World of Jots

Malaysiakini and other pioneers of media freedom

Jotman — Fri, 13 Nov 2009 07:59:00 -0800

Gregore Lopez, guest blogging at NM, writes "The online media had been at the forefront in providing news and views from diverse groups – especially those marginalised by the mainstream media." Pioneering online news groups profiled by Lopez include: Malaysiakini, The Nutgraph, The Malaysian Mirror, and The Malaysian Insider.

Why is all this happening first in Malaysia? Why no Singaporekini?

Canadian Omar Khadr, denied jury trial, to get military commission

Jotman — Fri, 13 Nov 2009 04:57:00 -0800

Glenn Greenwald:

Omar Khadr -- the Canadian "child soldier" imprisoned at Guantanamo for the last seven years, since he was 15 years old, for allegedly throwing a grenade at an American soldier in Afghanistan (that's apparently "terrorism") and the subject of a difficult-to-watch video of him weeping like the child he is while being interrogated -- will reportedly be one of those denied a trial and instead allowed only a military commission, according to Canada's Canwest News Service (h/t sysprog):

Canadian-born terror suspect Omar Khadr faces continued prosecution in the U.S. military tribunal established in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. . . .
The federal system offers the full panoply of defendant rights available to U.S. citizens under the U.S. Constitution, while civil rights groups have argued the military commissions at the U.S. naval base in Cuba do not meet that standard.

So that's how the US treats the citizens of a nation that is its ally in the war in Afghanistan?

Is Thailand's dispute with Cambodia helping Abhisit in the polls?

Jotman — Thu, 12 Nov 2009 21:01:00 -0800

Bangkok Pundit reports the result of a recent Bangkok University opinion poll. BP writes:

Q3. Are you satisfied with Abhisit over the handling of Thaksin's interview with The Times and appointment of Thaksin as economic advisor?
a- very satisifed, 13.6%
b- somewhat satisifed, 27.8%
c- not so satisfied, 39%
d- no satisifed at all, 18.2%
e- no opinion, 1.4%

BP: Of course, those in (c) and (d) are certainly are not all red shirts, you probably have both the yellow and red shirts are not happy. There is no real way to discern, who is who, but it is interesting that only 13.6% are very satisifed while 39% are not so satisifed. That is among Bangkokians and those living close by as well.

How to reconcile this responses to questions in this new poll with a previous poll showing Abhisit's popularity soared as a result of the actions against Cambodia? A lot hinges on the way such questions are worded.*

BP believes the government has overplayed its hand with respect to the "Thaksin in Cambodia" debacle.    I would like to think so.

Thailand is engaged in a diplomatic row with a country much much weaker than itself.   Consider that Thailand has 5 times more people than Cambodia, and that the average Thai is 6 times richer than the average Cambodian.

Thailand is getting all worked up about the actions of the leader of a country 30 times less powerful.   By no stretch of the imagination are these countries on an equal footing in any dispute, diplomatic or otherwise.    Cambodia is no mere underdog. It is a mouse confronting a Thai elephant.

It's good to see that 62% of Thais surveyed by Bangkok University favor "a soft approach by negotiating" with Cambodia. Let's hope their government listens.

__
* Update. BP points me to a post (which I missed) in which he found evidence to support this hypothesis:

Just before asking people whether they support the Abhisit government, it asks those it surveyed:
"Are you aware that the Cambodian leader gave an interview attacking the Thai judicial system?" (การรับทราบข่าว ผู้นำประเทศกัมพูชาให้สัมภาษณ์โจมตีกระบวนการยุติธรรมภายในประเทศไทย)

Siam Report translated questions from the same poll and was "a little skeptical about the methodology and results."

Are mobile phone transmissions killing honey bees?

Jotman — Fri, 06 Nov 2009 14:55:00 -0800

The scientific name for it is "colony collapse disorder." In recent years, bees have been disappearing. Nobody seems to know the exact cause. Some researchers in India may have found evidence that cell phones contribute to the plight of the honey bee. But evidence is lacking.

This Wikipedia article surveys some of the more promising hypothesis. Mercola, a physician who has looked at various studies, suggests that "a combination of deadly factors" may be destroying honey bees. His list includes:

Pesticides
Genetically modified crops
Micro-organisms that compromise the immune system
High-fructose corn syrup (HFCS), frequently used for feeding by certain bee farmers

Press freedom: How did ASEAN countries rank in 2009?

Jotman — Thu, 29 Oct 2009 10:20:00 -0700

According to Reporters Without Borders, ASEAN countries have a dismal record of pres freedom (rank is out of 175 countries). Their scores this year ranged from merely disappointing to utterly disgraceful.

Disappointing:

#100 Indonesia
#117 Cambodia
#122 Philippines

Depressing:

#130 Thailand
#131 Malaysia
#133 Singapore
#155 Brunei

Disgrace:

#166 Vietnam
#169 Laos
#171 Burma

Burma's Shwe Project and Singapore's banks

Jotman — Tue, 03 Nov 2009 01:48:00 -0800

Where will Burma's junta put the billions in revenues it will obtain from the Shwe gas pipeline to China? Noting that on a previous Yadana project, Myanmar's junta had siphoned off nearly $5 billion, ERI reports:

Despite the Singapore banks denials, ERI has confirmed from high level non-Singapore government sources that named banks and several other banks in Singapore are now “backing off cash from Burma” concerned over risks in holding certain accounts. If true, this would be significant; however, ERI is working to ensure that the banks, Monetary Authority of Singapore and other stakeholders do more to ensure the military junta is not squandering illicit gains from Burma’s natural gas wealth.

If Singapore and other offshore banking locations get more rigorous, will Hong Kong, Macao or Shanghai banks offer more exclusive services to the dictator-thieves of the developing world? So long as the G20 initiative to clamp down on tax havens worldwide expands and gains momentum, this scenario becomes somewhat less likely. As Richard Murphy notes, China and India are very much concerned about the tax revenues that they themselves have been losing to loosely regulated offshore tax havens.

Nevertheless, as some dictators can transfer funds abroad without violating their home country's tax laws, progress in terms of clamping down on tax havens will not necessarily help. It depends on how offshore banking regulation proceeds. But it's probably a case where progress -- in terms of coordinated international action -- on any front begets the potential for progress on all fronts. For example, it would help if the Burmese people's groups could sue banks harboring ill-gotten gains of the country's dictators. Greater banking transparency in general might enable such lawsuits.

Saltworks Technologies: low-cost desalination

Jotman — Thu, 29 Oct 2009 14:28:00 -0700

UPDATED
Two Canadians, Ben Sparrow and Joshua Zoshi, founders of Saltworks Technologies, appear to have developed a truly low-cost desalination technology. The pair have discovered a way to use the heat of the sun to power the process, reducing the cost of desalination by 80%. The Economist reports that the beauty of their system is that ".... the only electricity needed is the small amount required to pump the streams of water through the apparatus. All the rest of the energy has come free, via the air, from the sun."

According to the company's website:

Saltworks' patent pending technology employs an innovative thermo-ionic energy conversion system that uses up to 80 percent less electrical/mechanical energy relative to leading desalination technologies. The energy reduction is achieved by harnessing low temperature heat and atmospheric dryness to overcome the desalination energy barrier. Saltwater is evaporated to produce a concentrated solution. This solution, which has concentration gradient energy, is fed into Saltworks' proprietary desalting device to desalinate either seawater or brackish water. Some electrical energy is used to circulate fluids at a low pressure, yet the bulk of the energy input is obtained through the evaporation of saltwater.

As this technology is most useful in hot, desert climates lacking in water, it could change the world.

UPDATE 1

A Reuter's article surveys the environmental hazards of desalination technology. The main problem, of course is the high energy consumption (think more greenhouse gasses) of desalination systems in use today. But there is another environmental risk factor associated with desalination:

Large-scale desalination engineering could also endanger sea life, the WWF said, urging further research into the tolerance of marine organisms and ecosystems to higher salinity and brine waste, byproducts of the salt removal process.

Does Saltworks also have an answer to the problem of byproduct disposal? It would be interesting to get their response.

UPDATE 2
A reader who comes across as quite knowledgeable about the question raised in Update 1 responds in comments:

If Sparrow and Zoshi have uncovered a new low- energy method of desalinization, then this is an important discovery.

The problem of the disposal of the extracted salts is not trivial but it is not a particularly difficult one to solve. The salts are a natural materials and their disposal only creates a problem when they are returned to fresh water or to to the ocean where they will increase the salinity of local ocean waters. Many areas of the world are underlain by layers of saline rocks formed from the natural evaporation of sea water. Thus, it seems reasonable to expect that artificial layers of "rock" salt could be constructed and covered to prevent any significant return of the salts to the local environment. Also, most of the landmass of the world has saline groundwater at depth. Some of these saline waters are considerably more salty than sea water and concentrated saline waters from a desalinization plant could be injected into such formations and so kept from the local biosphere. Such injection of saline wastes into deep wells is an established industrial process. Another solution is to use some of the salts for table salt or industrial salt.

It would be interesting to know how energy-intensive remediation efforts such artificial layering, wells, and injection of saline water tends to be. The total energy costs of desalination projects -- whether Saltworks or by other means -- should factor waste disposal, recycling etc.

Kyoto Treaty, Climate Bill: perverse incentives to clear forests for biofuels

Jotman — Thu, 29 Oct 2009 11:15:00 -0700

Economist:

the widespread growth of biofuel crops is likely to cause a net global release of greenhouse gases during the first half of the century, as land is cleared and fertilisers are scattered liberally. In the right circumstances the CO2 account, they reckon, could move into profit by mid-century, but the nitrous oxide account never does.

Tim Searchinger’s Science paper, meanwhile, looks at the way the accounts are drawn up in the here and now. Dr Searchinger, who works at Princeton University, and his collaborators point out that the rules for assessing compliance with the Kyoto protocol (which are also included in the version of America’s climate bill that passed the House of Representatives) are biased in favour of biofuels because they fail to account for emissions from land cleared to grow such fuels. Combine that observation with Dr Melillo’s modelling and you have a recipe for some perverse incentives indeed.

Sadly, settled international standards on biofuels or on a trading system that includes their carbon-cutting benefits are probably a long way off. Two more items on the “too busy to do” list of the Copenhagen conference on climate change.

This hardly seems like a valid excuse.

Israel exploiting Thai workers

Jotman — Wed, 28 Oct 2009 14:58:00 -0700

Reuters (h/t Thai Report) reports that "the most exploited workers in Israel" are Thai.

Bangkok Olympic torch babe photo mystery

Jotman — Wed, 28 Oct 2009 23:17:00 -0700

A reader who recently examined the pictures in this post -- my live-blogging of the 2008 Olympic torch relay in Bangkok -- swears that the young woman in one of the photos is Gillian Chung Yan-tung, the Hong Kong actress and singer best known as a...

ASEAN fast lane a threat to Thais

Jotman — Mon, 26 Oct 2009 02:24:00 -0700

TG, a Jotman/JotAsean reader from Scandinavia, makes an important observation about the recent ASEAN summit. TG writes in an email:

When the ASEAN Summit 2009 was held in Hua Hin last week the Thai government created an exlusive lane on the highway for the ASEAN representatives and their escorts.

As you and I both know Thailands traffic system is not the most advanced one, and also the training most thais have in traffic is very simple, and many dont even have a drivers license. Knowing this I was terrified when I saw orange traffic cones being put up from Prachuap Khiri Khan all the way to Cha-Am, making the U-Turns for us mortals very dangerous indeed. I stopped driving my scooter when they put these up because I saw so many almost accidents. You cannot create a more fake security than this.

On Saturday the 24th of October the inevitable happened, a traffic accident (which is common in Thailand, I know). I did not see what happened, but I saw one person lying on the ground and he was probably dead judging from all the blood and vomit in the street. He was lying in the stupid ASEAN lane offcourse, where the police controls traffic, in other words it was probably not even the dead persons fault. The police did not do any first aid or anything(which I believe is also a norm in Thailand).

I was hoping to read in a newspaper what "really" happened, but alas, nothing yet in the media. My point about this is how fake is Thailand? It was all just a show for the ASEAN representatives that Thailand takes security very serious, while in reality it made it all worse. In my opinion a government should prioritize their own citizens before anything else, Thailand fails at this.

I've already bought my ticket out of this place because I cannot live in a country where a persons life isnt worth more than a lie.

The ASEAN "fast lane" created obvious dangers for ordinary Thais.

TG's observation begs the question: where were the journalists? Accredited members of the media would almost certainly have been permitted to share the fast lane with delegates. It would appear that accredited journalists didn't want to slow down either. They had a summit to attend. Journalists, like members of ASEAN governments, enjoy the benefits of the ASEAN fast lane.

On the weekend I had lunch with some Thais who could be described as "ASEAN skeptics."

One said, "ASEAN is only meaningful for people in the governments of ASEAN countries. What has ASEAN done for the ordinary people in these countries? What benefits do they get from it?"

The leaders of Thailand and other ASEAN countries ought to ponder this question.

Autonomy for south of Thailand?

Jotman — Mon, 26 Oct 2009 06:44:00 -0700

Malaysian PM Razak told the Nation that "some form of autonomy could be a solution to end the violence" in the South of Thailand (h/t BP).

This proposal is not without risk. It seems to me that the call for "autonomy" could provide a convenient excuse for Bangkok to further neglect the needs of Muslims living in South, allowing the region to continue to slip further behind on various measures of development.

In fact, it could well be argued that this is what has happened in the South in the past. That is, that grants of autonomy would appear to have contributed to the declining educational standards of the South.

Can Thailand satisfy the people of the South without contributing to such a vicious circle?

The answer to this conundrum could be for ASEAN to step in where Bangkok steps out.    At the recent ASEAN summit leaders "committed to ensuring greater mobility for students and teachers in the region."   If students from the South of Thailand had opportunities to pursue training and university elsewhere in the region, and local institutions could benchmark themselves against their coreligionists elsewhere, this might go along way to building a foundation for prosperity in the South.

It is to be observed that terrorism in the Basque region of Spain and Northern Ireland subsided as European unity gained serious momentum in the 1990s.   Perhaps, down the road, momentum towards ASEAN unity will serve to diminish ethnic tensions in the Indonesian archipelago, the provinces of Southern Thailand and the Philippines, and the civil-war-ravaged states of Burma.

Ontario, BC, and Alberta at the Solar Decathlon in Washington, DC

Jotman — Mon, 26 Oct 2009 15:35:00 -0700

Canada had two successful entries in the US Department of Energy's Solar Decathlon.
Out of a field of twenty contenders, the BC/Ontario entry placed 4th and Alberta placed 7th overall.

More pictures and thoughts about the contest here.

BC and Ontario entry:

Alberta's entry:

Padang earthquake live

Jotman — Sat, 03 Oct 2009 16:28:00 -0700

I have compiled reports on the Sumatra earthquake from eyewitnesses and a blogger involved in the recovery effort.

Muslim ASEAN

Jotman — Wed, 07 Oct 2009 18:31:00 -0700

According to a recent Pew Forum survey, "Indonesia is the country with the world's largest Muslim population (203 million); about 13% of all Muslims in the world live in Indonesia. Indonesia's Muslim population accounts for about 80% of all Muslims living in Southeast-East Asia."

Some facts that might surprise you:

Malaysia has fewer Muslims than China.
Myanmar has more Muslims than Qatar and Bahrain put together.
Thailand has more Muslims than Oman and the UAE put together.
Philippines has more Muslims than Kuwait.

The Muslim populations of the countries of ASEAN, ordered from most to least, are: 203 million in Indonesia, 16.6 million in Malaysia, 4.7 million in the Philippines, 4 million in Thailand, 1.9 million in Burma, 0.7 million in Singapore, 0.3 million in Brunei, 0.2 million in Cambodia and slightly fewer in Vietnam.

Adding up these numbers, we see that nearly 15% of the world's 1.8 billion Muslims live in ASEAN countries. Just over 40% of ASEAN's population of 560 million is Muslim.

Will ASEAN destroy Kerala's economy?

Jotman — Sun, 04 Oct 2009 18:49:00 -0700

Anger at the recent ASEAN-India FTA led Kerala residents to take to the streets and form a massive "human chain" -- hundreds of kilometers long -- stretching from one end of the state to another. The Hindu reports:

THIRUVANANTHAPURAM: Communist Party of India (Marxist) general secretary Prakash Karat has termed the Free Trade Agreement (FTA) between India and the Association of South East Asian Nations (ASEAN) a gross violation of democratic norms and called upon the Centre to review it.

Inaugurating a rally organised before the Raj Bhavan here as a prelude to a mammoth ‘human chain’ linking the two ends of Kerala on Friday, Mr. Karat pointed out that the Centre had not cared to consult the State government before signing the agreement with ASEAN.

ANI:

The agreement, which will be effective from January 1, 2010, calls for tariffs on products to be reduced to zero between 2013 and 2016.

The Communists oppose the agreement saying its would sound the death knell for Kerala's agro-based economy. Addressing a gathering, CPI-M general secretary Prakash Karat said the human chain is a pointer to the growing protest against the free trade pact.

"Kerala is a home of pepper production. If this agreement gets implemented in full in the coming 10-20 years then pepper production will be only a memory that has ever been produced in Kerala," said Karat.

