalitions of the willing" rather than establish global institutions and the pursuit of voluntary goals rather than binding commitments. "We cannot let voluntarism override multilateralism," he said.
(More ... Guardian > Environment > Climate Change)
Monday June 4, 2007
The Guardian
Brazil's President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva, has flatly rejected President Bush's proposals for parallel global negotiations to combat climate change, insisting that countries come to agreement at the United Nations, and not under US leadership.
In a rare interview with a British newspaper, President Lula told the Guardian that Brazil, a fast developing country whose support is critical to a global deal on emission cuts, had not even been informed that Mr Bush was contemplating a new negotiating framework, before the US president made his announcement last Thursday.
"The Brazilian position is clear cut," Mr Lula said. "I cannot accept the idea that we have to build another group to discuss the same issues that were discussed in Kyoto and not fulfilled.
"If you have a multilateral forum [the UN] that makes a democratic decision ... then we should work to abide by those rules [rather than] simply to say that I do not agree with Kyoto and that I will develop another institution," said Mr Lula, who was in London to watch Friday's England-Brazil international football friendly.
The Bush administration has sought to cultivate President Lula as an ally, seeing the former trade unionist as a centre-left alternative in Latin America to the more radical anti-American socialism espoused by Cuba's Fidel Castro and Venezuela's Hugo Chavez. Presidents Bush and Lula also share an enthusiasm for the potential for "bio-fuels" made from plants as a substitute for fossil fuels.
However, on overall climate change policy, President Lula was dismissive of the Bush approach, calling it "voluntarism", meaning a reliance on "coalitions of the willing" rather than establish global institutions and the pursuit of voluntary goals rather than binding commitments. "We cannot let voluntarism override multilateralism," he said.
(More ... Guardian > Environment > Climate Change)
Labels: Brazil, Bush, Climate Change, G8, Guardian
¶ 12:31 0 comments
5.31.2007
Anti-War Mom Sheehan Gives Up Her Protest (CNN.com)
POSTED: 11:23 a.m. EDT, May 29, 2007
(CNN) -- Cindy Sheehan, the California mother who became an anti-war leader after her son was killed in Iraq, declared Monday she was walking away from the peace movement.
She said her son died "for nothing."
Sheehan achieved national attention when she camped outside President Bush's home in Crawford, Texas, throughout August 2005 to demand a meeting with the president over her son's death.
While Bush ignored her, the vigil made her one of the most prominent figures among opponents of the war.
But in a Web diary posted to the liberal online community Daily Kos on Monday, Sheehan said she was exhausted by the personal, financial and emotional toll of the past two years.
She wrote that she is disillusioned by the failure of Democratic politicians to bring the unpopular war to an end and tired of a peace movement she said "often puts personal egos above peace and human life."
Casey Sheehan, a 24-year-old Army specialist, was killed in an April 2004 battle in Baghdad. His death prompted his mother to found Gold Star Families for Peace.
But in Monday's 1,200-word letter, titled, "Good Riddance Attention Whore," Sheehan announced that her son "did indeed die for nothing."
(More ... CNN > News > U.S.)
(CNN) -- Cindy Sheehan, the California mother who became an anti-war leader after her son was killed in Iraq, declared Monday she was walking away from the peace movement.
She said her son died "for nothing."
Sheehan achieved national attention when she camped outside President Bush's home in Crawford, Texas, throughout August 2005 to demand a meeting with the president over her son's death.
While Bush ignored her, the vigil made her one of the most prominent figures among opponents of the war.
But in a Web diary posted to the liberal online community Daily Kos on Monday, Sheehan said she was exhausted by the personal, financial and emotional toll of the past two years.
She wrote that she is disillusioned by the failure of Democratic politicians to bring the unpopular war to an end and tired of a peace movement she said "often puts personal egos above peace and human life."
Casey Sheehan, a 24-year-old Army specialist, was killed in an April 2004 battle in Baghdad. His death prompted his mother to found Gold Star Families for Peace.
But in Monday's 1,200-word letter, titled, "Good Riddance Attention Whore," Sheehan announced that her son "did indeed die for nothing."
(More ... CNN > News > U.S.)
Labels: CNN, Iraq, Peace, Sheehan
¶ 21:26 0 comments
NZ Ranked No. 2 in World Peace Survey (NZHerald.co.nz)
5:00AM Thursday May 31, 2007
New Zealand has been placed second behind Norway in an inaugural Global Peace Index launched in London overnight.
The Economist Intelligence Unit was commissioned by a group of businessmen, academics and peace institutions to rank 121 nations according to their relative state of peace.
The index was comprised of 24 indicators, ranging from a nation's level of military expenditure to its relations with neighbouring countries and the level of respect for human rights.
"New Zealand's lofty position in the Global Peace Index (GPI) partly reflects its lack of internal and external conflicts and its very good relations with neighbouring countries, namely Australia and fellow member states of the Pacific Island Forum," the GPI reports says.
The report said New Zealand's diplomatic and economic links with Australia had been underpinned since 1983 by the Closer Economic Relations agreement.
It said the nation's political scene was stable and the index gave New Zealand very low scores on the likelihood of violent demonstrations and the number of homicides.
"However, violent crime is higher than in Norway and the number of jailed population is considerably higher than the four Nordic nations surveyed."
The report noted New Zealand's military expenditure as a percentage of GDP was low and notably lower than Australia.
"New Zealand's ability to play a security role within the Pacific region was nevertheless demonstrated in July 2003, when it sent 35 policemen and 230 military personnel to the Solomon Islands as part of a 2225-strong Australian led peacekeeping force."
(More ... New Zealand Herald > News > National) ¶ 08:06 0 comments
New Zealand has been placed second behind Norway in an inaugural Global Peace Index launched in London overnight.
The Economist Intelligence Unit was commissioned by a group of businessmen, academics and peace institutions to rank 121 nations according to their relative state of peace.
The index was comprised of 24 indicators, ranging from a nation's level of military expenditure to its relations with neighbouring countries and the level of respect for human rights.
"New Zealand's lofty position in the Global Peace Index (GPI) partly reflects its lack of internal and external conflicts and its very good relations with neighbouring countries, namely Australia and fellow member states of the Pacific Island Forum," the GPI reports says.
The report said New Zealand's diplomatic and economic links with Australia had been underpinned since 1983 by the Closer Economic Relations agreement.
It said the nation's political scene was stable and the index gave New Zealand very low scores on the likelihood of violent demonstrations and the number of homicides.
"However, violent crime is higher than in Norway and the number of jailed population is considerably higher than the four Nordic nations surveyed."
The report noted New Zealand's military expenditure as a percentage of GDP was low and notably lower than Australia.
"New Zealand's ability to play a security role within the Pacific region was nevertheless demonstrated in July 2003, when it sent 35 policemen and 230 military personnel to the Solomon Islands as part of a 2225-strong Australian led peacekeeping force."
(More ... New Zealand Herald > News > National) ¶ 08:06 0 comments
U.S. Ranks Low, Just Above Iran, in Peace Index (AlertNet.org)
30 May 2007 16:47:40 GMT
By Deborah Charles
WASHINGTON, May 30 (Reuters) - The United States is among the least peaceful nations in the world, ranking 96th between Yemen and Iran, according to a new index released on Wednesday that evaluates 121 nations based on their peacefulness.
According to the Global Peace Index, created by The Economist Intelligence Unit, Norway is the most peaceful nation in the world and Iraq is the least, just after Russia, Israel and Sudan.
"The objective of the Global Peace Index was to go beyond a crude measure of wars by systemically exploring the texture of peace," said Global Peace Index President Clyde McConaghy.
He said the inaugural effort proves "peace can and has and will continue to be measured."
The index was compiled based on 24 indicators measuring peace inside and outside of a country. They included the number of wars a country was involved in the past five years, how many soldiers were killed overseas and how much money was made in arms sales.
Domestic indicators included the level of violent crimes, relations with neighboring countries and level of distrust in other citizens.
The results were then reviewed by a panel of international experts.
"We were trying to find out what positive qualities lead to peace," said Leo Abruzzese, the North American editorial director of the intelligence unit that is part of The Economist Group that publishes the well known magazine.
(More ... Reuters > AlertNet) ¶ 08:03 0 comments
By Deborah Charles
WASHINGTON, May 30 (Reuters) - The United States is among the least peaceful nations in the world, ranking 96th between Yemen and Iran, according to a new index released on Wednesday that evaluates 121 nations based on their peacefulness.
According to the Global Peace Index, created by The Economist Intelligence Unit, Norway is the most peaceful nation in the world and Iraq is the least, just after Russia, Israel and Sudan.
"The objective of the Global Peace Index was to go beyond a crude measure of wars by systemically exploring the texture of peace," said Global Peace Index President Clyde McConaghy.
He said the inaugural effort proves "peace can and has and will continue to be measured."
The index was compiled based on 24 indicators measuring peace inside and outside of a country. They included the number of wars a country was involved in the past five years, how many soldiers were killed overseas and how much money was made in arms sales.
Domestic indicators included the level of violent crimes, relations with neighboring countries and level of distrust in other citizens.
The results were then reviewed by a panel of international experts.
"We were trying to find out what positive qualities lead to peace," said Leo Abruzzese, the North American editorial director of the intelligence unit that is part of The Economist Group that publishes the well known magazine.
(More ... Reuters > AlertNet) ¶ 08:03 0 comments
5.28.2007
U.S. Africa Command Brings New Concerns (WashingtonPost.com)
Fears of Militarization on Continent Cited
By Walter Pincus
Washington Post Staff Writer
Monday, May 28, 2007; Page A13
The creation of the Defense Department Africa Command, with responsibilities to promote security and government stability in the region, has heightened concerns among African countries and in the U.S. government over the militarization of U.S. foreign policy, according to a newly released study by the Congressional Research Service.
The Africa Command (AFRICOM) was announced in February by the Bush administration and is scheduled to begin operations in October with temporary headquarters in Stuttgart, Germany. AFRICOM would have traditional responsibilities of a combat command "to facilitate or lead [U.S.] military operations" on the continent, but would also include "a broader 'soft power' mandate aimed at preemptively reducing conflict and would incorporate a larger civilian component to address those challenges," according to the CRS study.
AFRICOM raises oversight issues for congressional committees, according to the report. "How will the administration ensure that U.S. military efforts in Africa do not overshadow or contradict U.S. diplomatic and development objectives?" the report asks. Similar concerns are being raised between Defense and State Department officials over the Pentagon's plans to take economic assistance programs begun in Iraq and Afghanistan and make them permanent and worldwide, with more than $1 billion allocated to them annually.
(More ... Washington Post > World > Africa)
By Walter Pincus
Washington Post Staff Writer
Monday, May 28, 2007; Page A13
The creation of the Defense Department Africa Command, with responsibilities to promote security and government stability in the region, has heightened concerns among African countries and in the U.S. government over the militarization of U.S. foreign policy, according to a newly released study by the Congressional Research Service.
The Africa Command (AFRICOM) was announced in February by the Bush administration and is scheduled to begin operations in October with temporary headquarters in Stuttgart, Germany. AFRICOM would have traditional responsibilities of a combat command "to facilitate or lead [U.S.] military operations" on the continent, but would also include "a broader 'soft power' mandate aimed at preemptively reducing conflict and would incorporate a larger civilian component to address those challenges," according to the CRS study.
AFRICOM raises oversight issues for congressional committees, according to the report. "How will the administration ensure that U.S. military efforts in Africa do not overshadow or contradict U.S. diplomatic and development objectives?" the report asks. Similar concerns are being raised between Defense and State Department officials over the Pentagon's plans to take economic assistance programs begun in Iraq and Afghanistan and make them permanent and worldwide, with more than $1 billion allocated to them annually.
(More ... Washington Post > World > Africa)
Labels: U.S. Military, Washington Post
¶ 21:29 0 comments
5.25.2007
Revolt Against New U.S. ID Card Grows (Reuters.com)
Thu May 24, 2007 4:12PM EDT
By Jason Szep
BOSTON (Reuters) - New Hampshire on Thursday joined a growing list of states to reject a controversial U.S. identification card that opponents say will cost billions of dollars to administer and present a risk to privacy.
The Democratic-controlled state Senate approved legislation to prohibit the Real ID program in a 24-0 vote, and Gov. John Lynch said he would sign the bill, which passed the state House of Representatives on April 6.
New Hampshire becomes the 13th state to oppose the identification card. Another 22 states are considering similar legislation or resolutions to reject it, according to the American Civil Liberties Union.
"I applaud the Senate for overwhelmingly rejecting Real ID and for sending a strong message to the federal government," Lynch, a Democrat, said in a statement. "I look forward to signing this legislation, which will ensure the interests of the people of New Hampshire are protected."
The U.S. Congress in 2004 passed a law calling for the national digital identification system. It is intended as a post-September 11 security measure to make more secure the state-issued driver's license that are an ubiquitous form of identification in the United States.
Under the program, states would be required to verify documents presented with license applications and to link their license databases into a national electronic network. The federal law that created the program did not provide states with funds to carry it out.
(More ... Reuters > News > U.S.)
By Jason Szep
BOSTON (Reuters) - New Hampshire on Thursday joined a growing list of states to reject a controversial U.S. identification card that opponents say will cost billions of dollars to administer and present a risk to privacy.
The Democratic-controlled state Senate approved legislation to prohibit the Real ID program in a 24-0 vote, and Gov. John Lynch said he would sign the bill, which passed the state House of Representatives on April 6.
New Hampshire becomes the 13th state to oppose the identification card. Another 22 states are considering similar legislation or resolutions to reject it, according to the American Civil Liberties Union.
"I applaud the Senate for overwhelmingly rejecting Real ID and for sending a strong message to the federal government," Lynch, a Democrat, said in a statement. "I look forward to signing this legislation, which will ensure the interests of the people of New Hampshire are protected."
The U.S. Congress in 2004 passed a law calling for the national digital identification system. It is intended as a post-September 11 security measure to make more secure the state-issued driver's license that are an ubiquitous form of identification in the United States.
Under the program, states would be required to verify documents presented with license applications and to link their license databases into a national electronic network. The federal law that created the program did not provide states with funds to carry it out.
(More ... Reuters > News > U.S.)
Labels: Civil Liberties, Reuters
¶ 20:54 0 comments
5.21.2007
U.S. Regime "Worst Ever" -- Carter (Independent.co.uk)
By Ruth Elkins
Published: 20 May 2007
Former President Jimmy Carter says President George Bush's administration is "the worst in history" in international relations, taking aim at the White House's policy of pre-emptive war and its Middle East diplomacy.
The criticism, which a biographer says is unprecedented for Mr Carter, also took aim at Mr Bush's environmental policies and the administration's "quite disturbing" faith-based initiative funding. "I think as far as the adverse impact on the nation around the world, this administration has been the worst in history," Mr Carter told the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette. Douglas Brinkley, a Tulane University presidential historian and Carter biographer, described Mr Carter's comments as unprecedented. "This is the most forceful denunciation he has ever made about an American president," Mr Brinkley said.
Mr Carter came down hard on the Iraq war. "We now have endorsed the concept of pre-emptive war where we go to war with another nation militarily, even though our own security is not directly threatened, if we want to change the regime there or if we fear that some time in the future our security might be endangered," he said.
