Showing posts with label Elvira Madigan. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Elvira Madigan. Show all posts

Thursday, 22 October 2009

XXV ... not long now

Up, Down.

André Dahmer Malvados Encontro Anual dos Donos do Mundo
Annual Meeting of the Masters of the World
You mean to say that we can generate fear ...
... and then sell protection!
Wow Henry. Your idea gives me shivers ...
Look at that, already we have our first client!

Elvira Madigan, Pia DegermarkElvira Madigan, Thommy BerggrenElvira Madigan, Pia Degermark
Elvira Madigan, Pia Degermark
from Elvira Madigan, a Swedish movie from the 60s ... interesting the way screen-grabs from DVD movies are sort-of washed out, so I brightened them with Photo Editor, Pia Degermark & Thommy Berggren, it came to mind the other day (XXI - I guess XXX will be a fitting end then) so I ordered a copy and it came today and I watched it - I had no idea that it was a true story, Hedvig Antoinette Isabella Eleonore Jensen & Count Bengt Edvard Sixten Sparre, but I remember that it hit me like a ton of bricks and as I watched it again I saw some of my emotional touchstones turning up, that shade of yellow dress, taking a bit of bread and almost crying, other things ... I guess you could call it extreme romanticism but I am not going to get into the analysis

last words ... his "I can't," and her "You must." was Bo Widerberg clever enough to know that these phrases would sound as in English? likely was I guess ...

louche: adjective, Oblique, not straightforward. Also, dubious, shifty, disreputable, from French louche/lousche squinting, Latin lusca, feminine of luscus one-eyed.

Pia DegermarkPia DegermarkPia DegermarkPia DegermarkPia DegermarkPia Degermark

I can imagine some phony intellectual like Woody Allen, or even an almost-real one like Rick Salutin, saying, with an exquisite sneer, "He was like some 60s refugee, still trapped in Elvira Madigan ..." something like that ... whatever

here's a rogues gallery: Jack Layton, Jim Prentice, Marcel Coutu, Michael Martin, & Maude Barlow (alphabetically by first name :-)
Jack LaytonJim PrenticeMarcel CoutuMarcel CoutuMarcel Coutu with son SamMichael Martin climate envoy CanadaMichael Martin climate envoy CanadaMichael Martin climate envoy CanadaMaude Barlow in BoliviaMaude Barlow
Maude Barlow was selected last for this list, it was not balanced, I thought there should be some distaff in there, some visual interest :-) ... and now that she is a Heroine of the Environment, doh!? ... no waidaminit it's the "2009 Planet in Focus International Eco Hero Award," so we need to see what Maudie looks like ... Eco Hero, another Caped Crusader I guess, like the Pope :-)

why is Jack Layton in there? just another vain bourgeois son of a bourgeois son from Hudson Quebec, just another 'it's about ME' guy from Toronto ... wringing his hands in the national media about his pretty little Bill C-377/C-311C-311, all good except that 80% in 2050 is too little too late, I bet that somewhere he has claimed to be following the science ... but the science I am aware of says 80% by 2020, 90% by 2030, with the tipping year of 2015

I trust the rest of them are obvious ... well, maybe Michael Martin ... oops, poor Michael has not made it into Wikipedia, but the OED tells me that an 'envoy' is a second-rank diplomat (first being ambassadors and third being chargés d'affaires) so maybe that's it ... one day in Bangkok some people get up and leave a Canadian presentation of some kind, I don't really know why - maybe someone needed to use the bathroom? but our Michael says so publicly seconded by some other diplomatic son of a diplomatic son and all is well until Jim Prentice hears of it, oh my! so, it is the joint public denial which explains nothing that has earned him this flying fickle finger of fate award :-)

Samsø Google EarthSamsø Denmark mapSamsø Island mapSamsø context map from Spiegel articleSamsø Soren HermansenSamsø Paul Erik Wedelgaard
Samsø Island in Denmark almost looks like a good place to go to :-) except that Denmark is flat, highest elevation in the country is 550 feet, on Samso ... can't find the number, but not high enough for the long term I'll bet.

I have been thinking about the Vancouver Winter Olympics, collected some good cartoons ... there are some issues, in fact I think it is a sham ... and I noted the news of elementary school teachers effectively offering courses in terrorism with a smile, and this editorial by Cam Cole didn't change my mind but it caught my attention: It's elementary, my dear children: The Olympics are a sham, entertained me, made me laugh ... all good :-)


Appendices:
1. Pia Degermark - You always get another chance, Pia Lundgren, January 2004.

2-1. Canada envoy sees draft climate treaty achievable, Jeffrey Jones, Sept 22 2009.
2-2. Walkout over climate talks, Steve Rennie, 13th Oct. 2009.
2-3. Statement by Minister Prentice on Bangkok Climate Change Talks, Jim Prentice, Oct. 14 2009.
2-4. Copenhagen climate deal unlikely: Jim Prentice, Kelly Cryderman, Oct. 15 2009.
2-5. Allow higher oil sands emissions: CEO Marcel Coutu, Shawn McCarthy, Oct. 15 2009.
2-6. On a cost basis, carbon-capture projects are madness, Jeffrey Simpson, Oct. 19 2009.
2-7. Pass climate bill before UN summit, Layton says, Heather Scoffield, Oct. 19 2009.
2-8. Ottawa dashes hope for climate treaty in Copenhagen, Shawn McCarthy, Oct. 22 2009.

3. International Eco Hero – Maude Barlow, Planet In Focus International Film & Video Festival.

4. An Ecotopia for Climate Protection - Samso Island, Clemens Höges, 10/22/2009.
4-1. Part 1: Samso Island Is Face of Danish Green Revolution.
4-2. Part 2: 'Everyone Can Do What We Are Doing'.
     4a. Samsø Island, Denmark, Wikipedia.
     4b. Samsø Kommune in Danish.
     4c. Getting a Green card.

5. It's elementary, my dear children: The Olympics are a sham, Cam Cole, October 16 2009.



***************************************************************************
Pia Degermark - You always get another chance, Pia Lundgren, January 2004.

We remember Pia Degermark as the beautiful young girl in the film Elvira Madigan. At 17 she became world famous and flirted with the King. On the surface, she was a glamorous jetsetter but behind the facade lay deep sadness. Anorexia, drugs and eventually prison. Today, however, Pia Degermark is finally back on track.

"I have regained my faith in my fellow man."

"I suspect I would perhaps have had an easier life without Elvira Madigan" says Pia Degermark. "Perhaps I would have avoided anorexia, hyperactivity and substance abuse" and in her next breath "But of course you can't change the past"

She was born to the heights of society and descended to its depths, she has been to hell and back. Still, she looks fresh and healthy. Her face is still as beautiful as when she made Elvira Madigan, but the once innocent and trusting eyes now reflect a reality shaped by a decadent lifestyle, homelessness and life down and out coping with a drug problem.´

There is pain in her glance, but also happiness at having survived despite everything. There is even a mischievous sparkle that bubbles forth at times.

"My life began to improve about five years ago when I began cognitive therapy, when I regained a closer contact with my mother. I have broken out of my more destructive patterns of behaviour and found my faith in mankind renewed."

Now her handmade cushions are on display in a Stockholm gallery, a real comeback if you consider that the last news we had of Pia was of her being awarded 630,000 SEK for lost income after a traffic accident which crushed her right leg.

The Traffic Insurance Society has appealed this decision however and Pia still hasn't seen a penny of it. The past year she has been unable to work but for two years prior to that she was working as a cultural assistant for an Athletics foundation.

"I would rather work with handicrafts. I find it difficult to work for someone and know that I must be at the office every day at 8.00".

She points at the cushions in the room: "These are a form of therapy, that one symbolizes my mother and the one in the corner, that's for Ann Zacharias. We have known each other for twenty years but only really began to socialise this autumn. There's no competition or jealousy between us, she's a dear friend."

Two huge armchairs dominate the living room; Pia serves tea and buns, and sits herself down in the armchair with studs on the armrest.


She has been making cushions for years. Traces perhaps of her hyperactivity?

"It provides both an outlet for my creativity and something to occupy my hands."

She suffers continuous, severe pain after her accident and says that the only thing that really helps to ease the pain is swimming:

"So I swim almost every day. The pool here at Hägersten is the best in Stockholm, and part of the reason I chose to move here two years ago."

Her godfather helped her with the money necessary to get the contract on the apartment. Pia gives the impression of being five, fifteen and fifty, all at the same time, a child, a precocious teenager in a mature woman's body. Just after the success of Elvira Madigan, an English journalist asked Pia's mother "How was Pia as a child?" The reply? "Pia never was a child"

"It just wasn't for me" says Pia. "I have always been stubborn, as a six year old, my constant dieting forced my mother to put me into the Princess Lovisa Hospital, it took me a long time to learn how to play, to be a child, to explore boundaries."

"I grew up in such a incredibly sheltered environment. When I was just ten, we all moved to Switzerland, apart from my brother who was attending the International School at Sigtuna. I went to a little village school before attending a boarding-school for girls."

Pia carries on to tell of the materially rich life they had, whatever she pointed at, she got except for what she really needed, the security of family life. Her family was not fully focussed; she got no clear guidelines or clarity, only mixed messages of what was and was not acceptable.

"But I got huge amounts of love from my mother!"

Pia and her mother still enjoy a close relationship; they celebrated Christmas and New Year in Lucerne, Switzerland at her mother's home, with her son Cesare, from her relationship with Pier Caminneci.

When they met, he was heir to the Siemens' millions, a divorced father of two and a notorious European playboy. In 1971, came a fairytale wedding, 8000 carnations in four different colours where flown in from Cannes to titillate such luminaries as Christina Onassis and the then Crown Prince Carl Gustaf.

Whilst Pia was at that time anorexic and excitable she was at least temporarily free from the more serious symptoms of hyperactivity. She had graduated with excellent grades and even managed to appear in two films, not quite in Elvira Madigan's class but even so!

"Father took care of the money. That was how he exercised control over me."

Pia tells how her father was an alcoholic and the more he drank, the worse his jealousy became, how he treated her more like a girlfriend than his child.

"He couldn't stand my husband, so when I married, he divorced my mother. Then my husband sank so far into alcoholism I just had to leave him.

They lived an extravagant jet set life, light-years away from the suburban tranquillity that characterises her life these days. In their heyday Pia and Pier would think nothing about hiring a jet with 25-30 friends just to get to a party.

After the divorce, Cesare lived with her father in Germany. She speaks of her son with tenderness and love. They meet two to three times a year and talk on the telephone every week.

"He's very social, funny, loving and has a good dose of commonsense. Cesare, he's very thoughtful and human. He has studied law and works as a property broker. He has just got a girlfriend so am looking forward to becoming a grandmother."

Pia says it was tough to leave him when she returned to Sweden. She felt like a bad mother, but she herself chose to let her son's father take care of him. Her second son, Robbin, on the other hand, was taken from her by the Swedish social services.

"For the last 10 years, I have only been able to see him once a month for 3 hours. He was placed in a foster home when he was little, the foster father is always there when I meet Robbin. I have tried everything to get custody of him again. I have been in a stable situation and drug free for over six years now but I have a stain on my character as far as the social services are concerned, one I don't deserve.

The explanation for this is simple, life just spiralled out of control for Pia.

When Pia returned to Sweden she had met a new man, together they ran a conference centre at Djurgården. This relationship ended, Pia went to America and worked in the film industry, it was there she was introduced to amphetamines.

"They helped to control my hyperactivity, I took them just to get through the day, without them I probably would have killed myself"

On returning to Sweden at the end of the 80's, Pia went to work for an Anorexia foundation.

"It took too much out of me, I invested too much of myself in it and when one of the girls died, I just couldn't cope anymore"

In 1991 Pia was convicted to 14 moths in prison for drugs and fraud offences and assault on a civil servant. She had amongst other things succeeded in getting money out from her father's bank account and was reported to the police by his new wife. At this time, she met Janne, a criminal and drug abuser, and became pregnant with Robbin.

When he was born, both her first son Cesare and her mother were present:

"It was wonderful, even though I had a caesarean, I was fully conscious and could see everything, I was so happy."

When Pia and Janne ended up in prison, they received family therapy but to no avail, Robbin was taken by the social services. When Pia got to see Robbin at Helsingborg's hospital, she took him in her arms, climbed out through a window and fled with him to Helsingör. There they enjoyed three months together before an acquaintance turned them in to the police.

Pia began injecting amphetamine after this and became infected with Hepatitis C. She will soon under treatment for this, an unpleasant process with side effects similar to those of chemotherapy but she is determined to go through with it.

"Even though Robbin loves his foster family and the social services have promised them he can stay till he is 18, I will not give up the fight."

"He is such a fragile boy" says Pia. We have changed scenery, moving to a favourite restaurant in the local square.

"He seems so pure and unaffected, even though I cannot say I know him so well, we often go to a film so it is hard to really talk. Mind you, he is less anxious now he has got a girlfriend, he has got over the "girl terror" so we can hug and kiss a little more now!"

There are no other distractions in Pia's life now, it is Robbin that counts.

She lights a cigar, a couple of men sitting in the restaurant turn and scrumptiously glance over, they point and whisper "Isn't that Pia Degermark?"

"I am often recognised" she says, sounding both gratified and troubled.

The fair weather friends are long gone. They disappeared as soon as Pia landed up in jail.

"They didn't dare hang around after that" says Pia "and I think a lot of them were jealous and thought I pretty much deserved what I got because I had had it so easy, as the ex girlfriend of the King and a 17 year old world famous film star. I have felt their spite.

"All I have ever tried to do is survive" she continues, "I have survived partly because I feel there is another life, that you can come back, perhaps to something better. My involvement with sport and my enjoyment of nature has helped, when I was at my most depressed, I saw no colours, now I see every nuance and shift of shade. Incidentally, do you know how many colours there are in a tree?"

I have no idea, but as Pia says, miracles do happen.

She smiles.

"I am alive and I can still laugh."



***************************************************************************
Copenhagen climate deal unlikely: Environment Minister Jim Prentice, Kelly Cryderman, October 15 2009.

Less than two months from key global climate-change talks, federal Environment Minister Jim Prentice says he has doubts that an agreement will be hammered out in Copenhagen.

Less than two months from key global climate-change talks, federal Environment Minister Jim Prentice says he has doubts that an agreement will be hammered out in Copenhagen.
Photograph by: Grant Black, Calgary Herald

CALGARY — Less than two months from key global climate-change talks, federal Environment Minister Jim Prentice says he has doubts that an agreement will be hammered out in Copenhagen.

"Increasingly, people are being realistic — that it's hard to see a full and complete agreement being arrived at," Prentice told the Calgary Herald editorial board this week.

"There's probably too much work to be done in the time left to achieve that."

U.S. President Barack Obama's administration is working on alternative bilateral agreements with countries such as India and China, with the aim of reviving a process that appears increasingly deadlocked between developing countries and advanced economies.

Prentice said the Copenhagen meeting is still important, but "it's more likely we'll be working toward some agreed principles."

Regardless, the minister said, Canada will go ahead with its own plan of reducing climate-changing emissions by 20 per cent below 2006 levels by 2020 — and each province will individually have to live up to that target, including the home of the oilsands, Alberta.

"There will have to be a parity of effort across the country," Prentice said.

"We're all in this together. If that's going to be Canada's national target, then each province is going to have to share their share of the burden."

Prentice added the caveat that specific agreements have not been worked out between Ottawa and the provinces.

But there's no doubt the federal government has more ambitious targets than Alberta. The Stelmach government's plan allows for increases in emissions — called absolute emissions — until 2020.

While a difference in greenhouse-gas strategies has been a source of contention between Alberta and Ottawa, provincial Environment Minister Rob Renner appeared unfazed by Prentice's comments.

"It's a very complex discussion," Renner said. "I'm comfortable that we will have a unified position when we get to Copenhagen."

Renner added the province hasn't shied away from being proactive in making CO2-reduction targets — based on how much industries produce rather than absolute caps on emissions. But he said more ambitious targets are possible.

Alberta's "legislated reductions are relatively modest," Renner acknowledged. "Once everybody else comes on board, there's no reason to believe that we can't increase the effort . . . but we can't do it now because it would put us out of sync with everyone else and it would make our industry totally uncompetitive."

Canada's position is to replace the Kyoto accord with a new agreement.

In that vein, Prentice also commented on a controversy about whether developing countries walked out as Canadian representatives spoke in Bangkok earlier this month.

The minister said that didn't happen; those countries chose not to participate in the technical discussion.