Another Hindu article has more details about the fears people in Kerala have about the FTA pact. Interestingly, Obama's move against Indian rubber seems to have inspired some Indian protesters:

Some of the provisions of the Free Trade Agreement (FTA) that India recently signed with the Association of South East Asian Nations (ASEAN) will weaken India’s, and specifically Kerala’s, rubber sector because Malaysia and a few other countries that are a part of the ASEAN will flood the market with their rubber and push Indian rubber out. Kerala’s rubber sector, in particular, will vanish if the free import of rubber from outside India under the FTA is allowed. Pepper, coconut, plantation products and similar commodities which form the backbone of Kerala’s economy will die, too.

When Chinese tyres offered at fabulously cheap rates threatened the American tyre industry, President Barack Obama imposed 30 to 40 per cent duty on the import of tyres in order to save the American tyre industry. The same Obama strategy of imposing heavy import duties to protect the farmers of the State ought to be instantly imposed here. And to that extent, the ASEAN agreement should be made subject to nationalist conditions.

I protested as part of what was called a human chain against the FTA that was organised across Kerala on October 2, out of concern for swaraj, agriculture, and the peasants and workers of Kerala. Why not copy Mr. Obama in this matter: India is readily adopting America in many other matters, after all.

Express Buzz has more about Kerala's fears, and the political dynamic:

Karat said if the agreement comes into effect, the coconut, pepper and rubber farmers in Kerala will be in trouble. “It will spell doom for Kerala’s economy,’’ Karat said.

CPM state secretary Pinarayi Vijayan, who presided over the meeting, said even if the government allows ASEAN products won’t be allowed to be sold in Kerala market. “It is a struggle for survival. The huge response this strike received from across the state is an indication that this struggle reflects the sentiments of the people,’’ Pinarayi said.

Chief Minister V S Achuthanandan described how the assurance given by the Union Government with regard to the ASEAN pact signing was not fulfilled.

“It is a class struggle. A ruling class struggle against the peasants, petty producers and traditional industry labourers.

It is a fight between the Centre and the states as well. The Centre had unilaterally signed an agreement which deals with state subjects,’’ said Planning Board vice-chairman Prabhat Patnaik.

Some bloggers' perspectives on the human chain protest gathered here, and more perspectives in the next post.

"ASEAN is no WTO"

Jotman — Tue, 06 Oct 2009 09:11:00 -0700

Yesterday I blogged about the "human-chain" protest in Kerala. The protest was organized to rally opposition to the India-ASEAN FTA. Not all Indian leftists are comfortable with challenging their brothers in ASEAN. Keralamnow blogged:

"Yesterday there was a human chain in Kerala, from Kasaragode in the north to the gates of the Rajbhavan in Thiruvananthapuram. Some say it was 777 km long. With only some gaps, one at Changanachery where the Nair Service Society is located, a usual ill omen that, another nearby at Thiruvalla. This chain apparaently was to protest against the recent Free Trade Agreement (FTA) arrived at between the ASEAN nations by the Governmment of India, why the point of end was the Rajbhavan, rekindling the memmories of the British Raj. Deep down it was a desperate attempt to white wash the darkened image of the Communist OParty in the state, which is waiting for the worst in the next elections. The concept of fighting neo-colonialism is fine, but ASEAN is no WTO and this is even a small way of challenging the western hegemony, some how the comrades did not realize that. Good nevertheless, any movement of the people against the vulpine global order is welcome"

The Peninsula (Qatar) notes further support for the agreement:

Opposition leader Oommen Chandy had decried the human chain, saying the crucial trade pact would break duty barriers in the 1.7 billion consumer market in the region and the Central Government had assured of adequate safeguards to protect Kerala’s interests.

The pact on trade in goods under the Comprehensive Economic Cooperation Agreement (CECA) was signed by Indian Commerce and Industry Minister Anand Sharma and ASEAN Economic Ministers after more than six years of intense negotiations.

More from Keralamnow, plus other blogger reactions from Kerala here. The anti-ASEAN FTA statement issued by the All India Kisan Sabha on August 15 against the FTA is posted here.

Bloggers go on trial in Vietnam

Jotman — Thu, 08 Oct 2009 19:10:00 -0700

Matt Steinglass reports:

On Thursday Troi, a building engineer, will go on trial in Hanoi on charges of disseminating propaganda against the Socialist Republic of Vietnam. Troi is accused of associating with democracy activists and writing internet posts criticizing government policies and calling for a multi-party democratic system.

Troi is one of nine democracy activists and bloggers facing trial in Hanoi and Haiphong this week. On Tuesday in Hanoi, poet Tran Duc Thach, 57, was sentenced to three years in prison on charges similar to those Troi faces.

On Wednesday, high school teacher Vu Van Hung, 43, was also sentenced to three years in prison. In August 2008, Hung suspended a banner from a Hanoi overpass denouncing corruption and inflation, calling for the defence of Vietnamese waters in the South China Sea, and demanding multi-party elections.

The trials of the bloggers and democracy activists are the latest episodes in a gradual tightening of controls over freedom of expression and association carried out by Vietnam's government since early 2007.

In the spring of 2006, a group of intellectuals and activists issued a manifesto calling for greater freedom and multi-party democracy. They called themselves Bloc 8406. For months, the government tolerated them, anxious to showcase its liberal credentials as it applied to join the World Trade Organization.

But shortly after gaining admission to the WTO in January 2007, Vietnam began arresting the activists. A pair of human rights lawyers and an activist Catholic priest were sentenced to multi-year jail terms. By late 2007, many of the activists were in prison, and political activism ground to a halt.

US to meet with Burma

Jotman — Tue, 29 Sep 2009 06:36:00 -0700

"Let's be clear the president's decision to approach countries with an open hand and open up a dialogue with them is a powerful tool, at least in the initial state of opening up contacts. Overall we are just as interested as you are in terms of what Burma's plans are -- in domestic steps and regional behavior. So we have an open door... "

- U.S. Assistant Secretary of State Kurt Campbell

Reuters reports:

The United States and Myanmar plan to open a dialogue on Tuesday at a meeting in New York that U.S. officials hope may ultimately move the southeast Asian country's military rulers toward democracy.

U.S. Assistant Secretary of State Kurt Campbell plans to meet U Thaung, Myanmar's minister of science, technology and labor, said State Department spokesman P.J. Crowley.

Previewing a U.S. policy review on Myanmar, U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton last week said Washington would pursue deeper engagement with Myanmar's military rulers to try to spur democratic reform but will not ease sanctions for now.

While acknowledging economic sanctions had failed to bring about change in Myanmar, Clinton said Washington had concluded that it had to maintain them while enhancing its dialogue with the isolated Southeast Asian nation.

Myanmar plans next year to hold its first election in two decades, which the junta says will bring an end to almost five decades of unbroken military rule. Many analysts suspect the generals will still hold the real power.

On the 28th Sept. there was a 25 min. news conference on Burma at the State Department. Here's the video.

On Wednesday the State Department's Assistant Secretary of State for East Asian and Pacific Affairs Kurt Campbell will testify before the Senate sub-committee on Burma headed by Senator Webb -- a strong advocate of engagement.

Meanwhile, "During his meeting with Myanmar Prime Minister Thein Sein, Minister Yeo (Singapore foreign affairs min.) welcomed the shift in the positions of the US and the European Union towards engagement with Myanmar. Minister Yeo also said that the international community should take a longer term view and support Myanmar's political evolution."

Of course, supporting "Myanmar's political evolution" is easier said than done.
___
See also As US-Myanmar meeting begins, Burma tortures an American citizen

US citizen tortured in Burma

Jotman — Tue, 29 Sep 2009 16:59:00 -0700

The Assistance Association for Political Prisoners (Sept 28):

AAPP has documented the arrests of 36 activists in Burma, including three monks. Those arrested include well-known individual activist and US citizen Kyaw Zaw Lwin also known as Nyi Nyi Aung, detained on 3 September on his arrival at Rangoon International Airport. He was taken to various different interrogation centres where he was kicked and beaten, deprived of food for seven days, and questioned throughout the night. His request for medical treatment for his injuries has so far been denied.

Amnesty International (Sept 24)

Trusted sources have reported to Amnesty international that male activist Kyaw Zaw Lwin was tortured and suffered other ill-treatment whilst in detention in Insein Prison, Yangon, Myanmar’s main city. He was arrested in Yangon on 3 September. He has been denied medical treatment for the injuries he sustained from the torture he endured during interrogation. There are grave concerns about his health.

The torture and ill-treatment that Kyaw Zaw Lwin suffered in detention included beating and kicking. He was deprived of food for seven days and moved between different interrogation centres. He was not allowed to sleep at night and was kept awake during interrogation by the authorities. Details of the charges against him are not known.

Irrawady Sept. 25:

The New Light of Myanmar, the state-backed newspaper, reported in detail on Thursday on Nyi Nyi Aung’s arrest. The report included photographs of Nyi Nyi Aung, explosives and a satellite phone he was alleged to have had in his possession. The story described underground activities allegedly undertaken by Nyi Nyi Aung and connections between dissidents inside and outside Burma.

Amnesty International Press release Sept 26

Amnesty International: Sec. Clinton Needs to Act on Behalf of U.S. Citizen Arrested and Tortured in Burma.

"Secretary of State Hillary Clinton should immediately take steps to stop the torture and ill-treatment of a U.S. citizen arrested in Burma,” said T. Kumar, Amnesty International USA advocacy director for international issues. “In addition to his injuries and lack of treatment, Kyaw Zaw Lwin has also been deprived food for seven days.”

Secretary Clinton announced yesterday that the United States will begin to engage with high-level Burmese leaders to bring democracy to the nation and the release of the opposition leader, Aung San Suu Kyi. San Suu Kyi, a Nobel Peace Prize recipient, has been declared a prisoner of conscience by Amnesty International.

“This is the first test for the United States’ new policy of engagement,” said Kumar. “Amnesty International hopes that this new engagement also covers protecting human rights in Burma. If Secretary Clinton fails to act, there will be many questions about the United States’ latest strategy to end the oppression of the Burmese people

Jonathan Hulland, Huffington Post Sept. 29

As I write this, an American is being tortured in Burma. Yet little is being done by the United States to secure his release and few mainstream media outlets are covering his story. So why isn't more being done on Nyi Nyi Aung's behalf?

The last time I saw Nyi Nyi Aung (also known as Kyaw Zaw Lwin) was in June at an event in New York to commemorate the 64th birthday of Burmese democracy leader Aung San Suu Kyi. Nyi Nyi Aung was dressed in a crisp white collarless button-down shirt and a Burmese plaid sarong -- since 1988 the recognizable uniform of Burma's student democracy activists. Born in Burma, Nyi Nyi Aung fled the country following his participation in 1988's democracy protests. Since 1994, he's lived in the U.S. as a resident of suburban Maryland.

For the more than three-weeks since he was arrested at the airport, Nyi Nyi Aung has been a prisoner of a foreign regime. Yet Nyi Nyi Aung's name and face have yet to be beamed out on the evening news, nor has the State Department made an official appeal on his behalf. The White House also hasn't done a thing despite the fact that President Obama's is bound by law to take up Nyi Nyi Aung's case if it appears that the imprisonment is wrongful (remember Bill Clinton's trip to North Korea and Senator Webb's trip to Burma earlier this year?). So why isn't there more outrage and action at this American's appalling treatment by a ruthless dictatorship? One answer is that America's recent flirtation with torture has inured it to the torture of Americans themselves, but I can't and don't want to believe this.

A more likely answer lies with the U.S.'s recent decision to rethink its foreign policy on Burma. The tough "stick" sanctions policy, which has prevailed in Washington for over a decade and admittedly hasn't brought Burma closer to democracy, seems to be quickly giving way to a softer "carrots" engagement policy despite the regime's brutal response to the 2007 democracy protests and its pitiful failure to act after Cyclone Nargis ravaged Burma last year. This policy realignment kicked off last week in Washington, D.C. with a meeting between the State Department and Burma's foreign minister. Major General Nyan Win's visit to the capital was the first by a Burmese foreign minister in nine years because of a visa ban that had kept high-level members of the military junta from traveling in the U.S. The visa ban is law, but that didn't stop the Obama administration from waiving the ban -- no doubt the first of many controversial carrots to come.

For more about the meetings with Burma, see my previous post, "US to meet with Burma" For analysis of this issue, see "As US-Myanmar meeting begins, Burma tortures an American citizen."
____
Hat-tip: KyiMayKaung

Burma nuclear proliferation ring?

Jotman — Thu, 01 Oct 2009 05:29:00 -0700

Sentator Lugar, ranking member of the Committee on Foreign Relations of the US Senate, issued a statement for the hearing of the East Asian and Pacific Affairs Subcommittee of the Foreign Relations Committee. I am posting the most interesting part below.

The Obama Administration’s policy review includes reference to the growing North Korea-Burma relationship.

The United States has a responsibility to our friends and allies throughout Asia to oppose actively the possible proliferation of weapons of mass destruction to or from Burma.

Since I first discussed the troubling prospects of renewed ties between these two countries in 2004, the Foreign Relations Committee has repeatedly raised the issue of Burma’s growing relationship with North Korea with a wide array of U.S. Administration officials.

For example, we have questioned the basis for hundreds of Burmese officials going to Russia for technical education which included nuclear technology training. The number of persons travelling to Russia for specialized training seemed to be far beyond the number needed for the eventual operation of a nuclear reactor for medical research purposes, intended to be built by the junta with Russian government assistance.

Burma’s multiple uranium deposits, reports of uranium refining and processing plants, and it’s active nuclear program reportedly assisted by North Korea collectively point to reason for concern in a country whose officials resist transparency.

Dr. Sigfried Hecker, Director Emeritus of Los Alamos National Laboratory and now Co-Director of the Center for International Security and Cooperation at Stanford University recently wrote, "The A.Q. Khan network connected companies, individuals and front organizations into a dangerous proliferation ring. The revelations of the North Korean reactor in Syria, along with developments in Iran and Burma, appear to point toward a different type of proliferation ring --- one run by national governments, perhaps also assisted by other clandestine networks".

Senator Lugar is not listed as a member of the subcommittee that met, so the question of Burma's nuclear ambitions would appear to be of real concern to him. Interestingly, not a single Republican who is actually a member of the subcommittee bothered to attend the hearing on Burma. The hearing coincided with the announcement of a major change in US policy towards the regime.

Jotman was there, and live-blogged the meeting-- see here. And more to come.
__
Photo: By Jotman shows Burmese monks in the US Senate.

It mattered more than Burma

Jotman — Thu, 01 Oct 2009 17:37:00 -0700

What was it?

Jotman investigates.

Crackdown on Thailand-based Burmese dissidents

Jotman — Fri, 02 Oct 2009 04:23:00 -0700

The Irrawaddy reports (h/t Kyi May):

The arrests of Nyi Nyi Aung and Ko Htut were followed by crackdowns on Burmese dissidents in Burma and Thailand. . . .

In neighboring Thailand, the offices of several Burmese exile groups were raided by Thai police— including the Human Rights Education Institute of Burma, where Ko Htut used to work.

In Chiang Mai, 10 Burmese women activists were arrested and held in custody for several days. Other dissident groups closed their offices, and several remain shut in the Thai-Burmese border towns of Mae Sot and Sangkhlaburi according to dissident sources.

Sources reported that staff of Burma’s Bangkok Embassy are photographing activists attending demonstrations and other functions in Thailand.

Win Min, a Chiang Mai-based Burmese analyst, said a Burmese military attaché in Bangkok is active in requesting Thai security officials to harass Burmese opposition groups in exile.

Burmese opposition groups last faced close Thai scrutiny during the administration of former Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra. Many offices closed for several weeks, fearing official crackdowns.

The last paragraph is incorrect. There were major crackdowns on dissidents in Thailand as recently as Nov. 2007 -- long after Thaksin had been ousted. Irrawaddy did some commendable reporting on those crackdowns, but they happened under Thailand's interim government (elections were not held until Dec. 2007). At the time I blogged about Thailand's crackdown on the Burmese (see here and here):

Last week we learned that Thai agents are working to shut down pro-democracy news organizations operated by Burmese dissidents in exile. (The Irrawaddy, the source of this very report, is one of those groups that may be targeted by the Thai authorities). Since the brutal crackdown in September, Thailand appears to have placed a higher priority on supporting the Burmese junta in its crackdown than supporting the international community in its efforts to pressure the junta.

Any new pressure on dissident groups is a test for Thai PM Abhisit, who has an opportunity to demonstrate that his commitment to human rights goes beyond words. It's also a chance for Abhisit to prove that the Thai generals get their orders from Thailand's government, not Myanmar's wealthy junta..

As noted in the article, the crackdown comes in the wake of the arrest of Nyi Nyi Aung (aka Kyaw Zaw Lwin), an American citizen. The imprisonment and torture of Nyi Nyi coincided with the opening of new talks between Washington and Myanmar. Washington ought to insist that Thailand not make the arrest, imprisonment and torture of an American citizen a pretext for doing the junta's bidding.

Photo by Jotman.

Burmese slam US Senate hearing

Jotman — Fri, 02 Oct 2009 08:15:00 -0700

I have already reported my investigation into what I took to be the most disconcerting aspect of the recent US Senate hearing on US policy towards Burma.

But other concerns about the Senate hearing have been leveled by monks and activists.

The Venerable Ashin Candobhasacara (photo at right), Secretary of the International Burmese Monks Organizations (IBMO) wrote in testimony to Senator Jim Webb,

We are disappointed that neither monks nor members of Burma's democracy movement were invited to testify at the hearing, even though you claim that "you intend the comprehensive hearing to evaluate the effectiveness of US policy towards Burma." Your hearing will not be comprehensive without hearing the true aspirations of the people of Burma.