But Amber Wilkerson, a Republican National Committee spokeswoman, said it was hard to take Mr Carter seriously because he also "challenged Ronald Reagan's strategy for the Cold War".
(More ... The Independent > News > World)
Published: 20 May 2007
Former President Jimmy Carter says President George Bush's administration is "the worst in history" in international relations, taking aim at the White House's policy of pre-emptive war and its Middle East diplomacy.
The criticism, which a biographer says is unprecedented for Mr Carter, also took aim at Mr Bush's environmental policies and the administration's "quite disturbing" faith-based initiative funding. "I think as far as the adverse impact on the nation around the world, this administration has been the worst in history," Mr Carter told the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette. Douglas Brinkley, a Tulane University presidential historian and Carter biographer, described Mr Carter's comments as unprecedented. "This is the most forceful denunciation he has ever made about an American president," Mr Brinkley said.
Mr Carter came down hard on the Iraq war. "We now have endorsed the concept of pre-emptive war where we go to war with another nation militarily, even though our own security is not directly threatened, if we want to change the regime there or if we fear that some time in the future our security might be endangered," he said.
But Amber Wilkerson, a Republican National Committee spokeswoman, said it was hard to take Mr Carter seriously because he also "challenged Ronald Reagan's strategy for the Cold War".
(More ... The Independent > News > World)
Labels: Bush, Carter, Independent
¶ 08:16 0 comments
NZ Invited to California Clean-up (NZHerald.co.nz)
5:00AM Monday May 21, 2007
By Tim Watkin
California has invited New Zealand to join its battle against pollution, offering local businesses the potential to enter a ground-breaking market with the world's sixth largest economy.
Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger's chief environmental adviser, Terry Tamminen, said New Zealand would be "more than welcome" to join the Californian-centred emissions trading market, due to launch in 2012.
"We'd come down there in a heartbeat [to negotiate]," Mr Tamminen told the Listener magazine.
"And Governor Schwarzenegger would be pleased to welcome your leadership here."
California is leading climate change legislation in the United States, and its commitment to lower greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions to 1990 levels, or around 22 per cent, by 2020, has attracted interest and praise from around the world.
(More ... New Zealand Herald > News > National)
By Tim Watkin
California has invited New Zealand to join its battle against pollution, offering local businesses the potential to enter a ground-breaking market with the world's sixth largest economy.
Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger's chief environmental adviser, Terry Tamminen, said New Zealand would be "more than welcome" to join the Californian-centred emissions trading market, due to launch in 2012.
"We'd come down there in a heartbeat [to negotiate]," Mr Tamminen told the Listener magazine.
"And Governor Schwarzenegger would be pleased to welcome your leadership here."
California is leading climate change legislation in the United States, and its commitment to lower greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions to 1990 levels, or around 22 per cent, by 2020, has attracted interest and praise from around the world.
(More ... New Zealand Herald > News > National)
Labels: Climate Change, NZ Herald
¶ 08:03 0 comments
5.19.2007
Earth's Natural Defences Against Climate Change 'Beginning to Fail' (Independent.co.uk)
By Michael McCarthy, Environment Editor
Published: 18 May 2007
The earth's ability to soak up the gases causing global warming is beginning to fail because of rising temperatures, in a long-feared sign of "positive feedback," new research reveals today.
Climate change itself is weakening one of the principal "sinks" absorbing carbon dioxide - the Southern Ocean around Antarctica - a new study has found.
As a result, atmospheric CO2 levels may rise faster and bring about rising temperatures more quickly than previously anticipated. Stabilising the CO2 level, which must be done to bring the warming under control, is likely to become much more difficult, even if the world community agrees to do it.
The news may give added urgency to the meeting in three weeks' time between the G8 group of rich nations and the leading developing countries led by China, at Heiligendamm in Germany, when an attempt will be made to put together the framework of a new world climate treaty to succeed the current Kyoto protocol.
"This is a timely warning in advance of Heiligendamm and the G8 that the climate clock is beginning to tick faster," said the leading environmentalist Tom Burke, visiting professor at Imperial College London.
(More ... Independent > News > Environment > Climate Change)
Published: 18 May 2007
The earth's ability to soak up the gases causing global warming is beginning to fail because of rising temperatures, in a long-feared sign of "positive feedback," new research reveals today.
Climate change itself is weakening one of the principal "sinks" absorbing carbon dioxide - the Southern Ocean around Antarctica - a new study has found.
As a result, atmospheric CO2 levels may rise faster and bring about rising temperatures more quickly than previously anticipated. Stabilising the CO2 level, which must be done to bring the warming under control, is likely to become much more difficult, even if the world community agrees to do it.
The news may give added urgency to the meeting in three weeks' time between the G8 group of rich nations and the leading developing countries led by China, at Heiligendamm in Germany, when an attempt will be made to put together the framework of a new world climate treaty to succeed the current Kyoto protocol.
"This is a timely warning in advance of Heiligendamm and the G8 that the climate clock is beginning to tick faster," said the leading environmentalist Tom Burke, visiting professor at Imperial College London.
(More ... Independent > News > Environment > Climate Change)
Labels: Climate Change, G8, Independent
¶ 09:47 0 comments
5.09.2007
Kansas Tornado Renews Debate on Guard at War (NYTimes.com)
By SUSAN SAULNY and JIM RUTENBERG
Published: May 9, 2007
CHICAGO, May 8 — For months, Gov. Kathleen Sebelius of Kansas and other governors have warned that their state National Guards are ill-prepared for the next local disaster, be it a tornado a flash flood or a terrorist’s threat, because of large deployments of their soldiers and equipment in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Then, last Friday night, a deadly tornado all but cleared the small town of Greensburg off the Kansas map. With 80 square blocks of the small farming town destroyed, Ms. Sebelius said her fears had come true: The emergency response was too slow, she said, and there was only one reason.
“As you travel around Greensburg, you’ll see that city and county trucks have been destroyed,” Ms. Sebelius, a Democrat, said Monday. “The National Guard is one of our first responders. They don’t have the equipment they need to come in, and it just makes it that much slower.”
For nearly two days after the storm, there was an unmistakable emptiness in Greensburg, a lack of heavy machinery and an army of responders. By Sunday afternoon, more than a day and a half after the tornado, only about half of the Guard troops who would ultimately respond were in place.
It was not until Sunday night that significant numbers of military vehicles started to arrive, many streaming in a long caravan from Wichita about 100 miles away.
(More ... New York Times > News > U.S.)
Published: May 9, 2007
CHICAGO, May 8 — For months, Gov. Kathleen Sebelius of Kansas and other governors have warned that their state National Guards are ill-prepared for the next local disaster, be it a tornado a flash flood or a terrorist’s threat, because of large deployments of their soldiers and equipment in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Then, last Friday night, a deadly tornado all but cleared the small town of Greensburg off the Kansas map. With 80 square blocks of the small farming town destroyed, Ms. Sebelius said her fears had come true: The emergency response was too slow, she said, and there was only one reason.
“As you travel around Greensburg, you’ll see that city and county trucks have been destroyed,” Ms. Sebelius, a Democrat, said Monday. “The National Guard is one of our first responders. They don’t have the equipment they need to come in, and it just makes it that much slower.”
For nearly two days after the storm, there was an unmistakable emptiness in Greensburg, a lack of heavy machinery and an army of responders. By Sunday afternoon, more than a day and a half after the tornado, only about half of the Guard troops who would ultimately respond were in place.
It was not until Sunday night that significant numbers of military vehicles started to arrive, many streaming in a long caravan from Wichita about 100 miles away.
(More ... New York Times > News > U.S.)
Labels: National Guard, New York Times, U.S. Military
¶ 22:27 0 comments
The Democrats' Pledge (NYTimes.com)
EDITORIAL
Published: May 9, 2007
Last year, Congressional Democrats allowed the Bush administration to ram through one of the worst laws in the nation’s history — the Military Commissions Act of 2006. This year, the Democrats pledged to use their new majority to begin repairing the profound damage the law has done to the nation’s justice system and global image.
But there are disturbing signs their pledge may fall victim to the same tactical political calculations and Bush administration propagandizing that allowed this scandalous law to pass in the first place.
Rewriting the act should start with one simple step: restoring to prisoners of the war on terror the fundamental right to challenge their detention in a real court. So far, promised measures to restore habeas corpus have yet to see the light of day, and they may remain buried unless Democratic leaders make them a priority and members of both parties vote on principle, not out of fear of attack ads.
President Bush turned habeas corpus into a partisan issue by declaring that the prisoners in Guantánamo Bay, even innocent ones, do not deserve a hearing. Lawmakers who objected were painted as friends of terrorists.
But let’s be clear. There is nothing “conservative” or “tough on terrorism” in selectively stripping people of their rights. Suspending habeas corpus is an extreme notion on the radical fringes of democratic philosophy. As four retired military chief prosecutors — from the Navy, the Marines and the Army — pointed out to Congress, holding prisoners without access to courts merely feeds Al Qaeda’s propaganda machine, increases the risk to the American military and sets a precedent by which other governments could justify detaining American civilians without charges or appeal.
(More ... New York Times > OpEd > Editorial)
Published: May 9, 2007
Last year, Congressional Democrats allowed the Bush administration to ram through one of the worst laws in the nation’s history — the Military Commissions Act of 2006. This year, the Democrats pledged to use their new majority to begin repairing the profound damage the law has done to the nation’s justice system and global image.
But there are disturbing signs their pledge may fall victim to the same tactical political calculations and Bush administration propagandizing that allowed this scandalous law to pass in the first place.
Rewriting the act should start with one simple step: restoring to prisoners of the war on terror the fundamental right to challenge their detention in a real court. So far, promised measures to restore habeas corpus have yet to see the light of day, and they may remain buried unless Democratic leaders make them a priority and members of both parties vote on principle, not out of fear of attack ads.
President Bush turned habeas corpus into a partisan issue by declaring that the prisoners in Guantánamo Bay, even innocent ones, do not deserve a hearing. Lawmakers who objected were painted as friends of terrorists.
But let’s be clear. There is nothing “conservative” or “tough on terrorism” in selectively stripping people of their rights. Suspending habeas corpus is an extreme notion on the radical fringes of democratic philosophy. As four retired military chief prosecutors — from the Navy, the Marines and the Army — pointed out to Congress, holding prisoners without access to courts merely feeds Al Qaeda’s propaganda machine, increases the risk to the American military and sets a precedent by which other governments could justify detaining American civilians without charges or appeal.
(More ... New York Times > OpEd > Editorial)
Labels: Civil Liberties, Editorials, Guantanamo, New York Times
¶ 21:49 0 comments
4.28.2007
Debate Scorecard: They're No Jack Kennedys (NYObserver.com)
Barack Obama and John Edwards may have squandered their first opportunity to make headway against the notoriously scripted Hillary Clinton. But it's early yet.
By Steve Kornacki Published: April 26, 2007
Next February 5, when approximately 83 states are scheduled to hold primaries and caucuses that cumulatively figure to determine the party’s presidential nominee, chances are no one will remember anything from the lead-off Democratic debate.
There were no sharp attacks, no memorable exchanges, no gotcha moments. No one was asked about the hypothetical rape and murder of Kitty Dukakis; no one accidentally declared Poland liberated; and no one foolishly compared him or herself to Jack Kennedy.
The closest any candidate came to eloquence was when Mike Gravel randomly offered up an excerpt of Ronald Reagan’s 1984 put-down of Walter Mondale, saying that he wouldn’t hold his opponents’ youth and inexperience against them.
No one really won this debate. Which makes it a default victory for Hillary Clinton, the only Democrat who stands to win simply by not losing.
Hillary’s performance itself was serviceable, the equivalent of a quarterback completing 13 of 25 passes for 170 yards and a touchdown. She likely benefited from lowered expectations, after months -- if not years -- of critical attacks on her supposedly tight, frigid and over-scripted public personality.
(More ... New York Observer > Politics)
By Steve Kornacki Published: April 26, 2007
Next February 5, when approximately 83 states are scheduled to hold primaries and caucuses that cumulatively figure to determine the party’s presidential nominee, chances are no one will remember anything from the lead-off Democratic debate.
There were no sharp attacks, no memorable exchanges, no gotcha moments. No one was asked about the hypothetical rape and murder of Kitty Dukakis; no one accidentally declared Poland liberated; and no one foolishly compared him or herself to Jack Kennedy.
The closest any candidate came to eloquence was when Mike Gravel randomly offered up an excerpt of Ronald Reagan’s 1984 put-down of Walter Mondale, saying that he wouldn’t hold his opponents’ youth and inexperience against them.
No one really won this debate. Which makes it a default victory for Hillary Clinton, the only Democrat who stands to win simply by not losing.
Hillary’s performance itself was serviceable, the equivalent of a quarterback completing 13 of 25 passes for 170 yards and a touchdown. She likely benefited from lowered expectations, after months -- if not years -- of critical attacks on her supposedly tight, frigid and over-scripted public personality.
(More ... New York Observer > Politics)
Labels: 2008 election, New York Observer
¶ 13:43 0 comments
4.12.2007
Bush Looks to Appoint a War 'Czar'(NZHerald.co.nz)
5:00AM Thursday April 12, 2007
WASHINGTON - The White House wants to appoint a high-profile overseer to manage the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan but has had trouble finding someone to take the job, the Washington Post reported.
At least three retired four-star generals approached by the White House in recent weeks have turned down the position. The war "czar" would report directly to United States President George W. Bush and National Security Adviser Stephen Hadley and would have authority to issue directions to the Pentagon and the State Department.
Retired Marine General John "Jack" Sheehan, a former top Nato commander, was among those who rejected the job. "The very fundamental issue is, they don't know where the hell they're going," Sheehan told the Post. He said he believes that Vice-President Dick Cheney and his hawkish allies remain more powerful within the Administration than pragmatists looking for a way out of Iraq.
(More ... New Zealand Herald > World) ¶ 08:49 0 comments
WASHINGTON - The White House wants to appoint a high-profile overseer to manage the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan but has had trouble finding someone to take the job, the Washington Post reported.
At least three retired four-star generals approached by the White House in recent weeks have turned down the position. The war "czar" would report directly to United States President George W. Bush and National Security Adviser Stephen Hadley and would have authority to issue directions to the Pentagon and the State Department.
Retired Marine General John "Jack" Sheehan, a former top Nato commander, was among those who rejected the job. "The very fundamental issue is, they don't know where the hell they're going," Sheehan told the Post. He said he believes that Vice-President Dick Cheney and his hawkish allies remain more powerful within the Administration than pragmatists looking for a way out of Iraq.
(More ... New Zealand Herald > World) ¶ 08:49 0 comments
4.10.2007
White House Unofficial E-mail Accounts Draw Scrutiny (CNN.com)
POSTED: 11:48 p.m. EDT, April 9, 2007
From Bob Franken
CNN Washington Bureau
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The White House is being accused of improperly trying to hide e-mails about government business by using unofficial e-mail accounts.
Congressional investigators say they found communications on one account from top White House aides about official matters, like the December firings of eight U.S. attorneys.