***************************************************************************
Allow higher oil sands emissions: CEO Marcel Coutu, Shawn McCarthy & Richard Blackwell, Oct. 15 2009.

Move would impose greater burden on others, but strict limits on producers would stifle the industry's growth, says head of Canadian Oil Sands Trust

Ottawa, Toronto — Alberta's oil sands producers should be allowed to significantly increase their greenhouse gas emissions, even if that means forcing other sectors to take on additional expensive obligations to meet Canada's climate change targets, an industry executive says.

Marcel Coutu, chief executive officer of Canadian Oil Sands Trust, (COS.UN-T32.20-0.27-0.83%) travelled to Toronto Thursday to spread the industry's message about climate change. The oil industry stance highlights the dilemma facing the federal government as it prepares regulations to meet its commitment to reduce emissions by 20 per cent by 2020 from 2006 levels.

If the oil sands were allowed to expand production with only marginal improvements in their per-barrel emissions, the rest of the country faces a much harder and more expensive challenge in meeting Canadian targets.

The Alberta government and the oil industry argue for “intensity-based” targets that would require lower per-barrel emissions, but allow growing industries to increase their overall output of carbon dioxide.

Critics argue the oil companies should face absolute caps on their emissions, but Mr. Coutu said such an approach would stifle growth in Canada's most important resource development.

Strict emission limits would “put a very, very heavy burden on a business that is [in] a growth mode” and is a key engine of the Canadian economy, he said.

Mr. Coutu – whose company owns 36.7 per cent of the Syncrude oil sands project – acknowledged other sectors would have to take up the slack if the oil sands have only intensity-based requirements and Ottawa imposes a national cap on emissions.

“That's the math and there is no escape from that,” he said. “What we have to do is prioritize what is most important to the economy and our quality of life. At the end of the day I don't think there is a single element of our economy that is more important than energy.”

The math is clearly daunting.

Driven by its need to keep the oil industry growing, Alberta has set regulations that will see emissions continue to grow between 2006 and 2020, even as Ottawa attempts to cut levels by 20 per cent over that period. With Alberta representing more than a third of Canadian emissions in 2006, the failure by that province to cut back will require the rest of the provinces to reduce their emissions by more than 35 per cent from 2006 levels over the next 10 years.

Environment Minister Jim Prentice has been consulting with provinces on the pending federal regulations, and has encountered resistance from outside Alberta that its industry would either be bound by different rules than others, or would be allowed to increase emissions to the detriment of other sectors.

In a meeting with The Globe and Mail's editorial board, Mr. Coutu played down the oil sands' contribution to the country's climate change challenge. He noted the vast majority of emissions occur in the consumption of energy – driving cars, flying airplanes, heating homes and commercial buildings – rather than in its production.

He said that oil sands currently represent only 5 per cent of total Canadian emissions. However, that figure could triple if planned expansions proceed and other sectors rein in their creation of carbon dioxide and other climate change gases.

Mr. Coutu said it's necessary to look at those figures from a global perspective, because additional Canadian petroleum production from the oil sands would be replacing production – and emissions – from elsewhere in the world.

The fact that Canada is a net exporter of energy must also be taken into account, Mr. Coutu said, because Canada could end up taking the environmental responsibility for a product that is eventually purchased by a foreign user.

While it is up to the government to make the call on carbon policy, the oil sands industry needs to “emphasize the importance of energy [and] the importance of crude oil in the mix,” he said.

Environmentalists agree with the oil industry on one point: that an effective climate change policy must target energy consumers as well as producers. But the growth of emissions in the oil sands would make the overall effort far more difficult, said Dale Marshall, a policy analyst with the David Suzuki Foundation.



***************************************************************************
On a cost basis, carbon-capture projects are madness, Jeffrey Simpson, Oct. 19 2009.


The small reductions gained by staggering per-tonne costs illustrate what every independent analyst knows: The Harper government's 20-per-cent reduction target will not be met

Prime Minister Stephen Harper makes so many spending announcements, flying like Mary Poppins on speed around the country to distribute billions of dollars, that the news media have given up analyzing any of them.

For the heck of it, let's look back to last week, when Mr. Harper dropped into Edmonton to announce $343-million of federal money for a coal-fired TransAlta Corp. carbon-capture and storage (CCS) project. Simultaneously, Alberta Premier Ed Stelmach announced a contribution of $436-million, for a total investment of $774-million of taxpayers' cash.

That Harper-Stelmach announcement followed an earlier Ottawa-Alberta one for a coal-fired Shell carbon storage project. In that case, the combined federal and provincial contribution was $865-million.

The two announcements – both for coal-fired facilities, the oil sands therefore remaining untouched – mean about $1.6-billion in taxpayer money in the years ahead, or about $220 for a family of four.

What do we get for that sum?

We get, at best, a reduction in greenhouse-gas emissions of 2.1 million tonnes. “At best” because the announcements were tempered with hedging words such as “could” achieve and “up to one million tonnes.” Therefore, something less than 2.1 million tonnes might actually be captured.

Let's be generous and assume the two projects costing $1.6-billion do in fact bury 2.1 million tonnes of carbon dioxide, the most-prevalent gas contributing to global warming. Such a reduction would mean a per-tonne carbon-reduction cost of about $761 – staggeringly, wildly, mind-blowingly higher than any other conceivable measure designed to cut greenhouse-gas emissions. Want a contrast? Alberta has a piddling carbon tax on emissions over a certain level that companies can avoid by paying $15 a tonne into an technology fund.

What does 2.1 million tonnes mean in pan-Canadian terms? Canada emits about 720 million tonnes of CO{-2}. Mr. Harper has pledged by 2020 to lower that amount by 20 per cent, or about 144 million tones. The two carbon-capture projects just announced, by lowering emissions 2.1 million tonnes, will therefore achieve about 1.4 per cent of the reductions the Harper government has pledged at a cost, remember, of $1.6-billion. At this rate, achieving the 20-per-cent reduction would cost almost $110-billion between now and 2020.

For Alberta? The province, with 11 per cent of Canada's population, is responsible for about 30 per cent of the country's emissions. Taking 2.1 million tonnes from Alberta's emissions will represent about 1 per cent of the province's total emissions. As the province's emissions rise, courtesy of further development of the oil sands, the predicted carbon-capture and storage gains will necessarily represent less than 1 per cent of total emissions.

But wait. After these announcements, Alberta has more money left in its $2-billion fund for encouraging capture and storage. This is the fund the province whips out to show critics that it is serious about global warming.

There remains about $800-million in the fund, but if future projects are like the two just announced, once the entire $2-billion is spent, Alberta might have lowered its emissions by maybe 2 per cent.

On a cost-benefit basis, these carbon-capture and storage projects are madness, leaving aside the fact that taxpayers are picking up the bill. They are wildly expensive for the small amount of carbon they will (might?) prevent from entering the atmosphere. They are most definitely not a substitute for a serious climate-change policy that, however structured, must put a price on carbon emissions by those who produce them – either upstream emitters such as industrial concerns and/or downstream consumers.

The small reductions gained by such large sums also illustrate what every independent analyst has concluded: The Harper government's 20-per-cent reduction target will not be met; indeed, it is increasingly being seen as a joke.

Can anything good be said for these announcements, apart from the nice public relations they brought Mr. Harper and Mr. Stelmach?

At a stretch, these projects will test technologies that, if successful, could eventually bring unit costs down and perhaps be exported overseas, although plenty of other companies and jurisdictions are now in the race to develop carbon-capture and storage technologies.

CCS will be part of the long-term effort to reduce greenhouse-gas emissions, but the possibilities of its contribution have been hyped by promoters and political actors beyond what is reasonable to expect. And the initial costs, as these projects show, lead to staggeringly expensive per-tonne reductions.



***************************************************************************
Pass climate bill before UN summit, Layton says, Heather Scoffield, Oct. 19 2009.

Delaying vote on greenhouse-gas legislation until after Copenhagen conference would force Canada to ‘stand naked before the world'

Ottawa — NDP Leader Jack Layton says parliamentarians have a chance this week to restore Canada's reputation as a protector of the environment, just in time for the high-stakes Copenhagen meeting on climate change.

Mr. Layton said all the MPs have to do is vote down a Conservative motion on Wednesday. The motion would delay an NDP bill to set out strict greenhouse-gas reduction targets for Ottawa, and require the government to give progress reports.

“We have another delay tactic being proposed,” Mr. Layton said Monday in a message meant to target Liberal MPs in particular.

“If that motion passes, it would be impossible for the bill then to come back before Copenhagen. And Canada would simply have to go and stand naked before the world, with Stephen Harper's terrible position on climate change.”

The bill has gone through the House of Commons before, with the backing of the Liberals, but never made it into law because of last year's election.

Now, the bill has been rejuvenated, gone through second reading and committee hearings. But the Conservatives are asking for a delay that would send the bill back for more study, and the NDP suspect the Liberals will agree to the Tory “foot-dragging.”

Mr. Layton wants MPs to reject the delay, so that they can vote for the bill and send a strong message, before the crucial meetings in Copenhagen take place in December.

That summit is hoped to yield a successor to the Kyoto Protocol, a global greenhouse-gas treaty ratified by dozens of countries, including Canada but not the United States.

The Harper government has been non-committal in the process leading up to Copenhagen, Mr. Layton said. But if MPs pass his Climate Change Accountability Act, it would send the world a strong message that the Canadian public and its elected representatives want to take action.

The bill sets strict targets for greenhouse-gas emissions and calls for an 80 per cent reduction from 1990 levels by 2050. Mr. Layton says he has the backing of the Bloc Québécois, but needs the support of the Liberals in order to make any headway.

The Conservative government has pledged to lower greenhouse gases 20 per cent from 2006 levels by 2020.

The Liberals supported the NDP bill last year. By highlighting the Tory motion for delay, and the NDP is indicating that if the Liberals side with the Tories, Mr. Layton will hammer Liberal Leader Michael Ignatieff for lack of action on the environment.

Mr. Ignatieff made it clear last week that the environment will play a centre role in his next election platform.

Liberal environment critic David McGuinty said Monday that the bill is being divided into two parts, and so requires more study.



***************************************************************************
Ottawa dashes hope for climate treaty in Copenhagen, Shawn McCarthy, Oct. 22 2009.

Best possible outcome of climate talks is smoother path to later deal, Prentice says

Ottawa — Hope is vanishing that a historic deal to address climate change can be concluded in Copenhagen, and Environment Minister Jim Prentice says the best chance is for a political agreement that would pave the way for a treaty to be signed later.

But Canada will continue to insist that it should have a less aggressive target for emission reductions than Europe or Japan because of its faster-growing population and energy-intensive industrial structure, Mr. Prentice said in an interview Thursday.

Canadians must also recognize that any national emissions cap has to reflect differing conditions across the country so as not to punish high-growth provinces, he added. The minister has been consulting with provinces on a plan that would impose a cap on industrial emissions, but allow Alberta's energy-intensive, emissions-heavy oil sands to continue expanding.

“The Canadian approach has to reflect the diversity of the country and the sheer size of the country, and the very different economic characteristics and industrial structure across the country,” he said in a telephone interview.

However, Ottawa will not release its detailed climate-change plan, including its proposed emissions caps on large emitters such as oil sands and power plants, until there is more clarity on how the United States intends to proceed in global climate-change talks in Copenhagen in December, and on what an international treaty would look like, the minister added.

“Copenhagen is a very significant factor in how matters will be approached continentally, and how matters will be approached domestically,” he said.

The Harper government has been criticized for undermining the global talks by insisting on smaller reductions for greenhouse gases than other developed countries, by demanding that emerging economies such as China and India agree to binding caps on their emissions, and by not tabling a plan for meeting Ottawa's own targets.

Mr. Prentice insisted Canada remains committed to reaching an agreement but was not hopeful it could be concluded by December.

“I have to take a realistic view that, given the amount of work that remains to be done, we're running out of time,” he said.

Top United Nations officials are expressing similar pessimism. Yvo de Boer, executive secretary of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, said Thursday it is “unrealistic” to expect a treaty to be negotiated in the weeks before Copenhagen.

In New Delhi, Indian and Chinese environment ministers agreed to a common stand, rejecting binding limits on emissions but pledging to reduce the rate of growth of emissions.

On Wednesday, John Podesta, a prominent Democratic adviser to U.S. President Barack Obama, told an Ottawa audience that it is doubtful a treaty will be signed in Copenhagen, but that there may be an overarching political accord that would pave the way for a treaty.

Mr. Obama is battling to get climate-change legislation through Congress before Copenhagen to strengthen his negotiating hand, but that too appears unlikely. The President plans to travel to China and host India's Prime Minister next month in hopes of finding common ground that would allow the two Asian giants to accept binding limits tied to their need for growth. Without some commitment from the emerging economies, Mr. Obama will have a much tougher job winning passage of the bill now before the Senate.

In Canada, environmentalists and federal opposition parties have slammed the Conservative government for adopting an emission target that falls well short of the country's commitment under the Kyoto Protocol, and far short of what many other developed countries are doing.

Ottawa proposes to reduce emissions by 20 per cent from 2006 levels by 2020. If achieved, Canadian emissions would be 3 per cent below 1990 levels; under Kyoto, Canada committed to cutting its greenhouse gases by 6 per cent from 1990 levels by 2012.

The European Union has said it would reduce emissions by 30 per cent from 1990 levels by 2020, if other developed countries would accept similar reductions. The U.S. climate legislation sets a target of a 17-per-cent reduction from 2005 levels by 2020, but is more aggressive than Canada's in subsequent years.

But Ottawa's chief climate negotiator, Michael Martin, said Canada's economic and population growth over the last 20 years was much stronger than EU growth, meaning Canadians would pay a higher cost to meet the same emissions targets.

The government's 2020 target represents a 26-per-cent reduction from 1990 emission levels on a per-capita basis, after adjusting for population growth.

Mr. Martin addressed a parliamentary committee which is studying a New Democratic Party bill that would commit Canada to reduce emissions by 25 per cent from 1990 levels by 2020, a target that is consistent with both Kyoto and the EU's approach for the next round.

However, the climate ambassador said Canada's targets are “comparable” to more aggressive ones because they will be just as costly to achieve.

Liberal environment critic David McGuinty said the Harper government is avoiding responsibility for addressing climate change, both globally and domestically.

“We're negotiating without a plan” to achieve the reductions Ottawa has already committed to, he said. “They're ragging the puck, killing time and hoping to avoid the issue until after the next election.”



***************************************************************************
Canada envoy sees draft climate treaty achievable, Jeffrey Jones, Sept 22 2009.

CALGARY - Countries struggling for a deal on combating climate change are likely to overcome divisions and agree on a draft treaty to serve as a basis for upcoming talks in Copenhagen, Canada's chief negotiator said.

Countries must winnow down a 199-page negotiating paper at a series of talks before the Copenhagen meeting in December. Key players, including UN Climate Change Secretariat head Yvo de Boer, have expressed fear that it may not happen given the slow pace of discussions to date.

"I believe we can do that," Michael Martin, Canada's chief negotiator and ambassador for climate change, said a meeting hosted this week by the International Institute for Sustainable Development. "To help us get there, there will be a lot of ministerial engagement between now and Copenhagen."

There had been optimism that countries could streamline the negotiating text at meeting in Bonn, Germany, in August, but longstanding divisions between developed and developing countries and other issues prevented that.

After a United Nations summit on climate change on Tuesday, meant to spur the talks among 190 countries, a total of three weeks of meetings in Bangkok and Barcelona remain before the Copenhagen talks.

Discussions leading up to Copenhagen have put rich and poor nations at odds over how to distribute cuts in emissions of greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide.

Developing countries are pressing developed ones to contribute hundreds of billions of dollars annually to help them cope with rising temperatures.

Participation of the United States and China, which are responsible for up to 40 percent of the world's emissions, are seen as key to success in a treaty.

For Canada, it is important to harmonize its targets with the United States, said David Runnalls, chief executive of the IISD, a Canadian-based environmental think tank.

"I think the lesson that the Canadian government learned from Bush's decision not to go forward with Kyoto is that you can't get that far distant from the U.S.," Runnalls said, referring to former U.S. President George W. Bush.

"It's essentially a continental market, and one of the problems we had after Bush withdrew was that all Canadian industries started complaining they weren't going to be competitive anymore."

He said he was not concerned about the lack of progress to date in reaching a draft treaty.

"If you got a half a dozen key governments -- China, Brazil and South Africa, along with the U.S., Japan and the European Union, you could get an agreement. Everybody else might not like it, but they wouldn't kick and scream and yell," he said.