Having attended the meeting, it occurs to me that no mention was made by any speaker of the 2007 monks protests. As the gallery included more than a dozen Burmese monks -- including monks who had escaped Burma following the 2007 pro-democracy protests -- this glaring omission struck me as particularly unfortunate. Actually, that was embarrassing. (Though more disgraceful was the number of senators in attendance.)

Kyi May Kaung, a Burma scholar who also attended the recent hearing, wrote in a recent email:

Only Professor Williams among the witnesses spoke of gross human rights violations in Burma, saying "frankly, the (junta's) constitution is the worse I have ever read."

Williams is a well-known constitutional scholar based at Indiana University.

This provoked a loud guffaw from the back of the small room, which was packed.

Senator Webb [photo below] needs to have more people on his panels who are strong supporters of democracy in Burma, so as not to become another laughing stock.

He also needs to go to Rangoon and rescue Burmese-born US Citizen Kyaw Zaw Lwin who was arrested Sept 3 on arrival from Bangkok and has been tortured in prison. A living person is more important than World War II bones.

No mention was made by anyone at the Hearing about Kyaw Zaw Lwin's plight, which is a ramped up version of the sham trials of Daw Suu and Yettaw and is highly alarming -- in fact it is the junta thumbing its nose against US Government

Kyi May Kaung (Ph.D.)

In Kyi May Kaung's written statement for the Congressional records, she explained in further detail just how one-sided she perceived the meeting to have been. In her view, major stakeholders had not been invited to testify:

No representatives of Daw Aung San Suu Kyi, her lawyer Jared Genser, representatives of the National League for Democracy, or the NCGUB (the Exile Government, elected to their constituencies in Burma in the 1990 elections), Burmese refugees and dissidents, Burmese monk survivors of the 2007 Saffron Revolution, the US Campaign for Burma, scholars who have not advocated removing sanctions, representatives of major non-profits working for change in Burma, other stakeholders or known strong supporters of Aung San Suu Kyi.

Concerns of Burma's ethnic minorities

Jotman — Sat, 03 Oct 2009 07:19:00 -0700

The problem of governing one of the most ethnically diverse countries in the world needs to be addressed.

This is a quote from the written testimony of Saw David Taw, General Secretary Ethnic Nationalities Council (Union of Burma) to the recent Senate committee hearing. I thought his letter put the scope of Burma's ethnic issue into perspective.

It is the view of the Ethnic Nationalities Council (ENC) that democracy cannot flourish in Burma without resolving the question of how its constituent states relate to each other and to the national government. The military, democracy advocates and the ethnic nationalities need to agree on their vision for a future Burma. If this question is not resolved, the conflicts will continue and the development of democracy in Burma will be seriously hindered.

For the past twenty years, the conversation on US policy has been dominated by the issue of Daw Aung San Suu Kyi and the 1990 elections. While these are crucial matters, the equally important issue that lies at the heart of Burma’s problem, has been largely ignored. The complex problem of governing one of the most ethnically diverse countries in the world needs to be addressed.

The ethnic nationalities together make up 30-40% of the total population of Burma. The seven ethnic states bordering Bangladesh, India, China, Laos and Thailand make up 60% of the national territory. Many of the ethnic nationalities can also be found in large numbers in at least five of the seven administrative divisions of Burma. Furthermore, their close cousins can also be found numbering tens of millions across the borders in all the neighbouring countries. While military rule in lowland Burma is not conspicuous, the Burma Army in the ethnic states is an army of occupation. It controls the cities, towns and highways. In the contested highlands, it wages a war of terror against civilians in order to deny ethnic forces food, recruits, information and communication routes. This “Four Cuts” strategy has displaced at least a million villagers and sent hundreds of thousands of refugees and migrant workers into neighbouring countries.

Beginning in 1989, many of the ethnic groups agreed to ceasefires with the Burmese military in the hope of finding a political solution. But no political negotiations have taken place in the ensuing 20 years. And in spite of the ceasefire groups’ participation in the military’s National Convention, none of the constitutional recommendations made by the ethnic nationalities was accepted.

Today, ethnic-based parties that won parliamentary seats in the 1990 elections are in danger of being marginalized. Military operations against civilians in contested areas in the ethnic states have increased to reduce resistance to the 2010 elections. Ethnic ceasefire groups are also being threatened with military action unless they agree to come under the control of the Burmese military and agree to participate in elections that will legitimize military rule in Burma. . . .

Click here to read the whole letter, which goes on to make US policy recommendations.
___
Photo: by Jotman, shows kids from Shan State, which borders northern Thailand.

State of US -Burma relations

Jotman — Sun, 04 Oct 2009 17:21:00 -0700

This post is based on my own notes from the Senate hearing on US-Burma relations. It concerns the present state of bilateral relations. (For an overview of the hearing see, "Burma is not Vietnam." See also "Burmese slam Senate hearings" and "US Senate AWOL on Burma.")

Sen. Webb explained that in February the US State Department initiated a review of US policy towards Burma.

Deputy Sec. of State Kurt M Campbell explained hat he had just concluded talks with a Burma official "16 hours ago."

Campbell said that "we had heard quite clearly that the administration did not do a good enough job on consultation. Not just in terms of the executive, but also the legislative branch. I need to do a better job."

Campbell said a lot of people had been asking him, "'What do we do when the talks fail?' Campbell said his reply to this question is 'let's give talks a chance.'"

What common interests do the US and Burma share? Prof. Steinberg said that both "do not want the Balkanization of Burma." Nevertheless, he said the perception that the US supports separatists is counterproductive.

Prof. Steinberg said that Burma's isolation had allowed the military to build "a garrison state."

Webb poised the question: how much assistance does Burma receive from the US today? "After Cyclone Nagris, about $75 million. Also, substantial amounts going to border areas, refugees, and settlement issues."

Photo: by Jotman shows Dep. Sec. of State James Campbell. Monks in foreground.

How to fix Burma

Jotman — Tue, 06 Oct 2009 19:52:00 -0700

Five views.

Hor Namhong to UN: Cambodia vulnerable to climate change

Jotman — Sat, 03 Oct 2009 07:00:00 -0700

In a Sept. 26 press release, the Deptartment of Public Information of the United Nations General Assembly reported Namhong's statement to a plenary session.

JotASEAN has reprinted the entire press release as it relates to the Cambodian Deputy PM's remarks and highlighted the most important points.

HOR NAMHONG, Deputy Prime Minister of Cambodia, noted everyone’s concern with the considerable challenges that the world faced today, such as the current global economic and financial crisis, climate change, food and energy insecurity and the threats of terrorism and weapons of mass destruction proliferation. He hoped that the General Assembly’s deliberations would come up with new ideas to cope with all those global challenges.

There was no doubt that the present global economic and financial crisis would go down in history as a landmark case in the world’s economic meltdown, he said. That global crisis had clearly undermined the Millennium Development Goals. While the developed countries had more possibilities and resources to cope with the slowdown, the developing countries had suffered the most with a huge loss of national income as their economic growth was expected to fall sharply due to a drastic reduction in exports, which they had largely been dependent on, the falling of investment, the rising of unemployment, and so forth. In order to help mitigate the impact of that economic and financial disaster on developing countries, he was of the view that everything possible should be done to get the Doha Round of negotiations back on track for a successful conclusion, in order to break down barriers to trade and better market access, particularly in agricultural goods, and to reduce agricultural subsidies.

In that regard, Cambodia appreciated the commitment of the G-20 made in Pittsburgh to “bring the Doha Round to a successful conclusion in 2010”. At the same time, the Monterrey Consensus should be invigorated in order to help developing countries alleviate poverty and meet the Millennium Development Goals, he stressed.

Turning to climate change, which he described as another “serious threat to humanity”, the Cambodian Deputy Prime Minister noted that global warming had triggered more and more frequent cyclones, typhoons, extreme floods and droughts. The worsening impact of climate change had now reached an alarming level everywhere around the planet. According to the Asian Development Bank, South-East Asia would be the most affected region because of its geography of low-lying nations and long coastlines.

He said that, as far as Cambodia was concerned, being an essentially agrarian country with more than 80 per cent of its population whose livelihood depended on farming, the country was extremely vulnerable to weather-related calamities. Fully aware of vulnerability in that regard, the country had been assuming its share of responsibility towards global warming since 2003, and had made its utmost efforts to implement the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change and the Kyoto Protocol by promoting Clean Development Mechanism projects, as well as implementing the national adaptation programme of action on climate change. It had also launched a reforestation campaign. At the same time, while he commended recent promises by the G-8, he questioned whether such pledges could match the speed of global warming.

Parallel to all those serious global challenges facing the world today, there were still political and security problems of great concern, he pointed out. Terrorism had been threatening everywhere, causing deaths among the innocent. To fight terrorism more effectively, greater and closer cooperation was needed among the many authorities concerned in order to face up to those criminal activities against humanity. At the same time, he noted that there were countries that had the capacity to produce nuclear weapons that had not yet signed the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons. The dissemination of weapons of mass destruction constituted another massive deadly menace to humanity.

He also supported United Nations reform, which he said needed to go beyond just the restructuring of the Organization’s organs, in order to enable the world body to engage itself more actively to revitalizing its primary role in world affairs.

Photo: by JOTMAN/JotAsean shows Cambodian man.

Timor Leste's Xanana survives no-confidence vote

Jotman — Mon, 12 Oct 2009 03:40:00 -0700

AP reports:

East Timor's government survived a no-confidence vote Monday called after it released, at Indonesia's request, an alleged militia leader accused of orchestrating the slayings of women, children and priests in a church a decade ago.

The opposition Fretilin party put forward the motion in the parliament to protest Prime Minister Xanana Gusmao's Aug. 30 order to set Maternus Bere free. The U.N. has a warrant out for Bere, who is accused of crimes against humanity, including persecution, forced disappearances, torture, extermination and abduction.

Jakarta Post reported earlier:

The opposition Fretilin party put forward the motion in the house of representatives Monday to protest Prime Minister Xanana Gusmao's order to set free Maternus Bere on Aug. 30. The Supreme Court believes the move violated the constitution and has launched an investigation.

The article continues:

The case has become a test for the infant nation, highlighting the continuing challenge to establish an independent and viable judiciary after breaking from hundreds of years of colonialism in 2002.

If half the members present in the 65-seat body support the motion, the government will be dissolved and new elections ordered within three months in what could spark new instability. It appeared set for a close vote, with house members bitterly divided.

Matt (Lost Boy blog) has covered the lead-up to the censure motion (here, here, and here, etc.), and on Monday live-blogged events from the Timor Leste parliament.

... As far as I know, if the motion is passed, it means the president has the authority to dissolve the government. It doesn’t mean it happens automatically.

Xanana this morning said it was a “political decision for our good relationship with Indonesia” that Bere was released. We knew this already. The justice minister said the same thing a month ago.

It looks like it will be a close call whether the motion is passed. The debate is slated to go on until about 10 pm, but I don’t know if it will last that long. We’ll see.

Xanana is accepting responsibility for Bere’s release. We knew this also. The fact is, regardless of whose interests he acted in, the prime minister broke the law. Clearly something isn’t right because Bere is still in Dili. We always hear about how Xanana is a war hero, but perhaps it’s time for some fresh, young blood in the country’s leadership.

Fresh blood all around would be nice. We have a justice minister accused of every sin under the sun, a finance minister who gives jobs to her pals, a president who threatens to quit when he doesn’t get his way and… so on and so forth.

When will Timor Leste join ASEAN?

Jotman — Wed, 14 Oct 2009 03:18:00 -0700

I have heard, by way of an East Timor government source, that ASEAN will grow by one member in 2012.

There's no conscionable reason that Timor Leste should be kept out of a group that includes Mynamar.

Obama's Nobel Peace Prize: a Bangkok connection?

Jotman — Sat, 10 Oct 2009 12:27:00 -0700

Why did Norway award Obama the Nobel Peace on Friday? Bangkok may hold the key to this mystery.

Norway puts Canada to shame at Bangkok Climate Talks

Jotman — Sat, 10 Oct 2009 11:58:00 -0700

Dale Marshall from the Suzuki Foundation explains how.

More on the Bangkok Talks at Jotman.com.

US Vs China at the Bangkok Climate Talks

Jotman — Thu, 08 Oct 2009 15:48:00 -0700

Continued from this post.

The American negotiator,

forcefully outlined America's opposition to the Kyoto protocol. "We are not going to be in the Kyoto protocol. We are not going to be part of an agreement that we cannot meet. We say a new agreement has to [be signed] by all countries. Things have changed since Kyoto. Where countries were in 1990 and today is very different. We cannot be stuck with an agreement 20 years old. We want action from all countries."

Here's China's positition:

Yu Qingtai, China's special representative on climate talks, said rich countries should not desert the Kyoto agreement, which all industrialised countries except the US signed up to and was ratified in 2002 after many years of negotiations. It contains no requirement for developing countries to cut greenhouse gas emissions, as both their current and historical emissions are low in most cases.....

"The Kyoto protocol is not negotiable. We want [it] to be strengthened. We don't want to kill Kyoto. We really want a revival, a strengthening of the treaty. That can only be done by Annex I [industrialised] countries having a target of 40% cuts by 2020," said Yu.

The Guardian notes: "However, China, with its surging economy and rapidly expanding population is now the world's biggest polluter."

Isn't the way out of this impasse seems obvious? China and the developing world must commit to meeting clean energy targets, but the West should the lead the way in terms of reducing emissions. Is that too much too ask? The article continues:

The difference between the sides is now considered to threaten the success of the talks. In essence, the US is insisting on a completely new agreement, with all countries signed up and all countries free to choose and set their own targets and timetable. Most other countries want to keep the existing agreement as a basis for negotiations, to ensure that rich countries are held by international law to agreed cuts. China in particular wants cuts calculated on a per capita basis.

Don't these poor countries get it? The United States is not bound by international law to the extent other countries are bound. It's the task of Americans to help to write the laws for others (as it did in the case of Kyoto), and then lecture the rest of the world on their "delinquency" from time to time. (For example, the Obama Administration made it quite clear that the Geneva Conventions don't apply to the US. It is for other countries to prosecute their leaders for war crimes. Because when the US violates agreements, it always does so for good reason.)

The Guardian article continues:

Diplomats last night suggested that the only way out could be for the US to be asked to sign a separate agreement acceptable to developing countries, which would see it cutting emissions at a comparable speed to other countries.

The G77 countries are meeting to consider their oppositions. One diplomat said: "They are very angry. People have talked of walking out."

Waxman-Markey goes to the Finance Committee

Jotman — Thu, 08 Oct 2009 15:43:00 -0700

Robert Reich blogs about how so much sound and fury on capital hill can produce so little by way of helpful results.

. . . .environmental legislation is now slinking its way through Congress. The Waxman-Markey climate bill was passed by the House in June; John Kerry and Barbara Boxer have now released a Senate version. All four legislators claim to be progressives concerned about the environment, but the bills are, frankly, far short of what’s needed. Waxman-Markey gives away 85 percent of pollution permits to the nation’s biggest polluters, and the “cap” it proposes on overall carbon emissions would cut greenhouse gas emissions only by an estimated 2 to 4 percent by 2020 compared to the UN reference year of 1990. (If America was to play its appropriate role in a global climate deal, the reduction would be more like 40 percent, and the U.S. would also provide financing and technology so developing countries could reduce their emissions by a comparable amount.) The Kerry-Boxer bill has a stronger cap on emissions but it’s still far short of what’s necessary — and it leaves out the hardest part, which is the actual cap-and-trade mechanism. Kerry and Boxer are leaving that to the Senate Finance Committee, of all places.

The Finance Committee is dominated by "blue dogs" -- senators from small states who mainly represent the large corporations that fund their campaigns. Meanwhile, the US demonstrates global leadership at the Bangkok Climate Change Talks (just kidding, of course).

Bangkok climate change talks update

Jotman — Thu, 08 Oct 2009 02:32:00 -0700

Oxfam reports:

THURSDAY 8 OCTOBER 2009
The G77 and China are justifiably outraged about moves in Bangkok by rich countries to re-write cornerstones of the Bali Action Plan and the UN Climate Convention, international aid agency Oxfam said today.

“In Bangkok, not only have rich countries tried to change the rules of the game, but they’ve tried to change the game itself,” Oxfam’s senior climate adviser Antonio Hill said today.

“Developing countries are right to cry foul. It’s hard to see these moves as anything other than an attempt to weaken commitments that rich countries have made in past agreements.

“Fifteen years ago, rich countries agreed they would take the lead. In 2007 in Bali, they reaffirmed their commitments would be greater than developing countries and different in nature.

“Here in Bangkok, they are unpicking the threads of those agreements and trying to force the G77 and China to take actions that would be unfair considering the gaping hole in rich country commitments....

“The Bali Road Map set a clear path to Copenhagen. Rather than walking down the path together with developing countries, rich countries are now proposing a dangerous off-road excursion. ...

“What we needed to see in Bangkok was a debate between the US, Australia, Canada, Japan and the EU about what their respective efforts would be - their fair share of both finance and emissions reduction targets and whether they address the risks that the poorest people already face.

“Today, Norway has entered this debate and set a target of 40 per cent below 1990 levels, so we know what leadership looks like.”

Consistent with the Bali Action Plan, many developing countries are already doing their fair share by making significant steps to reduce emissions, and have signalled their willingness to discuss further action – provided that developed countries provided financial and technological support.