Those e-mails were discovered on a Republican National Committee e-mail domain called gwb43.com. That domain is not part of the official White House communication system.
The Presidential Records Act, passed during the Nixon administration, requires the preservation of all official records of and about the president.
A White House spokesman defended the use of outside e-mail accounts as an appropriate method of separating official business from political campaign work.
But the use of those accounts by officials discussing the firings -- and one from now-imprisoned lobbyist Jack Abramoff -- have led a liberal watchdog group to accuse administration of trying to skirt the law governing preservation of presidential records.
"They wanted to make sure that no record could ever be found of what they were really up to in the White House," Melanie Sloan, executive director of Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, told CNN.
(More ... CNN > Politics) ¶ 22:10 0 comments
From Bob Franken
CNN Washington Bureau
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The White House is being accused of improperly trying to hide e-mails about government business by using unofficial e-mail accounts.
Congressional investigators say they found communications on one account from top White House aides about official matters, like the December firings of eight U.S. attorneys.
Those e-mails were discovered on a Republican National Committee e-mail domain called gwb43.com. That domain is not part of the official White House communication system.
The Presidential Records Act, passed during the Nixon administration, requires the preservation of all official records of and about the president.
A White House spokesman defended the use of outside e-mail accounts as an appropriate method of separating official business from political campaign work.
But the use of those accounts by officials discussing the firings -- and one from now-imprisoned lobbyist Jack Abramoff -- have led a liberal watchdog group to accuse administration of trying to skirt the law governing preservation of presidential records.
"They wanted to make sure that no record could ever be found of what they were really up to in the White House," Melanie Sloan, executive director of Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, told CNN.
(More ... CNN > Politics) ¶ 22:10 0 comments
Obama Not in 2008 Race for Second Place (Reuters.com)
Tue Apr 10, 2007 2:10AM EDT
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Democratic presidential hopeful Barack Obama on Tuesday dismissed the notion he might consider accepting the No. 2 spot on the 2008 ballot -- with Hillary Rodham Clinton at the top.
"You don't run for second. I don't believe in that," the Illinois Senator said on the talk show "Late Night with David Letterman."
"That would be a powerful ticket," Letterman prodded.
"Which order are we talking?" Obama replied, drawing laughter and applause from the studio audience.
"Let's say you're the presidential candidate and Hillary is the vice presidential candidate. Now if she were sitting here, it would be different from that," Letterman joked.
Obama, a fresh face on the national stage who has served just two years in the U.S. Senate, said last week he had raised $25 million this year, almost matching Clinton and solidifying his bid for the Democratic nomination to seek the presidency in November 2008.
Obama fell only $1 million short of the higher-profile New York senator, despite the huge fund-raising network she developed through her Senate campaigns and the White House races of her husband, former President Bill Clinton.
Asked by Letterman whether there were private discussions of the situation going the other way, with Clinton in the No. 2 spot, Obama said the contenders were all in the race to win the party nomination but were on the same team.
(More ... Reuters > News)
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Democratic presidential hopeful Barack Obama on Tuesday dismissed the notion he might consider accepting the No. 2 spot on the 2008 ballot -- with Hillary Rodham Clinton at the top.
"You don't run for second. I don't believe in that," the Illinois Senator said on the talk show "Late Night with David Letterman."
"That would be a powerful ticket," Letterman prodded.
"Which order are we talking?" Obama replied, drawing laughter and applause from the studio audience.
"Let's say you're the presidential candidate and Hillary is the vice presidential candidate. Now if she were sitting here, it would be different from that," Letterman joked.
Obama, a fresh face on the national stage who has served just two years in the U.S. Senate, said last week he had raised $25 million this year, almost matching Clinton and solidifying his bid for the Democratic nomination to seek the presidency in November 2008.
Obama fell only $1 million short of the higher-profile New York senator, despite the huge fund-raising network she developed through her Senate campaigns and the White House races of her husband, former President Bill Clinton.
Asked by Letterman whether there were private discussions of the situation going the other way, with Clinton in the No. 2 spot, Obama said the contenders were all in the race to win the party nomination but were on the same team.
(More ... Reuters > News)
Labels: 2008 election, Obama, Reuters
¶ 22:00 0 comments
4.07.2007
Cheney Still Insists al-Qa'ida Had Links With Iraq, Despite Evidence (Independent.co.uk)
By Rupert Cornwell in Washington
Published: 07 April 2007
Vice-President Dick Cheney continues to insist that al-Qa'ida had close ties with Iraq before the 2003 US-led invasion, despite the publication of further evidence, including the interrogation of Saddam Hussein, confirming the consensus to the contrary of US intelligence.
Mr Cheney's assertions came as Congress released the full declassified version of a Pentagon report that sharply criticises a special office in its own building for writing intelligence reports alleging such contacts.
Those claims flatly contradicted the considered judgement of other US agencies - including the CIA and the Defence Intelligence Agency, the Pentagon's official in-house intelligence unit - that no such links existed.
The new report, whose broad conclusions were released earlier this year, gives the clearest picture yet of how Bush administration hawks manipulated intelligence to advance the case that Saddam was working with al-Qa'ida.
Before the invasion, President Bush and Mr Cheney fostered that impression in speech after speech - so successfully that at one point, polls showed, two-thirds of Americans believed the Iraqi dictator had a hand in the attacks of 11 September.
(More ... Independent > News > World > Americas)
Published: 07 April 2007
Vice-President Dick Cheney continues to insist that al-Qa'ida had close ties with Iraq before the 2003 US-led invasion, despite the publication of further evidence, including the interrogation of Saddam Hussein, confirming the consensus to the contrary of US intelligence.
Mr Cheney's assertions came as Congress released the full declassified version of a Pentagon report that sharply criticises a special office in its own building for writing intelligence reports alleging such contacts.
Those claims flatly contradicted the considered judgement of other US agencies - including the CIA and the Defence Intelligence Agency, the Pentagon's official in-house intelligence unit - that no such links existed.
The new report, whose broad conclusions were released earlier this year, gives the clearest picture yet of how Bush administration hawks manipulated intelligence to advance the case that Saddam was working with al-Qa'ida.
Before the invasion, President Bush and Mr Cheney fostered that impression in speech after speech - so successfully that at one point, polls showed, two-thirds of Americans believed the Iraqi dictator had a hand in the attacks of 11 September.
(More ... Independent > News > World > Americas)
Labels: al-Qaeda, Cheney, CIA, Independent, Iraq
¶ 14:14 0 comments
Scientists Walk Out in Protest at China's Intransigence (Indpendent.co.uk)
By Stephen Castle in Brussels
Published: 07 April 2007
Some of the world's best-informed climate change scientists walked out of an all-night drafting session of yesterday's report on global warming, as tempers flared.
The protest, which included a prominent US scientist, took place after Chinese diplomats sought to water down a section spelling out the degree of certainty researchers attach to the impact of climate change.
During a fractious night of negotiation, China and Saudi Arabia were identified as the countries which sought most systematically to dilute the text.
Feelings were running high because the summary produced will be read by heads of government, including Tony Blair and Germany's Angela Merkel, according to Hans Verolme, director of WWF's climate change programme. The summary is an unusual hybrid, crafted by scientists but endorsed by diplomats, thereby gaining political, as well as academic, credibility.
One of those who left the large, crescent-shaped conference room in the Charlemagne building in Brussels was Cynthia Rosenzweig, senior research scientist at the Nasa Goddard Institute for Space Studies and one of the report's authors.
Asked why things got so heated, she replied: "I think that scientists and government representatives are two different groups of people, they have different ways of operating and standards of evidence. When scientists come together with these government people you have some sparks flying." She added: "The lead authors wanted the governments to know that we felt strongly that we have very high confidence that the statement was justified. So I made that point emphatically".
The US eventually brokered a compromise which avoided any watering down of the reference to a "very high confidence" by removing the clause altogether.
(More ... Independent > News > World > World Politics)
Published: 07 April 2007
Some of the world's best-informed climate change scientists walked out of an all-night drafting session of yesterday's report on global warming, as tempers flared.
The protest, which included a prominent US scientist, took place after Chinese diplomats sought to water down a section spelling out the degree of certainty researchers attach to the impact of climate change.
During a fractious night of negotiation, China and Saudi Arabia were identified as the countries which sought most systematically to dilute the text.
Feelings were running high because the summary produced will be read by heads of government, including Tony Blair and Germany's Angela Merkel, according to Hans Verolme, director of WWF's climate change programme. The summary is an unusual hybrid, crafted by scientists but endorsed by diplomats, thereby gaining political, as well as academic, credibility.
One of those who left the large, crescent-shaped conference room in the Charlemagne building in Brussels was Cynthia Rosenzweig, senior research scientist at the Nasa Goddard Institute for Space Studies and one of the report's authors.
Asked why things got so heated, she replied: "I think that scientists and government representatives are two different groups of people, they have different ways of operating and standards of evidence. When scientists come together with these government people you have some sparks flying." She added: "The lead authors wanted the governments to know that we felt strongly that we have very high confidence that the statement was justified. So I made that point emphatically".
The US eventually brokered a compromise which avoided any watering down of the reference to a "very high confidence" by removing the clause altogether.
(More ... Independent > News > World > World Politics)
Labels: Climate Change, Independent
¶ 14:10 0 comments
4.06.2007
Warming Álready Changing World' (news.BBC.co.uk)
Last Updated: Thursday, 5 April 2007, 23:47 GMT 00:47 UK
Climate change is already having major impacts on the natural world, a UN report is set to announce.
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) believes there is also a discernible, though less marked, impact on human societies.
The IPCC is to release a summary of its report on Friday but talks on wording have continued late into the night.
Officials said there were differences between various countries on the strength of the language.
"The Europeans want to send a strong signal. The US does not want as much quantification," one official told the French news agency AFP.
China and Russia had also raised concerns over some passages of the 21-page summary, the official said.
The last-minute wrangling is likely to affect the degree of certainty in the final version, the BBC's Richard Black reports, but not the overall direction.
(More ... BBC > News > Science/Nature)
Climate change is already having major impacts on the natural world, a UN report is set to announce.
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) believes there is also a discernible, though less marked, impact on human societies.
The IPCC is to release a summary of its report on Friday but talks on wording have continued late into the night.
Officials said there were differences between various countries on the strength of the language.
"The Europeans want to send a strong signal. The US does not want as much quantification," one official told the French news agency AFP.
China and Russia had also raised concerns over some passages of the 21-page summary, the official said.
The last-minute wrangling is likely to affect the degree of certainty in the final version, the BBC's Richard Black reports, but not the overall direction.
(More ... BBC > News > Science/Nature)
Labels: BBC News, Climate Change
¶ 13:40 0 comments
4.03.2007
Justices Say EPA Has Power to Act on Harmful Gases (NYTimes.com)
By LINDA GREENHOUSE
Published: April 3, 2007
WASHINGTON, April 2 — In one of its most important environmental decisions in years, the Supreme Court ruled on Monday that the Environmental Protection Agency has the authority to regulate heat-trapping gases in automobile emissions. The court further ruled that the agency could not sidestep its authority to regulate the greenhouse gases that contribute to global climate change unless it could provide a scientific basis for its refusal.
Skip to next paragraph
Multimedia
Yesterday’s OpinionGraphic
Yesterday’s Opinion
Audio Back Story With Felicity Barringer (mp3)
Related
Text of the Opinion: Massachusetts v. Environmental Protection Agency (pdf)
Recent Articles on Global Warming
Gore Warns Congress of ‘Planetary Emergency’ (March 22, 2007)
U.S. Predicting Steady Increase for Emissions (March 3, 2007)
On the Climate Change Beat, Doubt Gives Way to Certainty (Feb. 6, 2007)
Science Panel Calls Global Warming ‘Unequivocal’ (Feb. 3, 2007)
A New Middle Stance Emerges in Debate over Climate (Jan. 1, 2007)
Justices’ First Brush With Global Warming (Nov. 30, 2006)
Readers' Opinions
A Reader Forum
Do rich nations have an obligation to help poorer ones prepare for potential changes caused by global warming?
* Post a Comment
Related
The Climate Divide: Reports From Four Fronts in the War on Warming (April 3, 2007)
The 5-to-4 decision was a strong rebuke to the Bush administration, which has maintained that it does not have the right to regulate carbon dioxide and other heat-trapping gases under the Clean Air Act, and that even if it did, it would not use the authority. The ruling does not force the environmental agency to regulate auto emissions, but it would almost certainly face further legal action if it failed to do so.
Writing for the majority, Justice John Paul Stevens said the only way the agency could “avoid taking further action” now was “if it determines that greenhouse gases do not contribute to climate change” or provides a good explanation why it cannot or will not find out whether they do.
Beyond the specific context for this case — so-called “tailpipe emissions” from cars and trucks, which account for about one-fourth of the country’s total emissions of heat-trapping gases — the decision is likely to have a broader impact on the debate over government efforts to address global warming.
Court cases around the country had been held up to await the decision in this case. Among them is a challenge to the environmental agency’s refusal to regulate carbon dioxide emissions from power plants, now pending in the federal appeals court here. Individual states, led by California, are also moving aggressively into what they have seen as a regulatory vacuum.
(More ... New York Times > U.S. > Washington)
Published: April 3, 2007
WASHINGTON, April 2 — In one of its most important environmental decisions in years, the Supreme Court ruled on Monday that the Environmental Protection Agency has the authority to regulate heat-trapping gases in automobile emissions. The court further ruled that the agency could not sidestep its authority to regulate the greenhouse gases that contribute to global climate change unless it could provide a scientific basis for its refusal.
Skip to next paragraph
Multimedia
Yesterday’s OpinionGraphic
Yesterday’s Opinion
Audio Back Story With Felicity Barringer (mp3)
Related
Text of the Opinion: Massachusetts v. Environmental Protection Agency (pdf)
Recent Articles on Global Warming
Gore Warns Congress of ‘Planetary Emergency’ (March 22, 2007)
U.S. Predicting Steady Increase for Emissions (March 3, 2007)
On the Climate Change Beat, Doubt Gives Way to Certainty (Feb. 6, 2007)
Science Panel Calls Global Warming ‘Unequivocal’ (Feb. 3, 2007)
A New Middle Stance Emerges in Debate over Climate (Jan. 1, 2007)
Justices’ First Brush With Global Warming (Nov. 30, 2006)
Readers' Opinions
A Reader Forum
Do rich nations have an obligation to help poorer ones prepare for potential changes caused by global warming?
* Post a Comment
Related
The Climate Divide: Reports From Four Fronts in the War on Warming (April 3, 2007)
The 5-to-4 decision was a strong rebuke to the Bush administration, which has maintained that it does not have the right to regulate carbon dioxide and other heat-trapping gases under the Clean Air Act, and that even if it did, it would not use the authority. The ruling does not force the environmental agency to regulate auto emissions, but it would almost certainly face further legal action if it failed to do so.
Writing for the majority, Justice John Paul Stevens said the only way the agency could “avoid taking further action” now was “if it determines that greenhouse gases do not contribute to climate change” or provides a good explanation why it cannot or will not find out whether they do.