For its part, Canada has set a goal to cut emissions by 20 percent from 2006 levels by 2020. That is after failing to achieve a Kyoto commitment of reducing emissions 6 percent from 1990 levels by now.



***************************************************************************
Statement by Minister Prentice on Bangkok Climate Change Talks, Jim Prentice, Oct 14 2009.

OTTAWA - The Honourable Jim Prentice, Minister of the Environment and Climate Change Envoy, Michael Martin, refute reports by Canadian Press that there was a "walk-out" by developing G77 countries at a UN climate change meeting in Bangkok to protest Canada's position.

In particular, they want to clarify that there is not, and never has been, any discrepancy in their respective accounts of what transpired there.

An informal discussion was convened one evening among interested Parties on the possible legal outcome of the negotiations.

During that discussion, some developing country representatives indicated that they were not prepared to discuss this subject and chose to leave the meeting. They did not "walk out on Canada's address" as has been reported, their decision to leave was taken before Canada spoke during the meeting.

It is important to note that not all developing countries left the meeting. Many African countries, South American countries and members of the Alliance of Small Island States did not leave the meeting. All Parties returned to the negotiations the following day.

Since 2008, Canada has called for the outcome of the UN climate talks to be a single legal undertaking, building on the Kyoto Protocol, with GHG commitments for all major emitters, including the U.S., China & India. Canada's position in this regard is widely shared by other developed countries, including the U.S., the European Union, Japan, Australia, New Zealand and Russia.

Canada is taking action to address climate change and reduce greenhouse gas emissions at home, in North America and internationally. Canada is engaged in the ongoing negotiations under both the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change and the Kyoto Protocol, with the objective of achieving, at Copenhagen, an ambitious, environmentally effective international climate change agreement.



***************************************************************************
Walkout over climate talks, Steve Rennie, 13th October 2009.

OTTAWA -- The government's push to abandon much of the Kyoto protocol prompted dozens of developing countries to walk out on Canada's address during recent climate talks in Thailand, The Canadian Press has learned.

The mass walkout came after the Canadian delegation suggested replacing the Kyoto Protocol with an entirely new global-warming pact, according to one of the negotiators and notes taken by others at the meeting.

A widening and bitter rift between rich and developing countries over climate change was laid bare last week when delegates from 180 nations met in Bangkok to shape a successor to Kyoto before its first phase expires in just over two years. The United Nations hopes to broker a draft deal in time for a meeting in Copenhagen this December.

The developing countries want a new climate deal to complement Kyoto, but Canadian officials told the room they would rather replace Kyoto with one agreement, according to meeting notes.

Canada's delegation was apparently open to putting "some or all" of Kyoto in a new climate pact, the notes say.

At that point, the South African delegation stood up and led the Group of 77 developing nations -- except for a group of small island states -- out of the room.

"The conversation, in our view, at that point in time was effectively over and the G77 left the room," Joanne Yawitch, a South African negotiator at the Bangkok talks, said in an interview.

Talks resumed the next day, she added. "We're not going to walk out of any negotiating process," Yawitch said.

The developing nations were perturbed that Canada and other industrial countries would consider copying parts Kyoto into a new treaty. "You can't do a cut and paste on a ratified treaty," Yawitch said.

"You have to re-open it and negotiate what you would cut and paste. And we think that the risks are that you might end up with something that might be considerably weaker."

Environment Minister Jim Prentice declined comment.



***************************************************************************
International Eco Hero – Maude Barlow, Planet In Focus International Film & Video Festival.

This award is given to an individual who has demonstrated outstanding leadership and made a lasting contribution to environmental awareness, action and change on the international stage.

"The life of an activist is a good life because you get up in the morning caring about more than just yourself or how to make money. A life of activism gives hope, which is a moral imperative in this work and in this world. It gives us energy and it gives us direction. You meet the nicest people, you help transform ideas and systems and you commit to leaving the earth in at least as whole a condition as you inherited it.” Maude Barlow, Trent University, June 2009.

Maude Barlow is a visionary and inspiration to environmental activists the world over. Undaunted in the face of opposition, she has gained the ear of the powerful while empowering the powerless. Through her tireless efforts over four decades taking action on behalf of women, against free trade and now, water rights, she has become a true Eco Hero advocating on behalf of the planet, for all.

Maude Barlow is the National Chairperson of the Council of Canadians and Senior Advisor on Water to the President of the United Nations General Assembly. She Chairs the Board of Washington-based Food and Water Watch and is a Councilor with the Hamburg-based World Future Council. Maude is the recipient of eight honorary doctorates as well as many awards, including the 2005 Right Livelihood Award (known as the “Alternative Nobel”), the Citation of Lifetime Achievement at the 2008 Canadian Environment Awards, and the 2009 Earth Day Canada Outstanding Environmental Achievement Award. A best selling author or co-author of 16 books, she recently released Blue Covenant: The Global Water Crisis and The Coming Battle for the Right to Water.

The film Blue Gold: World Water Wars based on her book that she co-authored with Tony Clarke opened the Planet in Focus Festival in 2008. Barlow has worked indefatigably advocating that we should never forget about the world’s most precious resource, H2O. It sustains us all and is the source of life.



***************************************************************************
An Ecotopia for Climate Protection - Samso Island, Clemens Höges, 10/22/2009.

An Ecotopia for Climate Protection
Samso Island Is Face of Danish Green Revolution

Part 1: Samso Island Is Face of Danish Green Revolution

The Danish island of Samso is a mecca for climate protection experts, because its residents generate more energy than they consume -- with wind turbines, solar panels, straw combustion and heat exchangers that extract heat from cow's milk. The small ecotopia will be held up as a model at the UN Climate Change Conference in Copenhagen.

Six years ago, Paul Erik Wedelgaard decided it was high time to set a new course for his future, even though he was already 70 at the time. The sun, the cold and the sea have carved deep furrows into his face. His wooden fishing cutter, the "Kyholm," is plowing southward through the Baltic Sea, to the place where the symbols of this future -- wind turbines -- stand off the coast of Samso.

Even today, Wedelgaard is almost as agile on deck as he was at 14, when he began fishing. But his catch of cod has declined sharply in recent years, and the small salmon farm he was operating with a partner wasn't sufficiently profitable. And then along came those young men who had decided to start something of a revolution -- on Samso, of all places. They had ideas, and they had an ambitious plan.

They were concerned about the world and the climate. Most of all, however, they were interested in Samso and all the money they hoped could be made there. For people like Wedelgaard, it seemed like a relatively safe bet.

Part of their plan included erecting 10 giant wind turbines in the Paludan flats, at a cost of 24 million kroner, or about €3 million ($4.4 million), each. The machines were to be owned by the Samsingers, as the island's residents are called.

'We Have to Do Something for the Children'

Wedelgaard knew, of course, that the Paludan flats are located in a particularly windy area. It could work, he thought to himself. He sold his half of the salmon farm, took out a bank loan and invested 3.5 million kroner in one of the turbines, unit No. 6. Wedelgaard will have recouped his investment in four years. "We have to do something for the children," he says. He is referring to his four children and the others on the island.

Samso is a laboratory where the Danish government launched a social and technological experiment 12 years ago. Before that, heating oil was brought to the island by ship and electricity, mainly from coal-burning power plants, was transmitted through cables. For each Samsinger, 11 tons of the greenhouse gas carbon dioxide were pumped into the atmosphere each year. The goal was to reduce those 11 tons to zero within 10 years, without special subsidies.

The Samsingers joined forces, erecting the wind turbines and attaching solar panels to their roofs. They built central straw burners, and they installed machines to harness geothermal energy and the heat from cow's milk to heat houses, and to extract rapeseed oil from plants grown on the island to produce fuel for their tractors.

A Climate-Neutral Island

Eight years later, they were already producing more energy than they consumed, which made them climate-neutral, and today they produce 40 percent more energy than they consume. Only two questions remain. Can the approach used on the island, which comprises 22 villages, 4,000 residents and a small cannery, work elsewhere? And does the rest of the world even want to emulate the Samsingers?

These are the sorts of questions that will be asked on Dec. 7, when politicians from around the world gather in Copenhagen for the United Nations Climate Change Conference. Their goal is to prevent worldwide temperatures from rising by more than 2 degrees Celsius (3.6 degrees Fahrenheit). This is only achievable if emissions of carbon dioxide and the consumption of coal, oil and gas are drastically reduced. Experts are already at odds over just how drastically.

"It's important to negotiate, but then they have to go home and do something," says the man who organized the small miracle on Samso Island. "We don't wake up every morning thinking about how we're going to save the polar bears. No, people think about themselves." But this isn't a problem for Soren Hermansen; it's the solution.

A Climate Change Guru

Hermansen has become a guru of sorts for climate experts and politicians. Last fall, his name appeared on the cover of Time, together with the names of other "Heroes of the Environment." The cover image featured circles of different sizes to indicate the relative importance of each name. Hermansen's circle was about four times the size of that of Arnold Schwarzenegger, the governor of California.

It isn't easy catching Hermansen on his island. He spends a lot of time flying around the world. He has just returned from Copenhagen, where he appeared before the Danish parliament, and before that he was in Japan, Korea, Italy and Brussels. José Barroso, the head of the European Commission, was at the Brussels meeting, where the Russian energy minister quarreled with his Ukrainian counterpart on the sidelines. And Hermansen, a former farmer from the village of Kolby Kaas on Samso, sharply criticized them for not making a sufficiently serious attempt to do what his fellow islanders have accomplished.

Hermansen, 50, his short hair slightly graying, has the physique of an athlete and is quick to flash his big smile. Now he is sitting in a building that, with its shiny metal skin, looks a little like the Starship Enterprise -- in the middle of a rural village. Hermansen plays the role of Captain Kirk, as director of this "energy academy" in Ballen, an old fishing village. Visitors from around the world come to Ballen to examine the equipment the Samsingers use and the infrastructure they have developed. Of course, the building itself is also a model, with its solar panels and a computer that occasionally opens and closes ventilation flaps in the roof.

Hermansen describes how the Samso concept works. In 1997, the Danish Energy Ministry announced a contest. A region was to be selected to test how effective renewable energy can be in a real environment. It was a clever contest, requiring the winning region to achieve a carbon footprint of zero with existing technology and without special assistance or subsidies from Copenhagen. This would make the results more readily transferable to other places, and the whole project wouldn't cost the government a single kroner.

An engineer in the city of Aarhus, across the water from Samso, hit upon the idea to write a plan for Samso. He analyzed how much electricity and oil the Samsingers consumed, how much biomass grows there each year, how strong the wind blows and how long the sun shines. Then he wrote his plan -- and won the contest.

Samso was dubbed an "eco-energy island," a title not unlike a brass medal -- well-intentioned, but almost worthless. It helped in obtaining the necessary permits for the new equipment, but the Samsingers themselves had little use for the designation at first. When TV reporters came to the island to interview the mayor, he was at a loss for words and had to consult the concept before answering their questions.

The engineer advised a few people on Samso to establish an association, or else, he said, the plan would never materialize. Fifty Samsingers attended the first meeting in Tranebjerg. But the island's remaining 3,950 stayed home. They were simply unable to see the engineer's concept as a profitable enterprise.


***************************************************************************
Part 2: 'Everyone Can Do What We Are Doing'.

Hermansen saw it right away. He had already had a wind turbine installed on his father's farm in 1984. He is a good talker, and he loves to persuade people. Pumpkins make poor conversationalists, which was reason enough for Hermansen not to spend his life working as a farmer. He was looking for a project, and this was it. The 50 islanders at the Tranebjerg meeting quickly agreed that Hermansen was to be their representative.

He went from house to house to promote the plan, drinking vast amounts of coffee in the process. Then he bought a cider press. Almost everyone on Samso has apple trees, he reasoned, and offering them fresh apple juice was the perfect way to get them to listen to his pitch and calmly discuss the project. "The question was: How can we all continue living on Samso? In the year before, the slaughterhouse had closed down, putting hundreds out of work. It was our Great Depression," he recalls. The plan is better than the slaughterhouse, he said, and soon his argument began having the desired effect.

Three heating plants were built between villages in the southern part of the island, and pipes were laid into the houses. Now the farmers bring the straw that they used to burn in the fields to the plant, where it is burned to generate heat. The farmers are paid for their hay, building the three plants created short-term construction jobs, the villagers are saving money -- and their money stays on the island.

'Everything Has to Belong to the People'

They also built a solar heating plant on the northern part of the island, as well as the wind turbines. Eleven were to be built on land and 10 on the Paludan flats. Big companies were not to be permitted to own any of the windmills, says Hermansen. That was his most important selling point, he says. "You can't do anything from top to bottom. Everything has to belong to the people. It has to become their project."

One of the first islanders to understand the concept was Jörgen Tranberg, a man with an angular head and bushy eyebrows. He owns 150 black-and-white Holstein cattle, which makes him a major dairy farmer on Samso. He is a smart man. His cows crowd onto two ramps to his left and right, as the milking machines click uniformly. He earns less than 22 cents per liter, he says -- in other words, not much.

But Danish law requires electric utilities to buy wind energy at prices significantly higher than production costs. This turns wind turbines into significant moneymakers, an insight that didn't escape the attention of Tranberg's bank. He invested €2.5 million.

He built a turbine on the hill behind his silage tank and invested in half of Turbine No. 8 on the Paludan flats. The community now owns five of the offshore generators, using part of the proceeds to fund the Energy Academy. About 400 Samsingers own the remaining offshore wind turbines and the turbines on land, of which Tranberg owns a very large share. "I think the weather here is always good," he says. "When the wind blows, the rotors turn. When it rains, the feed for my cows grows. And when the sun shines, I take my boat out for a spin." He laughs and calls his dog Vaks. Vaks means shrewd in Danish.

The wind turbines provide Tranberg with about €3,000 in gross daily revenues, while his cows earn only about €1,000 a day -- and have to be milked twice.

Extracting Heat from Cow's Milk

Even the cows do their part to save the world's climate, and they contribute to Tranberg's bottom line in more ways than one. A cow's body temperature is 38.5 degrees Celsius (101.3 degrees Fahrenheit), and the milk has to be cooled down to 3 degrees Celsius. Tranberg, like other farmers, has installed a heat exchanger near the milk tank. The device is as large and angular as a refrigerator, and it even works like one: It cools the milk, releasing heat that is used to heat the house. The wind turbine provides the electricity to run the heat exchanger.

The only remaining net emitters of carbon dioxide are Tranberg's and the other island residents' cars. The ferry to the mainland consumes 9,000 liters of diesel fuel a day. Nevertheless, Samso's overall energy production is still CO2-free, because the island exports more electricity than it imports oil.

But Hermansen isn't finished yet. Automakers Citroën, Peugeot and Mitsubishi plan to start building electric cars next year. Hermansen is negotiating with the electric utility DONG Energy and the wind turbine manufacturer Vestas. He envisions a technology that would allow electric cars to be connected to the generators, and would include computers that charge the cars' batteries when the wind is blowing and tap electricity when it is not.

"We are completely normal people here. Everyone can do what we are doing," says Hermansen. But then he adds: "In the countryside, that is. Cities are a problem."

The Egyptian ambassador visited the island some time ago. After touring the facilities, he said that the number of people living on Samso could fit into three apartment buildings in Cairo -- buildings with no abundant source of cheap straw nearby and not surrounded by the sea.



***************************************************************************
It's elementary, my dear children: The Olympics are a sham, Cam Cole, October 16 2009.

I wish I were a kid again, so I could correct all the ways I went wrong.

Mrs. Pardely, my Grade 1 teacher -- actually Grade 1 and half of Grade 2, because I was accelerated through Grade 3 in two years (I'm not saying I was brilliant, I'm just saying) -- was a terrific early influence and made going to school every day a treat.

Her only shortcoming, sadly, was her utter failure to promote critical thinking in her six-year-old pupils.

So I went through elementary school believing that the three businesses my dad ran out of his office, the Vegreville Land Co., were so that our family could have a better life. Mrs. Pardely never told me he was, in fact, an instrument of the capitalist real estate conspiracy that was buying and selling property ... for money! Not having all the info at my fingertips, I was stupid enough to think he was a pretty good dad.

In my ignorance, I thought our yellow '58 Chevy station wagon was a fun car to go on holidays in, when in fact, if she'd been doing her job, Mrs. Pardely would have made me feel guilty about riding in such a big, unwieldy, gas-guzzling monstrosity whose component parts no doubt were built in factories that oppressed the working man.