Mexico has already committed to halving its emissions by 2050. Despite facing huge development challenges, and with much of its population still living in poverty, China is a world leader in renewable energy investment, has committed to cutting emissions by a notable margin, and has offered support to help developing countries, including small island states and African nations, adapt to the impacts of climate change.

“The actions by rich countries over the past two weeks are even less acceptable given they are yet to deliver a serious offer on finance,” Mr Hill said. “Every time developed countries talk about further actions that China needs to take, they are shirking their own responsibilities.”

Bangkok climate talks reach an impass

Jotman — Tue, 06 Oct 2009 19:49:00 -0700

At the Bangkok Climate Change Talks, the developing world, led by China, wants Kyoto provisions strengthened. The Kyoto treaty, of course, had put the onus for cuts on first world countries.

The Telegraph:

Emerging giants such as China and other developing countries say the new agreement should strengthen Kyoto, under which 37 highly industrialised nations took on hard commitments for cutting carbon dioxide pollution between 2008 and 2012.

The United States signed the treaty in 1992 but never ratified it, and thus was exempt from its provisions.

In Bangkok, several nations - notably the US, Australia and Japan - have floated proposals calling for an approach in which each country would make its own national commitments.

These would be measurable and verifiable, but outside any kind of internationally enforceable compliance regime.

Rich nations have suggested that poorer countries, which had no Kyoto obligations, could make efforts to curb carbon dioxide output in keeping with their level of development under such a scheme.

Instead, China called for beefing up Kyoto, which could exist along with whatever other measures might be adopted at the climate conference in Copenhagen.

Meanwhile:

Carol Browner, Barack Obama's energy adviser, admitted that the US senate would probably not vote on its global warming bill before the talks in Copenhagen, seriously limiting the US president's ability to commit to new plans at the summit.

That's a real let down. More about the impass at The Nation, which reports on the China delegation's frustration:

"Two months to Copenhagen and we are not making any progress in Bangkok," Chinese ambassador Yu Qingtai, who is special representative to the UN's climate-change talks said yesterday.

"The fundamental reason is the lack of political will from the 36 Annex I countries to make progress," he added. [Annex 1 countries include most OECD member states, central and eastern Europe countries and the Commonwealth of Independent States ]

Four key issues for a Copehagen Agreement

Jotman — Mon, 05 Oct 2009 05:02:00 -0700

The Copenhagen agreement must focus on four key issues (Nation):

The first is clarity on the mid-term emission reduction targets that industrialised countries will commit to.

Second, there must be clarity on the actions that developing countries could undertake to limit their greenhouse gas emissions.

Third, it must define stable and predictable financing to help the developing world reduce greenhouse gas emissions and adapt to the inevitable effects of climate.

And finally, it must identify institutions that will allow technology and finance to be deployed in a way that treats developing countries as equal partners in the decision-making process.

For an update on the Bangkok Climate Change Talks see this post.

Water Conundrum

Jotman — Wed, 30 Sep 2009 18:06:00 -0700

NYT:

Here is an inconvenient truth about renewable energy: It can sometimes demand a huge amount of water. Many of the proposed solutions to the nation’s energy problems, from certain types of solar farms to biofuel refineries to cleaner coal plants, could consume billions of gallons of water every year.

Charity never fails, but just in case...

Jotman — Wed, 30 Sep 2009 02:17:00 -0700

JOTMAN.COM on 30.10.07 as Strange Burma Story - Part I

Johan Rockström: 9 Planetary Boundaries

Jotman — Sat, 26 Sep 2009 17:40:00 -0700

Scientists hope identifying and quantifying planetary boundaries "that must not be transgressed" could keep humans from wrecking the climate any further.

A new study published in Science argues:

To avoid catastrophic environmental change, humanity must stay within defined 'planetary boundaries' for a range of essential, and interlinked, Earth-system processes, argues a Feature article in this week's Nature. The authors warn that the maximum acceptable limit has been passed for climate change, species loss and the nitrogen cycle, and is nearing for three more processes.

What are the boundaries? These are the nine:

climate change rate
biodiversity loss (terrestrial and marine)
interference with the nitrogen and phosphorus cycles
stratospheric ozone depletion
ocean acidification
global freshwater use
change in land use
chemical pollution
atmospheric aerosol loading

The authors write, "The boundaries in three systems (rate of biodiversity loss, climate change and human interference with the nitrogen cycle), have already been exceeded." I've highlighted these in red.

Why is this concept useful? "There are at least three reasons for our proposed climate boundary."

First, current climate models may significantly underestimate the severity of long-term climate change for a given concentration of greenhouse gases¹². Most models¹¹ suggest that a doubling in atmospheric CO₂ concentration will lead to a global temperature rise of about 3 °C (with a probable uncertainty range of 2–4.5 °C) once the climate has regained equilibrium. But these models do not include long-term reinforcing feedback processes that further warm the climate, such as decreases in the surface area of ice cover or changes in the distribution of vegetation. If these slow feedbacks are included, doubling CO₂ levels gives an eventual temperature increase of 6 °C (with a probable uncertainty range of 4–8 °C). This would threaten the ecological life-support systems that have developed in the late Quaternary environment, and would severely challenge the viability of contemporary human societies.
The second consideration is the stability of the large polar ice sheets. Palaeoclimate data from the past 100 million years show that CO₂ concentrations were a major factor in the long-term cooling of the past 50 million years. Moreover, the planet was largely ice-free until CO₂ concentrations fell below 450 p.p.m.v. (100 p.p.m.v.), suggesting that there is a critical threshold between 350 and 550 p.p.m.v. (ref. 12). Our boundary of 350 p.p.m.v. aims to ensure the continued existence of the large polar ice sheets.
Third, we are beginning to see evidence that some of Earth's subsystems are already moving outside their stable Holocene state. This includes the rapid retreat of the summer sea ice in the Arctic ocean¹³, the retreat of mountain glaciers around the world¹¹, the loss of mass from the Greenland and West Antarctic ice sheets¹⁴ and the accelerating rates of sea-level rise during the past 10–15 years¹⁵.

How much will Waxman-Markey cost taxpayers?

Jotman — Fri, 25 Sep 2009 12:34:00 -0700

Krugman:

It’s important, then, to understand that claims of immense economic damage from climate legislation are as bogus, in their own way, as climate-change denial. Saving the planet won’t come free (although the early stages of conservation actually might). But it won’t cost all that much either.

How do we know this? First, the evidence suggests that we’re wasting a lot of energy right now. That is, we’re burning large amounts of coal, oil and gas in ways that don’t actually enhance our standard of living — a phenomenon known in the research literature as the “energy-efficiency gap.” The existence of this gap suggests that policies promoting energy conservation could, up to a point, actually make consumers richer.

Second, the best available economic analyses suggest that even deep cuts in greenhouse gas emissions would impose only modest costs on the average family. Earlier this month, the Congressional Budget Office released an analysis of the effects of Waxman-Markey, concluding that in 2020 the bill would cost the average family only $160 a year, or 0.2 percent of income. That’s roughly the cost of a postage stamp a day.

By 2050, when the emissions limit would be much tighter, the burden would rise to 1.2 percent of income. But the budget office also predicts that real G.D.P. will be about two-and-a-half times larger in 2050 than it is today, so that G.D.P. per person will rise by about 80 percent. The cost of climate protection would barely make a dent in that growth. And all of this, of course, ignores the benefits of limiting global warming ...

Airplane cabin air quality is about to improve

Jotman — Wed, 23 Sep 2009 02:46:00 -0700

Recently there have been reports that on some flights, toxic jet engine oil fumes have leaked into aircraft cabins, poisoning susceptible passengers. An expert interviewed by New Scientist observed: "Compressed air is routinely drawn off engines and...

Jellyfish population has exploded in the Sea of Japan

Jotman — Sat, 19 Sep 2009 11:34:00 -0700

Japan Probe:

The jellyfish originate in the Yellow Sea and the East China Sea. No one is entirely sure of why the giant jellyfish population is increasing, but it has been argued that global warming or Chinese pollution has killed off some of their natural predators, allowing them to grow to an enormous size before leaving Chinese waters and heading into the Sea of Japan.

Spirits on the Washington Mall

Jotman — Wed, 16 Sep 2009 04:09:00 -0700

Apart from color correction, no photo manipulation. If the spots were not added to the image, where did they come from?

The case for a Border Carbon Adjustment tax

Jotman — Fri, 11 Sep 2009 15:21:00 -0700

First the United States Congress, and now the President of France is talking about instituting border carbon tax regimes to win domestic political support for cap and trade. These taxes could seriously impact goods from developing countries such as China.

In a report for the IISD entitled Border Carbon Adjustment Aaron Cosbey (Pdf) wrote:

One policy option that has been repeatedly proposed to deal with such challenges is border carbon adjustment(BCA),2 a trade measure that would try to level the playing field between domestic producers facing costly climate change measures and foreign producers facing very few.While a BCA could conceivably work in conjunction with any number of domestic climate change regimes, it has been proposed to date as a companion to either a domestic carbon tax or a cap-and-trade scheme. In the case of a carbon tax, a BCA would charge imported goods the equivalent of what they would have had to pay had they been produced domestically, in the manner of a border tax adjustment. Such a scheme might also rebate the paid tax to exporters, ensuring that they are not disadvantaged in international markets. In the case of a cap-and-trade scheme, a BCA would force domestic importers or foreign exporters of goods to buy emission permits based on the amount of carbon emitted in the production process, in a requirement analogous to that faced by domestic producers.

BCAs have typically been touted as means to address competitiveness concerns, as noted above. They might play at least two other useful roles. One is to avoid what is known as carbon leakage. That is, if strong domestic action causes firms to relocate to other countries, or to lose market share to those countries, then the emission reduction achieved at home is simply offset to some extent by an increase in emissions abroad. The fear in fact is that they will be more than offset, as production moves to low-standard jurisdictions. While it is closely related to competitiveness, carbon leakage is a distinct concern, focusing on the effectiveness of environmental policy. A final justification for a BCA is that it might act as an effective threat to encourage developing countries to take on hard commitments in the climate change negotiations—in the manner of trade sanctions, or threats of trade sanctions.

Such taxes appear to be perfectly legitimate under WTO rules. As Columbia University Economics Professor Joseph Stiglitz has noted, "Not paying the cost of damage to the environment is a subsidy, just as not paying the full costs of workers would be."

Nevertheless, I believe that -- as border carbon adjustments can be perceived to constitute "a threat" they should instituted as a last resort, not an integral part of the architecture of the early preliminary efforts at legislating Cap and Trade by the West.

What is black carbon?

Jotman — Thu, 03 Sep 2009 18:52:00 -0700

Wikipedia:

Black carbon is a potent climate forcing agent, estimated to be the second largest contributor to global warming after carbon dioxide (CO2). Because black carbon remains in the atmosphere only for a few weeks, reducing black carbon emissions may be the fastest means of slowing climate change in the near-term.

NY Times:

In fact, reducing black carbon is one of a number of relatively quick and simple climate fixes using existing technologies — often called “low hanging fruit” — that scientists say should be plucked immediately to avert the worst projected consequences of global warming.

Report of the IGSD (pdf):

New and Stronger Efforts Are Needed to Address Black Carbon

New and stronger efforts are needed to address Black Carbon, at all levels, from local to international. An initial list of options at the international and regional level includes:
Developing a treaty under UNEP.
Expanding the post-2012 UN climate treaty.
Developing a regional arrangement under the Arctic Council.
Establishing specially protected areas to restrict shipping in the Arctic and other areas sensitive to Black Carbon’s change in albedo.
Expanding and strengthening controls on shipping under the Int’l Maritime Organization.
Expanding and strengthening controls on aviation under the Int’l Civil Aviation Organization
Expanding and strengthening controls on stationary and mobile sources under the Convention on Long-range Transboundary Air Pollution.
Building on the existing national laws noted below in the discussion on compliance, there are many options at the national and local level to develop new and stronger laws to address Black Carbon. These laws can be pursued by parliamentarian groups such as GLOBE, as well as by national lawmaking bodies. In addition, there are other policy processes that can be used t address black carbon immediately, including:
Using World Bank Climate Investment Fund to help reduce Black Carbon.
Emphasizing climate benefits and other synergies of reducing Black Carbon with the World
Health Organization’s efforts to reduce indoor air pollution and improve the health of women and children.
Emphasizing importance of Black Carbon for achieving Millennium Development Goals.
Pursuing and accounting for the benefits of Black Carbon in the World Summit for
Sustainable Development’s (WSSD) efforts to provide access for the poor to clean energy resources.
One important outcome of the WSSD was UNEP’s Partnership for Clean Fuels and Vehicles, which has facilitated the transition to unleaded fuels and is now focusing expanding the availability of ultralow sulfur diesel (ULSD) fuel.97 This fuel not only lowers sulfur emissions, leading to less overall air pollution, but also allows the most effective particulate emissions control technologies to be used.

How to stop climate change

Jotman — Tue, 01 Sep 2009 04:11:00 -0700

What does the news media -- and the rest of us -- need to know about climate change? I listened to Shell Oil Chairman Jorma Ollila and UC Santa Barbara professor of environmental economics Charles Kolstad respond to this question in Helsinki. In his prepared statement Jorma Ollila said the developed world must develop the appropriate "policies and incentives" and "lead by example." Ollila and Kolstad both called for a cap and trade system, discussing what it will cost to do this the right way. They explained why governments must provide R&D incentives to bring renewable energy from lab to the marketplace and why innovation happens so slowly in the energy sector. Alarmingly, Ollila noted that investment in renewables is now falling.

The 12 most important items to pack

Jotman — Tue, 25 Aug 2009 10:09:00 -0700

My habits of travel have evolved -- not always for the better. I started out as a big believer in packing light, carrying only a small pack on my first trip to Europe. Over the years I came up with excuses to carry more things. A moderately...

US capital: sculpture garden jazz

Jotman — Sat, 15 Aug 2009 07:00:00 -0700

Sculptures really seem to come alive when the people crowd among them.After work Friday thousands of Washingtonians headed to the sculpture garden at the National Museum of Art on the Mall. Every bench or patch of open grass occupied, people found...

Carbon emissions by region

Jotman — Fri, 10 Jul 2009 04:27:00 -0700

Check out the yellow line in the chart (Eastern Europe). InBalance has a good post about its significance in the global climate change debate.

Duty-free scam at Bangkok airport

Jotman — Wed, 22 Jul 2009 02:11:00 -0700

The Danish embassy has posted a warning about a scam at Bangkok's Suvarnabhumi International Airport. The conspiracy may implicate the country's largest duty-free shop (King Power) and the Thai police (hat-tip David):Be careful if you shop in...

Turkish shoe-shine scam

Jotman — Tue, 07 Jul 2009 22:43:00 -0700

It's one area of travel that you read far too little about, but that can really negatively impact the best-planned trip.It's not a sophisticated scam, but on a recent visit to Istanbul I encountered a ubiquitous scam among fake shoe-shine boys --...

Green ethic integral to Nordic countries' economic success

Jotman — Wed, 08 Jul 2009 16:40:00 -0700

At the IPI World Congress in Helsinki, Pär Nuder, former Minister of Finance for Sweden said he would explain the success of Nordic countries in six or seven points:

Open economies. Free traders in his genes. Free trade key since “back when”. No other countries -- except perhaps Netherlands -- have so many well-known international brands. Part of Nordic culture to be free traders.
Social democratic system. I believe in strong public finances. Much fight deficits and high inflation.
Human capital investment. Invest in people through education and R&D. We know we have to compete with more R&D.
Inclusive workforce. Natural conclusion. If you want a sustainable society, must mobilize whole work force, including women. Highest female participation in the labor force. World’s most generous parental leave. One percent of GDP (spent on childcare) delivers highest female participation in labor.
Green ethic. Back in the early 90s we introduced a CO2 tax. We lowered tax on labor, raised it on emissions.
Cooperation. Eternal conflict between work and capital. We are too small, we concluded to have labor conflicts. Our countries are very vulnerable to lack of peace on labor market, so we need organized, responsible, labor unions. We have social bridges for people to walk on. These social bridges mean that more people willing to accept the often painful adjustments of global market capitalism. You can have world's highest taxes if they promote not only equality and safety, but high growth. These could be adopted by other countries.

I had not known about point number five, the "green ethic." To think these guys had a CO2 tax back in the early 90s! Brilliant.

Read the whole panel discussion here.

Research and development for commercializing alternative energy

Jotman — Wed, 08 Jul 2009 06:45:00 -0700

At the IPI World Congress in Helsinki Jorma Ollila, who serves as chairman of both Royal Dutch Shell and Nokia, stressed the need for the right government policies and incentives. Ollila said:

. . . we need government support for changes. Government support is critical over the course of next decade -- to deploy by 2020s. We have it in the lab, we do not have commercial projects. This process is not viable without the right kind of government support.

Looking at the Obama government's actions, related to the stimulus package: I see significant and commendable R&D support. Europe took some significant decision earlier this spring -- the US will go there too I understand.

Charles Kolstad of UC Santa Barbara addressed the question as to whether government or the private sector ought to conduct research and development aimed at the commercialization of alternative energy technologies:

Charles Kolstad: Price of carbon will have an impact. Without a price of carbon it's hard to get behavior change. In terms of R&D, we have not been successful in many areas. Compact florescent light bulb is most effective success of the past 30 yrs. Govt R&D succeeds best when the horizon is far away. When it comes to consumer technologies evidence isn't there (that governments can drive innovation).