Beyond the specific context for this case — so-called “tailpipe emissions” from cars and trucks, which account for about one-fourth of the country’s total emissions of heat-trapping gases — the decision is likely to have a broader impact on the debate over government efforts to address global warming.
Court cases around the country had been held up to await the decision in this case. Among them is a challenge to the environmental agency’s refusal to regulate carbon dioxide emissions from power plants, now pending in the federal appeals court here. Individual states, led by California, are also moving aggressively into what they have seen as a regulatory vacuum.
(More ... New York Times > U.S. > Washington)
Labels: Climate Change, New York Times, SCOTUS
¶ 19:01 0 comments
3.20.2007
Bush Appointees 'Watered Down Greenhouse Science' (Guardian.co.uk)
Suzanne Goldenberg and James Randerson in Washington
Tuesday March 20, 2007
The Guardian
The Bush administration ran a systematic campaign to play down the dangers of climate change, demanding hundreds of politically motivated changes to scientific reports and muzzling a pre-eminent expert on global warming, Congress was told yesterday.
The testimony to the house committee on oversight and government reform painted the administration as determined to maintain its line on climate change even when it clashed with the findings of scientific experts. James Hansen, who heads the Goddard Institute for Space Science in New York, said in prepared testimony: "The effect of the filtering of climate change science during the current administration has been to make the reality of climate change less certain than the facts indicate, and to reduce concern about the relation of climate change to human-made greenhouse gas emissions."
Since the Democratic takeover of Congress last January the committee's chairman, Henry Waxman, a Democrat from California, has led efforts to uncover the extent of White House interference with scientific debate.
The Bush administration has moved to exercise direct control over environmental agencies by installing political appointees including Philip Cooney, a former oil industry lobbyist, as chief of staff of the Council on Environmental Quality, and a 23-year-old college drop-out who was made a public affairs officer at Nasa after working on Mr Bush's re-election campaign. Mr Cooney told the committee yesterday: "My sole loyalty was to the president and advancing the policies of his administration."
Documents released yesterday show that in 2003 Mr Cooney and other senior appointed officials imposed at least 181 changes to a strategic plan on climate change to play down the scientific consensus on global warming. They made another 113 alterations to minimise the human role in climate change, and inserted possible benefits of climate change. "These changes must be made," said a note in Mr Cooney's handwriting. "The language is mandatory."
(More ... Guardian Unlimited > Special Report > United States of America)
Tuesday March 20, 2007
The Guardian
The Bush administration ran a systematic campaign to play down the dangers of climate change, demanding hundreds of politically motivated changes to scientific reports and muzzling a pre-eminent expert on global warming, Congress was told yesterday.
The testimony to the house committee on oversight and government reform painted the administration as determined to maintain its line on climate change even when it clashed with the findings of scientific experts. James Hansen, who heads the Goddard Institute for Space Science in New York, said in prepared testimony: "The effect of the filtering of climate change science during the current administration has been to make the reality of climate change less certain than the facts indicate, and to reduce concern about the relation of climate change to human-made greenhouse gas emissions."
Since the Democratic takeover of Congress last January the committee's chairman, Henry Waxman, a Democrat from California, has led efforts to uncover the extent of White House interference with scientific debate.
The Bush administration has moved to exercise direct control over environmental agencies by installing political appointees including Philip Cooney, a former oil industry lobbyist, as chief of staff of the Council on Environmental Quality, and a 23-year-old college drop-out who was made a public affairs officer at Nasa after working on Mr Bush's re-election campaign. Mr Cooney told the committee yesterday: "My sole loyalty was to the president and advancing the policies of his administration."
Documents released yesterday show that in 2003 Mr Cooney and other senior appointed officials imposed at least 181 changes to a strategic plan on climate change to play down the scientific consensus on global warming. They made another 113 alterations to minimise the human role in climate change, and inserted possible benefits of climate change. "These changes must be made," said a note in Mr Cooney's handwriting. "The language is mandatory."
(More ... Guardian Unlimited > Special Report > United States of America)
Labels: Bush, Climate Change, Guardian
¶ 19:40 0 comments
World's Most Important Crops Hit by Global Warming Effects (Independent.co.uk)
By Steve Connor, Science Editor
Published: 19 March 2007
Global warming over the past quarter century has led to a fall in the yield of some of the most important food crops in the world, according to one of the first scientific studies of how climate change has affected cereal crops.
Rising temperatures between 1981 and 2002 caused aloss in production of wheat, corn and barley that amounted in effect to some 40 million tons a year - equivalent to annual losses of some £2.6bn.
Although these numbers are not large compared to the world-wide production of cereal crops, scientists warned that the findings demonstrated how climate change was already having an impact on the global production of staple foods. "Most people tend to think of climate change as something that will impact the future, but this study shows that warming over the past two decades has already had real effects on global food supply," said Christopher Field of the Carnegie Institution in Stanford, California.
The study, published in the journal Environmental Research Letters, analysed yields of cereals from around the world during a period when average temperatures rose by about 0.7C between 1980 and 2002 - although the rise was even higher in certain crop-growing regions of the world.
There was a clear trend, showing the cereal crops were suffering from lower yields during a time when agricultural technology, including the use of chemical fertilisers and pesticides, became more intensive. The study's co-author, David Lobell of America's Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory in California, said that the observed fall in cereal yields could be clearly linked with increased temperatures during the period covered by the study.
(More ... Independent > News > Environment > Climate Change)
Published: 19 March 2007
Global warming over the past quarter century has led to a fall in the yield of some of the most important food crops in the world, according to one of the first scientific studies of how climate change has affected cereal crops.
Rising temperatures between 1981 and 2002 caused aloss in production of wheat, corn and barley that amounted in effect to some 40 million tons a year - equivalent to annual losses of some £2.6bn.
Although these numbers are not large compared to the world-wide production of cereal crops, scientists warned that the findings demonstrated how climate change was already having an impact on the global production of staple foods. "Most people tend to think of climate change as something that will impact the future, but this study shows that warming over the past two decades has already had real effects on global food supply," said Christopher Field of the Carnegie Institution in Stanford, California.
The study, published in the journal Environmental Research Letters, analysed yields of cereals from around the world during a period when average temperatures rose by about 0.7C between 1980 and 2002 - although the rise was even higher in certain crop-growing regions of the world.
There was a clear trend, showing the cereal crops were suffering from lower yields during a time when agricultural technology, including the use of chemical fertilisers and pesticides, became more intensive. The study's co-author, David Lobell of America's Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory in California, said that the observed fall in cereal yields could be clearly linked with increased temperatures during the period covered by the study.
(More ... Independent > News > Environment > Climate Change)
Labels: Climate Change, Independent
¶ 18:54 0 comments
Obama Supporter Casts Clinton as Big Brother (Independent.co.uk)
By Andrew Gumbel in Los Angeles
Published: 20 March 2007
It is the most striking, perhaps most powerful advertisement to come out of the US presidential campaign to date: a 74-second spot in which Hillary Clinton, recast as Big Brother in George Orwell's 1984, spouts platitudes from a giant screen as her worker-drone supporters march in lock-step to offer their support.
The advertisement is a dramatic pitch for Mrs Clinton's strongest rival for the Democratic presidential nomination, Barack Obama, and quickly became the talk of the political punditry.
But the most striking of all is that the ad did not originate with the Obama campaign and required no political campaign money either to produce or distribute. Rather, it was made by a single unknown Obama supporter working with a laptop and a suite of video editing software, who posted his handiwork on YouTube, the video-sharing website.
The ad is a clever "mash-up" - or re-edit - of a famous television spot for Apple computers which ran on network television during the 1984 Superbowl, the culmination of the annual American football season.
(More ... Independent > News > World > Americas)
Published: 20 March 2007
It is the most striking, perhaps most powerful advertisement to come out of the US presidential campaign to date: a 74-second spot in which Hillary Clinton, recast as Big Brother in George Orwell's 1984, spouts platitudes from a giant screen as her worker-drone supporters march in lock-step to offer their support.
The advertisement is a dramatic pitch for Mrs Clinton's strongest rival for the Democratic presidential nomination, Barack Obama, and quickly became the talk of the political punditry.
But the most striking of all is that the ad did not originate with the Obama campaign and required no political campaign money either to produce or distribute. Rather, it was made by a single unknown Obama supporter working with a laptop and a suite of video editing software, who posted his handiwork on YouTube, the video-sharing website.
The ad is a clever "mash-up" - or re-edit - of a famous television spot for Apple computers which ran on network television during the 1984 Superbowl, the culmination of the annual American football season.
(More ... Independent > News > World > Americas)
Labels: 2008 election, Clinton, Independent, Obama
¶ 18:51 0 comments
3.18.2007
Obama Draws 10,000 to Calif. Rally (USAToday.com)
OAKLAND (AP) — Democratic presidential candidate Sen. Barack Obama attracted a crowd of 10,000 or more to his first rally in the San Francisco Bay Area.
Having glided to the top tier of Democratic candidates on a message of hope, the Illinois senator told the crowd in downtown Oakland Saturday that his campaign "is a vehicle for your hopes; it is a vehicle for your dreams."
But he also used the appearance to contrast himself with his chief rival for the Democratic nomination, Hillary Clinton. Without naming her, Obama made an issue of Clinton's much criticized 2002 vote to authorize the war in Iraq, for which she has refused to apologize.
"I am proud of the fact that I opposed this war from the start," Obama said to huge cheers in this most anti-war of cities. "That I stood up in 2002 and said this is a bad idea. This is going to cost of billions of dollars and thousands of lives."
Obama said it was time to leave Iraq and to tell the Iraqis, "We want to be your partners, but we can't continue this occupation."
Obama is also challenging Clinton for support in the black community and his appearance in Oakland, a center of black life in Northern California, was part of that strategy.
Oakland resident Chris Nishioka, 61, a black woman who is married to a Japanese man and the mother of two biracial children, said Obama's rise as a credible candidate for president gave her whole family cause for hope. Obama is the son of a white American woman and a black man from Kenya and was raised in Hawaii and Indonesia.
"What I like about him, is he has a global background and a global view," said Nishioka, a retired attorney. "He's more of a change from the status quo. He's definitely fresh."
(More ... USA Today > News > Washington)
Having glided to the top tier of Democratic candidates on a message of hope, the Illinois senator told the crowd in downtown Oakland Saturday that his campaign "is a vehicle for your hopes; it is a vehicle for your dreams."
But he also used the appearance to contrast himself with his chief rival for the Democratic nomination, Hillary Clinton. Without naming her, Obama made an issue of Clinton's much criticized 2002 vote to authorize the war in Iraq, for which she has refused to apologize.
"I am proud of the fact that I opposed this war from the start," Obama said to huge cheers in this most anti-war of cities. "That I stood up in 2002 and said this is a bad idea. This is going to cost of billions of dollars and thousands of lives."
Obama said it was time to leave Iraq and to tell the Iraqis, "We want to be your partners, but we can't continue this occupation."
Obama is also challenging Clinton for support in the black community and his appearance in Oakland, a center of black life in Northern California, was part of that strategy.
Oakland resident Chris Nishioka, 61, a black woman who is married to a Japanese man and the mother of two biracial children, said Obama's rise as a credible candidate for president gave her whole family cause for hope. Obama is the son of a white American woman and a black man from Kenya and was raised in Hawaii and Indonesia.
"What I like about him, is he has a global background and a global view," said Nishioka, a retired attorney. "He's more of a change from the status quo. He's definitely fresh."
(More ... USA Today > News > Washington)
Labels: 2008 election, Obama, USA Today
¶ 20:56 0 comments
U.S. Odd Man Out In Climate Consensus (Reuters.com)
Sat Mar 17, 2007 2:05pm ET
By Louis Charbonneau
POTSDAM, Germany (Reuters) - A consensus on the need to protect the world's environment is emerging among rich and developing nations, but the United States remains at odds with other countries on key points, Germany said on Saturday.
Environment ministers of the Group of Eight leading industrialized nations, and officials from leading developing countries, were meeting to prepare for a June G8 summit where they plan to discuss specific targets for protecting the environment.
"On two issues, the United States were the only ones who spoke against consensus," German Environment Minister Sigmar Gabriel told reporters at the end of the two-day meeting, which he chaired on behalf of Germany's G8 presidency.
Gabriel said the U.S. remained opposed to a global carbon emissions trading scheme like the one used in the European Union and rejected the idea that industrialized nations should help achieve a "balance of interests" between developing countries' need for economic growth and environmental protection.
"We find this regrettable," Gabriel said, adding "I would have been disappointed if I'd expected something different."
(More ... Reuters > News > Top News)
By Louis Charbonneau
POTSDAM, Germany (Reuters) - A consensus on the need to protect the world's environment is emerging among rich and developing nations, but the United States remains at odds with other countries on key points, Germany said on Saturday.
Environment ministers of the Group of Eight leading industrialized nations, and officials from leading developing countries, were meeting to prepare for a June G8 summit where they plan to discuss specific targets for protecting the environment.
"On two issues, the United States were the only ones who spoke against consensus," German Environment Minister Sigmar Gabriel told reporters at the end of the two-day meeting, which he chaired on behalf of Germany's G8 presidency.
Gabriel said the U.S. remained opposed to a global carbon emissions trading scheme like the one used in the European Union and rejected the idea that industrialized nations should help achieve a "balance of interests" between developing countries' need for economic growth and environmental protection.
"We find this regrettable," Gabriel said, adding "I would have been disappointed if I'd expected something different."
(More ... Reuters > News > Top News)
Labels: Climate Change, EU, Reuters
¶ 20:49 0 comments
3.04.2007
CO2 Output From Shipping Twice as Much as Airlines (Guardian.co.uk)
· Maritime emissions not covered by Kyoto accord
· Studies suggest 75% rise in 15 years as trade grows
John Vidal, environment editor
Saturday March 3, 2007
The Guardian
Carbon dioxide emissions from shipping are double those of aviation and increasing at an alarming rate which will have a serious impact on global warming, according to research by the industry and European academics.
Separate studies suggest that maritime carbon dioxide emissions are not only higher than previously thought, but could rise by as much as 75% in the next 15 to 20 years if world trade continues to grow and no action is taken. The figures from the oil giant BP, which owns 50 tankers, and researchers at the Institute for Physics and Atmosphere in Wessling, Germany reveal that annual emissions from shipping range between 600 and 800m tonnes of carbon dioxide, or up to 5% of the global total. This is nearly double Britain's total emissions and more than all African countries combined.
Carbon dioxide emissions from ships do not come under the Kyoto agreement or any proposed European legislation and few studies have been made of them, even though they are set to increase.
Aviation carbon dioxide emissions, estimated to be about 2% of the global total, have been at the forefront of the climate change debate because of the sharp increase in cheap flights, whereas shipping emissions have risen nearly as fast in the past 20 years but have been ignored by governments and environmental groups. Shipping is responsible for transporting 90% of world trade which has doubled in 25 years.
Donald Gregory, director of environment at BP Marine, said this week that BP estimates that the global fleet of 70,000 ships uses approximately 200m tonnes of fuel a year and this is expected to grow to 350m tonnes a year by 2020. "We estimate carbon dioxide emissions from shipping to be 4% of the global total. Ships are getting bigger and every shipyard in the world has a full order book. There are about 20,000 new ships on order" he said.