I thought John Diefenbaker was a swell prime minister, but Mrs. Pardely neglected to tell me that the economy was in the toilet because of him and his fellow Tories, nor did she mention that the beloved war hero who was president of the United States, Dwight D. Eisenhower, was a member of a golf club, Augusta National, that did not have a single female member. If only I'd known that stuff at the time, I'd have been a lifelong supporter of those egalitarian economic wizards, the NDP, and never taken up golf.

In fact, looking back, I was a pretty clueless kid and now I feel guilty about having been so happy, swimming and playing baseball and hockey and golf -- and field hockey with tennis balls and broken hockey sticks, and tackle football without helmets or pads. I blame it on my teachers.

It's a wonder I wasn't killed, with no one warning me of the dangers of having fun irresponsibly.

But the worst, by far, was how taken I was with my first exposure to an Olympic Games -- Rome, 1960 -- watching on television the exploits of the larger-than-life American athletes of the era: sprinter Wilma Rudolph, boxer Cassius Clay, decathlete Rafer Johnson.

If only I'd had the kind of teachers Vancouver's six-year-olds have today, I'd have grown up knowing there was nothing admirable about Olympism and the sacrifice and achievements of Olympic athletes.

I'd have seen the Olympic movement for the sham it was, and is, because Mrs. Pardely would have set me straight, told me the Olympics were "not about the human spirit" and that they "have little to do with athletic excellence" and that "they are a multi-billion-dollar industry backed by real estate, construction, hotel, tourism and media corporations, and powerful elites working hand in hand with government officials and the International Olympic Committee."

And me, running around wishing I could be an Olympic athlete some day. What an idiot I was, when I was six.

Thank goodness the Vancouver Elementary School Teachers' Association (VESTA) is looking out for today's Grade 1 kids, making sure they don't grow up with such inappropriate dreams. Or any dreams at all, really.

With the help of the Olympic Resistance Network (ORN), the women and men in charge of forming our kids' impressionable young minds want to ensure that children will not leave their classrooms thinking Olympic athletes are good role models, or that the Olympic movement is a positive force.

Today's Mrs. Pardely will make sure her six-year-olds have no illusions. It's never too early to trample on a kid's ignorant glorification of something as clearly destructive as the Olympics.

Why, right here in Vancouver, not only have the 2010 Games already failed to cure homelessness and ruthlessly trampled on the rights of professional protesters to organize vandalism, they have been responsible for the building of a SkyTrain line, a navigable highway to Whistler, and a condo project -- currently known as the Olympic Athletes' Village -- that may result in citizens paying an extra $5 each a year in taxes because, scandalously, it turns out to have cost money to build.

Little Johnny and Sally need to be told these things, pronto, or they could grow up scarred by pleasant thoughts and uncomplicated views of the amazing athletic feats that will take place here in four months. They could reach puberty thinking that it was pretty neat, having played host to the world, having staged the planet's largest cultural exchange, a gathering of great athletes in their hometown such as they will never see again in their lifetimes. We can't have that.

So thanks, VESTA, for not waiting until the kids are teenagers, say, when they might actually be able to process the negative information you and your "Whatever It Is, I'm Against It" pals are about to feed them.

Nip those dreams in the bud, I say. Get 'em early. That's the kind of preventive action that makes us all proud to pay your salaries.

Sunday, 11 October 2009

XXI - I guess XXX will be a fitting end then

Up, Down.

GoosebumpsAnd she's naked, but that's just a tease.
     Leonard Cohen, Light As The Breeze, 1992.

Now the rainman gave me two cures, and he said, "Jump right in."
The one was Texas medicine, the other was just railroad gin,
And like a fool I mixed them and it strangled up my mind,
Now people just get uglier and I have no sense of time.

     Bob Dylan, Stuck Inside Of Mobile With The Memphis Blues Again, 1966.

place is filling up with environmental bureaucrats, inevitable I guess, know-nothings the ones I've met, resonating blow-hards collecting cheques ... some kind of assistant manager to the Commissioner of something from the province of Ontario government, so I asked, "What are interactions and relations like with federal agencies you may run into?" and he didn't seem to understand the question, anyway, he didn't answer it ...

Thorbjørn JaglandKaci Kullmann FiveSissel Marie RønbeckInger-Marie YtterhornÅgot Valle
these people gave Obama the Nobel peace prize, he needs support and they give him lame applause before he has gotten properly started, the Norwegian bourgeoisie, good, healthy-looking people and old enough to look before they leap (you would think) ...
Thorbjørn Jagland: b. 1950.
Chair of the Nobel Committee. President of the Storting. President of the Storting. 2005-2009. Prime Minister 1996-1997. Foreign Minister 2000-2001. Member of the Storting 1993-2009. Member of the Committee since 2009, appointed for the period 2009-2014.

Kaci Kullmann Five: b. 1951
Deputy chair of the Nobel Committee. Self employed Advisor Public Affairs. Chairman of the Young Conservatives, 1977-79. Member of the Storting, 1981-97. Cabinet Minister for Trade, Shipping and European Affairs, 1989-90. Chairman of the Conservative Party, 1991-94. Member of the Committee since 2003, reappointed for the period 2009-2014.

Sissel Marie Rønbeck: b. 1950
Chairman Social Democratic Youth (AUF) 1975-1977. Member of the Storting 1977-1993. Cabinet Minister 1979-81, 1986-89 and 1996-97. Member of the Committee since 1994, reappointed for the period 2006-2011.

Inger-Marie Ytterhorn: b. 1941
Senior political adviser to the Progress Party's parliamentary group. Member of the Storting, 1989-93. Member of the Election Law Ad hoc committee 1998-2001. Member of the Committee since 2000, reappointed for the period 2006-2011.

Ågot Valle: b. 1945
Member of the Storting. Member of the Storting 1997-2009. President of the Odelsting 2001-2005. Member of the Committee since 2009, appointed for the period 2009-2014.
the health initiative is going the same way as the Waxman/Markey bill, diluted and diluted and diluted and then gutted by every interest group under the sun till it makes no nevermind, fucking maggots - all of them

anyway ... Charles Taylor is speaking in Montreal on the 21st and Adriana Calcanhotto is coming to town on the 25th, all good ... and Keb' Mo' on the 16th and Ravi & Anoushka Shankar on the 17th

I bought a car, what I really wanted was a bicycle but it got too complicated, now I will have to drive to Montreal tho I would rather take the train :-)

I used to mock Greenpeace, back in the days when they were so on about the seal hunt and whatnot, but I am changing my tune, they are having fun, they are doing necessary work that no one else is doing, my mock returns as envy :-)
Greenpeace, ParliamentGreenpeace, ParliamentGreenpeace, ParliamentGreenpeace, ParliamentGreenpeace, Shell ScotfordGreenpeace, Shell Scotford

Marina Silva gets a prize too, from Prince Albert the swelte second & his oh so svelte companheira ... there were some other photographs of this couple which portrayed a certain greasy skin tone, so healthy and glowing as to be unbelievable, and there is our Marina hob nobbing with these folks, 14 million in projects they say but it is a drop in the bucket no? maybe I have an exaggerated notion of their wealth

the 12 "fundamental values" of the Green Party in Brazil are interesting ... kitchen-sink-ism at its worst? well, they are politicians not philosophers after all, BUT it still seems to me that things would advance more quickly if the platform were coherent

she has suffered very much this Marina Silva, no need to reiterate all of it here, she considered the nunnery at one point apparently, no 'consort' in evidence at any time, a Roman Catholic though I guess, who can say if it helps or hinders? hinders I would imagine ...
Marina SilvaMarina SilvaMarina SilvaMarina SilvaMarina SilvaMarina SilvaPrince Albert Charlene WittstockMarina SilvaMarina SilvaMarina Silva

you can read about Josephine Baker at Wikipedia, two thoughts of hers that caught my attention: one, a kind of relation between racial descrimination and a 'rainbow family' she made up out of a dozen orphans of different races, and two, a dancing skirt made of bananas, the literal symmetry of these two ideas reminds me ... of my mother in fact, who had similar ways of thinking :-)

and of a song, "Yes! We have no bananas. We have no bananas today," which I knew from hearing Harry Chapin's tune, didn't know the earlier vaudeville connection ... some videos of her over the years at YouTube, various coat-tail riders ...
Josephine BakerJosephine BakerJosephine BakerJosephine BakerJosephine BakerJosephine BakerJosephine BakerJosephine BakerJosephine Baker
Josephine BakerJosephine BakerJosephine BakerJosephine BakerJosephine BakerJosephine BakerJosephine BakerJosephine BakerJosephine Baker
I almost remove this bit on Josephine, the black power pundits try to make her out as one thing but I see another, I see an opportunist with not much going for her except a willingness to show her tits on stage, the rainbow experiment was tainted by lack of attention (seems to me), that's not a judgement, enough said ... and anyway I did find one spiral in the bunch, can't waste that (4th pic from the last)

Lisa Jackson (as long as I am honouring black women here today :-) certainly deserves support, the logic that says Barack Obama cannot move forward at Copenhagen until Waxman/Markey gets senate ratification is ... reasonable, hard to walk around at least, so his move to have the EPA pick up the ball is an indicator that he is serious, may not wash ...
EPA Lisa JacksonEPA Lisa JacksonEPA Lisa JacksonEPA Lisa Jackson, Barack ObamaEPA Lisa Jackson, Barack ObamaEPA Lisa Jackson, Barack ObamaEPA Lisa Jackson
but this woman sure does not look like a pushover eh? she is in my prayers - God bless her.


( Oh, Mama, can this really be the end,
To be stuck inside of Mobile with the Memphis blues again. )


more to come (?) maybe ... some movies, Zabriski Point & Elvira Madigan & Pierrot Le Fou, it was probably not a good idea to start re-reading Nevil Shute's On The Beach just now :-) at Thanksgiving dinner we listened to Bob Dylan's new Christmas album (downloaded from uTorrent not purchased) ... what to say? ... never underestimate the power of a bourgeois upbringing? I guess? is that it? I wonder if maybe he is taking some kind of anti-depressants? ... feet of clay ... it's ok Bob ... whatever

a-and a whole lotta typos in this post as I discover ... the implants are wearing out? is that it? do farts have lumps? :-)


Appendices:
1-1. Remarks by the President on winning the Nobel peace Prize, White House, October 9 2009.
     1-1a. Barack Obama Nobel Peace Prize Acceptance Speech, YouTube.
1-2. The Peace Prize, NYT Editorial, October 9 2009.
1-3. Surprise Nobel for Obama Stirs Praise and Doubts, Steven Erlanger, October 9 2009.
1-4. Heckuva Job, Barack, Ross Douthat, October 11 2009.
1-5. Nobel jury speaks out in defense of Obama prize, Ian MacDougall & Karl Ritter, Oct 14 2009.

2-1. Climate demo on Parliament roof, BBC, 11 October 2009.
2-2. Greenpeace takes anti-oilsands message to oil companies' homes, Richard Warnica, October 10 2009.

3-1. Em Copenhague, Marina Silva cobra metas ambientais de Lula, Ambiente Brasil, 12/10/2009.
3-2. FT interview transcript: Marina Silva, Jonathan Wheatley, October 5 2009.
3-3. The Prince Albert II of Monaco Foundation Celebrates Award Recipients, October 10 2009.
3-4. Marina recebe prêmio da Fundação Príncipe Albert II de Mônaco, PV, 09/10/2009.
3-5. Os 12 valores fundamentais do Partido Verde, PV.
     3-5a. Partido Verde, Português.
     3-5b. TV Spot 1, YouTube.
     3-5c. TV Spot 2, YouTube.

4. EPA Moves to Curtail Greenhouse Gas Emissions, John M. Broder, September 30 2009.


***************************************************************************
REMARKS BY THE PRESIDENT
ON WINNING THE NOBEL PEACE PRIZE
, White House, October 9 2009.

THE PRESIDENT: Good morning. Well, this is not how I expected to wake up this morning. After I received the news, Malia walked in and said, "Daddy, you won the Nobel Peace Prize, and it is Bo's birthday!" And then Sasha added, "Plus, we have a three-day weekend coming up." So it's good to have kids to keep things in perspective.

I am both surprised and deeply humbled by the decision of the Nobel Committee. Let me be clear: I do not view it as a recognition of my own accomplishments, but rather as an affirmation of American leadership on behalf of aspirations held by people in all nations.

To be honest, I do not feel that I deserve to be in the company of so many of the transformative figures who've been honored by this prize -- men and women who've inspired me and inspired the entire world through their courageous pursuit of peace.

But I also know that this prize reflects the kind of world that those men and women, and all Americans, want to build -- a world that gives life to the promise of our founding documents. And I know that throughout history, the Nobel Peace Prize has not just been used to honor specific achievement; it's also been used as a means to give momentum to a set of causes. And that is why I will accept this award as a call to action -- a call for all nations to confront the common challenges of the 21st century.

These challenges can't be met by any one leader or any one nation. And that's why my administration has worked to establish a new era of engagement in which all nations must take responsibility for the world we seek. We cannot tolerate a world in which nuclear weapons spread to more nations and in which the terror of a nuclear holocaust endangers more people. And that's why we've begun to take concrete steps to pursue a world without nuclear weapons, because all nations have the right to pursue peaceful nuclear power, but all nations have the responsibility to demonstrate their peaceful intentions.

We cannot accept the growing threat posed by climate change, which could forever damage the world that we pass on to our children -- sowing conflict and famine; destroying coastlines and emptying cities. And that's why all nations must now accept their share of responsibility for transforming the way that we use energy.

We can't allow the differences between peoples to define the way that we see one another, and that's why we must pursue a new beginning among people of different faiths and races and religions; one based upon mutual interest and mutual respect.

And we must all do our part to resolve those conflicts that have caused so much pain and hardship over so many years, and that effort must include an unwavering commitment that finally realizes that the rights of all Israelis and Palestinians to live in peace and security in nations of their own.

We can't accept a world in which more people are denied opportunity and dignity that all people yearn for -- the ability to get an education and make a decent living; the security that you won't have to live in fear of disease or violence without hope for the future.

And even as we strive to seek a world in which conflicts are resolved peacefully and prosperity is widely shared, we have to confront the world as we know it today. I am the Commander-in-Chief of a country that's responsible for ending a war and working in another theater to confront a ruthless adversary that directly threatens the American people and our allies. I'm also aware that we are dealing with the impact of a global economic crisis that has left millions of Americans looking for work. These are concerns that I confront every day on behalf of the American people.

Some of the work confronting us will not be completed during my presidency. Some, like the elimination of nuclear weapons, may not be completed in my lifetime. But I know these challenges can be met so long as it's recognized that they will not be met by one person or one nation alone. This award is not simply about the efforts of my administration -- it's about the courageous efforts of people around the world.

And that's why this award must be shared with everyone who strives for justice and dignity -- for the young woman who marches silently in the streets on behalf of her right to be heard even in the face of beatings and bullets; for the leader imprisoned in her own home because she refuses to abandon her commitment to democracy; for the soldier who sacrificed through tour after tour of duty on behalf of someone half a world away; and for all those men and women across the world who sacrifice their safety and their freedom and sometime their lives for the cause of peace.

That has always been the cause of America. That's why the world has always looked to America. And that's why I believe America will continue to lead.

Thank you very much.



***************************************************************************
The Peace Prize, NYT Editorial, October 9 2009.

President Obama responded to the news of his Nobel Peace Prize the right way. He said he was humbled, acknowledged that the efforts for which he was honored are only beginning and pledged to see them through, not on his own but in concert with other nations.

There cannot have been unbridled joy in the White House early Friday. Mr. Obama’s aides had to expect a barrage of churlish reaction, and they got it. The left denounced the Nobel committee for giving the prize to a wartime president. The right proclaimed that Mr. Obama sold out the United States by engaging in diplomacy. Members of the dwindling band of George W. Bush loyalists also sneered — with absolutely no recognition of their own culpability — that Mr. Obama has not yet ended the wars in Afghanistan and in Iraq.

Certainly, the prize is a (barely) implicit condemnation of Mr. Bush’s presidency. But countering the ill will Mr. Bush created around the world is one of Mr. Obama’s great achievements in less than nine months in office. Mr. Obama’s willingness to respect and work with other nations is another.

Mr. Obama has bolstered this country’s global standing by renouncing torture, this time with credibility; by pledging to close the prison camp at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba; by rejoining the effort to combat climate change and to rid the world of nuclear weapons; by recommitting himself to ending the Israeli-Palestinian conflict; and by offering to engage Iran while also insisting that it abandon its nuclear ambitions.

Mr. Obama did not seek the prize. It is a reminder of the extraordinarily high expectations for any American president — and does bring into sharp focus all that he has left to do to make the world, and this country, safer.