See the full text of Charles Kolstad's talk (Pdf).

The IPI panel on climate change also included Ali Sayigh of the World Renewable Energy Network (WREN). It was moderated by Curtis Brainard of the Columbia Journalism Review. Jotman live-blogged the entire panel discussion -- see "Technology and innovation: Climate change Rx?"

___
* "The International Press Institute is a global network of editors, media executives and leading journalists . . . dedicated to the furtherance and safeguarding of press freedom, the protection of freedom of opinion and expression, the promotion of the free flow of news and information, and the improvement of the practices of journalism."

Carbon credits: Is the US about to repeat EU's mistake?

Jotman — Wed, 08 Jul 2009 03:24:00 -0700

In a perfect world, "cap and trade" and tax amount to the same thing. The question is, which system addresses the real world better? Industry prefers a cap and trade system to tax for two reasons. First, for SO2 reduction you can buy SO2 certificates. It works well. (Though implementation so far it has been confined and small). The system that was first implemented in Europe proved to have been too liberal in allocating certificates. Some "stupid Euro system" talk resulted in the US media. Second, the only problem with tax is that it is hard to do politically.

- Jorma Ollila, Chairman of Royal Dutch Shell, speaking in Helsinki, statement from the IPI panel discussion live-blogged by Jotman

How did Europe make a mess of cap and trade? Is the US about to make the same mistake? Peter Fairely discusses the European cap and trade debacle in the Jul/Aug issue of MIT's Technology Review:

In theory, limiting the supply of the pollution allowances helps to establish a price for the emission of carbon dioxide. That, in turn, is meant to provide industrial manufacturers and power producers with financial incentives to develop cleaner technologies. The reality has played out very differently, however. A glut of pollution credits, distributed without cost during both the first, transitional phase of the program and the current working phase, drove down the value of the EUAs. As a result, Europe's carbon dioxide emissions remain priced well below 20 euros per ton. With the price of pollution so low, economists say, industries that generate and consume energy have no incentives to change their habits; it is still cheaper to use fossil fuels than to switch to technologies that pollute less.

The article examines the failure of the EU's approach:

in May 2006, EUAs plummeted in value, to less than 15 euros. After recovering briefly in the summer of 2006, EUA futures settled at close to zero for the remainder of the trial phase. Emissions data released in May 2008 revealed that European states, relying on unreliable emissions estimates and under pressure from various industries, had handed out EUAs for 6,321 million tons of carbon dioxide during the first phase, exceeding total actual emissions during the period by 107 million tons.
Global recession is now undermining the second phase of the trading system, which started last year. The European Union set the cap for the 2008-2012 period at 6.5 percent lower than the cap for the trial period. Trading volumes initially exploded, according to Point Carbon. But the rally proved short-lived. The EUA price slid to an average of just 11 euros in the first quarter of 2009, as manufacturing slowed in the face of the recession.
The faltering trading scheme may be doing real harm. Free permits and weak carbon pricing have rewarded the heaviest carbon polluters while hurting Europe's consumers. Most EU states gave extra allowances to heavy industries such as cement and steel, because they didn't want to threaten the manufacturers' international competitiveness; by the same logic, states gaverelatively few allowances to producers of electricity, a commodity that must be generated close to consumers and thus is not forced into global competition.

The next part makes a lot of sense. If you give polluting industries something of long-term value for free, then you should offer the same give-away to non-polluting companies. Otherwise, the state discriminates against those who have invested in alternative energy:

But consumers aren't the only ones penalized by the trading scheme and its process of handing out EUAs. Power producers using relatively clean technology are also suffering. Perversely, coal-heavy utilities with the highest emissions benefit the most from carbon trading, since most states allot them more EUAs. This gives them an unfair advantage over producers generating power with natural gas or renewable sources, which release less carbon.

It seems to me that ideally, carbon credits would be distributed to every citizen. Citizens could then sell these credits to companies An equally fair but more efficient way to achieve the same ends would be for the government to auction off the credits, and then send rebate checks to taxpayers. This approach would help compensate citizens for any price increases resulting from the carbon tax (carbon trading, essentially being a tax on industry).

If any carbon trading scheme is to have an effect on climate change, carbon emissions have to be expensive:

How much higher? Surveys of business leaders suggest that they will not seriously reconsider the way they use energy until the price of carbon exceeds 30 euros per ton. The late Dennis Anderson, a professor of energy and environmental studies at London's Imperial College, concluded in 2007 that significant change will come only when carbon prices "move to the upper end" of a range that he put at 40 to 80 euros per ton. Anderson estimated that the 40-euro threshold would have to be met to make onshore wind farms and nuclear power a better investment than natural-gas or coal-fired power plants, while prices would have to approach 80 euros to make carbon capture and storage worthwhile. Even higher prices would be needed to make solar and offshore wind economical.

Economists at the International Energy Agency have recently calculated that holding global warming to a reasonable level would require an annual investment of $1.1 trillion per year. And it would require a $200 per ton price on carbon, said the IEA, to drive the necessary innovation.

The US does not appear to be headed in the right direction. It does not seem to be learning from Europe's mistake:

The U.S. bill, as it stood at press time, proposes to cut emissions to 17 percent below 2005 levels by 2020--essentially taking the U.S. back to (rather than much below) 1990 levels. And, as with Europe's trading system, a mix of offsets and renewable-energy mandates threatens to further undermine the carbon price. Analysts project U.S. carbon prices at a meager $15 to $20 per ton in 2020--barely a 10th of the price called for by the IEA. Most allowances, meanwhile, will be distributed without charge, despite the risk of windfall-profit taking and perverse market incentives. That move will also deprive President Barack Obama of revenues needed to fund the $150 billion, 10-year program of clean-energy R&D outlined in his 2010 budget proposal.

The prevailing wisdom among supporters of the Waxman-Markey bill is that Congress, wary of putting energy-intensive industries at risk, won't pass anything stronger. Best to get a carbon price established in the U.S. economic system now, supporters say, and tighten the system later. But this cap-and-trade scheme could be weak enough to send a dangerously wrong signal to financial markets looking to invest in new energy technologies. If you have any doubts about that, just take a look at the EU.

Can the dysfunctional US political system be expected to accomplish anything worthwhile?

Why has technology advanced so slowly in the energy sector?

Jotman — Wed, 08 Jul 2009 05:05:00 -0700

At the International Press Institute* World Congress in Helsinki, Royal Dutch Shell Chairman Jorma Ollila explained that there was no "overnight" solution to the climate change crisis. Ollila is well qualified to address this subject, as I blogged previously:

There has been a lot of optimism -- especially in the US about the possibility of solving the climate change crisis with technology. Today's panel discussion focused on how this can be made to happen; on how technology can make for a green future. But this process will invariably take time. More time, in fact, than most people with a technology background who think about the problem tend to realize at first.

Longer, for example, than someone like Ollila had assumed when he first arrived at Shell. Ollila, it so happens, came to Shell from the telecom industry, where innovation happens in the blink of an eye. Today Ollila serves not only as chairman of Shell, but also heads Nokia. It's a clearly a testimony to the perceived importance of technology to the energy industry that Shell brought a former Nokia executive to the helm. Speaking with Ollila after the presentation he told me, "Shell has long been the most technologically-driven of the big oil companies." He added, "Shell invests 50% more in renewable technologies than any other big oil company."

The discussion might not have touched on this critical theme to such an extent were it not for an excellent question posed by Simon Li, formerly of the LA Times:

Simon K.C. Li: The Nokia/Shell gentleman is talking about success by 2050. Forty years! Now, if we look back forty years, observe how technology has changed our lives in portions of that period, say the last 20 years. Why in this matter do we project such slow technological change? First mobile phones cost $$$$, now same mobile phone costs $ -- for tiny phones! What is it about this kind of R&D that makes it so much slower; why must it take so much longer with respect to the energy sector?

Jorma Ollila: I asked this myself when I entered Shell from Nokia. It took a while. You have Moore's law in effect in telecom. When that exponentially kicks in you can do wonders with the products. But the energy laws of thermodynamics limit what you can do in this other area. Nobody can figure out how to get around these. Mr. Chu (scientist who is new US energy secretary) can do a good job, but he hasn't been able to go around these laws.

Bill Gates was saying to me that it's not a problem; that the sun radiates 18,000 times more energy than what we consume. But we can't figure out how to do it cheaply. Bill Gates became interested. So are many others. The Google founders are funding venture work in renewable energy. It's an intriguing problem for them.

Later in the discussion, Ollila made this remark:

Jorma Ollila: So where are we? With respect to biofuels? Wind? Solar? When will they be significant?

Today 80 percent of energy is carbon-based. (And if all goes as planned) we will only be down to 70-75 percent by 2030. However, by 2050 renewable would account for much more -- the renewables really kick in around then.

Another explanation for the slow progress is lack of investment. As Ollila pointed out -- during another segment of the talk (see here) -- investment in alternative energy is now declining!

Ollila noted that another obstacle to more a rapid reduction of carbon emissions is billions of dollars of investment tied-up in existing infrastructure and durable goods.

Jorma Ollila: Pace of change is limited by the trillions of dollars tied up in US capital investments. For example, a car lasts 20 years. A power plants last 40 years. To speed up the pace of change would mean premature scrapping of capital investments. In the recent Shell Energy Scenarios, that is. [Jotman: presumably, by scrapping investments prematurely you waste a certain amount of energy].

Concurring with Ollila, environmental economist Charles Kolstad of UC Santa Barbara agreed that the new alternative energy technologies that can save the planet would take years to emerge. However, the the bright side of such a gradual shift is that the transition that lies ahead need not be painful:

Allow me to close with the old "frog in water story" in which the frog is slowly brought to boil, but told differently (positively). If we slowly increase the pressure to reduce carbon, we will find ourselves in new world and not even miss old world.

Being speedy and in a hurry will increase costs. Don't prematurely phase-out infrastructure. [Jotman: I guess because it costs so much energy to produce the new infrastructure.... I suppose that's the calculation].

As for the economics: it will not be cheap or easy; but doable, and considering magnitude of the risks, justified.

The IPI panel discussion on climate change also included Ali Sayigh of the World Renewable Energy Network (WREN), and Curtis Brainard of the Columbia Journalism Review. Jotman live-blogged the entire panel discussion. See "Technology and innovation: Climate change Rx?"
___
* "The International Press Institute is a global network of editors, media executives and leading journalists . . . dedicated to the furtherance and safeguarding of press freedom, the protection of freedom of opinion and expression, the promotion of the free flow of news and information, and the improvement of the practices of journalism."

Shell Chairman Jorma Ollila on climate change

Jotman — Tue, 07 Jul 2009 14:20:00 -0700

I was present when Jorma Ollila, who serves as chairman of both Royal Dutch Shell and Nokia, spoke to delegates attending the IPI World Congress in Helsinki in early June 2009. In this post, I present my "jots" from Orilla's prepared statement. I was struck by Ollila's unequivocal support for meaningful action at the policy level. Ollila delivered a concise statement that reduced a complicated issue down to several key points. I thought his statement worth thinking about.

I live-blogged the entire panel discussion (see here) which included a lively question and answer session. The other panelists included Charles Kolstad of UC Santa Barbara; Ali Sayigh of WREN, and moderator Curtis Brainard of Columbia University.

Jorma Ollila: I will address the question as to whether it is possible to decarbonize in a viable way.

I will assume technological innovations can be successful. Let's assume that is the case. I'm clearly not wanting to minimize the vast challenges that lie ahead. In fact, the more daunting challenge is to manage how we produce energy and allow a raise in living standards.

Developed economies have used up the atmosphere's capacity to absorb CO2; now developing countries are entering a phase where their need for energy is becoming intensive.

Let's acknowledge three truths:
The demand for energy will continue to surge.
Energy supply will struggle to keep pace.
There will be increasing climate stress based on the current consumption pattern.
We need to obtain as much energy as possible from renewable sources -- and more. We need to strive toward fewer emissions in a "business as usual" pattern. Business-as-usual means that emissions would double by 2050. But in reality we can't continue to consume more than the current level. An 80 percent reduction from current levels is a reasonable goal. Thus, these two alternatives lie ahead. One is socially and morally unacceptable.

Therefore, policies and incentives must be put forward so we get it right.

Firstly, we need a cap and trade system that a puts a cost on emissions, that credibly commits us to a path of energy reductions by creating incentives to cut emissions.

Second, we need government support for changes. Government support is critical over the course of next decade -- to deploy by 2020s. We have it in the lab, we do not have commercial projects. This process is not viable without the right kind of government support.

Looking at the Obama government's actions, related to the stimulus package: I see significant and commendable R&D support. Europe took some significant decision earlier this spring -- the US will go there too I understand.

The points are mutually reinforcing, not exclusive. Emissions caps will become more popular as costs get reduced of meeting caps.

In addition to policy angle, there is a geopolitical angle: significant change with regards to emerging markets. Advanced economies must lead by example. This will necessitate resource transfers from developing to emerging markets. But transfers from govt to govt are problematic. Consider the position of a US political leader who proposed such a transfer. He would face political problems.

Cap and trade is a politically feasible way to make the transfers. CDM is a license to do arbitrage -- create opportunities between developed and developing economies. [Jotman: Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) "is an arrangement under the Kyoto Protocol allowing industrialised countries to invest in projects that reduce emissions in developing countries as an alternative to more expensive emission reductions in their own countries."] HFC reduction projects, for example. [Jotman: "by destroying the HFCs factories can earn carbon credits"]

Pace of change is limited by the trillions of dollars tied up in US capital investments. For example, a car lasts 20 years. A power plants last 40 years. To speed up the pace of change would mean premature scrapping of capital investments. In the recent Shell Energy Scenarios, that is. [Jotman: presumably, by scrapping investments prematurely you waste a certain amount of energy].

Blueprints: The projected climate outcome would require stabilization at 650ppm in the second half of century. Renewable energy would consist of about 60% of energy. CCS on all new power plants 2020 (West) and elsewhere (2030). That's based on Shell and MIT modeling. Clearly we need this kind of scenario at a minimum. We need better, but we face severe constraints.

Hence the need to increase pace of policy reform.

Ollila also responded to questions from the audience. See my post Technology and innovation: Climate change Rx?

Why cap and trade is preferable to carbon tax

Jotman — Wed, 08 Jul 2009 05:05:00 -0700

It's the politics. At the International Press Institute* World Congress in Helsinki, Royal Dutch Shell Chairman Jorma Ollila, Charles Kolstad of UC Santa Barbara, and Ali Sayigh of the World Renewable Energy Network (WREN), addressed the question as to which was preferable, cap and trade or a carbon tax:

Question: There is talk about the "green paradox." [Jotman: The "green paradox" says that "policies of lowering carbon demand may aggravate rather than alleviate climate change"] Some areas using more energy, even as others use less. Do we need new taxation or market system to make greenhouse gas reduction more effective? [Jotman: i.e. should there be a carbon tax?]

Charles Kolstad: The green paradox, tax-wise, is that if you tax, producers could reduce the price of oil. Cap and trade gives you insurance on such price reductions by producers.

Jorma Ollila: In a perfect world, "cap and trade" and tax amount to the same thing. The question is, which system addresses the real world better? Industry prefers a cap and trade system to tax for two reasons. First, for SO2 reduction you can buy SO2 certificates. It works well. (Though implementation so far it has been confined and small). The system that was first implemented in Europe proved to have been too liberal in allocating certificates. Some "stupid Euro system" talk resulted in the US media. Second, the only problem with tax is that it is hard to do politically.

Ali Sayigh: A reward system is preferable than tax or punishment. Politicians can't be counted on, we need the media to educate the public.

These remarks were made during the IPI panel discussion on climate change, moderated by Curtis Brainard of the Columbia Journalism Review. Jotman live-blogged the entire panel discussion. See "Technology and innovation: Climate change Rx?"
___
* "The International Press Institute is a global network of editors, media executives and leading journalists . . . dedicated to the furtherance and safeguarding of press freedom."

How much will it cost to cap CO2 emissions?

Jotman — Wed, 08 Jul 2009 06:30:00 -0700

At the International Press Institute* World Congress in Helsinki in early June, Charles Kolstad, Professor of Environmental Economics and Policy, Donald Bren School of Environmental Science and Management, UC Santa Barbara responded to a question about the cost of cap and trade.

Hindu Newspaper Editor: If you were to put a figure on costs, in terms of GDP how much will it cost to put a cap on emissions? How is the burden to be shared globally?

Charles Kolstad: The cost estimate is one percent of GDP -- around that. The Stern Review has figures as high as 7 or 8 percent in extreme case of costs being higher than expected. Look at the Ozone Treaty on CFCs: any extra costs were to be paid for by developed world. Such an approach seems more than reasonable. CFCs have become more targeted; carbon pervasive, of course. I suspect that the developed world, in any agreement, will agree to absorb much if not all of costs.

At the end of June 2009, Paul Krugman pointed to an estimate that the cost of cap and trade could be far lower than $1.00 a day. See Can we afford cap and trade?

The IPI panel discussion on climate change also included Jorma Ollila, Chairman of Nokia; Chairman of Royal Dutch Shell, Ali Sayigh of the World Renewable Energy Network (WREN), and Curtis Brainard of the Columbia Journalism Review. Jotman live-blogged the entire panel discussion. See "Technology and innovation: Climate change Rx?"
___
* "The International Press Institute is a global network of editors, media executives and leading journalists . . . dedicated to the furtherance and safeguarding of press freedom, the protection of freedom of opinion and expression, the promotion of the free flow of news and information, and the improvement of the practices of journalism."