The estimate supports other academic studies which, until now, have been dismissed as "extreme", because the industry fears that emissions regulations will be forced on it if it is not seen to be addressing the issue. "The International Maritime Organisation [IMO] needs to come up with an emissions strategy, or it will be down to us," said Mr Gregory. "Aviation is in the firing line now but shipping needs to take responsibility. There will be increasing pressure to do something."
(More ... Guardian Unlimited > Climate Change)
· Studies suggest 75% rise in 15 years as trade grows
John Vidal, environment editor
Saturday March 3, 2007
The Guardian
Carbon dioxide emissions from shipping are double those of aviation and increasing at an alarming rate which will have a serious impact on global warming, according to research by the industry and European academics.
Separate studies suggest that maritime carbon dioxide emissions are not only higher than previously thought, but could rise by as much as 75% in the next 15 to 20 years if world trade continues to grow and no action is taken. The figures from the oil giant BP, which owns 50 tankers, and researchers at the Institute for Physics and Atmosphere in Wessling, Germany reveal that annual emissions from shipping range between 600 and 800m tonnes of carbon dioxide, or up to 5% of the global total. This is nearly double Britain's total emissions and more than all African countries combined.
Carbon dioxide emissions from ships do not come under the Kyoto agreement or any proposed European legislation and few studies have been made of them, even though they are set to increase.
Aviation carbon dioxide emissions, estimated to be about 2% of the global total, have been at the forefront of the climate change debate because of the sharp increase in cheap flights, whereas shipping emissions have risen nearly as fast in the past 20 years but have been ignored by governments and environmental groups. Shipping is responsible for transporting 90% of world trade which has doubled in 25 years.
Donald Gregory, director of environment at BP Marine, said this week that BP estimates that the global fleet of 70,000 ships uses approximately 200m tonnes of fuel a year and this is expected to grow to 350m tonnes a year by 2020. "We estimate carbon dioxide emissions from shipping to be 4% of the global total. Ships are getting bigger and every shipyard in the world has a full order book. There are about 20,000 new ships on order" he said.
The estimate supports other academic studies which, until now, have been dismissed as "extreme", because the industry fears that emissions regulations will be forced on it if it is not seen to be addressing the issue. "The International Maritime Organisation [IMO] needs to come up with an emissions strategy, or it will be down to us," said Mr Gregory. "Aviation is in the firing line now but shipping needs to take responsibility. There will be increasing pressure to do something."
(More ... Guardian Unlimited > Climate Change)
Labels: Climate Change, Guardian
¶ 12:27 1 comments
3.02.2007
Most Support U.S. Guarantee of Health Care (NYTimes.com)
By ROBIN TONER and JANET ELDER
Published: March 2, 2007
A majority of Americans say the federal government should guarantee health insurance to every American, especially children, and are willing to pay higher taxes to do it, according to the latest New York Times/CBS News poll.
While the war in Iraq remains the overarching issue in the early stages of the 2008 campaign, access to affordable health care is at the top of the public’s domestic agenda, ranked far more important than immigration, cutting taxes or promoting traditional values.
Only 24 percent said they were satisfied with President Bush’s handling of the health insurance issue, despite his recent initiatives, and 62 percent said the Democrats were more likely to improve the health care system.
Americans showed a striking willingness in the poll to make tradeoffs to guarantee health insurance for all, including paying as much as $500 more in taxes a year and forgoing future tax cuts.
But the same divisions that doomed the last effort at creating universal health insurance, under the Clinton administration, are still apparent. Americans remain divided, largely along party lines, over whether the government should require everyone to participate in a national health care plan, and over whether the government would do a better job than the private insurance industry in providing coverage.
(More ... New York Times > U.S. > Politics)
Published: March 2, 2007
A majority of Americans say the federal government should guarantee health insurance to every American, especially children, and are willing to pay higher taxes to do it, according to the latest New York Times/CBS News poll.
While the war in Iraq remains the overarching issue in the early stages of the 2008 campaign, access to affordable health care is at the top of the public’s domestic agenda, ranked far more important than immigration, cutting taxes or promoting traditional values.
Only 24 percent said they were satisfied with President Bush’s handling of the health insurance issue, despite his recent initiatives, and 62 percent said the Democrats were more likely to improve the health care system.
Americans showed a striking willingness in the poll to make tradeoffs to guarantee health insurance for all, including paying as much as $500 more in taxes a year and forgoing future tax cuts.
But the same divisions that doomed the last effort at creating universal health insurance, under the Clinton administration, are still apparent. Americans remain divided, largely along party lines, over whether the government should require everyone to participate in a national health care plan, and over whether the government would do a better job than the private insurance industry in providing coverage.
(More ... New York Times > U.S. > Politics)
Labels: 2008 election, Health Care, New York Times, poll
¶ 21:45 0 comments
National Guard Not Fully Equipped at Home (Reuters.com)
Fri Mar 2, 2007 1:58am ET
By JoAnne Allen
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The Pentagon is not adequately equipping the National Guard and has not adapted to the increasingly important security role it plays in the post-September 11 environment, an independent commission said in a report to Congress on Thursday.
The report said the global war on terrorism had placed increased demands for the National Guard to provide forces for both overseas and domestic missions, but added that the Defense Department, or DOD, had been slow to adapt to the change.
"DOD's failure to appropriately consider National Guard needs and funding requirements has produced a National Guard that is not fully ready to meet current and emerging missions," the commission concluded.
Among its findings, the 13-member panel said the Defense Department was not adequately equipping the Guard for its domestic missions.
The National Guard's 458,000 citizen-soldiers have a dual mandate to protect the United States both at home and abroad.
Nearly 90 percent of Guard units in the United States are rated "not ready," partly because of equipment shortages, according to Guard data and the findings of the Commission on the National Guard and Reserves, The Washington Post reported.
National Guard units deployed to Iraq and Afghanistan have been required to leave large quantities of gear behind when they return home, the newspaper said.
(More ... Reuters > News > U.S.)
By JoAnne Allen
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The Pentagon is not adequately equipping the National Guard and has not adapted to the increasingly important security role it plays in the post-September 11 environment, an independent commission said in a report to Congress on Thursday.
The report said the global war on terrorism had placed increased demands for the National Guard to provide forces for both overseas and domestic missions, but added that the Defense Department, or DOD, had been slow to adapt to the change.
"DOD's failure to appropriately consider National Guard needs and funding requirements has produced a National Guard that is not fully ready to meet current and emerging missions," the commission concluded.
Among its findings, the 13-member panel said the Defense Department was not adequately equipping the Guard for its domestic missions.
The National Guard's 458,000 citizen-soldiers have a dual mandate to protect the United States both at home and abroad.
Nearly 90 percent of Guard units in the United States are rated "not ready," partly because of equipment shortages, according to Guard data and the findings of the Commission on the National Guard and Reserves, The Washington Post reported.
National Guard units deployed to Iraq and Afghanistan have been required to leave large quantities of gear behind when they return home, the newspaper said.
(More ... Reuters > News > U.S.)
Labels: GWOT, National Guard, Reuters, U.S. Military
¶ 21:39 0 comments
The Bush Conversion: How the President Saw the Light and Changed Foreign Policy (Guardian.co.uk)
Aggressive - and ineffective - approach abandoned in favour of diplomacy
Suzanne Goldenberg in Washington
Friday March 2, 2007
The Guardian
It is being called George Bush's Come to Jesus moment. As in the midlife realisation that led Mr Bush to give up alcohol and embrace Christianity, the president in his sixth year in the White House has undergone another radical conversion, abandoning an ideological foreign policy for a more pragmatic approach, foreign policy experts say.
Within the space of two weeks, the Bush administration has made dramatic steps towards diplomatic engagement of two countries once shunned as part of the Axis of Evil - agreeing to contacts with Iran and opening the door to recognition of North Korea.
In Washington, the shift was seen yesterday as a belated acknowledgement that the administration's approach to the world - on Iraq, nuclear weapons proliferation, and Middle East peace - was not just ineffective, but dangerous.
"The main thing was that there was a sense that American foreign policy was spinning out of control. The administration was looking at one series of failures after another and these were really beginning to damage national security," said James Steinberg, who served as a deputy national security adviser in the Clinton administration and now heads the Lyndon Johnson school of public affairs in Texas.
Others attribute the conversion in part as a product of Mr Bush's stark view of the world. "It is the president's impulse-driven, faith-driven, black-and-white view of the world that enabled the hardline contingent within the administration to pursue the path that it pursued," said David Rothkopf, a fellow at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, who is writing a book about US foreign policy. "It is only the shift in recognition that that approach isn't working that has created very much the equivalent of his Come to Jesus moment when he was 40."
The deepening chaos in Iraq, the heightened nuclear tensions with Iran and North Korea, and the instability in Lebanon also served to discredit the approach advocated by the hardline powers within the administration: the vice-president, Dick Cheney, and the former Pentagon chief, Donald Rumsfeld.
(More ... Guardian > Special Report > United States of America)
Suzanne Goldenberg in Washington
Friday March 2, 2007
The Guardian
It is being called George Bush's Come to Jesus moment. As in the midlife realisation that led Mr Bush to give up alcohol and embrace Christianity, the president in his sixth year in the White House has undergone another radical conversion, abandoning an ideological foreign policy for a more pragmatic approach, foreign policy experts say.
Within the space of two weeks, the Bush administration has made dramatic steps towards diplomatic engagement of two countries once shunned as part of the Axis of Evil - agreeing to contacts with Iran and opening the door to recognition of North Korea.
In Washington, the shift was seen yesterday as a belated acknowledgement that the administration's approach to the world - on Iraq, nuclear weapons proliferation, and Middle East peace - was not just ineffective, but dangerous.
"The main thing was that there was a sense that American foreign policy was spinning out of control. The administration was looking at one series of failures after another and these were really beginning to damage national security," said James Steinberg, who served as a deputy national security adviser in the Clinton administration and now heads the Lyndon Johnson school of public affairs in Texas.
Others attribute the conversion in part as a product of Mr Bush's stark view of the world. "It is the president's impulse-driven, faith-driven, black-and-white view of the world that enabled the hardline contingent within the administration to pursue the path that it pursued," said David Rothkopf, a fellow at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, who is writing a book about US foreign policy. "It is only the shift in recognition that that approach isn't working that has created very much the equivalent of his Come to Jesus moment when he was 40."
The deepening chaos in Iraq, the heightened nuclear tensions with Iran and North Korea, and the instability in Lebanon also served to discredit the approach advocated by the hardline powers within the administration: the vice-president, Dick Cheney, and the former Pentagon chief, Donald Rumsfeld.
(More ... Guardian > Special Report > United States of America)
Labels: Bush, Guardian, Iran, North Korea
¶ 21:33 0 comments
CIA Blunder 'PromptedKorean Nuclear Race" (Independent.co.uk)
By Andrew Gumbel in Los Angeles
Published: 02 March 2007
The United States appears to have made a major intelligence blunder over North Korea's nuclear weapons programme, one that may have exacerbated tensions with Pyongyang over the past four years and goaded Kim Jong-Il into pressing ahead with last October's live nuclear test, intelligence and Bush administration officials have said.
The blunder does not concern the plutonium-based bomb technology that North Korea used in its test and has clearly been developing for decades. Rather it concerns the assessment, in a Central Intelligence Agency report to Congress in November 2002, that North Korea was also pursuing a parallel uranium enrichment programme capable of providing the raw material for two or more nuclear weapons a year, starting "mid-decade".
That prompted the US to cut off oil supplies to Pyongyang, to which North Korea responded by throwing out international weapons inspectors and ratcheting up its plutonium bomb programme.
But now many intelligence officials doubt whether the North Koreans have a viable uranium enrichment programme, and administration officials have begun wondering if they could not have handled the North Korean crisis much more smartly if they had been in less of a hurry to get confrontational.
On Tuesday, a veteran intelligence official called Joseph DeTrani told a Senate Armed Services Committee hearing that the government's certainty about the programme's existence was only at "the mid-confidence level", agency-speak meaning the information is not fully corroborated and some officials hold other views.
On Wednesday, the Director of National Intelligence declassified a report on North Korea which stated: "The degree of progress towards producing enriched uranium remains unknown."
(More ... The Independent > News > World > Americas)
Published: 02 March 2007
The United States appears to have made a major intelligence blunder over North Korea's nuclear weapons programme, one that may have exacerbated tensions with Pyongyang over the past four years and goaded Kim Jong-Il into pressing ahead with last October's live nuclear test, intelligence and Bush administration officials have said.
The blunder does not concern the plutonium-based bomb technology that North Korea used in its test and has clearly been developing for decades. Rather it concerns the assessment, in a Central Intelligence Agency report to Congress in November 2002, that North Korea was also pursuing a parallel uranium enrichment programme capable of providing the raw material for two or more nuclear weapons a year, starting "mid-decade".
That prompted the US to cut off oil supplies to Pyongyang, to which North Korea responded by throwing out international weapons inspectors and ratcheting up its plutonium bomb programme.
But now many intelligence officials doubt whether the North Koreans have a viable uranium enrichment programme, and administration officials have begun wondering if they could not have handled the North Korean crisis much more smartly if they had been in less of a hurry to get confrontational.
On Tuesday, a veteran intelligence official called Joseph DeTrani told a Senate Armed Services Committee hearing that the government's certainty about the programme's existence was only at "the mid-confidence level", agency-speak meaning the information is not fully corroborated and some officials hold other views.
On Wednesday, the Director of National Intelligence declassified a report on North Korea which stated: "The degree of progress towards producing enriched uranium remains unknown."
(More ... The Independent > News > World > Americas)
Labels: CIA, Independent, North Korea, nuclear proliferation
¶ 21:25 0 comments
UN Says Climate Change as Dangerous as War (NZHerald.co.nz)
7:50AM Friday March 02, 2007
By Michelle Nichols
UNITED NATIONS - Climate change poses as much danger to the world as war, UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon said today as he pledged to make global warming the focus of talks with world leaders in June.
In his first address on the subject, Ban said he would emphasise the climate crisis with the leaders at a meeting in Germany of the Group of Eight industrialised nations -- Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, Britain, the United States and Russia.
"The majority of the United Nations work still focuses on preventing and ending conflict," Ban said. "But the danger posed by war to all of humanity and to our planet is at least matched by the climate crisis and global warming."
"In coming decades, changes in our environment and the resulting upheavals from droughts to inundated coastal areas to loss of arable land are likely to become a major driver of war and conflict," said Ban.
(More ... NZ Herald > News > World Story)
By Michelle Nichols
UNITED NATIONS - Climate change poses as much danger to the world as war, UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon said today as he pledged to make global warming the focus of talks with world leaders in June.
In his first address on the subject, Ban said he would emphasise the climate crisis with the leaders at a meeting in Germany of the Group of Eight industrialised nations -- Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, Britain, the United States and Russia.
"The majority of the United Nations work still focuses on preventing and ending conflict," Ban said. "But the danger posed by war to all of humanity and to our planet is at least matched by the climate crisis and global warming."
"In coming decades, changes in our environment and the resulting upheavals from droughts to inundated coastal areas to loss of arable land are likely to become a major driver of war and conflict," said Ban.