In Iraq, Mr. Obama is still a long way from managing an orderly withdrawal that does not leave a power vacuum and inflame a volatile region. He must decide, soon, on a strategy for Afghanistan that will do what Mr. Bush failed to do — defeat Al Qaeda and contain the Taliban — without miring American and allied troops in an endless unwinnable conflict.

To make real progress toward Mr. Obama’s declared goal of a world without nuclear weapons, the United States and Russia must both agree to deep cuts in their nuclear arsenals. If, as we suspect, Iran refuses to give up its illicit nuclear activities, Mr. Obama will have to press the rest of the world’s big powers to impose tough sanctions. He must come up with a more effective strategy to roll back North Korea’s nuclear program.

While he has made an excellent start on climate change with new regulations that finally begin to grapple with carbon emissions, the United States has to lead the way to a global agreement.

Mr. Obama is going to have to overcome narrow-minded opposition in Congress to keep his promise to close Guantánamo and deal with its inmates in a way consistent with the Constitution and American values. He has much more to do to erase the worst excesses of Mr. Bush in detaining prisoners without charges and flouting the Geneva Conventions.

Americans elected Mr. Obama because they wanted him to restore American values and leadership — and because they believed he could. The Nobel Prize, and the broad endorsement that followed, shows how many people around the world want the same thing.



***************************************************************************
Surprise Nobel for Obama Stirs Praise and Doubts, Steven Erlanger, October 9 2009.

PARIS — The choice of Barack Obama on Friday as the recipient of the 2009 Nobel Peace Prize, less than nine months into his eventful presidency, was an unexpected honor that elicited praise and puzzlement around the globe.

Normally the prize has been presented, even controversially, for accomplishment. This prize, to a 48-year-old freshman president, for “extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples,” seemed a kind of prayer and encouragement by the Nobel committee for future endeavor and more consensual American leadership.

But the prize quickly loomed as a potential political liability — perhaps more burden than glory — for Mr. Obama. Republicans contended that he had won more for his star power and oratorical skills than for his actual achievements, and even some Democrats privately questioned whether he deserved it.

The Nobel committee’s embrace of Mr. Obama was viewed as a rejection of the unpopular tenure, in Europe especially, of his predecessor, George W. Bush.

But the committee, based in Norway, stressed that it made its decision based on Mr. Obama’s actual efforts toward nuclear disarmament as well as American engagement with the world relying more on diplomacy and dialogue.

“The question we have to ask is who has done the most in the previous year to enhance peace in the world,” the Nobel committee chairman, Thorbjorn Jagland, said in Oslo after the announcement. “And who has done more than Barack Obama?”

Still, Mr. Obama, who was described as “very surprised” when he received the news, said he himself was not quite convinced, adding that the award “deeply humbled” him.

“To be honest,” the president said in the Rose Garden, “I do not feel that I deserve to be in the company of so many of the transformative figures who have been honored by this prize, men and women who’ve inspired me and inspired the entire world through their courageous pursuit of peace.”

He said, though, that he would “accept this award as a call to action, a call for all nations to confront the challenges of the 21st century.” Mr. Obama plans to travel to Oslo to accept the award on Dec. 10. He will donate the prize money of $1.4 million to charity, the White House said.

Mr. Obama, only the third sitting American president to win the award, is suddenly put in the company of world leaders like Mikhail S. Gorbachev, who won for helping end the cold war, and Nelson Mandela, who sought an end to apartheid.

But less prominent figures have also won the award.

The reaction inside the administration was one of restraint, perhaps reflecting the awkwardness of winning a major prize amid a worldwide debate about whether it was deserved.

Republicans in Washington, reacting in disbelief, sought to portray Mr. Obama as unworthy. In an official statement, Michael Steele, chairman of the Republican National Committee, said, “The real question Americans are asking is, ‘What has President Obama actually accomplished?’ “

But there was much praise as well, even if Mr. Obama’s allies worried that the prize might be a liability and even if much of the praise came from Europe, giving ammunition to conservatives who say Mr. Obama cares too much about opinion there.

President Nicolas Sarkozy of France said the award marked “America’s return to the hearts of the world’s peoples,” while Chancellor Angela Merkel of Germany said it was an “incentive to the president and to us all” to do more for peace.

“In a short time he has been able to set a new tone throughout the world and to create a readiness for dialogue,” she said.

For a world that at times felt pushed around by a more unilateralist Bush administration, the prize for Mr. Obama seemed wrapped in gratitude for his willingness to listen and negotiate, as well as for his positions on climate change and nuclear disarmament.

Last year’s laureate, former President Martti Ahtisaari of Finland, saw the award as an endorsement of Mr. Obama’s goal of achieving Middle East peace.

“Of course, this puts pressure on Obama,” he said. “The world expects that he will also achieve something.”

The prize, announced as official Washington — including the president — was asleep, caught the White House off guard.

The first word of it came in the form of an e-mail message to the White House staff from the White House Situation Room, which monitors events worldwide around the clock, at 5:09 a.m. It carried the subject line “item of interest.”

Shortly before 6 a.m., the White House press secretary, Robert Gibbs, telephoned Mr. Obama, awakening him to share the news.

“There has been no discussion, nothing at all,” said the White House chief of staff, Rahm Emanuel.

The award comes at a time of considerable challenges for the president, with few sweeping achievements so far.

On the domestic front, he is pressing Congress to overhaul the nation’s health care system. In foreign affairs, he is wrestling with his advisers over how to chart a new course in Afghanistan and has been working, with little movement, to restart peace talks between Israelis and Palestinians.

The Rose Garden appearance was an example of Mr. Obama’s heavy workload; it was squeezed into a day that already included his regular intelligence and economic briefings, a private meeting with a senator, lunch with the vice president, a major speech outlining plans for a new consumer protection agency and a strategy session on Afghanistan with his national security team.

Announcing the award, the Nobel committee cited Mr. Obama “for his extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples” and said that he had “created a new climate in international politics.”

In a four-paragraph statement, it praised Mr. Obama for his tone, his preference for negotiation and multilateral diplomacy and his vision of a cooperative world of shared values, shorn of nuclear weapons.

“Only very rarely has a person to the same extent as Obama captured the world’s attention and given its people hope for a better future,” the committee said. “His diplomacy is founded in the concept that those who are to lead the world must do so on the basis of values and attitudes that are shared by the majority of the world’s population.”

The other sitting American presidents to be given the award were Theodore Roosevelt in 1906, for negotiating an end to a war between Russia and Japan, and Woodrow Wilson in 1919, for the Treaty of Versailles.

Former President Jimmy Carter won in 2002 for his efforts over decades to spread peace and development. Mr. Carter called the award to Mr. Obama “a bold statement of international support for his vision and commitment.”

Former Vice President Al Gore won in 2007, sharing the prize with the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, for his work on climate change. Mr. Gore called Mr. Obama’s award “well deserved” on Friday.

Mr. Obama has generated considerable goodwill overseas, with polls showing him hugely popular, and he has made a series of speeches with arching ambition. He has vowed to pursue a world without nuclear weapons; reached out to the Muslim world, delivering a major speech in Cairo in June; and sought to restart peace talks between Israel and the Palestinians, at the expense of offending some of his Jewish supporters.

But he has had to devote a great deal of his time to the economic crisis and other domestic issues, and many of his policy efforts are only beginning.

In addition to the challenges in Afghanistan and Pakistan, the situation in Iraq is extremely fragile; North Korea has staged missile tests; Iran continues to enrich uranium in defiance of United Nations Security Council resolutions, though it recently agreed to restart nuclear talks; Israel has resisted a settlement freeze; and Saudi Arabia has refused to make new gestures toward the Israelis.

Ahmed Youssef, a Hamas spokesman, congratulated Mr. Obama but said the prize was based only on good intentions. Muhammad al-Sharif, a politically independent Gazan, was incredulous. “Has Israel stopped building the settlements?” he asked. “Has Obama achieved a Palestinian state yet?”

The Nobel committee did not tell Mr. Obama in advance of the announcement, said its chairman, Mr. Jagland. “Waking up a president in the middle of the night,” he said, “this isn’t really something you do.”



***************************************************************************
Climate demo on Parliament roof, BBC, 11 October 2009.

More than 40 climate protesters have climbed onto a roof at Parliament in the latest breach of security there.

The demonstrators, from Greenpeace, have unfurled banners and flags on Westminster Hall stating "change the politics, save the climate".

Police are currently talking with the demonstrators, although they are no signs they are seeking to remove them.

The latest security breach comes as MPs are set to return to Westminster on Monday after the summer recess.

The police say they have not made any arrests yet.

'Golden opportunity'

Protesters say they entered the grounds of the Palace of Westminster by using ropes and ladders to scale perimeter fencing before clambering onto the roof of Westminster Hall, the oldest part of the building.

The activists said they intended to remain on the roof all night and ask MPs to sign a climate manifesto on Monday morning.

One, 28-year old Anna Jones, said the protest would remind MPs they "simply haven't done enough to stop climate change and we need to see some action at home".

Greenpeace denied the protest was dangerous and said it wanted to "raise the temperature" about the climate change debate ahead of Parliament's return.

It said it was alarmed at the lack of attention given to the issue by the political parties, particularly Labour and the Conservatives, at their recent conferences.

Executive director John Sauven said leading politicians from all the major parties were failing to come up with concrete plans for green jobs to match their rhetoric on the subject.

"They have got to act more seriously on the issue," he told the BBC. "It is missing from the political agenda and we have got to get it on the political agenda. That is why we are here."

At its conference in Brighton, Labour announced plans for new cycle hubs at 10 mainline stations and a £10m green neighbourhood programme to help communities reduce carbon emissions.

The Conservatives, meanwhile, said that communities which agree to onshore wind farms will be able to keep revenues they generate from business rates for six years.

The Commons Climate Change Select Committee will publish a report on Monday assessing how the UK is doing on reducing emissions, meeting carbon budgets and building a low-carbon economy.

Security in Parliament was increased in 2004 after some high-profile breaches but questions have continued to be raised about protection levels.

Last year, activists from Plane Stupid occupied the roof for three hours in protest against Heathrow expansion, resulting in five activists being found guilty of trespass.

Incidents in 2004 included a group of campaigners from Greenpeace scaling Big Ben's clock tower.

Pro-hunt protesters stormed the Commons chamber in the same year, while campaigners from Fathers 4 Justice threw purple powder at Tony Blair during prime minister's question time.



***************************************************************************
Greenpeace takes anti-oilsands message to oil companies' homes, Richard Warnica, October 10 2009.

EDMONTON — Last week 30 activists scaled a security fence at France's largest oil refinery, near La Havre. Inside, they clambered up towers and unfurled banners. Their message, roughly translated, was this: Get out of the oilsands; Get out of Alberta.

The refinery's owner, Total S.A., has been considering a multibillion-dollar expansion of their oilsands holdings. The CEO of the company's Canadian division said this week a decision would come within months.

After years of Canadian campaigns, activists and green organizations are increasingly targeting hearts and minds in the United States, where most of Alberta's oil is sold, and Europe, where many large oilsands investors are based.

So far, their efforts have been mixed. In Europe, where the public has largely accepted the reality of climate change, the oilsands are an occasional, if not prominent, political issue. But in the United States, where the domestic debate is focused on their own legislation, even many climate activists are only peripherally aware of the sands.

"Ninety-nine-point-nine per cent of Americans are totally unaware," said Edward Maibach, a professor at George Mason University and director of the school's Centre for Climate Change Communication.

"Coverage has been light. Public awareness of it has been lighter," said Bud Ward, the editor of the Yale Forum on Climate Change and the Media. Ward said he reads thousands of stories about global warming a year and only rarely comes across pieces about the oilsands.

Even among what Ward calls the "climate change literati" Alberta oil is a not top priority.

"The two big things that are really taking up attention are the climate talks in Copenhagen in December and the Clean Energy bill in the U.S. Congress," said Jonathan Hiske, a staff writer with Grist, a Seattle-based green issues magazine. "So 95 per cent of strategizing is geared toward making those things successful."

The mainstream debate about American dependence on foreign oil is more about the Middle East and Venezuela than it is about Alberta, said Hiske.

"There are huge environmental costs coming from the tarsands," he said. "But it doesn't have the same level of human rights abuses and social costs."

Rightly or wrongly, the European public is viewed as more receptive than the Americans to the anti-oilsands message, and the European oil giants more vulnerable to public pressure.

"There's no doubt in my mind that Greenpeace has identified those companies as the most vulnerable link in the tarsands," said Andrew Nikiforuk, a Calgary journalist who has written extensively about the issue.

Greenpeace Nordic has already targeted Norway's state-owned Statoil, pressuring them to withdraw their $2-billion stake in the sands. The campaign even became an issue in Norway's recent election, with the main opposition parties vowing to pull out of Alberta if they won. (They lost.)

B.P. in the U.K. and Shell in the Netherlands should expect similar campaigns, said Nikiforuk.

"I think what Greenpeace has started now is only the beginning of a bigger movement against the oilsands and the oil companies," said Claude Turmes, a Green Party member of the European Parliament from Luxembourg. Turmes said the Greens and other parties have been working on legislation that would prevent European companies from investing in the oilsands or from shipping oilsands fuel to Europe.

"The pressure against oilsands is just starting," he said.

Not everyone, though, believes the campaign will pay dividends.

"They're quite used to this kind of opposition around the world, these companies, aren't they?" said Andrew Clark said, a New York-based business correspondent for London's Guardian newspaper.

Clark said there would likely have to be a legitimate business rationale for any of the oil giants to pull out of Alberta. "As far as I can see they (the oil companies) only tend to act when commercial and environmental issues coincide."

Nor is the pressure anything new. Shell, for one, has major operations in Nigeria, where workers are routinely kidnapped and equipment bombed.

"A few people waving placards in Alberta," Clark said, "are not likely to push them off their stools."



***************************************************************************
Heckuva Job, Barack, Ross Douthat, October 11 2009.

This was Barack Obama’s chance.

Here was an opportunity to cut himself free, in a stroke, from the baggage that’s weighed his presidency down — the implausible expectations, the utopian dreams, the messianic hoo-ha.

Here was a place to draw a clean line between himself and all the overzealous Obamaphiles, at home and abroad, who poured their post-Christian, post-Marxist yearnings into the vessel of his 2008 campaign.

Here was a chance to establish himself, definitively, as an American president — too self-confident to accept an unearned accolade, and too instinctively democratic to go along with European humbug.

He didn’t take it. Instead, he took the Nobel Peace Prize.

Big mistake.

People have argued that you can’t turn down a Nobel. Please. Of course you can. Obama is a gifted rhetorician with world-class speechwriters. All he would have needed was a simple, graceful statement emphasizing the impossibility of accepting such an honor during his first year in office, with America’s armed forces still deep in two unfinished wars.

Would the world have been offended? Well, to start with, the prize isn’t given out by an imaginary “world community.” It’s voted on and handed out by a committee of five obscure Norwegians. So turning it down would have been a slap in the face, yes, to Thorbjorn Jagland, Kaci Kullmann Five, Sissel Marie Ronbeck, Inger-Marie Ytterhorn and Agot Valle. But it wouldn’t have been a slap in the face to the Europeans or the Africans, to Moscow or Beijing, or to any other population or great power that an American president should fret about offending.

In any case, it will be far more offensive when Obama takes the stage in Oslo this November instead of Morgan Tsvangirai, Zimbabwe’s heroic opposition leader; or Thich Quang Do, the Buddhist monk and critic of Vietnam’s authoritarian regime; or Rebiya Kadeer, exiled from China for her labors on behalf of the oppressed Uighur minority; or anyone who has courted death this year protesting for democracy in the Islamic Republic of Iran.

True, Obama didn’t ask for this. It was obvious, from his halting delivery and slightly shamefaced air last Friday, that he wishes the Nobel committee hadn’t put him in this spot.

But he still wasn’t brave enough to tell it no.

Obama gains nothing from the prize. No domestic constituency will become more favorably disposed to him because five Norwegians think he’s already changed the world — and the Republicans were just handed the punch line for an easy recession-era attack ad. (To quote the Democratic strategist Joe Trippi, anticipating the 30-second spots to come: “He got a Nobel Prize. What did you get? A pink slip.”)

Overseas, there was nobody, from Paris to Peshawar, who woke up Friday more disposed to work with the United States because of the Nobel committee’s decision — and plenty of more seasoned statesman who woke up laughing. (Vladimir Putin probably hasn’t snickered this much since John McCain tried to persuade Americans that “we are all Georgians” during last year’s weeklong war.)