Investment in alternative energy has decreased

Jotman — Wed, 08 Jul 2009 05:05:00 -0700

At the International Press Institute* World Congress in Helsinki, Royal Dutch Shell Chairman Jorma Ollila noted that there had been a steep decline in investment in alternative energy.

Jorma Ollila: Where are we with respect to technology?

We all agree we have the need to invest in renewable technologies. But look at what is happening this year with respect to investment in energy. According to the International Energy Agency (IEA) investment in alternative energy is down by 20 percent! Because of our other capacity. This year investment in renewable technologies is down by 40 percent compared to last year. Some mature technologies are about to be commercialized. Why down? Oil prices collapsed, so viability based on return of investment is different this year.

That's why we need public policy in order to get investment into renewables. Its a complex bind. I'm impressed with what US Energy Secretary Chu and President Obama have said with respect to their aims in terms of the stimulus package.

This was an excerpt from the IPI panel discussion on climate change that included Charles Kolstad of UC Santa Barbara, Ali Sayigh of the World Renewable Energy Network (WREN), and Curtis Brainard of the Columbia Journalism Review. Jotman live-blogged the entire panel discussion. See "Technology and innovation: Climate change Rx?"
___
* "The International Press Institute is a global network of editors, media executives and leading journalists . . . dedicated to the furtherance and safeguarding of press freedom, the protection of freedom of opinion and expression, the promotion of the free flow of news and information, and the improvement of the practices of journalism."

Is the Supreme Court anti-environmental?

Jotman — Tue, 07 Jul 2009 00:50:00 -0700

Lately the Supreme Court of the United States has sided exclusively with industry, observes Barbara O’Brien of mesothelioma blog:

For environmentalists, the recent Supreme Court term was a shutout — 0 for 5. That is, all five of the “green” cases argued before the Court this term were decided against the environmentalists’ positions.
The defeats were especially painful in that all five decisions reversed lower court decisions in favor of the “greens.”

One decision which the court overturned -- "riverkeeper" -- was by Sotomayor (I blogged about that here), another concerned the Court's support for the navy's use of sonar (here), and in a third, the court decided a mining company could poison an Alaskan lake (here).

In the fourth case (described in some detail by O'Brien), the court ruled Shell was not responsible for paying for the cleanup of wastes it sold to another company even though it had known that the waste was not being properly disposed of (so much for "corporate citizenship"). In the fifth case, the high court ruled "that environmental groups lacked standing to challenge certain U.S. Forest Service regulations."

Statue of Liberty: skip the crown?

Jotman — Sat, 04 Jul 2009 15:41:00 -0700

NY Times:Before Sept. 11, on a typical day, more than 1,000 people at once would wait in one long, single-file line along the 354 steps to the crown. After 9/11, the reality that there were no safe exits above the first floor of what is essentially...

The Afghan Friend Test

jots@jotman.com (Jotman) — Fri, 16 Oct 2009 13:26:00 -0700

Given that Obama is considering whether or not to send more troops to Afghanistan, I would encourage everyone to watch the new PBS Frontline documentary.

Then, putting political considerations aside, take the "Afghan Friend Test."

Jotman's Afghan Friend Test

You get a call from Kandahar.  Mohamed Akbari, your dear Afghan friend says, "I don't know what to do. Should I work with the Americans or should I try to keep my distance from them?"

"What concerns you?"

"I have seen the latest poll numbers," Akbari says. "American public support for the war is wavering -- big time. I fear that even if Obama gives the go-ahead, Americans will eventually decide to cut and run anyway. My question: if I support the Americans, do you suppose they will still be there for my family five or ten years from now? Or do you imagine they will eventually give up hope of victory and leave me and my burka-burning daughters to the Taliban?"

What would you advise your friend to do? Should he openly cooperate with the Americans? Or should he keep his distance?

Your friend asks you another question.

"Let's say I openly support the American war effort, but suppose the Americans then decide to leave prematurely.   What are the chances the American government will grant me and my daughters refugee status in the US?"

Can you assure your friend Akbari that the US will stand behind true friends like him? Supposing worst came to worst, do you you feel confident that you could successfully lobby the US government to compassionately act on your friends behalf? (Before you answer this question, you might want to familiarize yourself with the timeline of Rahman Bunairee's really bad summer.)

What would your advice be?   This is your friend Mohamed Akbari and his family we are talking about.

Americans are good at sales and marketing. Most of the debate in Washington is about whether the Afghans can be won over.   The Afghan Friend Test supposes that this is the wrong question.

Russia's real class problem

jots@jotman.com (Jotman) — Sat, 17 Oct 2009 23:04:00 -0700

Russia's real class problem is not what many Westerners tend to assume, including the most insightful of New York Times op/ed writers.

In an alarming op/ed in today's NY Times, Leon Aron describes the perilously high unemployment facing Russia's major factory towns ("monotowns"), home to 25 million Russians. Aron calls these cities "ticking time bombs." He believes that many of these cities could explode simultaneously in massive unrest that could take down Putin.

JOTMAN.COM Russian contributor Sanjuro, having read the op/ed, responds: "Sad, but true in most details (I saw the Pikalevo story a few month ago)... Except that company town residents are not always as immobile and passive as described in the article. Given a prospect of a better future, they are often quick to move."

Yet, Sanjuro believes that Russia's real problem is not what the article seems to presuppose:

What really makes this issue complicated is that these "monotowns" have not only working class people, but many other residents that collectively far outnumber the working class.

Russia's main problem are not the working class people - although their genuine grievances occasionally result in a great turmoil. I'd say, the more important problem is the lack of working class people, or, rather, the excessive proportion of government bureaucrats and public service employees of all kinds.

You might say, what's the difference? Industrial production is dying anyway, here in the West you have most people employed (or unemployed) in some sort of service industry, isn't government almost the same thing? I'd say, government in Russia is a thing in itself, like a foreign object in a body, its purpose is not to serve the society, but to intimidate it, it's "us against them" - a mindset of a medieval invader or a feudal landlord. It's not intended to be humane or effective or efficient, it's not supposed to look into the future. Its sole purpose is to reproduce and to support its existence by eating everything within its sight:
"...Chudische oblo, ozorno, ogromno,
Stozevno yi layai..." *

"...A monster, portly, playful and giant,
Has a hundred mouths and barks.."
* V.K. Trediakovsky (1766) // A.N. Radischev (1790)

Interesting to imagine Twenty-First Century Russian bureaucrats in a position roughly analogous to the feudal landlords of old Russia.

Obama's good values -- and the king's

jots@jotman.com (Jotman) — Sun, 18 Oct 2009 22:58:00 -0700

The way the Wall Street bailout went down, the unwillingness of American politicians and the mainstream media to hold those responsible for the financial crisis to account, the appalling lack of tough new regulations for derivatives traders, simply boggles the mind. Frank Rich, writing in the NY Times, points a finger at Goldman Sachs:

As the Reuters columnist Rolfe Winkler wrote last week, “Main Street still owns much of the risk while Wall Street gets all of the profit.” The idea of investing in the real economy — the one that might create jobs for Americans — remains outré in this culture. Credit to small businesses remains tight. The holy capitalist grail is still the speculative buying and selling of companies and the concoction of ever more esoteric financial “instruments.”

At the end of his column, Rich sums up the questions "disappointed Obama fans" are asking about Obama:

Those Obama fans who are disappointed keep looking for explanations. Is he too impressed by the elite he met in Cambridge, too eager to split the difference between left and right, too willing to compromise? As he pursues legislation, why does he keep deferring to others — whether to his party’s Congressional leaders or the Congressional Budget Office or to this month’s acting president, Olympia Snowe? Why doesn’t he ever draw a line in the sand? “We know Obama has good values,” Jeff Madrick said to me last week, “but we don’t know if he has convictions.”

On what bases does Jeff Madrick claim to know that Obama has good values? Indeed, why should anyone take it for granted that Obama has good values? Because Obama won the presidency? Because Obama's speeches have inspired people? Because Obama won the Nobel Peace Prize?

In certain Asian countries, it is believed that kings rule on the basis of rajadharma, or the virtues of kingship -- of which there are said to be ten. Bangkok Pundit, in a recent post concerning the future king of Thailand, asked: "The more pertinent question is, who decides whether the monarch has all the 10 virtues? A referendum? Parliament? Or Sondhi L as the sole arbitrator?" Without beating an eye, many Thais would respond to the question: "The king has the 10 virtues because he is the king."

It's one thing for Thai royalists to believe in the goodness of their king, it's quite another thing when the citizens of a republic make such a claim about a political leader.

America's UFO in a coal mine

jots@jotman.com (Jotman) — Tue, 20 Oct 2009 23:28:00 -0700

The US news media's orgy of self-righteous indignation at the alleged crime of Richard Heene and his family of UFO enthusiasts is getting old very fast. I'm talking about the spectacle of overpaid TV journalists harping on a guy with a high school education who at the very least has gone to a lot of trouble to interest his kids in science.

I watched television news analysts discuss how the "balloon boy" incident wasted the time of so many Americans. They should know about that, I thought. I watched them complain about having been duped by "fake news." That seemed ironic. It seemed to me that Richard Heene's low-budget stunt was both more creative and amusing than any story Fox News had manufactured lately. Heene's fake event posed far less danger to civilization than the constant stream of programmed sensationalism that one encounters daily in the news media.

A news network anchor posed a question to the correspondent: "Will the sheriff be able to recoup the money for the rescue effort from the Heenes?" The reporter replied that Heeney did not seem to have any money, that was unlikely. "I suppose the county might attempt to garnish Richard's future wages," he added.

But this much is certain: in terms of entertainment value for the taxpayer dollar, "Balloon Boy scam" was a better deal for Americans than the ongoing "bailout of Wall Street scam." The cost of Richard Heene's stunt needs to be put in perspective.

Because there is a serious side to the story. One which -- quite predictably -- most real American journalists have shown no interest in exploring. The question is: what would drive an American father to put his family through such madness?

I suspect Robert Thomas, a former Colorado State University student who worked for Richard Heene, nailed the answer in an article he wrote for Gawker:

Desperate times call for desperate measures, and I think in this case the desperation was too much for Richard to bear. Richard's construction business wasn't doing too well. It's hard to find people interested in spending money on the aesthetics of their home when they're worried about their mortgage.

The family of the boy who wasn't in the UFO is a modern day "canary in a cage." It signals a people in crisis.

The real cost of an ASEAN summit

jots@jotman.com (Jotman) — Mon, 26 Oct 2009 09:35:00 -0700

The picture of ordinary Thai lives put at risk by ASEAN delegates is probably not how Thailand's government wants last week's ASEAN summit in Hua Hin to be remembered.

Does American television cause terrorism?

jots@jotman.com (Jotman) — Mon, 26 Oct 2009 15:10:00 -0700

Updates
I just read the top story at CNN, which asks whether a major explosion at at Puerto Rico oil storage facility was "arson or accident?"    When I first heard about the explosion a couple days ago, the possibility of sabotage occurred to me.

The recent general strike in Puerto Rico was not widely reported in the mainstream media.    That strike -- which involved 150,000 - 200,000 people (5% of the island's population) -- did not receive much coverage. Nor, prior to the strike, did the MSM appear to have adequately reported either Puerto Rico's alarmingly high rate of unemployment (16 percent) or the governor's recent decision to lay of 17,000 civil servants.* My awareness of these events came mainly from Global Voices, a website that tracks international blogs.

Of course, we don't know if the explosion at the oil refinery was an act of arson or not. Moreover, as far as I know there is absolutely no evidence linking the two events.   Nevertheless, when tens of thousands of people go on strike in an American territory, and the US news media fails to adequately cover the story, at some point angry people are going to ask themselves: to what lengths must we go to get attention?

As newspapers continue to decline in readership, and television news further degenerates into sensationalism and celebrity gossip, more groups -- both in the US and abroad -- may find themselves tempted to go to ever more extreme measures to get the attention of the American public and political leadership.
___
Related post: "How to interview terrorists."
* In the US territory, almost twice as many people depend on the government for jobs as the national average.
Update 1: As originally posted a paragraph got chopped off.
Update 2: The LA Times reports Tuesday: "The average weekday circulation of nearly 400 dailies slid 10.6% from April to September, compared with a 7.1% decline during the previous six-month period."

World's most efficient solar home

jots@jotman.com (Jotman) — Mon, 26 Oct 2009 23:26:00 -0700

Some of the world's most innovative solar homes were featured at the biannual Solar Decathlon on the Washington Mall which ended last week.   Twenty teams from US, Canada, Germany, and Spain competed to see which university could build the most livable and efficient solar home.   I walked around all the homes, and I took pictures of the ones I liked best.

The experimental homes averaged about 750 square feet, and cost between $200 and $800 thousand to build. Corporations at the cutting edge of solar technology donated solar power technology.

Germany's team won mainly because it blew away the completion in the critical "net metering" category.    The Germans, who were defending their 2007 victory in the Solar Decathlon, had brought a secret weapon to Washington this year: thin film.

1.	Team Germany	150.000
2.	Illinois	137.236
3.	Team Ontario/BC	109.911
4.	Team Spain	109.216

The Economist reported, ""the decathletes of Team Germany, who designed the winning house, bragged that its north façade was covered in panels that could convert even indirect sunlight into electricity." The "modernist box" had walls that were "covered in solar cells made with thin coatings of silicon and other materials in the place of expensive slices of crystal. Thin film, as this technology is known, is still less popular than crystalline cells and its move to the mainstream has been a year or two away for a decade. But its time may have come at last."

The winning house by Germany is the sleek black box on the right:

In terms of architecture, my personal favorites were Germany, Ontario/BC, Cornell, and Virginia Tech. The Virginia Tech entry (below, top photo) featured sliding shade screens over a pond -- and it even came with its own wheels!

Final results for the architecture category:

1.	Team California	98.000
2.	Rice	95.000
3.	Virginia Tech	94.000
4.	Team Germany	94.000
5.	Team Ontario/BC	91.000

Ranked by architecture scores, the above photos show 3rd-scoring Virginia Tech; 16h place Cornell in the foreground with 4th place Germany behind; and 5th place BC/Ontario.

Europe holds a Solar Decathlon on even-numbered years. Madrid will host the next Solar Decathlon in June 2010. Team Spain's entry in this year's decathlon, which ranked 14th overall, is shown in the top photo.

Interestingly, the last-place finisher in the expert judged-contest, University of Louisiana, actually won the "people's choice" public poll. Although the Louisiana entry fared poorly in many categories, it came first in the "market viability" category, and fared well in terms of comfort, home entertainment and appliances. Unique among the entries, this home featured "hurricane protection" sliding.

Update: a video from America.gov shows the winning entry from Germany. It seems that Germany's team from the Technische Universität Darmstadt adhered to something called the Passive House building standards. More on the TUD here.

Mystery photo

jots@jotman.com (Jotman) — Wed, 28 Oct 2009 16:10:00 -0700

Is a famous actress pictured in this Jotman photo? A reader thinks so.

They even took Curious George

jots@jotman.com (Jotman) — Wed, 28 Oct 2009 21:22:00 -0700

Here's an excerpt from a recent interview. Can you guess where this bizarre "search and seizure" happened?

Accused: ... I’m an author. I’ve written fiction. I’ve written lots of nonfiction. I’m an anarchist, so I’ve written lots of political works. So they not only grabbed all of my works, and they grabbed anything that they felt like grabbing from our pretty large library.

Interviewer: And they apparently took photos, as well, posters—

Accused: Yeah.

Interviewer: —from the walls, one of Lenin and one of Curious George, apparently?

Accused: Yes, yes, and they took Curious George stuffed animals. They took magnets from the refrigerator. They took a needlepoint of Lenin that my wife’s grandmother had made, a whole variety of bizarre things that they’ve taken.

Answer -- and background -- here.

Will desalination solve the water crisis?

jots@jotman.com (Jotman) — Thu, 29 Oct 2009 21:42:00 -0700

Ben Sparrow and Joshua Zoshi, founders of Saltworks Technologies, appear to have developed a truly low-cost desalination technology. These Canadians have discovered a way to use the heat of the sun to power the process, reducing the cost of desalination by 80%. The Economist reports that the beauty of their system is that ".... the only electricity needed is the small amount required to pump the streams of water through the apparatus. All the rest of the energy has come free, via the air, from the sun."

Continued. . .

Matthew Hoh's resignation letter

jots@jotman.com (Jotman) — Thu, 29 Oct 2009 22:11:00 -0700

Excepts from the resignation of Matthew Hoh, a US diplomat assigned to Afghanistan:

I have lost understanding of and confidence in the strategic purposes of the United States' presence in Afghanistan. I have doubts and reservations about our current strategy and planned future strategy, but my resignation is based not upon how we are pursuing this war, but why and to what end....

...Our support for this kind of government, coupled with a misunderstanding of the insurgency's true nature, reminds me horribly of our involvement with South Vietnam; an unpopular and corrupt government we backed at the expense of our Nation's own internal peace, against an insurgency whose nationalism we arrogantly and ignorantly mistook as a rival to our own Cold War ideology.

I find specious the reasons we ask for bloodshed and sacrifice from our young men and women in Afghanistan. If honest, our stated strategy of securing Afghanistan to prevent al-Qaeda resurgence or regrouping would require us to additionally invade and occupy western Pakistan, Somalia, Sudan, Yemen, etc. Our presence in Afghanistan has only increased destabilization and insurgency in Pakistan where we rightly fear a toppled or weakened Pakistani government may lose control of its nuclear weapons.