(More ... NZ Herald > News > World Story)
Labels: Climate Change, New Zealand Herald, UN
¶ 21:18 0 comments
3.01.2007
Is Black America Ready to Embrace Obama? (CNN.com)
POSTED: 0546 GMT (1346 HKT), March 1, 2007
From Candy Crowley and Sasha Johnson
CNN Washington Bureau
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- In recent months, ABC News-Washington Post polls showed Sen. Hillary Clinton running 40 points higher than Sen. Barack Obama among blacks voters asked to name their preference in the Democratic primary.
But in Wednesday editions, the Washington Post reported a poll that has Obama leading Clinton by 11 points among black voters -- 44 percent to 33 percent. Obama is the Senate's only black member and has been campaigning across the country for the last couple of months. Clinton is his chief rival for the 2008 presidential nomination
That change represents a stunning 24-point swing, but does it mean the black community has embraced the Illinois Democrat as its candidate?
Not exactly.
"Obama does have a plurality of black voters right now. He doesn't have a majority yet," CNN Polling Director Keating Holland said. "That means a majority of blacks still aren't sure about him.
"Forty-four percent favor him. That's certainly good news for him, but I think the Obama camp would like to see that be significantly higher."
Among blacks, Obama's favorables are high (70 percent), but Clinton's are higher (85 percent). Plus, Clinton and her husband, former President Bill Clinton, have deep roots in the black community.
Blacks, in part, may be slow to warm to the candidacy of Obama because, a CNN/Opinion Research Corp. poll suggests, they are less likely than whites to believe that America is ready for a black president.
The poll, conducted December 5-7, 2006, found that 65 percent of whites thought America was ready, compared with 54 percent of blacks. The poll's margin of error was plus-or-minus 5 percentage points.
(More ... CNN > Politics)
From Candy Crowley and Sasha Johnson
CNN Washington Bureau
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- In recent months, ABC News-Washington Post polls showed Sen. Hillary Clinton running 40 points higher than Sen. Barack Obama among blacks voters asked to name their preference in the Democratic primary.
But in Wednesday editions, the Washington Post reported a poll that has Obama leading Clinton by 11 points among black voters -- 44 percent to 33 percent. Obama is the Senate's only black member and has been campaigning across the country for the last couple of months. Clinton is his chief rival for the 2008 presidential nomination
That change represents a stunning 24-point swing, but does it mean the black community has embraced the Illinois Democrat as its candidate?
Not exactly.
"Obama does have a plurality of black voters right now. He doesn't have a majority yet," CNN Polling Director Keating Holland said. "That means a majority of blacks still aren't sure about him.
"Forty-four percent favor him. That's certainly good news for him, but I think the Obama camp would like to see that be significantly higher."
Among blacks, Obama's favorables are high (70 percent), but Clinton's are higher (85 percent). Plus, Clinton and her husband, former President Bill Clinton, have deep roots in the black community.
Blacks, in part, may be slow to warm to the candidacy of Obama because, a CNN/Opinion Research Corp. poll suggests, they are less likely than whites to believe that America is ready for a black president.
The poll, conducted December 5-7, 2006, found that 65 percent of whites thought America was ready, compared with 54 percent of blacks. The poll's margin of error was plus-or-minus 5 percentage points.
(More ... CNN > Politics)
Labels: 2008 election, CNN, Obama
¶ 21:32 0 comments
US Commanders Admit: We Face a Vietnam-style collapse (Guardian.co.uk)
Elite officers in Iraq fear low morale, lack of troops and loss of political will
Simon Tisdall
Thursday March 1, 2007
The Guardian
An elite team of officers advising the US commander, General David Petraeus, in Baghdad has concluded that they have six months to win the war in Iraq - or face a Vietnam-style collapse in political and public support that could force the military into a hasty retreat.
The officers - combat veterans who are experts in counter-insurgency - are charged with implementing the "new way forward" strategy announced by George Bush on January 10. The plan includes a controversial "surge" of 21,500 additional American troops to establish security in the Iraqi capital and Anbar province.
But the team, known as the "Baghdad brains trust" and ensconced in the heavily fortified Green Zone, is struggling to overcome a range of entrenched problems in what has become a race against time, according to a former senior administration official familiar with their deliberations.
"They know they are operating under a clock. They know they are going to hear a lot more talk in Washington about 'Plan B' by the autumn - meaning withdrawal. They know the next six-month period is their opportunity. And they say it's getting harder every day," he said.
By improving security, the plan's short-term aim is to create time and space for the Iraqi government to bring rival Shia, Sunni and Kurd factions together in a process of national reconciliation, American officials say. If that works within the stipulated timeframe, longer term schemes for rebuilding Iraq under the so-called "go long" strategy will be set in motion.
(More ... Guardian Unlimited > Special Report > Iraq) ¶ 21:27 0 comments
Simon Tisdall
Thursday March 1, 2007
The Guardian
An elite team of officers advising the US commander, General David Petraeus, in Baghdad has concluded that they have six months to win the war in Iraq - or face a Vietnam-style collapse in political and public support that could force the military into a hasty retreat.
The officers - combat veterans who are experts in counter-insurgency - are charged with implementing the "new way forward" strategy announced by George Bush on January 10. The plan includes a controversial "surge" of 21,500 additional American troops to establish security in the Iraqi capital and Anbar province.
But the team, known as the "Baghdad brains trust" and ensconced in the heavily fortified Green Zone, is struggling to overcome a range of entrenched problems in what has become a race against time, according to a former senior administration official familiar with their deliberations.
"They know they are operating under a clock. They know they are going to hear a lot more talk in Washington about 'Plan B' by the autumn - meaning withdrawal. They know the next six-month period is their opportunity. And they say it's getting harder every day," he said.
By improving security, the plan's short-term aim is to create time and space for the Iraqi government to bring rival Shia, Sunni and Kurd factions together in a process of national reconciliation, American officials say. If that works within the stipulated timeframe, longer term schemes for rebuilding Iraq under the so-called "go long" strategy will be set in motion.
(More ... Guardian Unlimited > Special Report > Iraq) ¶ 21:27 0 comments
2.20.2007
Global Poll Finds Religion and Culture Not to Blame (WorldPublicOpinion.org)
The global public believes that tensions between Islam and the West arise from conflicts over political power and interests and not from differences of religion and culture, according to a BBC World Service poll across 27 countries.
While three in ten (29%) believe religious or cultural differences are the cause of tensions, a slight majority (52%) say tensions are due to conflicting interests.
The poll also reveals that most people see the problems arising from intolerant minorities and not the cultures as a whole. While 26 percent believe fundamental differences in cultures are to blame, 58 percent say intolerant minorities are causing the conflict – with most of these (39% of the full sample) saying that the intolerant minorities are on both sides.
The idea that violent conflict is inevitable between Islam and the West is mainly rejected by Muslims, non-Muslims and Westerners alike. While more than a quarter of all respondents (28%) think that violent conflict is inevitable, twice as many (56%) believe that “common ground can be found.”
The survey of over 28,000 respondents across 27 countries was conducted for the BBC World Service by the international polling firm GlobeScan together with the Program on International Policy Attitudes (PIPA) at the University of Maryland. GlobeScan coordinated the fieldwork between November 2006 and January 2007.
(More ... PIPA > World Public Opinion) ¶ 07:56 0 comments
While three in ten (29%) believe religious or cultural differences are the cause of tensions, a slight majority (52%) say tensions are due to conflicting interests.
The poll also reveals that most people see the problems arising from intolerant minorities and not the cultures as a whole. While 26 percent believe fundamental differences in cultures are to blame, 58 percent say intolerant minorities are causing the conflict – with most of these (39% of the full sample) saying that the intolerant minorities are on both sides.
The idea that violent conflict is inevitable between Islam and the West is mainly rejected by Muslims, non-Muslims and Westerners alike. While more than a quarter of all respondents (28%) think that violent conflict is inevitable, twice as many (56%) believe that “common ground can be found.”
The survey of over 28,000 respondents across 27 countries was conducted for the BBC World Service by the international polling firm GlobeScan together with the Program on International Policy Attitudes (PIPA) at the University of Maryland. GlobeScan coordinated the fieldwork between November 2006 and January 2007.
(More ... PIPA > World Public Opinion) ¶ 07:56 0 comments
2.19.2007
Clinton Gives War Critics New Answer on '02 Vote (NYTImes.com)
By PATRICK HEALY
Published: February 18, 2007
One of the most important decisions that Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton made about her bid for the presidency came late last year when she ended a debate in her camp over whether she should repudiate her 2002 vote authorizing military action in Iraq.
Several advisers, friends and donors said in interviews that they had urged her to call her vote a mistake in order to appease antiwar Democrats, who play a critical role in the nominating process. Yet Mrs. Clinton herself, backed by another faction, never wanted to apologize — even if she viewed the war as a mistake — arguing that an apology would be a gimmick.
In the end, she settled on language that was similar to Senator John Kerry’s when he was the Democratic nominee in 2004: that if she had known in 2002 what she knows now about Iraqi weaponry, she would never have voted for the Senate resolution authorizing force.
Yet antiwar anger has festered, and yesterday morning Mrs. Clinton rolled out a new response to those demanding contrition: She said she was willing to lose support from voters rather than make an apology she did not believe in.
“If the most important thing to any of you is choosing someone who did not cast that vote or has said his vote was a mistake, then there are others to choose from,” Mrs. Clinton told an audience in Dover, N.H., in a veiled reference to two rivals for the nomination, Senator Barack Obama of Illinois and former Senator John Edwards of North Carolina.
Her decision not to apologize is regarded so seriously within her campaign that some advisers believe it will be remembered as a turning point in the race: either ultimately galvanizing voters against her (if she loses the nomination), or highlighting her resolve and her willingness to buck Democratic conventional wisdom (if she wins).
At the same time, the level of Democratic anger has surprised some of her allies and advisers, and her campaign is worried about how long it will last and how much damage it might cause her.
(More ... New York Times > Washington)
Published: February 18, 2007
One of the most important decisions that Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton made about her bid for the presidency came late last year when she ended a debate in her camp over whether she should repudiate her 2002 vote authorizing military action in Iraq.
Several advisers, friends and donors said in interviews that they had urged her to call her vote a mistake in order to appease antiwar Democrats, who play a critical role in the nominating process. Yet Mrs. Clinton herself, backed by another faction, never wanted to apologize — even if she viewed the war as a mistake — arguing that an apology would be a gimmick.
In the end, she settled on language that was similar to Senator John Kerry’s when he was the Democratic nominee in 2004: that if she had known in 2002 what she knows now about Iraqi weaponry, she would never have voted for the Senate resolution authorizing force.
Yet antiwar anger has festered, and yesterday morning Mrs. Clinton rolled out a new response to those demanding contrition: She said she was willing to lose support from voters rather than make an apology she did not believe in.
“If the most important thing to any of you is choosing someone who did not cast that vote or has said his vote was a mistake, then there are others to choose from,” Mrs. Clinton told an audience in Dover, N.H., in a veiled reference to two rivals for the nomination, Senator Barack Obama of Illinois and former Senator John Edwards of North Carolina.
Her decision not to apologize is regarded so seriously within her campaign that some advisers believe it will be remembered as a turning point in the race: either ultimately galvanizing voters against her (if she loses the nomination), or highlighting her resolve and her willingness to buck Democratic conventional wisdom (if she wins).
At the same time, the level of Democratic anger has surprised some of her allies and advisers, and her campaign is worried about how long it will last and how much damage it might cause her.
(More ... New York Times > Washington)
Labels: 2008 election, Clinton, Iraq, New York Times
¶ 07:57 0 comments
2.17.2007
CIA Agents Face Kidnap Trial in Milan (Guardian.co.uk)
Staff and agencies
Friday February 16, 2007
Guardian Unlimited
Osama Moustafa Hassan Nasr
A passport photo of Osama Moustafa Hassan Nasr in the mid-1990s. Photograph: AP
An Italian judge today ordered 26 Americans, almost all CIA agents, to stand trial on charges of kidnapping a terrorism suspect in 2003 and flying him to Egypt, where he says he was tortured.
The Milan judge set a trial date for June 8. Prosecutors allege that five Italian intelligence officials worked with the Americans to abduct Osama Moustafa Hassan Nasr from a Milan street in February 2003.
The Americans will almost certainly be tried in absentia.
Article continues
Among those indicted was the former Italian chief of military intelligence, Nicolo Pollari. Mr Pollari, the only defendant who appeared during the preliminary hearing, insisted that Italian intelligence played no role in the alleged abduction.
He told the judge he was unable to defend himself properly because documents clarifying his position had been excluded from the proceedings because they contain state secrets.
After his capture, Mr Nasr was allegedly transferred by vehicle to the Aviano air force base near Venice, then by air to the Ramstein air base in Germany, and then on to Egypt, where critics say he was tortured.
(More ... Guardian Unlimited > Special Report > Italy)
Friday February 16, 2007
Guardian Unlimited
Osama Moustafa Hassan Nasr
A passport photo of Osama Moustafa Hassan Nasr in the mid-1990s. Photograph: AP
An Italian judge today ordered 26 Americans, almost all CIA agents, to stand trial on charges of kidnapping a terrorism suspect in 2003 and flying him to Egypt, where he says he was tortured.
The Milan judge set a trial date for June 8. Prosecutors allege that five Italian intelligence officials worked with the Americans to abduct Osama Moustafa Hassan Nasr from a Milan street in February 2003.
The Americans will almost certainly be tried in absentia.
Article continues
Among those indicted was the former Italian chief of military intelligence, Nicolo Pollari. Mr Pollari, the only defendant who appeared during the preliminary hearing, insisted that Italian intelligence played no role in the alleged abduction.
He told the judge he was unable to defend himself properly because documents clarifying his position had been excluded from the proceedings because they contain state secrets.
After his capture, Mr Nasr was allegedly transferred by vehicle to the Aviano air force base near Venice, then by air to the Ramstein air base in Germany, and then on to Egypt, where critics say he was tortured.
(More ... Guardian Unlimited > Special Report > Italy)
Labels: CIA, Extraordinary Rendition, Guardian
¶ 08:28 0 comments
U.S. Releases Details Against Hicks (news.BBC.co.uk)
Last Updated: Friday, 16 February 2007, 04:33 GMT
By Nick Bryant
BBC News, Sydney
The US military has released details of its case against David Hicks, an Australian held without trial at Guantanamo Bay for five years.
Mr Hicks is facing charges of providing material support for terrorism and attempted murder.
He was captured in Afghanistan, where he allegedly fought alongside the ruling Taleban against US-led forces.
His continued imprisonment is causing problems for the Australian government, which has faced calls for his release.
Political reasons?
The document released by the Pentagon on Friday sets out its case against Mr Hicks in detail.
It alleges that he took part in an al-Qaeda training course in 2001, and spent weeks learning about covert photography, the use of dead drops and wearing disguises.
Prisoner in cell at Guantanamo Bay
Many Australians are angry that Hicks is still at Guantanamo
It also claims that Mr Hicks used the alias Abu Muslim Australia as he conducted surveillance of the American and British embassies in Kabul.
During that time, it is alleged he drew diagrams of the buildings, windows and doors, and documented the people coming and going.
The Pentagon has claimed before that he travelled to Kandahar airport, and was issued with an AK47 rifle to defend it against American-led forces.
Now US officials say that he also managed to arm himself with 300 rounds of ammunition and three grenades.
The timing of these new details may well have a political dimension, because US Vice-President Dick Cheney arrives in Australia next week.
(More ... BBC News > International > Asia-Pacific)
By Nick Bryant
BBC News, Sydney
The US military has released details of its case against David Hicks, an Australian held without trial at Guantanamo Bay for five years.
Mr Hicks is facing charges of providing material support for terrorism and attempted murder.
He was captured in Afghanistan, where he allegedly fought alongside the ruling Taleban against US-led forces.
His continued imprisonment is causing problems for the Australian government, which has faced calls for his release.
Political reasons?
The document released by the Pentagon on Friday sets out its case against Mr Hicks in detail.
It alleges that he took part in an al-Qaeda training course in 2001, and spent weeks learning about covert photography, the use of dead drops and wearing disguises.
Prisoner in cell at Guantanamo Bay
Many Australians are angry that Hicks is still at Guantanamo
It also claims that Mr Hicks used the alias Abu Muslim Australia as he conducted surveillance of the American and British embassies in Kabul.
During that time, it is alleged he drew diagrams of the buildings, windows and doors, and documented the people coming and going.
The Pentagon has claimed before that he travelled to Kandahar airport, and was issued with an AK47 rifle to defend it against American-led forces.
Now US officials say that he also managed to arm himself with 300 rounds of ammunition and three grenades.
The timing of these new details may well have a political dimension, because US Vice-President Dick Cheney arrives in Australia next week.
(More ... BBC News > International > Asia-Pacific)
Labels: Australia, BBC News, Guantanamo
¶ 08:23 0 comments
U.S. Acting Like Terrorists: Ex-Premier (ABC.net.au)
Last Update: Saturday, February 17, 2007. 1:04am (AEDT)
A former Western Australian Labor premier has lashed out at the Australian and US governments over the treatment of terrorism suspects like David Hicks.
Peter Dowding says the US has acted like terrorists by "virtually kidnapping" suspects and using the "rendition" process to take them to countries outside the US justice system where they can be tortured.
Mr Dowding, who is campaigning for justice for Guantanamo Bay detainee Hicks, has told ABC TV Stateline in WA the Government stands condemned for endorsing the US actions.
"It's tolerating outrageous international conduct, the conduct of terrorists is really what the United States Government is engaged in," he said.
"It's tolerating kangaroo courts. Our Prime Minister and our Attorney-General, firstly I believe they have misled the Australian community and not told the truth about the circumstances of Hicks's position and they've done nothing to protect him.
"Moving these people into a position where the courts are not allowed to supervise their incarceration is an absolute outrage and our Prime Minister and our Attorney-General have accepted that that's appropriate conduct.
"It's not appropriate conduct for anybody, it doesn't matter whether they're bank robbers, we don't do that."
He says the activities of the US are also disturbing Indonesia, the world's most populous Muslim nation.
(More ... ABC > News)
A former Western Australian Labor premier has lashed out at the Australian and US governments over the treatment of terrorism suspects like David Hicks.
Peter Dowding says the US has acted like terrorists by "virtually kidnapping" suspects and using the "rendition" process to take them to countries outside the US justice system where they can be tortured.
Mr Dowding, who is campaigning for justice for Guantanamo Bay detainee Hicks, has told ABC TV Stateline in WA the Government stands condemned for endorsing the US actions.
"It's tolerating outrageous international conduct, the conduct of terrorists is really what the United States Government is engaged in," he said.
"It's tolerating kangaroo courts. Our Prime Minister and our Attorney-General, firstly I believe they have misled the Australian community and not told the truth about the circumstances of Hicks's position and they've done nothing to protect him.
"Moving these people into a position where the courts are not allowed to supervise their incarceration is an absolute outrage and our Prime Minister and our Attorney-General have accepted that that's appropriate conduct.
"It's not appropriate conduct for anybody, it doesn't matter whether they're bank robbers, we don't do that."
He says the activities of the US are also disturbing Indonesia, the world's most populous Muslim nation.
(More ... ABC > News)
Labels: ABC (Aus), Australia, CIA, Extraordinary Rendition, Guantanamo
¶ 08:20 0 comments
2.12.2007
Obama Hits Back After Australian PM Slams His Iraq Policy (CNN.com)
POSTED: 0101 GMT (0901 HKT), February 11, 2007
CANBERRA, Australia (CNN) -- Australia's conservative Prime Minister John Howard said Sunday that victory for Democratic Sen. Barack Obama and his party in next year's presidential election would be a boon for terrorists.
"If I were running al Qaeda in Iraq, I would put a circle around March 2008, and pray, as many times as possible, for a victory not only for Obama, but also for the Democrats," Howard said, speaking on "Sunday," a TV show on Australia's Nine Network.
March 2008 is when Obama has said he would bring U.S. troops home from Iraq, according to legislation he introduced in the Senate.
Obama, who represents Illinois in the U.S. Senate, declared his candidacy for the Democratic presidential nomination in a speech on Saturday in his home state. (Obama makes his announcement Video)
Howard -- who faces reelection this year -- is a staunch supporter of President Bush and committed Australian troops to help the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq in 2003.
Like Bush, Howard has come under increased criticism at home for supporting the unpopular war.
Australia has more than 1,000 troops in and around Iraq, many in non-combat roles.
Obama, campaigning in Iowa, told reporters Sunday he's flattered that one of Bush's allies "started attacking me the day after I announced (his presidential run) -- I take that as a compliment."
The Democratic presidential hopeful said if the Australian prime minister was "ginned up to fight the good fight in Iraq," he needs to send another 20,000 Australians to the war.
"Otherwise, it's just a bunch of empty rhetoric," Obama said.
(More ... CNN > Politics)
CANBERRA, Australia (CNN) -- Australia's conservative Prime Minister John Howard said Sunday that victory for Democratic Sen. Barack Obama and his party in next year's presidential election would be a boon for terrorists.
"If I were running al Qaeda in Iraq, I would put a circle around March 2008, and pray, as many times as possible, for a victory not only for Obama, but also for the Democrats," Howard said, speaking on "Sunday," a TV show on Australia's Nine Network.
March 2008 is when Obama has said he would bring U.S. troops home from Iraq, according to legislation he introduced in the Senate.
Obama, who represents Illinois in the U.S. Senate, declared his candidacy for the Democratic presidential nomination in a speech on Saturday in his home state. (Obama makes his announcement Video)
Howard -- who faces reelection this year -- is a staunch supporter of President Bush and committed Australian troops to help the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq in 2003.
Like Bush, Howard has come under increased criticism at home for supporting the unpopular war.
Australia has more than 1,000 troops in and around Iraq, many in non-combat roles.
Obama, campaigning in Iowa, told reporters Sunday he's flattered that one of Bush's allies "started attacking me the day after I announced (his presidential run) -- I take that as a compliment."
The Democratic presidential hopeful said if the Australian prime minister was "ginned up to fight the good fight in Iraq," he needs to send another 20,000 Australians to the war.
"Otherwise, it's just a bunch of empty rhetoric," Obama said.
(More ... CNN > Politics)
Labels: 2008 election, Australia, CNN, Howard, Iraq, Obama
¶ 21:19 0 comments
Obama Questions Rivals on Iraq (WashingtonPost.com)
Candidate Tells Iowans His Stance on War Sets Him Apart
By Anne E. Kornblut and Dan Balz
Washington Post Staff Writers
Monday, February 12, 2007; Page A04
CHICAGO, Feb. 11 -- Sen. Barack Obama, circling through Iowa on Sunday before returning here on Day 2 of his presidential launch, challenged his Democratic rivals to lay out specifics for withdrawing U.S. troops from Iraq and declared that the thousands of lives lost so far in the war had been "wasted."
The senator from Illinois later said he regretted his choice of words, telling an interviewer that he meant the troops' sacrifices "have not been honored" by an adequate policy.
But Obama indicated in his earliest steps on the campaign trail that he considers Iraq a central distinction between himself and the rest of the Democratic field.
Obama opposed invading Iraq from the outset and has proposed a deadline of March 31, 2008, for removing troops from the country. He called Sunday for other candidates to explain their exit strategies. In particular, he said, he did not see an explicit blueprint for redeployment from Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (N.Y.), the early Democratic front-runner.
"I am not clear on how she would proceed at this point to wind down the war in a specific way," he told reporters before a boisterous rally at Iowa State University. "I know that she has stated that she thinks that the war should end by the start of the next president's first term. Beyond that, though, how she wants to accomplish that, I'm not clear on."
In his speech at the university, Obama issued an indictment of how Washington dealt with Iraq:
"We ended up launching a war that should have never been authorized and should have never been waged -- and to which we now have spent $400 billion and have seen over 3,000 lives of the bravest young Americans wasted."
He backtracked in an interview with the Des Moines Register, saying: "I was actually upset with myself. Their sacrifices are never wasted; that was sort of a slip of the tongue as I was speaking.
"The sacrifices they have made are unbelievable. What I meant to say was those sacrifices have not been honored by the same attention to strategy, diplomacy and honesty on the part of civilian leadership," he added.
(More ... Washington Post > Politics)
By Anne E. Kornblut and Dan Balz
Washington Post Staff Writers
Monday, February 12, 2007; Page A04
CHICAGO, Feb. 11 -- Sen. Barack Obama, circling through Iowa on Sunday before returning here on Day 2 of his presidential launch, challenged his Democratic rivals to lay out specifics for withdrawing U.S. troops from Iraq and declared that the thousands of lives lost so far in the war had been "wasted."
The senator from Illinois later said he regretted his choice of words, telling an interviewer that he meant the troops' sacrifices "have not been honored" by an adequate policy.
But Obama indicated in his earliest steps on the campaign trail that he considers Iraq a central distinction between himself and the rest of the Democratic field.
Obama opposed invading Iraq from the outset and has proposed a deadline of March 31, 2008, for removing troops from the country. He called Sunday for other candidates to explain their exit strategies. In particular, he said, he did not see an explicit blueprint for redeployment from Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (N.Y.), the early Democratic front-runner.
"I am not clear on how she would proceed at this point to wind down the war in a specific way," he told reporters before a boisterous rally at Iowa State University. "I know that she has stated that she thinks that the war should end by the start of the next president's first term. Beyond that, though, how she wants to accomplish that, I'm not clear on."
In his speech at the university, Obama issued an indictment of how Washington dealt with Iraq:
"We ended up launching a war that should have never been authorized and should have never been waged -- and to which we now have spent $400 billion and have seen over 3,000 lives of the bravest young Americans wasted."
He backtracked in an interview with the Des Moines Register, saying: "I was actually upset with myself. Their sacrifices are never wasted; that was sort of a slip of the tongue as I was speaking.
"The sacrifices they have made are unbelievable. What I meant to say was those sacrifices have not been honored by the same attention to strategy, diplomacy and honesty on the part of civilian leadership," he added.
(More ... Washington Post > Politics)
Labels: 2008 election, Iraq, Obama, Washington Post
¶ 21:14 0 comments
2.11.2007
Putin's Speech" Back to the Cold War? (news.BBC.co.uk)
By Rob Watson
BBC defence and security correspondent, Munich
The Munich security conference was born in the 1960s - the height of the Cold War. Forty years on, there been talk of a new chill.
Given the tone and content of Russian President Vladimir Putin's address to the gathered defence ministers, parliamentarians and pundits, it is not, perhaps, hard to see why.
Warming quickly to his task after only the briefest of greetings, President Putin accused the US of establishing, or trying to establish, a "uni-polar" world.
"What is a uni-polar world? No matter how we beautify this term, it means one single centre of power, one single centre of force and one single master," he said.
President Putin continued in a similar vein for some time.
"The United States has overstepped its borders in all spheres - economic, political and humanitarian, and has imposed itself on other states," he said.
It was a formula that, he said, had led to disaster: "Local and regional wars did not get fewer, the number of people who died did not get less but increased. We see no kind of restraint - a hyper-inflated use of force."
The US has gone "from one conflict to another without achieving a fully-fledged solution to any of them", Mr Putin said.
(More ... BBC > Europe > News) ¶ 22:10 0 comments
BBC defence and security correspondent, Munich
The Munich security conference was born in the 1960s - the height of the Cold War. Forty years on, there been talk of a new chill.
Given the tone and content of Russian President Vladimir Putin's address to the gathered defence ministers, parliamentarians and pundits, it is not, perhaps, hard to see why.
Warming quickly to his task after only the briefest of greetings, President Putin accused the US of establishing, or trying to establish, a "uni-polar" world.
"What is a uni-polar world? No matter how we beautify this term, it means one single centre of power, one single centre of force and one single master," he said.
President Putin continued in a similar vein for some time.
"The United States has overstepped its borders in all spheres - economic, political and humanitarian, and has imposed itself on other states," he said.
It was a formula that, he said, had led to disaster: "Local and regional wars did not get fewer, the number of people who died did not get less but increased. We see no kind of restraint - a hyper-inflated use of force."
The US has gone "from one conflict to another without achieving a fully-fledged solution to any of them", Mr Putin said.
(More ... BBC > Europe > News) ¶ 22:10 0 comments
Obama Pledges New Generation of U.S. Leadership (NZHerald.co.nz)
Sunday February 11, 2007
SPRINGFIELD, Illinois - Democratic presidential hopeful Barack Obama, citing the legacy of Abraham Lincoln, has pledged to bridge the partisan gridlock in Washington, end the war in Iraq and transform American politics as the first black US president.
Launching his 2008 White House campaign outside the building in where Lincoln began his fight against slavery with a famous 1858 speech that declared "a house divided against itself cannot stand," Obama said it was time to "turn the page" to a new politics.
"Let us begin this hard work together. Let us transform this nation," Obama, 45, told a cheering crowd of supporters in Springfield, Illinois, who braved sub-freezing temperatures outside the old state capital building.
"By ourselves, this change will not happen. Divided, we are bound to fail," he said.
Obama, a rising party star and the only black US senator, said the United States had overcome many difficult challenges, from gaining its independence to the Civil War to the Great Depression.
"Each and every time, a new generation has risen up and done what's needed to be done. Today we are called once more -- and it is time for our generation to answer that call," he said.
(More ... New Zealand Herald > World)
SPRINGFIELD, Illinois - Democratic presidential hopeful Barack Obama, citing the legacy of Abraham Lincoln, has pledged to bridge the partisan gridlock in Washington, end the war in Iraq and transform American politics as the first black US president.
Launching his 2008 White House campaign outside the building in where Lincoln began his fight against slavery with a famous 1858 speech that declared "a house divided against itself cannot stand," Obama said it was time to "turn the page" to a new politics.
"Let us begin this hard work together. Let us transform this nation," Obama, 45, told a cheering crowd of supporters in Springfield, Illinois, who braved sub-freezing temperatures outside the old state capital building.
"By ourselves, this change will not happen. Divided, we are bound to fail," he said.
Obama, a rising party star and the only black US senator, said the United States had overcome many difficult challenges, from gaining its independence to the Civil War to the Great Depression.
"Each and every time, a new generation has risen up and done what's needed to be done. Today we are called once more -- and it is time for our generation to answer that call," he said.
(More ... New Zealand Herald > World)
Labels: 2008 election, New Zealand Herald, Obama
¶ 22:00 0 comments
After the Disaster of Iraq, Bush Turns His Attention to Algeria (Independent.co.uk)
By Leonard Doyle
Published: 09 February 2007
War, it is said, is God's way of teaching Americans geography. As Iraq sinks into the mire, President Bush's attention is turning to Algeria.
He is, we are told, reading Alistair Horne's "A Savage War of Peace," the definitive account of the French twentieth-century experience of fighting Muslim insurgents. It recounts in detail how the French tortured Algerian combatants and non-combatants alike and how despite winning the Battle or Algiers they eventually lost the war.
There are enough alarming comparison between the two conflicts: compromised officials, porous borders, a hated occupying force to keep President Bush glued to the weighty book.
Horne compares the abuse of detainees at Abu Ghraib and the indefinite detention of detainees in Guantanamo to French behaviour in Algeria. It ultimately cost France the war, because the wave of public revulsion was such when it was publicised that opinion swung violently against the conflict.
Another cautionary tale about Algeria, is the bloody chaos, the French left behind when they eventually extricated themselves in 1962. There followed decades of civil war and tens of thousands of civilian deaths and human rights abuses on a massive scale by Islamic insurgents and the government forces.
As in Algeria, a major power is faced with an Arab insurgency that has targeted the occupying forces as well as the police, public servants, innocent civilians. The Americans are facing the same issues that the occupying French faced in the Algeria of the 1950s. France had 500,000 troops in Algeria at one point, far more than the numbers of US troops in Iraq.
(More ... The Independent > News > World > Americas)
Published: 09 February 2007
War, it is said, is God's way of teaching Americans geography. As Iraq sinks into the mire, President Bush's attention is turning to Algeria.
He is, we are told, reading Alistair Horne's "A Savage War of Peace," the definitive account of the French twentieth-century experience of fighting Muslim insurgents. It recounts in detail how the French tortured Algerian combatants and non-combatants alike and how despite winning the Battle or Algiers they eventually lost the war.
There are enough alarming comparison between the two conflicts: compromised officials, porous borders, a hated occupying force to keep President Bush glued to the weighty book.
Horne compares the abuse of detainees at Abu Ghraib and the indefinite detention of detainees in Guantanamo to French behaviour in Algeria. It ultimately cost France the war, because the wave of public revulsion was such when it was publicised that opinion swung violently against the conflict.
Another cautionary tale about Algeria, is the bloody chaos, the French left behind when they eventually extricated themselves in 1962. There followed decades of civil war and tens of thousands of civilian deaths and human rights abuses on a massive scale by Islamic insurgents and the government forces.
As in Algeria, a major power is faced with an Arab insurgency that has targeted the occupying forces as well as the police, public servants, innocent civilians. The Americans are facing the same issues that the occupying French faced in the Algeria of the 1950s. France had 500,000 troops in Algeria at one point, far more than the numbers of US troops in Iraq.
(More ... The Independent > News > World > Americas)
Labels: Bush, Independent, Iraq
¶ 21:47 0 comments
2.10.2007
Billionaire Offers US$25M Prise to Fight 'Warming' (WashingtonPost.com)
By Kevin Sullivan
Washington Post Foreign Service
Friday, February 9, 2007; 9:52 AM
LONDON, Feb. 9 -- British billionaire entrepreneur Richard Branson, with former vice president Al Gore at his side, on Friday offered a $25 million prize for anyone who can come up with a way to blunt global climate change by removing at least a billion tons of carbon dioxide a year from the Earth's atmosphere.
Branson, saying that the "survival of our species" is imperiled by current environmental trends, said the prize was similar to cash inducements that led to some of history's most notable achievements in navigation, exploration and industry.
"I believe in our resourcefulness and in our capacity to invent solutions to the problems we have ourselves created," said Branson, who has already pledged to invest $3 billion in profits from his transportation companies, including Virgin Atlantic Airlines and Virgin Trains, to fighting global warming.
"We are now facing a planetary emergency," said Gore, who has become one of the world's leading voices on climate change issues, most lately with his documentary film, "An Inconvenient Truth." Gore, who will serve as a judge in the Virgin Earth Challenge, said he hoped the contest would spur scientific innovation without distracting from more practical steps people can take to battle global warming, such as using energy-efficient light bulbs or pressuring politicians to confront "the crisis of our time."
"It's a challenge to the moral imagination of humankind," Gore said at a packed news conference, where several noted climate scientists and authors attended, provided videotaped endorsements or appeared by live video-link.
(More ... Washington Post > Nation > Special Reports > Global Warming)
Washington Post Foreign Service
Friday, February 9, 2007; 9:52 AM
LONDON, Feb. 9 -- British billionaire entrepreneur Richard Branson, with former vice president Al Gore at his side, on Friday offered a $25 million prize for anyone who can come up with a way to blunt global climate change by removing at least a billion tons of carbon dioxide a year from the Earth's atmosphere.
Branson, saying that the "survival of our species" is imperiled by current environmental trends, said the prize was similar to cash inducements that led to some of history's most notable achievements in navigation, exploration and industry.
"I believe in our resourcefulness and in our capacity to invent solutions to the problems we have ourselves created," said Branson, who has already pledged to invest $3 billion in profits from his transportation companies, including Virgin Atlantic Airlines and Virgin Trains, to fighting global warming.
"We are now facing a planetary emergency," said Gore, who has become one of the world's leading voices on climate change issues, most lately with his documentary film, "An Inconvenient Truth." Gore, who will serve as a judge in the Virgin Earth Challenge, said he hoped the contest would spur scientific innovation without distracting from more practical steps people can take to battle global warming, such as using energy-efficient light bulbs or pressuring politicians to confront "the crisis of our time."
"It's a challenge to the moral imagination of humankind," Gore said at a packed news conference, where several noted climate scientists and authors attended, provided videotaped endorsements or appeared by live video-link.
(More ... Washington Post > Nation > Special Reports > Global Warming)
Labels: Climate Change, Gore, Washington Post
¶ 13:03 0 comments
2.09.2007
Big Rise in Russian Military Spending Raises Fears of New Challenge to West (Guardian.co.uk)
· Moscow anxious over US missile defence plans
· Hawkish minister outlines $189bn hardware revamp
Luke Harding in Moscow and Ian Traynor in Brussels
Friday February 9, 2007
The Guardian
Concerns were growing yesterday over a new bout of east-west confrontation, after Russia unveiled a big increase in military spending in the wake of the American decision to site parts of its controversial missile defence system in eastern Europe.
Russia's hawkish defence minister, Sergei Ivanov, revealed an ambitious plan for a new generation of intercontinental ballistic missiles, nuclear submarines and possibly a fleet of aircraft carriers. Moscow also intended to revamp its early warning radar system. This major overhaul of Russia's military infrastructure would cost $189bn (£97bn) over eight years, he said, adding that he wanted to exceed the Soviet army in "combat readiness".
The sharp rise in expenditure comes at a time of growing coolness in US-Russian relations. Vladimir Putin has been incensed by the Bush administration's intention to site missile defence systems in Poland and the Czech Republic.
The US says the installations are being built to shoot down possible long-range missiles fired by Iran or North Korea. But Mr Putin has dismissed this claim as ludicrous, and has said the real target of the missile shield is clearly Russia and its vast nuclear arsenal. In a speech tomorrow in Munich, the president is expected to deliver Russia's scathing response.
Defence and security leaders are to meet in the German city over the weekend to wrestle with issues such as Kosovo, Afghanistan and Iran. President Putin and Mr Ivanov will deliver speeches, as will the new Pentagon chief, Robert Gates, the German chancellor, Angela Merkel, and Ali Larijani, the key Iranian official for Tehran's suspect nuclear programme.
Yesterday analysts said Moscow was worried the defence shield in eastern Europe could turn into a Trojan horse.
(More ... Guardian Unlimited > Special Report > Russia)
· Hawkish minister outlines $189bn hardware revamp
Luke Harding in Moscow and Ian Traynor in Brussels
Friday February 9, 2007
The Guardian
Concerns were growing yesterday over a new bout of east-west confrontation, after Russia unveiled a big increase in military spending in the wake of the American decision to site parts of its controversial missile defence system in eastern Europe.
Russia's hawkish defence minister, Sergei Ivanov, revealed an ambitious plan for a new generation of intercontinental ballistic missiles, nuclear submarines and possibly a fleet of aircraft carriers. Moscow also intended to revamp its early warning radar system. This major overhaul of Russia's military infrastructure would cost $189bn (£97bn) over eight years, he said, adding that he wanted to exceed the Soviet army in "combat readiness".
The sharp rise in expenditure comes at a time of growing coolness in US-Russian relations. Vladimir Putin has been incensed by the Bush administration's intention to site missile defence systems in Poland and the Czech Republic.
The US says the installations are being built to shoot down possible long-range missiles fired by Iran or North Korea. But Mr Putin has dismissed this claim as ludicrous, and has said the real target of the missile shield is clearly Russia and its vast nuclear arsenal. In a speech tomorrow in Munich, the president is expected to deliver Russia's scathing response.
Defence and security leaders are to meet in the German city over the weekend to wrestle with issues such as Kosovo, Afghanistan and Iran. President Putin and Mr Ivanov will deliver speeches, as will the new Pentagon chief, Robert Gates, the German chancellor, Angela Merkel, and Ali Larijani, the key Iranian official for Tehran's suspect nuclear programme.
Yesterday analysts said Moscow was worried the defence shield in eastern Europe could turn into a Trojan horse.
(More ... Guardian Unlimited > Special Report > Russia)
Labels: Guardian, U.S. Military
¶ 20:10 0 comments
Democrats Set House Debate to Rebuke Bush Over Iraq Policy (NYTimes.com)
By JEFF ZELENY
Published: February 9, 2007
WASHINGTON, Feb. 8 — House Democratic leaders persuaded members of their party on Thursday to limit the scope of an Iraq war resolution next week to a simple repudiation of President Bush’s troop buildup plan, hoping to temporarily set aside divisive decisions over war financing and troop redeployments.
Speaker Nancy Pelosi, Democrat of California, and other party leaders met privately for more than an hour with other Democratic lawmakers. They sought to reassure Democrats that the symbolic, nonbinding resolution devised to rebuke Mr. Bush was a first step — but not a final one — toward asserting Congressional powers on Iraq.
After winning control of Congress, in part because of discontent over the Iraq war, Democrats are eager to send a strong signal of disapproval to the White House. To make the proposal palatable to at least some Republicans, the Democrats said their resolution would express support for the troops, but reject the plan to send 21,500 more of them to Iraq.
The people “called for a new direction,” Ms. Pelosi said, “and no place do they want that direction to be more clear than in the war in Iraq.”
(More ... New York Times > Washington)
Published: February 9, 2007
WASHINGTON, Feb. 8 — House Democratic leaders persuaded members of their party on Thursday to limit the scope of an Iraq war resolution next week to a simple repudiation of President Bush’s troop buildup plan, hoping to temporarily set aside divisive decisions over war financing and troop redeployments.
Speaker Nancy Pelosi, Democrat of California, and other party leaders met privately for more than an hour with other Democratic lawmakers. They sought to reassure Democrats that the symbolic, nonbinding resolution devised to rebuke Mr. Bush was a first step — but not a final one — toward asserting Congressional powers on Iraq.
After winning control of Congress, in part because of discontent over the Iraq war, Democrats are eager to send a strong signal of disapproval to the White House. To make the proposal palatable to at least some Republicans, the Democrats said their resolution would express support for the troops, but reject the plan to send 21,500 more of them to Iraq.
The people “called for a new direction,” Ms. Pelosi said, “and no place do they want that direction to be more clear than in the war in Iraq.”
(More ... New York Times > Washington)
Labels: Congress, Iraq, New York Times
¶ 20:06 0 comments
Edwards Backs Bloggers After "Anti-Catholic" Comments (CNN.com)
POSTED: 1853 GMT (0253 HKT), February 8, 2007
Story Highlights
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Former Sen. John Edwards on Thursday stood by two bloggers after a conservative Catholic group demanded they be fired for posting what it called "anti-Catholic" blog entries before joining his presidential campaign.
Catholic League President William Donohue issued a statement this week calling the two bloggers -- Amanda Marcotte and Melissa McEwen -- "anti-Catholic, vulgar, trash talking bigots."
In response to the criticism, the North Carolina Democrat said that "the tone and the sentiment of some of Amanda Marcotte's and Melissa McEwen's posts personally offended me."
"It's not how I talk to people, and it's not how I expect the people who work for me to talk to people," Edwards said in a statement.
"But I also believe in giving everyone a fair shake. I've talked to Amanda and Melissa; they have both assured me that it was never their intention to malign anyone's faith, and I take them at their word."
In statements also released by the Edwards campaign, Marcotte and McEwen said they did not mean to offend anyone's personal beliefs.
In his complaints, Donohue pointed to a Marcotte blog on her Pandagon site regarding the church's opposition to birth control, which she said forces women "to bear more tithing Catholics." Donohue also objected to another entry titled "Pope and Fascists."
Donohue also criticized a post by McEwen that refers to President Bush's "wingnut Christofacist base" on the Shakespeare's Sister blog.
The Catholic League president called the language "incendiary" and "inflammatory." "It's scurrilous and has no place being part of someone's resume who's going to work for a potential presidential contender," he said.
(More ... CNN > Politics)
Story Highlights
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Former Sen. John Edwards on Thursday stood by two bloggers after a conservative Catholic group demanded they be fired for posting what it called "anti-Catholic" blog entries before joining his presidential campaign.
Catholic League President William Donohue issued a statement this week calling the two bloggers -- Amanda Marcotte and Melissa McEwen -- "anti-Catholic, vulgar, trash talking bigots."
In response to the criticism, the North Carolina Democrat said that "the tone and the sentiment of some of Amanda Marcotte's and Melissa McEwen's posts personally offended me."
"It's not how I talk to people, and it's not how I expect the people who work for me to talk to people," Edwards said in a statement.
"But I also believe in giving everyone a fair shake. I've talked to Amanda and Melissa; they have both assured me that it was never their intention to malign anyone's faith, and I take them at their word."
In statements also released by the Edwards campaign, Marcotte and McEwen said they did not mean to offend anyone's personal beliefs.
In his complaints, Donohue pointed to a Marcotte blog on her Pandagon site regarding the church's opposition to birth control, which she said forces women "to bear more tithing Catholics." Donohue also objected to another entry titled "Pope and Fascists."
Donohue also criticized a post by McEwen that refers to President Bush's "wingnut Christofacist base" on the Shakespeare's Sister blog.
The Catholic League president called the language "incendiary" and "inflammatory." "It's scurrilous and has no place being part of someone's resume who's going to work for a potential presidential contender," he said.
(More ... CNN > Politics)
Labels: 2008 election, CNN, Edwards
¶ 20:01 0 comments