Meanwhile, the prize makes every foreign-policy problem Obama faces seem ever so slightly more burdensome. Now he’s the Nobel laureate who has to choose between escalating a counterinsurgency in Afghanistan or ceding ground to a theocratic mafia. He’s the Nobel laureate who’ll either have to authorize military strikes against Iran or construct an effective, cold-war-style deterrence system for the Middle East. He’s the Nobel laureate who’ll probably fail, like every U.S. president before him, to prod Israelis and Palestinians toward a comprehensive settlement.

At the same time, the prize leaves Obama more open to ridicule. It confirms, as a defining narrative of his presidency, the gap between his supporters’ cloud-cuckoo-land expectations and the inevitable disappointments of reality. It dovetails perfectly with the recent “Saturday Night Live” sketch in which he was depicted boasting about a year’s worth of nonaccomplishments. And it revives and ratifies John McCain’s only successful campaign gambit — his portrayal of Obama as “the world’s biggest celebrity,” famous more for being famous than for any concrete political accomplishment.

Great achievements may still await our Nobel president. If Obama goes from strength to strength, then this travesty will be remembered as a footnote to his administration, rather than a defining moment.

But by accepting the prize, he’s made failure, if and when it comes, that much more embarrassing and difficult to bear. What’s more, he’s etched in stone the phrase with which critics will dismiss his presidency.

Slick Willie. Tricky Dick. Jimmy “Malaise” Carter. Dubya the Incompetent.

And now Barack Obama, Nobel laureate.



***************************************************************************
Em Copenhague, Marina Silva cobra metas ambientais de Lula, Ambiente Brasil, 12/10/2009.

A 57 dias da abertura da 15ª Conferência do Clima (COP15) da Organização das Nações Unidas (ONU), em Copenhague, na Dinamarca, a senadora e pré-candidata à Presidência pelo PV, Marina Silva, elevou o tom contra a política ambiental do governo Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva e cobrou que o Brasil assuma metas ambiciosas para a redução das emissões de dióxido de carbono na atmosfera. Marina, que foi ministra do Meio Ambiente do governo Lula, defendeu que o País pode adotar o desmatamento zero - proposta do Greenpeace que foi rechaçada pelo presidente na semana passada.

As reivindicações da senadora foram feitas no último sábado (10), em Monte Carlo, no Principado de Mônaco, onde recebeu o Prêmio Príncipe Albert II por sua militância ambientalista. Marina foi uma das convidadas de honra da festa, que também premiou personalidades como o sociobiólogo norte-americano Edward Osborne Wilson. Chamada ao palco, a ex-ministra ouviu elogios do príncipe Albert II, que prestou tributo a "quem trabalha com coragem e inteligência pela defesa do meio ambiente".

Discursando em português por cerca de cinco minutos, a senadora advertiu sobre o estado "decepcionante" das negociações internacionais para um acordo do clima em Copenhague, em dezembro, e pediu mais esforços do governo brasileiro. "O Brasil tem dado importante contribuição com sua matriz energética renovável, com a produção de biocombustíveis e avanços recentes na luta contra o desmatamento da Amazônia. Mas pode e deve fazer mais", afirmou. "Precisa assumir metas globais de redução de suas emissões de dióxido de carbono e contribuir para que os demais países em desenvolvimento façam o mesmo."

Mais cedo, Marina disse discordar do presidente Lula, que na segunda-feira, em Estocolmo, na Suécia, afirmou ser impossível o País adotar metas de desmatamento zero. A incorporação desse objetivo vem sendo defendida pela organização não-governamental (ONG) Greenpeace. "É possível", afirmou a senadora. "Não é algo que aconteça da noite para o dia. É uma meta a ser perseguida. Para que tenhamos desmatamento zero é preciso que se otimize todos os meios e incentivos para diminuir o desmatamento até zerá-lo sem causar prejuízos."



***************************************************************************
FT interview transcript: Marina Silva, Jonathan Wheatley, October 5 2009.

Jonathan Wheatley, the FT’s Brazil correspondent, interviewed Marina Silva in her office in Brazil’s Senate on September 18. Ms Silva, who was elected to the Senate for the first time in 1994, was Brazil’s environment minister between January 2003 and May 2008, when she left in frustration at what she saw as the failure of other ministries to give due concern to environmental issues. She was a founder member in 1980 of President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva’s leftwing Workers’ Party (PT) but left the party in August this year at the height of a corruption scandal involving José Sarney, president of the Senate, after Mr Lula da Silva threw his support behind Mr Sarney, a former political adversary. She has since joined the Green Party and is widely expected to run as its candidate in presidential elections next October.

FT: What do you expect of the Copenhagen meeting? What should Brazil demand of developed nations and what should it hope to achieve?

MS:
First, I think we need to have a political posture that is coherent with what we want to demand. This means we should first make the effort internally to ensure that Brazil is committed to targets but that these should be global targets, not just for reducing deforestation but covering all sectors that produce emissions. How this will be done, how we will do the distribution, is something that needs to be worked on internally with transparency, involving the government, society, businesses and academia. I think this is a sine qua non.

Another aspect is that we have to reduce emissions in a way that ensures that temperatures rise by a maximum of two degrees, meaning a maximum of 450 particles per million [the concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere regarded as a threshold beyond which global warming becomes irreversible]. This means a big effort by developed countries. And the architecture necessary to make this possible for developed countries should also allow emerging countries to make their contribution, so that we can reach this target at the global level and, by 2020, have a very strong signal that we are going to be able to achieve this by the middle of the century.

There is often a mistaken view put forward in these debates that it is easier to make reductions by reducing deforestation than by other mechanisms. Obviously, reducing deforestation is fundamental, this is not in question. It has to be reduced, yes. But this doesn’t mean it is easy. It is just as difficult [as other means of reducing emissions]. And it presupposes changing the model of development for developing countries. In the same way that it is hard for rich countries to alter their energy systems from fossil fuels to renewable fuels, it is hard for developing countries to change their model of development. This has a cost. People often argue [reducing deforestation] is easier because the cost is less, to achieve reductions, but this is not the way it should be thought about. It’s not that there is a lower cost or that for this reason we should think only about deforestation. We need to think about global emissions in general to achieve global results. That’s why I argue that Brazil has to have a global target and that we should have commitments that achieve this reduction by the middle of the century. Obviously this will be made easier if we have a good architecture in place by 2020 at the latest.

FT: Should Brazil demand that rich countries provide finance to help developing countries reduce emissions?

MS:
I think, yes, there should be support from developed countries not only in terms of finance but also to find a mechanism that makes it possible to change the model of development, and also transfer of technology. This is important. It is not only a matter of resources. Now, this shouldn’t be expressed as a pre-condition for doing anything. It should be expressed as a means of doing more than we would do with our own resources alone. But there should be a priority in terms of internal resources that from the outset signals Brazil’s commitment to what it wants to reduce. It should not be a question of getting external funding first in order to be able to start to do anything.

FT: Is Brazil’s position more conciliatory than that of other developing countries? China and India seem to be demanding more in return.

MS:
I think Brazil is the country that brings together the best conditions to achieve change in the right direction, which means allocating the available resources with clear priorities, because resources are not abundant. And obviously the other countries that resist this position have political problems in relation to this vision. The right to development is legitimate, to meet basic needs, but the demand should not be to continue with the same rate of emissions. The demand should be to find a way of reducing emissions without this meaning that you perpetuate degrading conditions of poverty in those countries. This is a legitimate concern.

In the case of Brazil obviously it is possible to find a compromise between reducing emissions and development to improve living standards and meet basic needs. In other words Brazil can help, among the developing nations, to lead a process that takes the emerging nations from a passive position to a proactive position in terms of each making their own internal efforts and by doing so gain the credentials to demand support in terms of resources and technology transfer. So Brazil has clearly become politically more proactive. But I still believe it could be more proactive especially if it arrives in Copenhagen with a proposal that includes a clear commitment from Brazil in terms of global targets, for all sectors, deforestation, industry, energy and so on.

FT: And what should change in the development model, for Brazil and other emerging nations?

MS:
It’s perhaps easier to talk about Brazil because I don’t want to talk about abstracts in other countries that I don’t know so well. But obviously what I say about Brazil also has applications for the others.

In terms of the model of development, obviously, in the first place, it must be clear that the energy systems of these countries cannot follow the same course as that of the developed countries. We have to understand that if developed nations need to move from fossil to renewable fuels, then in our case we must put the emphasis very clearly from now on renewable fuels.

Obviously, in the reality of Brazil, this seems to be easier, because we have very great potential for clean, safe and diversified energy sources, such as wind, solar energy, biomass and hydroelectricity, which is our greatest potential. But the basic reality remains the same: how to replace fossil fuels with renewable fuels in a process of decarbonisation of the economies of all countries.

And this sustainable model also pre-supposes efforts in two directions that are apparently contradictory. What do you do to diminish actions that cause climate change through greenhouse gas emissions and degrade the environment? Because it’s not just a matter of emissions. Changing the climate system is the Armageddon of the environmental crisis, but there are other problems, such as diversity, of contamination of water resources. Changing the model pre-supposes looking at the whole system. So what do you do to reduce actions that cause environmental damage and diminish the environmental services available from natural resources, and at the same time limit as much as possible the undesirable effects of this process. What are the undesirable effects? They come from the idea that, to reduce emissions and loss of diversity and degradation of air and water, you can no longer produce anything, that you have to accept losses in economic terms, that people stop having access to goods and services that are fundamental. I’m not talking about the exaggerated consumption that you see around the world today, no, I mean [consumption] that allows people quality of life, dignity, happiness.

In the reality of Brazil in my view this means making the most of this window of opportunity that we still have, of at least 20, 30 or 40 years, to undergo a transition. Instead of the low intensity ranching that we have in Brazil, you have to move to an intensive model, using high technology, knowledge, relying on technological innovation to make better use of the available land and put less pressure on the forests. This also applies to other sectors of agriculture and even to infrastructure. You have to evaluate the ability of eco-systems to support [human activity] in a perspective that includes the environmental services that they provide to the planet as a whole.

Here in Brazil they are essential services and if they are jeopardised we will suffer economic damage that we do not even have the capacity to repair, as is the case with rainfall. A good part of the rain that falls on the south, south-east and centre-west of Brazil is produced in the Amazon region, according to studies being carried out by INPE [the Brazilian aerospace research institute], and if the Amazon is destroyed we could end up with a desert.

So people have to see reducing deforestation as a strategic task from the internal point of view and from the global point of view as something strategic too, because if we do our homework 100 per cent and the rest of the world doesn’t, and the Amazon is damaged, we will suffer. So changes to the development model have to take place in all sectors, accompanied by production of knowledge and technological innovation and above all by a social pact, a social agreement that leads to a commitment that these changes will be persistent – a basic platform of commitment to change, to a diversified, clean energy system, sustainable agriculture and ranching, industry that is constantly modernising in search of new production models – all this being done to achieve the transition to a new economy.

FT: Just at the moment when all this is being discussed Brazil has discovered the pre-salt [potentially huge off-shore oil fields] and is close to becoming a major producer of fossil fuels. Even without the pre-salt Brazil is an increasingly industrialised country. How do you change a development model in the face of such powerful imperatives?

MS:
I’ll come to the pre-salt in a moment but in relation to industrialisation, perhaps the modernisation of industries already established in developed countries and the change in the way they produce energy could help developing countries to find a way in which their still ongoing process of industrialisation could make the transition to a new form. This is an equation facing not only Brazil but also other countries. It is possible through technological innovation to have another type of industry that is not necessarily based on the same practices that we have seen up to now. That is why we also talk about [emissions] reductions from industry.

As regards the pre-salt, it is understood around the world that there is no way to do without fossil fuels, anywhere in the world. Obviously Brazil is no different. What is different is the use of this source of energy. It is how you leverage this for the production of new energy sources. This means second generation biofuels that could be accelerated as much as possible to be able to replace fossil fuels. Twenty years from now when the pre-salt has been exploited, if we already have the possibility of substituting oil with other energy sources, I don’t see why we should deify oil as a source of wealth that we can’t do without in benefit of the planet. But for this we need to replace it, or use it until we are able to find a replacement, which is the effort that should be made not only by Brazil but by the whole world.

FT: So how would you leverage the resources of the pre-salt to do that?

MS:
I’m not only talking about resources of the pre-salt, I mean in general including the pre-salt, that we should use the most advanced technology possible so that while we are exploiting the pre-salt we reduce the emissions caused by doing so. And another thing is investing heavily in innovation and technological development that leads to a replacement of the model itself. You will be using an energy source in the expectation of its substitution. This is something that should be done, that needs to be done by Brazil in relation to the pre-salt and to what we are doing today. You can’t imagine that this resource is irreplaceable and that we will exploit it for as long as it lasts. No, you have to work on its substitution producing the necessary knowledge and the necessary alternatives for various sectors including energy that leads to the substitution of fossil fuels.

FT: Are there any issues that Brazil will insist on at Copenhagen?

MS:
The Brazilian government has not yet had this discussion with society. It is still a very internal discussion, involving the environment ministry, the foreign ministry and the ministry of science and technology. And obviously it is fundamental that there should be the involvement of different sectors of society, of Congress itself, because there is enormous interest in the formation of the Brazilian position.

This is especially true because during the past few years Brazil, which previously had a rather reactive position, since 2006, when I was still in the government, this position began to change to one of accepting targets. It began in Nairobi, then in Bali… it began in Montreal when we presented the first idea that forests should be taken into consideration by the Commission [the international Commission on Climate Change and Development]. Then in 2006 in Nairobi we presented a proposal to be included in the Commission and it was accepted. And then in Bali, Brazil presented concretely the idea of reducing emissions caused by deforestation and of creating a mechanism to make this reportable, quantifiable and so on, up to the possibility of accepting targets.

It’s this possibility of accepting targets that is being discussed now and not just regarding deforestation but targets for all sectors. This discussion has not been made public and I think it is fundamental that there should be a process of participation of social movements, of academia, of Congress, of companies, of all different sectors so that this position isn’t only a position of the Brazilian government presented in Copenhagen as a surprise to Brazilian society, but that the position should reflect the will of the Brazilian people, with their commitment to it so that this can facilitate negotiations in Copenhagen, both for the rich countries, which have always argued that it is difficult for them to accept more daring targets while the developing countries are unwilling, and for the developing countries themselves. I think that if Brazil makes a commitment it will help, or at least I hope it will, to allow China and India, South Africa and Mexico to move to a proposal along the same lines.

FT: So Brazil shouldn’t go to Copenhagen with a sealed envelope …

MS:
Well, I can’t say something like that will happen because there is still time for this discussion to take place. Obviously this is something I am asking for. But the problem is that, we know, Minister Amorim [Celso Amorim, foreign minister] gave an interview that was very well received by Brazilian society saying that Brazil could deliver a positive surprise. But I don’t think the right thing is to deliver surprises, good ones or bad ones. We should be committed to the proposal we want to take to Copenhagen and to what we want to construct. And I don’t think this commitment should be made by the government alone to Brazilian society, it should be made by Brazilian society.

FT: Might Brazil try to surprise in Copenhagen to achieve a more advantageous outcome?

MS:
Well, the process of diplomatic negotiation in events like this involves very little in the way of surprises. Obviously there is always room for discussion and the negotiators have some room for manoeuvre, but in my view there is much more room for negotiation if proposals are constructed in a transparent manner with the backing of public opinion. And if the debate is built up over time in various places. I think the environmental crisis, the size of the problem is so great that there is little room for the national or international public to be surprised by a group of luminaries. This has to be a commitment undertaken by all of us, and society has given its approval for governments to be a bit more daring. Here in Brazil opinion polls suggest very clearly the strong involvement of the people with these themes and recent polls show that people even prefer to pay a bit more to protect the environment. More than 90 per cent of people say they prefer to pay a bit more for their meat or gains or any product as long as this protects the environment. And this is a fantastic political energy that can’t be thrown away at a time of negotiations like this.

FT: Do you think there will be an agreement on use of forests at Copenhagen, on a mechanism to allow development while leaving forests intact?

MS:
I hope so. I think we have lost a lot of time excluding forests from this process. I had the good fortune to help in the process of getting them included during the time I was at the ministry and I don’t think there is any more time for them still to be excluded.