Full text of letter here.

Mormon soldier to US army: Stop the proselytizing!

jots@jotman.com (Jotman) — Fri, 30 Oct 2009 08:40:00 -0700

In his recent resignation letter, former US State Department employee Matthew Hoh wrote, "Eight years into war, no nation has ever known as more dedicated, well trained, experienced and disciplined military as the U.S. Armed Forces."

It's considered patriotic to say stuff like that about the military. But is it the whole truth?

There are two reasons I am asking this question. First, at a time when President Obama is seriously considering a massive escalation of US involvement in Afghanistan, nothing should be taken for granted. Second, I cannot get Joe's words out of my head.

Joe, a Mormon, returned to the US from active duty in Afghanistan in early 2009. At a party I recently attended Joe shared some observations about his experiences over there with me.*

The thing that had most disturbed Joe about his time in Afghanistan was witnessing what he described as the "proselytizing" activities of some of his fellow soldiers.

"I do not agree that soldiers should be distributing religious pamphlets," Joe said in the middle of our conversation.

I could not believe my ears.

"You mean they were handing out Christian religious materials to the Afghans?!"

Joe nodded.

"Doesn't that sort of defeat the whole mission?"

"Look, I did not agree with it." Joe said, "And I wished that someone would have stopped them."

"So the commanders approved of this kind of activity?"

The question was met with silence. Joe was now behaving as if he might have blurted out something regrettable. I suspected that Joe did not want to say something that might betray the army. Or maybe it was that Joe didn't know me. Whatever the explanation, Joe quickly changed the subject.

It was clear to me that, as a Mormon and a soldier in an inhospitable land, the prospect of Evangelical soldiers proselytizing to the locals had made Joe uncomfortable.

Some other things I learned from my conversation with Joe.

"Most of our time was spent on base," said Joe, adding "there were occasional firefights when we were attacked."
Joe said that "don't ask don't tell" (concerns gays in the military) was a ridiculously discriminatory and ineffective policy. "You can't stop human nature," Joe said.
"By far, the most professional soldiers I met in Afghanistan were the Canadians" Joe told me. "I can't say enough good things about those soldiers. Their high standards. I was impressed by the respect they showed toward one another."
On torture: "In the army, all of us have to follow the field manual. The army does not torture." When I asked about water-boarding, Joe replied, "How is water-boarding torture if we subject our own people to these same techniques during training?"

It was Joe's remark about "proselytizing" that left my head spinning -- a revelation that seemed to have come up during our conversation as a "slip of the tongue."

Of course, such allegations have surfaced in the past (see here and here).

Such reports beg the question as to whether Americans have the foggiest idea what they are doing over there.
___
*Not his real name.

Myanmar-China pipeline

jots@jotman.com (Jotman) — Tue, 03 Nov 2009 09:12:00 -0800

The WSJ reports that China will soon begin construction on the Shwe Project -- a pipeline that will carry natural gas from Kumming to the new port of Kyaukphyu in Myanmar via Mandalay. The purpose is to carry natural gas from the rich gas fields off Myanmar's coast. One interesting fact: The junta will obtain $1 billion a year in revenue for thirty years from the pipeline. This new source of revenue is likely to further diminish the effect of Western sanctions on the regime.

All this raises an important question: In the future, where will the junta be able to put its money?

A perestroika for Burma?

jots@jotman.com (Jotman) — Wed, 04 Nov 2009 10:39:00 -0800

Senior US State Department official Kurt Campbell is presently on a diplomatic mission to Burma. In Rangoon Campbell met with Aung San Suu Kyi. This initiative follows Jim Webb's rescue mission Burma in July. A WSJ article (h/t New Mandala) by Bertil Lintner, a Swedish journalist well-acquainted with Burma, explores why previous diplomatic liaisons have failed. His article concludes:

"...There are no Young Turks lurking in the wings.

Still, Burma's only hope for the future is that some officers, young or old, will change their minds. Until that happens, nothing is likely to change. And emissaries sent by the U.S. or any other Western power are likely to end up being as frustrated as Mr. Richardson was 14 years ago."

There appears to be much agreement that a successful reformers in Myanmar will most likely have to emerge from within the ranks of the military. As one disident told me in 2007:

There are three military groups: army, navy and air force. Some army officers, some navy officers, some air force officers, don’t want to accept the ideas of the General Than Shwe.

But we secretly join them, from the riflemen to the general. Whoever we can contact....

How do you bring senior Myanmar military officers to your side? That is the question.

Thant Myint-U told a US Senate committee hearing that it is not easy have any influence on the officers when your country's policy is not to interact with them. Conversely, he said that increased contacts could open receptive officers and technocrats to change.

One advantage, of course, to pursuing more contacts with the regime is that this process may be advanced in the light of day. No need to pursue dangerous secret liaisons if ordinary contacts could occur on an open, regular basis.

In this regard, I believe it is important to consider the extent to which the foreign exposure of high-ranking Soviets such Gorbachev and Aleksandr Yakovlev laid the foundation for perestroika.
___
Photo: by Jotman shows Kurt Campbell escaping a Senate hearing.

Smoking causes socialism

jots@jotman.com (Jotman) — Thu, 05 Nov 2009 14:14:00 -0800

I witnessed a sizable protest on Capitol Hill today. It was attended by thousands of white people opposed to affordable health care. I heard that three protesters were arrested. The NY Times has a front page story about the event.

I took a couple of photos:

Does't this woman know that smoking cause socialism?

This guy probably doesn't support the climate change bill either. A sign in the back window of the truck reads, "Obama is half white, half foreign and all wrong for America."

Released Guantánamo inmates tell their stories

jots@jotman.com (Jotman) — Thu, 05 Nov 2009 18:31:00 -0800

"The men in this video were held at Guantánamo for years without charge and denied any meaningful opportunity to challenge the legality of their detention. But now they are finally free. This is their story."

The exhilaration of the Obama victory

jots@jotman.com (Jotman) — Fri, 06 Nov 2009 12:45:00 -0800

Live from the White House one year ago this week, JOTMAN.COM captured the shouts, cries, songs, and cheers of thousands of deliriously happy people. Spontaneously, from across the nation's capital, Americans had gathered to celebrate:

What a difference a year makes.

The one Obama victory that cannot be taken away

jots@jotman.com (Jotman) — Fri, 06 Nov 2009 13:08:00 -0800

Many of us seriously question whether Obama will ever herald the depth of change his victory seemed to promise. Yet one change brought about by the new presidency will surely stand the test of time. It is unlikely that any future historian will contest that Nov. 6 2009 had a profound and lasting impact on the psyche of just about every African American. This singers in this video will always bring tears to my eyes:

Such a big victory, such small ideas

jots@jotman.com (Jotman) — Fri, 06 Nov 2009 22:23:00 -0800

Paul Krugman writes today "...the truth is that Mr. Obama put his agenda at risk by doing too little. The fateful decision, early this year, to go for economic half-measures may haunt Democrats for years to come." Krugman's op-ed is deeply troubling, and well worth reading.

Dymovsky urges Putin to stop rampant police corruption

jots@jotman.com (Jotman) — Mon, 09 Nov 2009 19:29:00 -0800

Russian Jotman contributor Sanjuro writes:

Maj. Dymovsky was a police officer in Novorossiysk, he recently retired from the police force and posted video clips on his website [which is no longer online] addressed to PM Putin /Pres Medvedev exposing years of corruption in the city's police.

As of now, he was on his way to Moscow to give a press conference at the Independent Press Centre, but was reportedly detained while en route to the Rostov-on-Don airport.

I read comments and most readers support the ex-policeman. Some see this is the first crack in the law enforcement system, but most simply express their support for Maj. Dymovsky. It is widely held that the situation is similar in other Russian cities, it's just that they are still waiting for a whistleblower.

Concerning Sanjuro's last point, see this Jotman post. Here's a report on Dymovsky's videos from Russia Today:

Azerbaijan jails bloggers for donkey video

jots@jotman.com (Jotman) — Wed, 11 Nov 2009 17:18:00 -0800

CNN reports that Azerbaijan has jailed two bloggers, Adnan Hadjizadeh and Emin Milli. The bloggers have been sentenced for two years and two and a half years, respectively.

Shortly before they were attacked in a restaurant and subsequently arrested, the bloggers had satirized Azerbaijan's government in a popular YouTube video about a donkey.

Here's the "donky video" with English subtitles:

Nouriel Roubini warns of dollar bubble

jots@jotman.com (Jotman) — Wed, 11 Nov 2009 22:11:00 -0800

The worst may be yet to come.

Investors are shorting a falling US dollar to fund speculation in risky assets observes Nouriel Roubini in the FT. Around the world and across the board, the price of risky assets -- equities, commodities, emerging market asset classes and credit instruments -- is rising on the account of investors' ability to profitably leverage bets against the US dollar.

But the dollar cannot continue falling forever, and its tradictional function as a safe-haven suggests that it could rise suddenly if an international crisis develops. Roubini warns, " . . . one day this bubble will burst, leading to the biggest co-ordinated asset bust ever. . . . A stampede will occur as closing long leveraged risky asset positions across all asset classes funded by dollar shorts triggers a co-ordinated collapse of all those risky assets.

Roubini expounded further on the "comming commodoties correction" in a recent interview.

Iraq back to being a dictatorship

jots@jotman.com (Jotman) — Fri, 13 Nov 2009 03:53:00 -0800

Long term, who stands to benefit the most from the US invasion of Iraq: American oil companies? Saudi Arabia? Israel?

Probably none of the above.

In September the The Economist reported, "The Shia-led government has overseen a ballooning of the country’s security apparatus. Human-rights violations are becoming more common. In private many Iraqis, especially educated ones, are asking if their country may go back to being a police state."

Same as before, under Saddam? Not quite. As one Iranian exile pointed out to me, this new "made in America" Iraqi dictatorship appears to be aligned with Iran.

The Iranian exile explained that Maliki has close ties with Iran, and the Iranian spies have infiltrated the highest ranks of the government of Iraq.

"The Iraqis are imprisoning and torturing Iranian opposition members who have fled Iran," the Iranian told me.

I asked how it was that the Americans had allowed this to happen.

"They [the US government] don't seem to know who some lobbyists represent."

Trial for Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, but not others

jots@jotman.com (Jotman) — Fri, 13 Nov 2009 05:53:00 -0800

Greenwald on Attorney General's Eric Holder's anticipated announcement that the case against alleged 9/11 mastermind KSM will be tried before a jury in New York:

... we're now formally creating a multi-tiered justice system for accused Muslim terrorists where they only get the level of due process consistent with the State's certainty that it will win. Mohammed gets a real trial because he confessed and we're thus certain we can win in court; since we're less certain about al-Nashiri, he'll be denied a trial and will only get a military commission; others will be denied any process entirely and imprisoned indefinitely. The outcome is pre-determined and the process then shaped to assure it ahead of time, thus perfectly adhering to this exchange from Chapter 12 of Alice in Wonderland:
"Let the jury consider their verdict," the King said, for about the twentieth time that day.

"No, no!” said the Queen. "Sentence first -- verdict afterward."

"Stuff and nonsense!" said Alice loudly. "The idea of having the sentence first!"

In Malaysia online news media leads

jots@jotman.com (Jotman) — Fri, 13 Nov 2009 15:49:00 -0800

Malaysia's print newspapers are notoriously selective in their coverage of the country's domestic politics. Malaysiakini, now one of the country's top twenty websites, represented Malaysia's first genuine news alternative. In fact, the website is a model of online media excellence for Asia and the developing world.

The question might be asked: Why is there no Singaporekini? Zhi Yuan and Lim Siow Kuan of Malaysiakini attempt to answer this question. The writers note that the equivallent of Malaysiakini's readership of 100,000 would yield only 17,390 readers a day in Singapore. Surely such a figure ought to achievable. Yet an equivellent publication has not been attempted in Singapore. Yuan and Kuan note that Singapore's media is highly controlled, its class of professional journalists and editors having been made comfortable. They speculate that Singaporeans may simply have been rendered more brainwashed than Malaysians:

Singaporeans, especially those born after independence, have grown up knowing only the pro-government state press which explains why they are seldom able to distinguish between truths and spins inherent in the reports unlike an astute reader from a developed country like United States or United Kingdom.

... Malaysians who have long been skeptical of the mainstream media's coverage of political affairs take an instant liking to Malaysiakini's independent streak almost immediately, facilitating its eventual ascension to the pinnacle of Malaysian journalism.

I'm not convinced educated Americans these days are that much better at distinguishing spin from fiction than educated Singaporeans. And I would venture to speculate that concerning foreign affairs, Singaporeans are much better informed. The Straights Times may not offer great local coverage, but in my opinion the paper is superior to all but two or three American newspapers when it comes to providing comprehensive coverage of international issues.

Does Singapore does lack a sufficient number of consumers desperate for critical reporting of local politics for a paper like Malaysiakini to succeed in the city state? Perhaps. Nevertheless, a number of good Singapore blogs exists, some of which I link to on the sidebar of JotAsean.

Sarah Palin: House Gate

jots@jotman.com (Jotman) — Sun, 05 Jul 2009 21:28:00 -0700

Village Voice broke this story. Essentially, House Gate concerns the question as to whether public funds, materials, and manpower for building the sports center in Wasilla had been used build the Palin family's new house:

Todd Palin told Fox News that he built the two-story, 3,450-square-foot, four-bedroom, four-bath, wood house himself, with the help of contractors he described as “buddies.” As mayor, Sarah Palin blocked an effort to require the filing of building permits in the wide-open city, and there is no public record of who the “buddies” were. The house was built very near the complex, on a site whose city purchase led to years of unsuccessful litigation and, now, $1.3 million in additional costs, with a law firm that’s also donated to Palin collecting costly fees from the city.

But that's not the only alleged scandal involving Sarah Palin. For the most comprehensive list of the other ones, consult this timeline.

Hat-tip Mudflats

Sarah Palin: Iceberg Gate

jots@jotman.com (Jotman) — Sun, 05 Jul 2009 21:44:00 -0700

There's speculation that Sarah Palin resigned because a new scandal was about to break. Could it be House Gate?

Was arrest of Henry Louis Gates, Jr. justified?

jots@jotman.com (Jotman) — Sat, 25 Jul 2009 11:36:00 -0700

Concerning the arrest of Henry Louis Gates, Jr., an African-American professor at Harvard University, I concur with the sentiments expressed by Eric Adams, a former police officer, quoted today in the NY Times:

In New York, State Senator Eric Adams, a retired New York City police captain and co-founder of the group 100 Blacks in Law Enforcement, said the rules for dealing with someone differed by setting.

“If it’s their house, they’re allowed to call you all sorts of names,” Mr. Adams said. “A man’s house is his castle. If they’re in the street, and they don’t listen to the officer’s warning, ‘Sir, you’re being disorderly,’ you can lock them up at this time.”

Not that the officer necessarily should, he said.

“Let’s say I do a stop,” Mr. Adams said. “I question, and it’s nothing. ‘Sir, I’m sorry, I apologize.’ What’s the reason for staying, if the anger’s directed at me? If it’s directed at a third party, a storekeeper, I stay.”
But if the officer himself is the provocation, the officer should leave, he said, and added that Sergeant Crowley did not use such common sense.

Adams' view concurs with the opinion I expressed yesterday in a blog post.

Seriously, who cares about bipartisanship?

jots@jotman.com (Jotman) — Sun, 26 Jul 2009 08:46:00 -0700

"Any American who makes less than $80,000 a year and doesn't support health care reform is just f------ stupid." That's how a former Bush White House official summed up the health care debate for me last night.

"Do Americans really think that having their 'choice' of private insurer means shit?" he said. "I mean unless you are wealthy, how does the present system help you? Why aren't people demanding reform? Does it not occur to people that they could lose their jobs in this economy? I mean how f------ stupid are we as a country?"

This morning I see the New York Times has an article on "bipartisanship" and the health care debate. Now there's a five-syllable mouthful: concept to which news media professionals almost certainly attach far more importance to than do either politicians or the public at large. According to the article:

Should Mr. Obama abandon efforts to reach out to Republicans, he risks damaging his appeal among independent voters, who have a history of being put off by overt partisanship.

Please. What is the evidence for this claim? The article provides none. I guess we're just supposed to accept this kind of reasoning as meaningful political discourse because the New York Times reports it.

Personally, I don't like the word because I don't think "bipartisanship" explains Washington politics. For example, I do not think the word accounts for the big story last week: namely, the halfheartedness of President Obama's effort to "sell" health care reform. As my friend said, the case for introducing a government-administered insurance option is strong. Nevertheless, Obama seemed reluctant to make this idea the centerpiece of his argument.

An important observation is buried near end of the Times article:

The Senate Finance Committee right now offers the lone hope for the White House in its search for Republican support. That is also where the trade-off is particularly stark. It would mean giving up on some big principles, like a public plan to compete with private insurers, in return for what could be just a few Republican votes, a veneer of bipartisanship.

It is the prospect of that trade that has some Democrats worried and is another source of pressure for the White House.

Does speaking of a sacrifice of "big principles" explain what is really at hand? Ultimately, the question is not whether Obama Administration puts stock in principles, but whether it's committed to a plan that achieves meaningful results for the middle class. However complicated the legislation, the intended outcome ought to be easy for the Democrats to articulate.

I can't help but wonder if Obama is afraid to promise something that he has no intention to deliver.