What is the structure that will be thought up to produce an adequate contribution to the reduction of emissions by forests? This is a construction that is being thought about here in Brazil as well, and I have taken part in some discussions that I have found very interesting, but obviously it will involve all the countries that have tropical forests and is not something that can be done alone. But obviously Brazil, as home to the biggest tropical forest, will have a greater responsibility. And it’s no coincidence that it was Brazil that helped to put forests back into the ambit of the Convention [the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change]. Obviously the other countries that took part in the debate also helped.

FT: What type of measures would be included in this mechanism?

MS:
This is a discussion that is still going on and has had a greater degree of participation from sectors of society. What kind of mechanism, to encourage integrated participation by the federal and state governments. The state governments that are home to forests think the mechanism should involve direct negotiation with them. There is a political construction that is under way. In my view it would be best to have action by the federal government that takes a lead while allowing state governments also to seek funding. We created for example the Amazon Fund that has raised funds from Norway. It is a voluntary fund, obviously, that shows how you might have a mixed system between voluntary donations that are not conditional on [carbon] credits but also with the possibility of credits. This is the kind of mixed system that is being thought about.

FT: And what should be the role of the public and private sectors in providing incentives to leave forests intact?

MS:
It can be mixed, involving both. The Norwegian involvement is via the public sector but there is nothing to stop the private sector being involved too.

FT: I mean at the level of the forest, in terms of activity.

MS:
Ah, yes, I think obviously the private sector can be involved there too. We are talking about alternatives to the destruction of the forest. By law landowners have the right to use 20 per cent of their properties. The mechanism that allows this non-use for deforestation is excellent for other activities. There can be payment for environmental services, you can have investment in sustainable forest management, that creates jobs and still captures carbon dioxide with the forest intact.

And you can favour local communities, who preserve the forest all their lives. Often the mechanisms don’t include these communities. Incentives go to those who cut down the forest and will be able to cut down more, and those who always preserved the forest are excluded by the mechanism which considers the forest a permanent stock. For the communities, the forest is their only asset twice over, or three times, because it is the forest, biodiversity, environmental services, emissions reduction and so on, and they don’t get any kind of support.

FT: Describe for me what Brazil has done to reduce the rate of deforestation.

MS:
When we arrived in government in 2003, deforestation had been growing since 2001. We saw that the trend was for this to continue, with investments and so on, but also that the lack of governance in the Amazon region was very great. So we decided it was no longer possible to continue with an ad hoc response to deforestation and that there should be an integrated approach involving three structured axes of activities: combating illegal activities; land registration; and support for sustainable productive activities.

In other words you fight illegality, put an end to the indefinition over land use through land registry, economic zoning, deciding which land can be used for production and consolidating that production but at the same time creating conservation areas and indian reserves, creating productive forests through concessions for forest use and in this way you put an end to the idea that there is a frontier that can go on expanding. And you provide support for sustainable productive activities. So as you fight illegal activities you create a series of alternative possibilities for the people who live in the region. There are about 24m people. So you have to substitute this with other activities, such as forest management, tourism, certified ranching, certified grain farming, the use of the components of biodiversity – unfortunately under the Convention on Biological Diversity the rich countries still don’t support a programme of access to pay for sharing the components of biodiversity.

So the plan presupposes these three axes. And since the approach to preventing deforestation is integrated with fighting illegality, land demarcation and creating new practices, it was fundamental that this approach should also be constructed in an integrated manner by the government, so that instead of involving just the environment ministry it should include all the ministries concerned. So we created a plan working from the outset with 13 ministries. And, clearly, as the process unfolded, the sectors responsible for land demarcation and support for productive activities advanced much less than they should have done. Where progress was made was much more in the area of fighting illegal practices.

By the end of 2007 we managed to reduce deforestation by 57 per cent, reversing a process that in 2004 had reached 27,000 square kilometres, the second biggest year of deforestation – the biggest had been 29,000 in 2004 to 2005. In 2006 it fell to 18,000, then in 2007 to 12,000, and then it showed signs of increasing again at the end of 2007. In early 2008 new measures were taken, still in the area of command and control, of fighting illegality. Why did deforestation threaten to rise again, by 30 or 40 per cent? Because those axes that were fundamental, land demarcation and support for sustainable activities, didn’t move forward with the same priority as actions to fight illegality. Even so, by reinforcing the measures that denied credit to illegal activities and suspended any licence to deforest from the 36 municipalities that did most deforestation and by criminalising all those involved in the illegal productive chain, the rate of deforestation fell again and is still falling.

The problem, or rather the question to be examined, is that this was only possible because, even with the difficulty of getting the other sectors to do their part, there was an integrated approach with the environment ministry, the justice ministry and the defence ministry and strong transparency before the public, because there is a monitoring system by satellite that is very efficient. Thanks to this transparency we were able to gain support for the government’s actions. Even after my resignation, which was at a time when people were pressing for the measures to be reversed, when I left, public opinion had access to the information and people gave their support to our actions. So in the case of Brazil, our experience is of a transversal approach to deforestation involving fighting illegality, the land question and at the same time creating new opportunities, and total transparency so that society can give its support to what is done.

FT: And how does infrastructure development fit in with this?

MS:
It fits in as part of the view that we should support sustainable productive activities. Infrastructure is there to support sustainable development. And if it exists to support sustainable development it cannot be in itself something unsustainable. You have to reduce damage as much as possible, you have to ensure that ecosystems have the ability to support it, you have to ensure cultural sustainability respecting local populations. So the idea of sustainable development doesn’t apply just to one or other aspect. It applies to the whole agenda that involves the economic, social and cultural dynamic.

FT: It was said that you left the ministry frustrated with the lack of engagement with environmental issues by other parts of the government. Has anything changed?

MS:
No, unfortunately not. The ministries of agriculture, energy and transport have a lot of difficulty in understanding this question. There is a vision still stuck in the twentieth and nineteenth centuries, thinking it is possible to repeat the same pattern as in the past, which has been left behind. And it has been left behind not just for ethical reasons or because we think we should do things differently. It has been left behind because it is out of date technologically. Because technologies and practices exist to replace predatory practices.

The problem is that people don’t calculate the environmental costs. If you don’t do things correctly the cost will be greater than the apparent gain to be had from doing things in a less careful way. And the fact of not doing things in a careful way, to make things quicker, is also a mistake because more often than not things are done and then, with every reason, [members of] society turn to the courts, and works are stopped by the courts and end up taking longer to complete.

While I was in the government I worked a lot on restructuring the [environmental] licensing system, to give technical quality to the evaluation of projects, and the licences were given. They just weren’t given without the necessary demands. People may say that public works didn’t move forward. It’s not that they didn’t move, they just didn’t move in the incorrect way that they had done before. Obviously there was a lot of tension, when in fact there should have been a convergence that, in the same way that the environment ministry understands that energy is needed, roads are needed, development is needed, the other ministries also have to understand that you need to protect natural resources. And sometimes people tried to relativise the demands of the environmental sector in an attempt to favour, in quotation marks, the other sectors.

FT: What does Brazil need to do then to balance development with the environment?

MS:
Brazil needs to do what all countries need to do. Brazil and the other countries in the world need to make the environment and development part of the same equation and not persist in thinking that one is in opposition to the other. Because there won’t be any development if we don’t resolve the serious environmental problems that the world is facing. The planet is already in the red in terms of its capacity to regenerate, according to recent studies, by 30 per cent. If we are unable to respond to this, evidently we are condemning ourselves. So Brazil needs to understand that there is still time to move from an unsustainable model to a sustainable model. There is no example in the world to be followed. There will only be those who are inclined to lead by example. And what Brazil needs to do, with the conditions that it has, is to lead by example.

FT: What role should the public and private sectors be taking in this?

MS:
The private sector is still very incipient. I think the state has to use the means at its disposal to try to leverage this process. And when the state maintains an ambiguous posture, even in relation to the law, and gives signs of going backwards as a result of pressure from groups that don’t have a strategic view of what is happening, it gives mixed signals the whole time. Instead of passing the exam it spends the whole time giving way and changing the exam. This is the problem.

But the state shouldn’t have the pretension of thinking it can do everything alone for society. It’s time to integrate actions of the state, of companies, of society, above all of public opinion, as I said before, that is able to put demands before all governments. Some things cannot be the result of the will of the particular party that is in government. It is a desire of Brazilian society not to have a dirty energy system and to enlarge it in a clean, safe diversified way. That should be a commitment of all governments whatever the party in power. It should be a commitment of all governments of any party not to allow an increase in deforestation in the Amazon or the cerrado or elsewhere. There should be a commitment that in the short political spans of each government there should be long-term undertakings that cannot be abandoned simply for short-term concerns.

FT: Let’s talk about your possible candidacy next year. What would your platform be?

MS:
I don’t want to talk in the position of a candidate. I want to register that in Brazil this anticipation [of the election campaign] is very negative. I think President Lula anticipated this discussion and this is not good for the country. Every two years there is an election and as soon as one is over people begin talking about the next one. In my opinion what needs to happen in 2010 is there should be a commitment to this basic, long-term platform by all candidates. Because Brazilian society is making this a point of reference. Until very recently all the indications were that the debate would take the traditional form – growth, how to achieve growth, without thinking about development as part of a process that is subject to changing paradigms, provoking reflections on the familiar path of economic, social and cultural development in Brazil and around the world. What needs to happen in these elections is a debate that allows society to make its own commitment to these medium and long-term changes. There has to be a social pact that emerges from the elections so that the next government feels it has a mandate, and that Congress is committed to those priorities chosen by society as a basic platform for the country, independently of who will be in government.

FT: Would your candidacy change the current prospect of a contest between two opposing candidates?

MS:
I think that in a two-round election [if no candidate wins an outright majority the two leading candidates go into a second round] it is legitimate that we should have various candidacies. We don’t need to have primaries in a two-round election, as if there were just two parties. No, the projects, ideas, candidates should be presented to the population to allow for political alignments so that positions are clear. And I hope the election won’t be a plebiscite [to approve or reject the Lula government] but an election in which people are able to make their choices and that men and women who are free to vote for whomever they want are not limited to a choice between the government candidate and a candidate from the [centrist opposition] PSDB. No, people should feel free to make other choices.

FT: What do you think of the state of politics in Brazil, is it keeping pace with changes in other areas?

MS:
Brazil needs political reform to create a political system capable of promoting changes that match the magnitude of the challenges we face. With the political structure we have now, we will simply perpetuate the ills that we have today, in relation to Congress and to the executive.

FT: How can that be done?

MS:
It can be done by stating very clearly in the campaign next year that there is a need for political reform to get out of this prison, where the parties have become machines for gaining power. When in fact they can be spaces for discussing policies and for interaction with the living nucleuses of society – businesses, social movements, academics, people who don’t want to join a political party. The parties will have to learn to interact with these living nucleuses to establish a network of relationships. Political parties have to be able to receive contributions from society and also be changed by movements in society.

FT: Are you worried about a diminution of democracy?

MS:
I think in the reality of Brazil, this risk has been overcome. One of the great conquests that we have had over the past 16 years is to have economic stability, President Lula was able to do this too with income distribution and, obviously, with the consolidation of Brazilian democracy. I think this has matured to a point where any movement in the other direction won’t happen.

The problem is that politics is losing is significance as the locus where democracy is strengthened. When politics and politicians lose their place before society as a legitimate sphere for the intermediation of interests, this ends up weakening the force of the democratic process of choice, and people begin to think that everyone can resolve things in their own way without the legitimate intermediation done by politics. It’s legitimate that everyone has their interests and defends them. What is not legitimate is that some people think they can defend their interests in illegal and illegitimate ways and without the proper intermediation of institutions. Nor can the institutions do without the contribution of people who are committed to justice, truth, freedom and rights, nor can the people do without the institutions that make these things possible.

Politics has to be a creative and affirmative process. You just can’t make the classical divisions between left, right and centre. There has to be something that appeals to all sectors. People from all parties and from all social classes need pure air, fertile land, clean drinking water, biodiversity – this is a struggle that by definition is inclusive. And this may help us to get out of this commonplace, where to make a political affirmation you have to be always deconstructing. You have to believe in the possibility that some things can also be conserved. Because unless you conserve certain processes you can’t defend a system, a structure, and I think this could also lead to a change in political behaviour.

Another thing that environmentalism puts in place, in Brazil at least, is a new form of militancy, that involves the young, different sectors of society, where people are ready to participate in a process to promote their visions of the world, of the future. You begin to have an anticipatory process, not limited only to health and education, all of which is important, but they want to know as well if their children will have the same things in terms of natural goods and services in the future.

FT: Are people already active in this way?

MS:
Some people are, but just showing that they are concerned is already very good energy to work with. Because sometimes politicians are afraid to reflect. They prefer to administer the familiar, consolidated spaces where power operates. And changing the model of development pre-supposes risk, including in relation to public opinion. I think that unfortunately the parties and Congress, and the executive, are trapped in the status quo and are incapable of the vision needed to make the change.



***************************************************************************
The Prince Albert II of Monaco Foundation Celebrates Award Recipients, October 10 2009.

The Prince Albert II of Monaco Foundation Celebrates Award Recipients for Their Extraordinary Efforts Dedicated to Preserving Planet Earth.
Esteemed Harvard Professor Among Trio of Leading Environmental Advocates to Receive Prestigious Prize.


NEW YORK, Oct. 10 -- Today in the Principality of Monaco, the Prince Albert II of Monaco Foundation held its illustrious second annual awards ceremony at the Grimaldi Forum Monaco. HSH Prince Albert recognized three leading international figures, including Boston's Professor Edward Osborne Wilson, for their lifelong efforts to preserve the planet, specific to his eponymous Foundation's three focus areas: climate change, biodiversity and water.

Professor Wilson was honored for his lifelong contribution to protecting the world's biodiversity. During his acceptance of the award which consists of a specially designed trophy and 40,000 euros, he said we have only just begun to explore Earth's biodiversity. "The 21st century, I believe, is going to be known as the Century of the Environment, and in science as the Century of Biology. This is the time that we will either settle down as a species or completely wreck the planet.

"There has been proportionately much less attention on the living environment, and especially the diversity of life, biodiversity, defined as the totality of ecosystems, the species that compose them, and the genes that prescribe the traits of the species that compose each of the ecosystems in turn," he said.

"That great resource has taken billions of years to evolve. Our lives depend on it, because we are first and above all things a biological species living in a biological world. Our best estimates are that about 1.8 million species are now known to science. But the search for unknown species has just begun. When all of the small invertebrates of the sea and land are fully explored the number could easily exceed 20 million species. The truth is that we live on a little known planet."

A two-time winner of the Pulitzer Prize for General Non-Fiction, Wilson is world-renowned for his career as a scientist and advocacy for environmentalism. He is a Pellegrino University Research Professor Emeritus and Honorary Curator in Entomology at the Museum of Comparative Zoology, Harvard University and is a Humanist Laureate of the International Academy of Humanism.

His most ambitious - and current - undertaking, which he both conceived and named, is the "Encyclopedia of Life" (www.eol.org), a web-based program indexing every species known to man.

"The project, recently launched by a consortium including the Smithsonian Institution, Harvard University, The Field Museum of Chicago, the Global Biodiversity Information Facility in Copenhagen, and the Marine Biological Laboratory, is an electronic encyclopedia that will have an indefinitely expandable page for each and every species of animal, plant and microorganism," said Professor Wilson.

"Each species will be illustrated with multiple views or parts of the genome of the type specimen or other authenticated specimen, and a diagnosis; and into the page will go everything known about the species, with new information added as it is acquired. The Encyclopedia of Life is now underway with up to $50 million pledged by the MacArthur and Sloan Foundations," he said.

Marina Silva of Brazil was presented with the Foundation's award for her work in support of the Brazilian rainforests. Ms. Silva is a Brazilian environmentalist and politician, who served as a senator before becoming an environmental minister in 2003. She led demonstrations with Chico Mendes to warn against deforestation and the removal of forest communities from traditional locations. As a native Amazonian and a senator, she built support for the environmental protection of the reserves as well as for social justice and sustainable development in the region. During her time as Senator, deforestation decreased by 59% from 2004 to 2007.

Pan Yue of China was honored for his contribution to water conservation. With a strong background in journalism and government administration, he is currently Vice Minister of China's Ministry of Environmental Protection. He has tackled some of China's biggest industries over pollution, forcing them to clean up and believes that access to clean water is the most urgent environmental problem because it is the bloodline for industrialization, urbanization and survival. In 2008 the Foundation's award recipients were Arctic explorer Alain Hubert, primatologist and conservationist Dr. Jane Goodall and Indian environmentalist and political activist Sunita Narain.

The awards ceremony, attended by 1500 guests, was preceded by the world premiere of the much-anticipated film, OCEANS, from Academy Award-nominated producer Jacques Perrin and Jacques Cluzaud. A true technological and scientific adventure, OCEANS from Disneynature is the breathtaking result of three years of filming under the deep seas around the globe. The film is not only a moving account of the wonders of nature but also an alarming report on the dangers that threaten it. The film will première in the United States on Earth Day, April 22, 2010.

About The Prince Albert II of Monaco Foundation:
The Prince Albert II of Monaco Foundation was established in 2006 by HSH Prince Albert to continue the Principality of Monaco's legacy of environmental stewardship and its commitment to conserve and preserve the world's natural environment and resources, by supporting sustainable and ethical projects especially in the Mediterranean Basin, the Polar regions and the world's least developed countries. Its focus is on three main challenges: climate change and developing renewable energies; combating the loss of biodiversity; and water management and fighting desertification. In just three years, the Foundation has extended its international outreach by opening chapters in Europe (France, Switzerland, the UK, Italy and Germany), in Canada and, in 2008, the United States of America. Since its inception, 95+ projects have benefited from Foundation grants totaling more than $20 million. Learn more at www.pa2f.org.



***************************************************************************
Marina recebe prêmio da Fundação Príncipe Albert II de Mônaco, PV, 09/10/2009.

A senadora Marina Silva (PV-AC) receberá, neste sábado dia 10 de outubro, o Prêmio Mudanças Climáticas, oferecido pela Fundação Príncipe Albert II de Mônaco

A senadora Marina Silva (PV-AC) receberá, neste sábado dia 10 de outubro, o Prêmio Mudanças Climáticas, oferecido pela Fundação Príncipe Albert II de Mônaco, em reconhecimento à sua contribuição para projetos na área do meio ambiente, ações e iniciativas conduzidas sob a ótica do desenvolvimento sustentável.

Anualmente, a fundação premia pessoas ou instituições com atuação especial e trabalho reconhecido em favor do meio-ambiente e da preservação do planeta nos três domínios de ação considerados prioritários pela instituição internacional: a mudança climática; a
preservação da biodiversidade; o acesso à água e a luta contra a desertificação.

A Fundação, criada em 2006, se dedica, sobretudo, ao financiamento de projetos nas áreas de florestas, biodiversidade, água e meio-ambiente da região do Mediterrâneo. Em 2008, o "Climate Change Award" , foi concedido a Alain Hubert, explorador belga, da Fundação Internacional Polar.

Desde sua criação, em 2006, a Fundação apoiou financeiramente mais de 95 projetos, num total de 14,6 milhões de euros. Seu Conselho de Administração reúne 14 personalidades internacionais, inclusive ganhadores do Prêmio Nobel da Paz. Seu Conselho Científico e Técnico é constituído por 12 especialistas de projeção mundial.

Além de ser agraciada com um troféu especialmente criado para a ocasião, a senadora Marina Silva receberá da Fundação um prêmio de 40 mil euros. A entrega do prêmio, pelo Príncipe Albert II de Mônaco, será às 18 horas (hora local), no Fórum Grimaldi.

Este é o quinto prêmio internacional que Marina Silva recebe desde a sua volta ao Senado, depois de ter saído do Ministério do Meio Ambiente, em maio de 2008. Em abril deste ano, ela foi agraciada, em Oslo, na Noruega, com o Prêmio Sofia 2009, concedido anualmente pela Fundação Sofia a pessoas e organizações que se destacam nas áreas ambientais e do desenvolvimento sustentável.

Em outubro do ano passado, a senadora recebeu das mãos do príncipe Philip da Inglaterra, no palácio de Saint James, em Londres, a medalha Duque de Edimburgo, em reconhecimento à sua trajetória e luta em defesa da Amazônia brasileira - o prêmio mais importante concedido pela Rede WWF.

Marina Silva ainda foi agraciada, em 16 de outubro de 2008, depois que retornou ao Senado, com o Prêmio "World Rainforest Award", concedido pela Rainforest Action Network (RAN), como reconhecimento ao seu trabalho e compromisso para proteger a floresta tropical, Recebeu também, em março deste ano, o XIV Prêmio N´Áitun 2009, criado em 1996 por Artistas Pro Ecologia , destinado anualmente a pessoas e instituições que tenham se destacado na defesa do meio ambiente.



***************************************************************************
Os 12 valores fundamentais do Partido Verde, PV.

A Ecologia
A preservação do meio ambiente, o ecodesenvolvimento (ou desenvolvimento sustentável), a reciclagem e a recuperação ambiental permanente.

A Cidadania
O respeito aos direitos humanos, o pluralismo, a transparência, o pleno acesso à informação e a mobilização pela transformação pacífica da sociedade.

A Democracia
O exercício da democracia representativa, através do processo eleitoral e da existência de um poder público eficiente e profissionalizado, combinado com mecanismos participativos e de democracia direta, sobretudo em âmbito local, através de formas de organização da sociedade civil e conselhos paritários com o poder público.

A Justiça Social
Condições mínimas de sobrevivência com dignidade para todas as pessoas. Direitos e oportunidades iguais para todos. O poder público como regulador do mercado protegendo os mais fracos e necessitados, garantindo o acesso a terra e promovendo a redistribuição da renda através de mecanismos tributários e investimento público.

A Liberdade
1A liberdade de expressão política, criação artística, expressão cultural e informação; o direito à privacidade; o livre arbítrio em relação ao próprio corpo; a autonomia e a iniciativa privada, no âmbito econômico.

O Poder Local
O fortalecimento cada vez maior do poder local, das competências municipais e das formas de organização e participação da comunidade. Para transformar globalmente é preciso agir localmente.

A Espiritualidade
A transformação interior das pessoas para a melhoria do planeta. Reconhecimento da pluralidade de caminhos na busca da transcendência através de práticas espirituais e de meditação ao livre arbítrio de cada um.

O Pacifismo
O desarmamento planetário e local, a busca da paz e o compromisso com a não violência e a defesa da vida.

O Multiculturalismo
A diversidade, a troca e a integração cultural, étnica e social para uma sociedade democrática e existencialmente rica. Preservação do Patrimônio Cultural. Contra todas as formas de preconceito e discriminação racial, cultural, etária ou de orientação sexual.

O Internacionalismo
A solidariedade planetária e a fraternidade internacionalista diante das tendências destrutivas do chauvinismo, etnocentrismo, xenofobia, integrismo religioso, racismo e do neofascismo a serem enfrentados em escala planetária, assim como as agressões ambientais de efeito global.

A Cidadania Feminina
A questão masculino/feminino deve ser entendida de forma democrática, avançando no sentido de se conceber uma profunda interação entre os dois pólos, nos diversos setores da sociedade, visando a uma real adequação às necessidades circunstanciais. Homem e mulher devem buscar, como integrantes do sistema social, mudanças e transformações internas que venham a se traduzir numa prática de caráter fundamentalmente cooperativo. Maior poder, maior participação e maior afirmação da mulher e dos valores e sensibilidade feminina, além do combate a todas as formas de discriminação machista ou sexista, por uma comunidade mais harmônica e pacífica.

O Saber
O investimento no conhecimento como única forma de sair da indigência, do subdesenvolvimento e da marginalização para uma sociedade mais informada e preparada para o novo século. Erradicação do analfabetismo, educação permanente e a reciclagem de conhecimentos durante toda a vida. Prioridade ao ensino básico, garantia de escola pública, gratuita e de qualidade para todos.



***************************************************************************
EPA Moves to Curtail Greenhouse Gas Emissions, John M. Broder, September 30 2009.

WASHINGTON — Unwilling to wait for Congress to act, the Obama administration announced on Wednesday that it was moving forward on new rules to regulate greenhouse gas emissions from hundreds of power plants and large industrial facilities.

President Obama has said that he prefers a comprehensive legislative approach to regulating emissions and stemming global warming, not a piecemeal application of rules, and that he is deeply committed to passage of a climate bill this year.

But he has authorized the Environmental Protection Agency to begin moving toward regulation, which could goad lawmakers into reaching an agreement. It could also provide evidence of the United States’ seriousness as negotiators prepare for United Nations talks in Copenhagen in December intended to produce an international agreement to combat global warming.

“We are not going to continue with business as usual,” Lisa P. Jackson, the E.P.A. administrator, said Wednesday in a conference call with reporters. “We have the tools and the technology to move forward today, and we are using them.”

The proposed rules, which could take effect as early as 2011, would place the greatest burden on 400 power plants, new ones and those undergoing substantial renovation, by requiring them to prove that they have applied the best available technology to reduce emissions or face penalties.

Ms. Jackson described the proposal as a common-sense rule tailored to apply to only the largest facilities — those that emit at least 25,000 tons of carbon dioxide a year — which are responsible for nearly 70 percent of greenhouse gas emissions in the United States.

The rule would not, as critics contend, cover “every cow and Dunkin’ Donuts,” Ms. Jackson said.

The move was timed to come on the same day that two Democratic senators, John F. Kerry of Massachusetts and Barbara Boxer of California, introduced global warming and energy legislation that faces a steep climb to passage this year.

The prospect of E.P.A. regulation of greenhouse gas emissions has generated fear and deep divisions within American industry. Some major utilities, oil companies and other heavy emitters are working closely with Congress to ensure that a climate bill would circumvent E.P.A. regulation by substituting a market-based cap-and-trade system. Others, led by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the National Association of Manufacturers, have worked against legislation and threatened to sue if the E.P.A. tries to impose controls on emissions of heat-trapping gases.

Ms. Jackson said the proposed rule had been written to exempt small businesses, farms, large office buildings and other relatively small sources of carbon dioxide emissions. But under the rule proposed Wednesday, the E.P.A. would assume authority for the greenhouse gas emissions of 14,000 coal-burning power plants, refineries and big industrial complexes that produce most of the nation’s greenhouse gas pollution.

The proposal will go through several months of drafting and public comment and faces likely litigation from industry and perhaps from environmentalists or citizen groups.

A typical coal-burning power plant emits several million tons of carbon dioxide a year. The 25,000-ton limit is comparable to the emissions from burning 131 rail cars of coal or the annual energy use of about 2,200 homes, according to the Environmental Defense Fund.

Senator James M. Inhofe, Republican of Oklahoma and an opponent of global warming legislation, called the proposed rule “a backdoor energy tax” that circumvents Congress and violates the terms of the Clean Air Act.

Scott Segal, a utility lobbyist with the law firm Bracewell & Giuliani in Washington, said the rule should not be used to rush Congress into passing a poorly drafted bill.

But he also said that the proposal “strengthens the president’s negotiating hand in Copenhagen.”

“Even if the Senate does not act,” Mr. Segal said, “he can legitimately say to other nations, ‘We are taking action on a unilateral basis. What are you doing?’ ”

The proposal, long anticipated and highly controversial, is the government’s first step toward regulating greenhouse gases from stationary sources. The E.P.A. has already proposed an ambitious program to restrict such emissions from cars and trucks. The agency published the proposed vehicle emission rule this month; it is expected to take effect next spring.

Ms. Jackson’s proposal would require facilities emitting at least 25,000 tons of carbon dioxide and five other pollutants a year to obtain construction and operating permits. The other gases are methane, nitrous oxide, hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons and sulfur hexafluoride.

The threshold is 100 times higher than that required for other types of pollutants like sulfur dioxide that have more acute health and environmental effects.

Ms. Jackson said that while the proposed rule would affect about 14,000 large sources of carbon dioxide, most were already subject to clean-air permitting requirements because they emit other pollutants.

By raising the standard to 25,000 tons, the new rule exempts millions of smaller sources of carbon dioxide emissions like bakeries, soft drink bottlers, dry cleaners and hospitals.

Industry groups reacted quickly, challenging the E.P.A.’s authority to use the Clean Air Act to regulate greenhouse gases and questioning Ms. Jackson’s power to lower the threshold for regulation.

Charles T. Drevna, president of the National Petrochemical & Refiners Association, said that the emission of greenhouse gases was a global problem and that it was pointless to regulate only some sources.

“This proposal incorrectly assumes that one industry’s greenhouse gas emissions are worse than another’s,” Mr. Drevna said. “E.P.A. lacks the legal authority to categorically exempt sources that exceed the Clean Air Act’s major source threshold from permitting requirements, and this creates a troubling precedent for any agency actions in the future.”

Supporters of the plan said that it was carefully written to affect only the biggest emitters.

“This is a common-sense step toward a cleaner, better world,” said Emily Figdor, federal global warming project director for Environment America.



***************************************************************************
Nobel jury speaks out in defense of Obama prize, Ian MacDougall & Karl Ritter, Oct 14 2009.

OSLO – One judge noted with surprise that President Barack Obama "didn't look particularly happy" at being named the Nobel Peace Prize laureate. Another marveled at how critics could be so patronizing.

In a rare public defense of a process normally shrouded in secrecy, four of the Nobel jury's five judges spoke out this week about a selection they said was both merited and unanimous.

To those who say a Nobel is too much too soon in Obama's young presidency, "We simply disagree ... He got the prize for what he has done," committee chairman Thorbjorn Jagland told The Associated Press by telephone from Strasbourg, France, where he was attending meetings of the Council of Europe.

Jagland singled out Obama's efforts to heal the divide between the West and the Muslim world and scale down a Bush-era proposal for an anti-missile shield in Europe.

"All these things have contributed to — I wouldn't say a safer world — but a world with less tension," he said.

For nine-year Nobel committee veteran Inger-Marie Ytterhorn, Obama's demeanor spoke volumes when he first acknowledged the award during a news conference Friday on the lawn of the White House Rose Garden.

"I looked at his face when he was on TV and confirmed that he would receive the prize and would come to Norway, and he didn't look particularly happy," she told the AP by telephone.

"Obama has a lot of problems internally in the United States and they seem to be increasing. Unemployment, health care reform: They are a problem for him," she said.

She acknowledged there was a risk the prize might backfire on Obama by raising expectations even higher and giving ammunition to his critics. "It might hamper him," Ytterhorn said, because it could distract from domestic issues.

Still, she added: "Whenever we award the peace prize, there is normally a big debate about it" so the Obama controversy was not unexpected.

It was unusual, however, for the Nobel jury to speak out so candidly about their selection.

Even the most seasoned Nobel watchers were surprised by Obama's Nobel — they hadn't expected the U.S. president, who took office barely two weeks before the Feb. 1 nomination deadline, to be seriously considered until at least next year.

Jagland said that was never an issue for the Nobel committee, which followed the guidelines set forth by Alfred Nobel, the Swedish industrialist and inventor of dynamite who established the prize in his 1895 will.

"Alfred Nobel wrote that the prize should go to the person who has contributed most to the development of peace in the previous year," Jagland said. "Who has done more for that than Barack Obama?"

Aagot Valle, a left-wing Norwegian politician who joined the Nobel panel this year, also dismissed suggestions that Obama was undeserving of the honor.

"Don't you think that comments like that patronize Obama? Where do these people come from?" Valle said from the coastal city of Bergen. "Well, of course, all arguments have to be considered seriously. I'm not afraid of a debate on the Peace Prize decision. That's fine."

World leaders have reacted positively to Obama's Nobel in most cases, the committee said, with much of the criticism coming from the media and Obama's political rivals.

"I take note of it. My response is only the judgment of the committee, which was unanimous," Jagland said.

In announcing the award Friday, the committee, whose members are appointed by the Norwegian Parliament, applauded the change in global mood brought by Obama's calls for peace and cooperation. They also praised his pledges to reduce the world stock of nuclear arms, ease U.S. conflicts with Muslim nations and strengthen the U.S. role in combating climate change.

The White House declined comment on the Nobel judge's latest statements.

However, Obama expressed surprise and humility at Friday's news conference, saying the prize should be considered not a "recognition of my own accomplishments, but rather as an affirmation of American leadership on behalf of aspirations held by people in all nations."

Nobel Peace Prize selections have often been surrounded by fierce debate. Controversial awards include the 1994 prize shared by Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat and Israeli leaders Shimon Peres and Yitzhak Rabin for Mideast peace efforts, as well as the joint prize to Secretary of State Henry Kissinger and North Vietnamese negotiator Le Duc Tho for a 1973 cease-fire agreement. The Vietnam War continued for two more years.

So the Nobel jury "expected that there would be a discussion" about Obama's award, said Kaci Kullman Five, a former Conservative Party parliamentarian and longtime Nobel committee member.

Valle said the criticism shouldn't overshadow important issues raised by Obama's Nobel.

"Of course I expected disagreement and debate on ... giving him the prize," she said. "But what I want now is that we seriously raise a discussion regarding nuclear disarmament."