How does GE keep its pot of gold safe under the leftish MSNBC rainbow?

jots@jotman.com (Jotman) — Mon, 03 Aug 2009 11:33:00 -0700

This weekend saw the publication of a NY Times report about an agreement between Rupert Murdoch, owner of News Corp. and Jeff Immelt, CEO of General Electric (which owns NBC and MSNBC). Apparently, the corporate titans agreed that MSNBC would censor news anchor Kieth Olberman. This outrage prompted Greenwald to blog about the dangers of GE ownership of NBC/MSNBC.

MSNBC is an enigma. On the surface, the relatively liberal programming format of this cable news service would seem to be at odds with the priorities of a parent company that has a vested interest in maintaining the political and economic order. But does GE really operate MSNBC in the public interest? The question arises: How might GE have ensured that its sponsorship of America's only truly progressive cable news network does not get in the way of its own agenda?

Fox and right wing radio provide one clue. To a large extent, right-wing leaning news organizations set the agenda for MSNBC: Fox turns remarks made about race, sexuality, gender -- or celebrity lifestyle squabbles -- into news events. In response, MSNBC devotes almost as much time to the other side of these stories, debunking the myths.

For example, MSNBC has given inordinate attention to exposing the "birther" nonsense (the pedantic charge that Obama is not an American citizen), the Sotomayor confirmation nonsense (the unfounded claim that the "wise Latina" candidate for the US supreme court is anti-white), and the various marital infidelity scandals of politicians. MSNBC spends an awful lot of time discussing news stories "invented" by right-wing radio's Rush Limbaugh or Fox News.

For GE, social-left issues are completely safe. Whether a gay or a straight pilots a military aircraft powered by a pair of GE jet engines makes no difference to the company. Whether man with white or black skin occupies the White House makes no difference. Whether or not right-wing politicians involved in marital infidelity get exposed for hypocrisy is bottom-line neutral -- just have your lobbyists divert the checks to politicians who haven't been exposed. The tendency of sex scandals to get sensationalized in the US allows for the blackmail or punishment of politicians who fall out of favor (i.e. the Eliot Spitzer scandal).

Fox News and MSNBC focus on race, sex, lifestyle issues for essentially the same reason. Whereas MSNBC tends to blame "worst persons," Fox tends to target left-wing groups. Either way, focusing on perceived trouble-makers makes for entertaining television. Moreover, blaming "liberals" or various redneck personalities is safest from the perspective of parent corporations -- and advertisers. Whether the bad guys are on the left or the right, the result is the same: by the end of a broadcast viewers are none the wiser. The political and economic system has not been scrutinized too closely.

However, the big stories today are fundamentally economic stories. When white firemen complain of discrimination (the Sotomayor confirmation) or a white policeman is portrayed as the victim of racist politician (outrage over Obama's comments on the arrest of Gates), behind any claim of discrimination are some harsh economic facts. Fire and police departments provide adequate pay, proper benefits, and decent working conditions at a time when good blue-collar jobs are vanishing. Although I am supportive of what Obama has had to say about the controversy, it is not surprising to me that a Harvard-educated president's criticism of Sergeant James Crowley hit a nerve. Any news organization owned by a multinational corporation is going to more inclined to talk about racism than the distribution of the economic pie.

Given who owns it, one would expect MSNBC to devote far more airtime to "social" lefty causes -- racism, gay rights, sexual equality, etc. -- than stories that probe economic disparity, corporate governance, or consumer rights. One looks for a rainbow-coalition of on-air personalities to lend the news network a progressive appearance. By and large, that is what MSNBC delivers. By careful attention to substance and style, GE has discovered an ingenious way to provide a "left-branded" news network that is safe for the bottom line. In addition, its tight control of MSNBC allows the corporation to influence the trajectory -- and boundaries -- of left-leaning discourse in the United States.

Do multinational corporations with financial ties to numerous industries have any business owning news media companies? I don't think so.

Presidential address tonight on health care

jots@jotman.com (Jotman) — Wed, 09 Sep 2009 18:53:00 -0700

My immediate reflection after having live-blogged the entire presidential address to Congress on health care:

Obama delivered a speech that was largely about values. Obama presented an expanded vision of American values; it includes concern for others, it affirms a constructive role for government in protecting the weak and ensuring fairness. Obama explained that this tradition is as much a part of American heritage as free enterprise and individualism. Obama has aligned the health care debate with a debate about American values.

In so doing, Obama may have successfully shifted the discussion tonight from one that had been mainly about people's fears to a discussion more centered on peoples' hopes and aspirations. Obama was also correct to warn the country about the dangers of allowing intolerance and negativity to poison the debate. Although we don't know what will come of this approach, it matters that Obama has attempted to re-frame the discussion.

You further commentary, including my own summary of the speech here.

Missile nonsense from the New York Times

jots@jotman.com (Jotman) — Fri, 18 Sep 2009 01:34:00 -0700

In an editorial right out of the Cold War, the editors of the New York Times assume their readers share so many of their own lazy assumptions it makes you wonder why they bothered to write anything at all.

"President Obama made a sound strategic decision, scrapping former President George W. Bush’s technologically dubious plan to build a long-range missile defense system in Poland and the Czech Republic. Instead, the Pentagon will deploy a less-ambitious — but more feasible — system of interceptors and sensors, first on ships and later on land."

Here are some quotes from the editorial (my response in italics):

".... managing the diplomacy — particularly the disappointment of the Central Europeans — and the politics in this country will require a very deft hand." Who cares what these countries think? Are they paying for the program? How about asking what US taxpayers want? And how does missile defense actually make Americans any safer?
"Neither Poland nor the Czech Republic was ever worried about Iran or particularly committed to the need for missile defense. What they fear is Russia." From the perspective of the Central Europeans, the program is about stopping Russia
"The complaints in Washington are already at least as fierce — and a lot more disingenuous. Missile defense has long been an article of faith and politics, more than reason, for many Republicans." The 'complaints' of people on the left and right who don't believe in missile defense expenditures don't matter to the New York Times.
"Mr. Obama will meet in New York next week with President Dmitri Medvedev of Russia. He must make clear that this decision is not a payoff for Moscow’s bullying — and that an improved relationship will depend on Russia’s willingness to treat its neighbors and its people better." Vague challenges will produce nothing but laughter. Why don't you explain EXACTLY what you want from Russia?
"We never believed Moscow’s claims that the Bush system posed a threat to its thousands of highly sophisticated missiles. The Russians repeated it so often that they may have begun to persuade themselves." Maybe Russia just doesn't want armed enemies on its borders.
"The president’s critics are right on one point: The Russians will be watching him closely for any signs of weakness. Mr. Obama must be prepared to press Mr. Medvedev hard on all of these issues." Translation: Obama already "looks weak."

Missile defense: Who betrayed who?

jots@jotman.com (Jotman) — Fri, 18 Sep 2009 14:00:00 -0700

A CBS News headline exclaims "East European officials: US betrayed us." Why do the tantrums of foreign political leaders make headline news, but not the reaction of American taxpayers -- the people who funded this Bush Administration give-away to a powerful corporate lobby? Who was really betrayed by missile defense? How about the people who wrote the check for it?

Now that the Obama administration has scrapped the original plans, officials in the host countries who had supported the program at huge political costs feel betrayed.

"They're thinking we've been sold out," Crowley said. "They're so upset that in Poland they didn't even take the phone call from Hillary Clinton at first. They're very upset at the Obama administration [thinking] 'We went out on a limb.'"

Am I missing something? Do Americans care about the "political cost" paid by some politician in Warsaw more than they care about the "actual cost" of the program to taxpayers like themselves? What moral obligation do Americans have to pay for Poland's defense anyway?* I suspect the most significant thing Poland pays for is Washington lobbyists -- and possibly the PR firms that have helped the corporate American news media to "report" this kind of news.
___
*Interestingly, Poland and the United States are probably the two Western countries where religious conservatives have the greatest influence over policy decisions.

Senator Tom Carper's ethics

jots@jotman.com (Jotman) — Wed, 23 Sep 2009 00:55:00 -0700

UPDATED
The Obama Administration cut a secret backroom deal with pharmaceutical companies. Fearful of a public outcry, some Congressional Democrats are distancing themselves from the deal. But not Sen. Carper:

Senator Tom Carper, Democrat of Delaware, warned that it would be unethical for Democrats to back away from the agreement with the drug industry, which was reached by top White House officials working closely with the Finance Committee chairman, Senator Max Baucus, Democrat of Montana.

“This is not the way that I would like to be treated,” Mr. Carper said. ‘Whether you like PhRMA or not, we have a deal.”

"(T)he Delaware Democrat has raised $238,460 from health insurers alone since 2000, and $341,464 from pharmaceutical companies" according to Open Secrets.

Even if American taxpayers would be getting a bad deal, it's considered "ethical" for a US senator to remain loyal to the corporate executives who fund his campaigns.

Perhaps that's why these senators call themselves "blue dogs." They are loyal to their master.
___
Suggested reading for Sen. Carper: Constitutional topic: Checks and balances. Under the US system, the legislative branch has the final say on any deals cut by the executive branch involving money. Is it unethical for a senator to fulfill his responsibilities under the Constitution?
Photo: Blue dogs Baucus, Carper, Grassely. See this post to read about my visit to the Blue Dog House.

Is an American citizen now a political prisoner in Burma?

jots@jotman.com (Jotman) — Thu, 24 Sep 2009 00:08:00 -0700

AP reports that

US Embassy spokesman Drake Weisert said officials were allowed to visit Kyaw Zaw Lwin on Sunday and have since contacted his family. He had a visa to visit the country, but it is unclear why he traveled to Yangon.

Dissident groups have said the Maryland-based Kyaw Zaw Lwin arrived in Yangon on Sept. 3 and has not been heard from since. It is not known why the junta detained him, but many of his family members have been held over the years for their pro-democracy activities.

Kyaw Zaw Lwin's mother is serving a five-year jail term while his sister was sentenced to 65 years in prison for her role in pro-democracy protests two years ago.

More about Burma's 2,000 political prisoner's here.

Obama answers question on Pittsburgh G20 protesters

jots@jotman.com (Jotman) — Fri, 25 Sep 2009 19:15:00 -0700

Obama's comments on the protests, from the transcript of the G20 press conference (NYT):

Jon Delano of KDKA. Is Jon around?

Q: Right here.

THE PRESIDENT: Good to see you, Jon.

Q: Thank you, Mr. President. Let me ask you, while we were inside this very safe and secure and beautiful convention center, some 5,000 at least demonstrators were on the outside. Some caused some property damage; others just shouted their messages, much of which had to do that while you believe the G20 summit was a success and represents a positive sign, they see it as something devilish and destructive of the world economy, and particularly the economy of the poor. What's your response to those who are demonstrating and those who oppose this summit?

THE PRESIDENT: Well, first of all, I think it's important just to keep things in perspective for the people of Pittsburgh. If you have looked at any of the other summits that took place, I mean, in London you had hundreds of thousands of people on the streets. In most of these summits, there has been a much more tumultuous response. And I think the mayor and the county executive and all the people of Pittsburgh deserve extraordinary credit for having managed what is a very tranquil G20 summit.

You know, I think that many of the protests are just directed generically at capitalism. And they object to the existing global financial system. They object to free markets. One of the great things about the United States is, is that you can speak your mind and you can protest; that's part of our tradition. But I fundamentally disagree with their view that the free market is the source of all ills.

Ironically, if they had been paying attention to what was taking place inside the summit itself, what they would have heard was a strong recognition from the most diverse collection of leaders in history that it is important to make sure that the market is working for ordinary people; that government has a role in regulating the market in ways that don't cause the kinds of crises that we've just been living through; that our emphasis has to be on more balanced growth, and that includes making sure that growth is bottom up, that workers, ordinary people, are able to pay their bills, get -- make a decent living, send their children to college; and that the more that we focus on how the least of these are doing, the better off all of us are going to be. That principle was embodied in the communique that was issued.

And so I would recommend those who are out there protesting, if they're actually interested in knowing what was taking place here, to read the communique that was issued.

My thoughts on Obama's statement here.

Values and healthcare reform

jots@jotman.com (Jotman) — Sat, 26 Sep 2009 21:41:00 -0700

Some thoughts.

Supreme Court devotes itself to trivia

jots@jotman.com (Jotman) — Mon, 05 Oct 2009 11:13:00 -0700

Like should a 70 year old cross be allowed to stand in wilderness area? As if Americans don't have more important things to argue about.

Some cases simply don't matter. This is one of them.

Right wing political correctness

jots@jotman.com (Jotman) — Thu, 08 Oct 2009 22:40:00 -0700

Surely the most irritating manifestation of political correctness is the myriad attempts to rewrite the Bible using politically correct language. My objections to political correctness are neither to political nor religious, but historical and aesthetic.

Such translations read like they were written for a race of morons. Generally speaking, the more educated the parishioner, the sillier ~~his or~~ her Bible sounds.

In the great "race to the bottom" that characterizes so much of American culture, not wanting to be outdone by the thought-police on the left, some right-wing Americans have decided to write a politically correct Bible of their own. They call it the Conservative Bible Project. My favorites:

Express Free Market Parables; explaining the numerous economic parables with their full free-market meaning
Exclude Later-Inserted Liberal Passages: excluding the later-inserted liberal passages that are not authentic, such as the adulteress story

Stupid. Nevertheless, I agree with one aim shared by these conservatives:

Not Dumbed Down: not dumbing down the reading level, or diluting the intellectual force and logic of Christianity; the NIV is written at only the 7th grade level

However, It looks to me like their whole approach is, in fact, grounded in dumbness. Their "new improved" translation is supposed to be based on the King James Version. To me, that makes about as much sense as attempting an "improved" translation of Shakespeare. Of course, serious people don't make new translations out of translations. A competent (i.e. not dumb) approach toward uncovering conservative "meanings" would necessitate going back to the original Greek sources.

Nevertheless, let it be said that these conservatives are no more foolish than those left-wingers who set out to rewrite the Bible in seventh-grade English using gender-neutral language.

Elliott Madison's house raided by Terrorism Task Force

jots@jotman.com (Jotman) — Wed, 28 Oct 2009 20:20:00 -0700

Threat Level reports that a Pittsburgh G20 protester accused of employing tactics that the US State Department lauded in Tehran in June, has had his home raided.

Madison, who counsels more than 100 severely mentally ill patients in New York, seems to have first drawn attention from the authorities at September’s G-20 gathering of world leaders in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. There he was arrested on September 24 at a motel room for allegedly listening to a police scanner and relaying information on Twitter to help protesters avoid heavily-armed cops — an activity the State Department lauded when it happened in Iran.

A week later, the Joint Terrorism Task Force, armed with a search warrant and backed by a federal grand jury investigation, raided Madison’s house, which he shares with his wife of 13 years and several roommates. The squad seized his computers, camera memory cards, books, air-filtration masks, bumper stickers and political posters — all purportedly evidence (.pdf) that the 41-year old social worker had broken a federal anti-rioting law that carries up to five years in prison.

This American writer not only works with the handicapped, he volunteered his time to help Hurricane Katrina victims.

His lawyer, Martin Stolar, explains the rational for the charge in an interview at Democracy Now:

MARTIN STOLAR: Essentially, what Elliot is charged with is using the computer or the cell phone to put up an announcement that said that the police had issued an order to disperse. Having done that and having informed people that the police had issued the order, then it is claimed that that announcement hindered prosecution somehow by, I guess, having people avoid being arrested. It would seem to me that that is something that provides some benefit to the police department, in terms of saving them the expenditure of resources in processing people. But they’ve decided to criminalize that communication, or at least in their complaint that’s what they say, that the communication that said, “Hey, there’s been a dispersal order; everybody be aware of it,” somehow turns into a crime of hindering prosecution. The communication facility then, the cell phone or the computer that was used to post that message, becomes an instrument of the crime, and the use of that mass communication facility becomes, they claim under Pennsylvania law, a third crime.

This is just unbelievable. It is the thinnest, silliest case that I’ve ever seen. It tends to criminalize support services for people who are involved in lawful protest activity. And it’s just shocking that somebody could be arrested for essentially walking next to somebody and saying, “Hey, don’t go down that street, because the police have issued an order to disperse. Stay away from there.” All of a sudden, essentially, that becomes the crime that Elliot and his co-defendant are charged with.

Don't the authorities have any common sense? If the American justice system behaves this mindlessly, who is to say the country has the smarts to catch a real terrorist? That is, if the authorities equate owning anarchist books and paraphernalia with terrorism, those charged with protecting the country must be quite inept, don't you think?

Tax Secrecy Index: Delaware tops list

jots@jotman.com (Jotman) — Tue, 03 Nov 2009 10:52:00 -0800

Delaware tops the Tax Secrecy Index. Blogger and taxation expert Richard Murphy discusses the implications of the findings:

Step forward Delaware in the United States of America. Ranked alongside 59 other secrecy jurisdictions, your commitment to corporate secrecy, and your resolute lack of cooperation and compliance with international norms, places you at head of the new Financial Secrecy Index. Most ordinary people would never consider Delaware alongside Bermuda, Monaco and Grand Cayman as a secrecy jurisdiction. Yet your Opacity Score is as bad as the Cayman Islands’ score, and the sheer scale of your operations places you well ahead of the rest. Your status reveals a brazen contradiction at the heart of the American free market. Properly functioning markets depend on transparency and symmetric access to information, but secrecy jurisdictions like Delaware, Wyoming and Nevada purposefully set out to undermine market transparency.

Listen to Richard justify Delaware's place the list: