I'm not kidding.

I need you to invite the candidates to a party--more specifically, to "The Conference of the Parties."  Don't let the name fool you--"The Conference of the Parties" isn't all fun and games.  It's the huge UN Meeting coming up in December, when the nations of the world come together to work on a global deal to control the climate crisis.

If Obama or McCain, whoever becomes president, goes to this UN meeting and commits the US to responsible leadership on climate change, it will be a major turning point. It would be the President-elect's first foreign trip after the election—even before he's inaugurated—and his presence would send a huge jolt of optimism into the meeting.

But they won't go if no one asks them to--that's where you come in.

Can you send an invitation to Obama and McCain right now?

It's impossible to escape the sense that the current U.S. election is one of the most important in the planet's history.  It's vital that you, no matter where you live, play a part—especially in reminding the candidates of their monumental challenge to restore America's image in the world.  The best way to do that is to encourage real participation in these UN Climate Negotiations--click here to send your invitation right now.

The United States is the only developed country that has not ratified the Kyoto Protocol, the world's first draft of a global climate deal.  For the last seven years the Bush Administration has tried to block global progress on climate change and derail international negotiations from the sidelines.  The time has come to put that era of obstructionism behind us--the USA must get back in the game.

Please send your invitation today.

Thank you for all you do,

Joelle Robinson
Field Director, Climate Solutions

P.S.  Please forward this far and wide!

Al Gore? Mr. I-make-up-the-facts-because-I-am-a-rabid-anti-American-lib-and-can-get-away-with-it-while-making-millions Gore? Mr. loony tunes, let's scare the children, hypocrit in the extreme, discredited, partisan environmentalist himself? The left's prophet of manmade environmental doom and gloom? The very same.

Come on John, say it ain't so! Unfortunately it was.

While our gal Sarah Palin is out there swinging away at Joe Biden, taking on the Mainstream Media and asking to be sent to Michigan with hubby Todd Palin so they can campaign together in a state the campaign pulled out of a couple of days ago, John McCain seems to have stolen a page out of the democratic playbook and learned it by heart. I hope that come November he pulls the right lever and does not vote for Obama to prove he is bi-partisan.

By Monday I'll probably be over it but in the meantime, quoting Diddy on one of his video blogs, "John McCain is bugging the f*@% out. I don't even understand what planet you're on right now." I never thought I would quote anything Diddy said. Ever. That's how disappointed I am in McCain.

McCain's quotes regarding Al Gore can be read at the very end of the article found HERE.

A quick browsing of the news this morning seems to suggest that Biden won if you're a "liberal" and Palin if you're a conservative (there is no real left in the U.S. any longer and, yes, "liberal" is a dirty word in my book). The great entertainment I stayed up for last night was not there, unfortunately. I was waiting for Palin's ignorant blunders. She certainly destroyed the English language every time she opened her mouth, but it was not Palin who made serious mistakes about facts, history, the world last night when she spoke. No, that honor goes to Biden.

Robert Fisk last night on Al Jazeera, thank God, posted most of these out, but I'm sure most people watching Al Jazeera would have recognized these huge mistakes and realized that he has not been boning up on his knowledge areas of the world related to foreign policy as much as he should (all quotes come from CNN's transcript, though, regrettably it does not transliterate Palin's idiosyncratic use of the language--there are no "you betchas," for example.

Biden's mistake #1: If you're going to use an Arabic word, don't you think you should learn what it means first?:

There have been 7,000 madrasses built along that border. We should be helping them build schools to compete for those hearts and minds of the people in the region so that we're actually able to take on terrorism and by the way, that's where bin Laden lives and we will go at him if we have actually intelligence.

المدرسة, or madrassa, literally means school in English. Religious school, private school, public school: it does not matter. Like the word school in English, madrassa applies to all sorts of schools including Islamic religious schools. Oh, and as Fisk, thankfully, makes it clear that there are not 7,000 schools on the Pakistan-Afghanistan border.

Biden's mistake #2: Neither the U.S. nor France ever "kicked out" Hezbollah from Lebanon. And may I ad thank god they didn't? Hezbollah, which was created in response to the state of Israel's illegal invasion and occupation of Lebanon emerged precisely because Lebanon's army could not defend the country. It still can't. That's why the Lebanese government is working on a way to get the army and Hezbollah to work somehow collaboratively:

When we kicked -- along with France, we kicked Hezbollah out of Lebanon, I said and Barack said, "Move NATO forces in there. Fill the vacuum, because if you don't know -- if you don't, Hezbollah will control it."

Now what's happened? Hezbollah is a legitimate part of the government in the country immediately to the north of Israel.

Biden's mistake #3: To be fair, I suspect this next mistake of Biden's may not be related to his ignorance, but rather the seeming fact that it seems to be forbidden for candidates to mention the P word at the debates (PALESTINE). So I'll give Biden the benefit of the doubt and expect that he really does know it is Gaza where Hamas is in power and not the West Bank:

Here's what the president said when we said no. He insisted on elections on the West Bank, when I said, and others said, and Barack Obama said, "Big mistake. Hamas will win. You'll legitimize them." What happened? Hamas won.

So these were Biden's factual errors. But, there were other problems last night (or for me the way-too-wee-hours of the morning). One of them was the way the candidates misled the voters on several different issues. First among them is this notion that either one of these candidates is somehow just like, to use Palin's redneck phrase, "Joe six pack." (By the way: I find it disturbing that this phrase along with its adjunct "hockey mom" has seeped into the discourse here about the election.) Sarah Palin is NOT middle class:

But the Palin family income reached comfortably into six figures in her 2007 declaration, capitalising on valuable salmon fishing rights and a series of property deals. Her governor's salary brought in $125,000 (£71,000), while her husband Todd earned almost $100,000 from his part-time job at BP, combined with income from commercial fishing. The couple appeared to be worth at least $1.2m, including a $500,000 lakefront home, a Piper float-plane and two holiday getaways.

That probably does not seem like struggling to the average American family living on less than $50,000 a year and trying to pay off credit card debts of $9,840 (Mrs Palin has none).

All points to the contrary, though Palin made sure to promote this fabrication when she said:

Now you said recently that higher taxes or asking for higher taxes or paying higher taxes is patriotic. In the middle class of America which is where Todd and I have been all of our lives, that's not patriotic.

On the subject of climate change, Palin simultaneously tried to cover up her previously held position that she doesn't believe in climate change and whitewash the fact that the U.S. has been the worst nation on the planet when it comes to joining the international community to curb greenhouse gas emissions. Palin stated:

We've got to become energy independent for that reason. Also as we rely more and more on other countries that don't care as much about the climate as we do, we're allowing them to produce and to emit and even pollute more than America would ever stand for.

The reality is: not only does Palin think that climate change is not man-made, but she also supports "research" in the subject by corporations contributing to the problem like Exxon Mobil:

Last month Palin agreed that the Alaskan climate was changing but added: "I'm not one though who would attribute it to being man-made." She later tried to retract the statement.

Too, her attempt to fool Joe six pack (okay, this is the only post where I will ever repeat these nauseating phrases) into thinking that the U.S. is somehow the leader on climate change fails to take into account that the U.S. has continually refused to sight the Kyoto Protocol:

President Bush is holding fast to his rejection of mandatory curbs on greenhouse gases that are blamed for global warming, despite a fresh report from 300 scientists in the United States and seven other nations that shows Arctic temperatures are rising.

Biden, too, tried to fool the average voter by suggesting that Obama was somehow not a part of the problem of sub-prime mortgage lending crisis:

Well Gwen, two years ago Barack Obama warned about the sub prime mortgage crisis. John McCain said shortly after that in December he was surprised there was a sub prime mortgage problem. John McCain while Barack Obama was warning about what we had to do was literally giving an interview to The Wall Street Journal saying that I'm always for cutting regulations. We let Wall Street run wild. John McCain and he's a good man, but John McCain thought the answer is that tried and true Republican response, deregulate, deregulate.

I quoted Dennis Bernstein on this the other day, but it bears repeating once again. Obama's Finance Chair, Penny Pritzger, helped manufacture the problem to begin with:

Though Superior Bank collapsed years before the current sub-prime turmoil that is rocking the world’s financial markets – and pushing those millions of homeowners toward foreclosure – some banking experts say the Pritzkers and Superior hold a special place in the history of the sub-prime fiasco.

“The [sub-prime] financial engineering that created the Wall Street meltdown was developed by the Pritzkers and Ernst and Young, working with Merrill Lynch to sell bonds securitized by sub-prime mortgages,” Timothy J. Anderson, a whistleblower on financial and bank fraud, told me in an interview.

“The sub-prime mortgages,” Anderson said, “were provided to Merrill Lynch, by a nation-wide Pritzker origination system, using Superior as the cash cow, with many millions in FDIC insured deposits. Superior’s owners were to sub-prime lending, what Michael Milken was to junk bonds.”

In other words, if you traced today’s sub-prime crisis back to its origins, you would come upon the role of the Pritzkers and Superior Bank of Chicago.

So both Biden and Palin misled, lied, in other words both are quite adept at performing the role of politician. But they also deleted as Fisk also pointed out in his analysis last night. What did they delete? The word Palestine. (For the record, Ifill mentioned the word Palestinian once.) Certainly they talked around the subject, but only in their battle to show who loves the Zionist state more. This was perhaps the most nauseating part of the debate to watch not just for their wholesale erasure of a people, their history, their context but also for their uncritical, absolute, and unconditional support for the Zionist state. (I should add that no matter what state we are talking about it is asinine to uncritically support any state or anything absolutely.) First, here is Palin on her unconditional support for Israel:

Israel is our strongest and best ally in the Middle East. We have got to assure them that we will never allow a second Holocaust, despite, again, warnings from Iran and any other country that would seek to destroy Israel, that that is what they would like to see.

We will support Israel. A two-state solution, building our embassy, also, in Jerusalem, those things that we look forward to being able to accomplish, with this peace-seeking nation, and they have a track record of being able to forge these peace agreements.

They succeeded with Jordan. They succeeded with Egypt. I'm sure that we're going to see more success there, also.

It's got to be a commitment of the United States of America, though. And I can promise you, in a McCain-Palin administration, that commitment is there to work with our friends in Israel.

Now, here is Biden concurring:

Gwen, no one in the United States Senate has been a better friend to Israel than Joe Biden. I would have never, ever joined this ticket were I not absolutely sure Barack Obama shared my passion.

And Palin expressing her happiness over the fact that they agree on their unequivocal support for the Zionist state:

I'm so encouraged to know that we both love Israel, and I think that is a good thing to get to agree on, Senator Biden. I respect your position on that.

Can you imagine any country with a leader whose brain is bigger than the size of a pea lending its support for any state without reservations? Without question? Moreover, not only did we never hear the word Palestine mention. By not mentioning Palestine, Palestinian people, a Palestinian context many other things were deleted as well. Occupation. Illegal settlements. The 60th anniversary of an nakba. Palestinian political prisoners. Palestinian refugees. The siege on Gaza. The hyperbole Palin invokes with her reference to a so-called second holocaust and Israel as a "peace-seeking nation" is preposterous and shows the level of myth making involved in their Israel love-fest. Israel is a war-seeking nation and has been so since before its creation. Of course if Rosa Clemente and Matt Gonzalez (Gonzalez will be on Democracy Now! today offering his take on the debate). had been invited to participate (in other words, if the U.S. actually had a democracy where all political parties and candidates had a voice) we would have seen something very different in the discourse on this issue among others (see Ralph Nader's policy statement on Palestine, for instance or this article by Nader on the siege of Gaza).

I take Palin at her word, unfortunately, when she expresses her affection for a nation-state that practices state terrorism on a daily basis. At the same time when she mentioned her love of Israel (about six or seven times) for her American Jewish voting audience (most of whom, by the way, do not support the state of Israel unconditionally), she made it clear that she doesn't really know or understand the issues at stake. Likewise, there were many moments when she clearly did not understand the words, the language, the question, the concept and in turn either ignored it or injected the word "energy" into her response. It seems that this energy crutch of hers was the only subject she seemed to feel comfortable with (of course, only in the context of "drill, baby, drill"). She used the word "energy" 29 times. For instance, when Palin was asked what promises she might not be able to keep, she responded:

I want to go back to the energy plan, though, because this is -- this is an important one that Barack Obama, he voted for in '05.

In response to Ifill's very specific question about the economy:

Sen. Biden, you voted for this bankruptcy bill. Sen. Obama voted against it. Some people have said that mortgage- holders really paid the price.

Biden replied with an answer and directed specific criticisms of McCain within it. Palin replied to Biden's answer with this:

That is not so, but because that's just a quick answer, I want to talk about, again, my record on energy versus your ticket's energy ticket, also.

She never got around to answer the question. What is disturbing about the way energy was talked about last night--for instance both support "clean coal," an oxymoron that rivals Bush's "healthy forests" or "no child left behind. But also is the phrase "energy independent" that Palin used ad nauseum. This phrase in its current parlance should be understood as: we are Islamophobic, Arab-phobic and do not want to engage in economic trade with Arab and Muslim countries. This is the conventional wisdom, the subtext here. But let's look at where it actually comes from:

Of course, since there was no depth or substance last night we can't expect the candidates to register such facts--especially when those facts get in the way of the desired xenophobic effect. After all, they want to appeal to those soccer moms.

The very first question of the debate was about the recent bills moving through Congress about the economy (see yet another important petition to sign, by the way, from Code Pink asking to fire Henry Paulson). Biden responded by talking about McCain's work in deregulating the banking industry among others. But it seemed as if Palin didn't know what the word deregulation meant. Her response didn't touch the issue and seems rather delusional:

Now, John McCain thankfully has been one representing reform. Two years ago, remember, it was John McCain who pushed so hard with the Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac reform measures. He sounded that warning bell.

People in the Senate with him, his colleagues, didn't want to listen to him and wouldn't go towards that reform that was needed then. I think that the alarm has been heard, though, and there will be that greater oversight, again thanks to John McCain's bipartisan efforts that he was so instrumental in bringing folks together over this past week, even suspending his own campaign to make sure he was putting excessive politics aside and putting the country first.

As I show above both candidates certainly need to bone up on their history of the Middle East, which is why I found it rather ironic when Biden had this to say about Iraq:

John McCain voted to cut off funding for the troops. Let me say that again. John McCain voted against an amendment containing $1 billion, $600 million that I had gotten to get MRAPS, those things that are protecting the governor's son and pray god my son and a lot of other sons and daughters.

He voted against it. He voted against funding because he said the amendment had a time line in it to end this war. He didn't like that. But let's get straight who has been right and wrong. John McCain and Dick Cheney said while I was saying we would not be greeted as liberators, we would not - this war would take a decade and not a day, not a week and not six months, we would not be out of there quickly. John McCain was saying the Sunnis and Shias got along with each other without reading the history of the last 700 years. John McCain said there would be enough oil to pay for this. John McCain has been dead wrong. I love him. As my mother would say, god love him, but he's been dead wrong on the fundamental issues relating to the conduct of the war. Barack Obama has been right. There are the facts.

Or, alternately, here is Palin showing just how deeply delusional she is with respect to Iraq:

Your plan is a white flag of surrender in Iraq and that is not what our troops need to hear today, that's for sure. And it's not what our nation needs to be able to count on. You guys opposed the surge. The surge worked. Barack Obama still can't admit the surge works.

We'll know when we're finished in Iraq when the Iraqi government can govern its people and when the Iraqi security forces can secure its people. And our commanders on the ground will tell us when those conditions have been met. And Maliki and Talabani also in working with us are knowing again that we are getting closer and closer to that point, that victory that's within sight.

First, clearly Palin had to look at her notes to remember Maliki and Talabani's names. Second, it is deeply problematic to talk about victory or is the surge working or troop withdrawal without defining victory for one thing. For another thing neither one of them mentioned the American contractors or mercenaries who are in Iraq and even with an Obama time line for a troop withdrawal, I suspect those contractors are there to stay (so too with the U.S. military and its some sixteen permanent military installations around the country). Here is what Jeremy Scahill has to say about the likelihood of an Obama presidency removing these private security firms from Iraq:

Illinois Democrat Jan Schakowsky, one of Congress's sharpest critics of the war contracting system, says of Schmitz's remark, "That's why some of us have been really careful about not just talking about a troop withdrawal but a contractor withdrawal as well." Obama, she says, should make it impossible for Schmitz and others "to think that Barack Obama would be creating new opportunities for Blackwater after our troops are withdrawn." The clearest way for him to do that would be to endorse legislation banning the use of Blackwater and other mercenary firms in Iraq. In November Schakowsky and Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders introduced the Stop Outsourcing Security (SOS) Act, which mandates that US personnel undertake all diplomatic security in Iraq within six months of enactment. The bill has twenty-three co-sponsors in the House and one--Sanders--in the Senate. Sanders said he'd "love" it if Obama and Clinton signed on. "If either of them came on board, we'd certainly see more Democratic support," says Sanders. Will Obama do that before November? "The answer is no, in all candor," says the senior Obama adviser. "Obviously it's a dynamic situation, and he'll continue to analyze it."

When Biden said earlier that we should be building schools not schools (i.e., see above in his incorrect usage of the Arabic word madrassa) in Afghanistan and Pakistan, Palin made sure to tell the voters that in addition to a victory being in sight (by the way, at a rally after the debate she literally said we have already achieved victory in Iraq), she also said something equally delusional:

That's not what we're doing there. We're fighting terrorists, and we're securing democracy, and we're building schools for children there so that there is opportunity in that country, also. There will be a big difference there, and we will win in -- in Afghanistan, also.

Okay, let's get this straight here. Not only is the surge not working, we are definitely not building schools or democracy. First of all, last month the numbers show that things haven't changed much with respect to Iraqi people killed:

The number of Iraqi civilians and security personnel killed in insurgent and militia violence in September was 440, little changed from August, security officials said on Wednesday.

At least 359 civilians, 26 Iraqi soldiers and 55 policemen were slain in September, according to figures collected by the interior, defence and health ministries, officials who had the access to the data said.

In August, 383 civilians, 18 Iraqi soldiers and 30 policemen, a total of 431 people, were killed.

I know, Americans don't care if Iraqis die, but try, just for a minute to consider these losses--casualties if you prefer--just for the sake of considering whether or not the surge is working. Juan Cole made this point early on about the lie of the troop surge as working:

I saw on CNN this smarmy Bush administration official come and and say that US troop deaths had fallen because of the surge, which is why we should support it. Just read the following chart bottom to top and compare 2006 month by month to 2007. US troop deaths haven't fallen. They are way up. Besides, they would be zero if the US were not occupying Iraq militarily, so if we should support a policy that leads to fewer troop deaths, that is the better policy.

Here are the US troop death via Icasualties.org.

8-2007 77 8-2006 65

7-2007 79 7-2006 43

6-2007 101 6-2006 61

5-2007 126 5-2006 69

4-2007 104 4-2006 76

3-2007 81 3-2006 31

2-2007 81 2-2006 55

1-2007 83 1-2006 62

Dahr Jamail explains the reason why this troop surge isn't working/won't work:

In his final State of the Union address in January, George W. Bush proudly held up the newly formed "Awakening Groups," known locally in Iraq as the Sahwa, as examples of both Iraqi cooperation and independence. Members of these groups now total nearly 80,000, and are paid $300 of U.S. taxpayer money a month to not attack occupation forces. These groups are referred to as "Concerned Local Citizens" by the military, as though they are comprised of concerned fathers and uncles who suddenly became keen to collaborate with members of a foreign occupation force which has eviscerated their country.

In reality, most of the Sahwa are resistance fighters who are taking the money, arms, and ammunition, whilst biding their time to build their forces to move, once again, against the occupation forces which now support them, in addition to planning to move against the Shia dominated government. Furthermore, it is widely known in Iraq that many of the Sahwa are al-Qaeda members, the irony of which is not lost to Iraqis, who heard the U.S. propaganda as to the reasons the Sahwa were formed: to drive al-Qaeda from Iraq and to promote security so as to enable political reconciliation within the government in Baghdad by providing the space for this to occur.

Although there is no surge in Afghanistan yet, Iraq, like Afghanistan is suffering because we are indeed killing innocent civilians, though Palin rejects this notion:

Now, Barack Obama had said that all we're doing in Afghanistan is air-raiding villages and killing civilians. And such a reckless, reckless comment and untrue comment, again, hurts our cause.

The statistics above speak for themselves. Also, Palin comes dangerously close to conflating Shi'a resistance fighters and al qa'eda:

We cannot afford to lose against al Qaeda and the Shia extremists who are still there, still fighting us, but we're getting closer and closer to victory. And it would be a travesty if we quit now in Iraq.

Another sign she is way too uninformed on the issues, the history, the context. As much as Biden if this debate is any judge. But in spite of her pro-surge, pro-war mentality, Palin has a "passion for diplomacy" after a brief meeting with war criminal Henry Kissinger recently:

No and Dr. Henry Kissinger especially. I had a good conversation with him recently. And he shared with me his passion for diplomacy. And that's what John McCain and I would engage in also. But again, with some of these dictators who hate America and hate what we stand for, with our freedoms, our democracy, our tolerance, our respect for women's rights, those who would try to destroy what we stand for cannot be met with just sitting down on a presidential level as Barack Obama had said he would be willing to do. That is beyond bad judgment. That is dangerous.

In a word: delusional. (Also: notice her use of the word "also" throughout the debate: mostly incorrect, mostly contributing to the incomprehensible nature of her speaking.) The level of nausea I have to deal with to hear those Bushisms like those she quoted above. What democracy? What freedom? We cannot even have a real debate that includes all the candidates! What tolerance? The way we lock people up who are poor and brown as Randall Robinson puts it, a modern-day form of slavery:

The U.S. has the largest prison population in the world: two million people. The country with one-twentieth of the world’s population has one-fourth of those in prison. One out of every eight prisoners in the world is an African American. We are warehousing people as a profit to shareholders or for benefits to communities that get to host federal prisons. It is modern slavery. The whole future of America’s black community is at risk. One out of every three young black men in Washington, D.C., is under one arm or the other of the criminal justice system. These are the continuing consequences of slavery.

Or are we tolerant in our use of torture? Extraordinary rendition? Our occupation of Afghanistan and Iraq? Our recent invasions of Pakistan?

Just as Palin (and Biden) seems to be woefully clueless when it comes to historical matters affecting our current realities, Palin's inability to comprehend the English language remains a huge stumbling block from me. If I hear the word "elite" one more time when people criticize her not only for her ridiculously inept style of speaking (her so-called "folksy" style which includes nail-on-the-chalkboard phrases like "darn right," "you betcha," "bless their hearts," "near and dear to my heart," "say it ain't so Joe") coupled with her inability to understand key questions or words thrown at her is appalling. It is not elite to be proficient in the English language, especially when you are running for such a high-profile position. Although people seem to be writing this morning about how well she performed (mostly due to low expectations), I saw one of her hallmark problems a number of times; that is, when she doesn't understand a word or a question or when she doesn't know the answer she fills her sentences with burdensome prepositional phrases that lead one to have no idea what she said or what she meant. Worse, I suspect she didn't know what she meant as well. In a nutshell her use of prepositional phrases is whack. Here are just a couple of her grammatical errors, but there are numerous errors:

What I want to argue about is, how are we going to get there to positively affect the impacts?

But here, again, there have -- there have been so many changes in the conditions of our economy in just even these past weeks that there has been more and more revelation made aware now to Americans about the corruption and the greed on Wall Street.

The way she spoke that phrase, I suspect she meant effect instead of affect. Also, her use of "impacts" shows that she cannot tell the difference between a noun and a verb. And what of the phrase "more and more revelation made aware now"? What does that even mean? Note to Palin: stringing more words together does not help you bullshit. Bullshitting requires at least a little bit of knowledge--of both the language you're speaking in and the subject matter.

Likewise, I think someone needs to tell Palin what a maverick is. John Nichols has a column today that talks about Biden defining the term in the midst of the debate because he, too, noticed her problem. The word "maverick," according to the Oxford English Dictionary means:

an unorthodox or independent-minded person : a free-thinking maverick. a person who refuses to conform to a particular party or group

If you just listen to or read anything coming out of McCain or Palin's mouth it will be clear that neither is a maverick. Nevertheless, Palin used the word 6 times as if to suggest that if she used it enough it would be true (that must be something she learned from her Zionist friends). But, unfortunately, I don't think Palin got an English grammar lesson because when Biden explained maverick he did so indirectly and I don't believe Palin is bright enough to infer from the context. Here is what Biden said about what a maverick is not:

He has not been a maverick in providing health care for people. He has voted against -- he voted including another 3.6 million children in coverage of the existing health care plan, when he voted in the United States Senate.

He's not been a maverick when it comes to education. He has not supported tax cuts and significant changes for people being able to send their kids to college.

He's not been a maverick on the war. He's not been a maverick on virtually anything that genuinely affects the things that people really talk about around their kitchen table.

Can we send -- can we get Mom's MRI? Can we send Mary back to school next semester? We can't -- we can't make it. How are we going to heat the -- heat the house this winter?

He voted against even providing for what they call LIHEAP, for assistance to people, with oil prices going through the roof in the winter.

So maverick he is not on the important, critical issues that affect people at that kitchen table.

On pronunciation I wonder if it would be possible to write in a new law in the Constitution requiring all elected officials to take elocution classes. In particular, I think they should have to learn how to say properly the names of countries and leaders around the world. For the love of god: you do not say "EYE-rack" or "EYE-ran" when talking about the countries Iraq and Iran. Here is how you pronounce them:

|iˈräk; iˈrak; īˈrak|

|iˈrän; iˈran; īˈran|

I actually hope that Palin doesn't see that above pronunciation key, however, because I don't know if she would understand enough about linguistics to decipher it.

The final question of the night, Ifill asked yet another question that Palin didn't understand and so she dodged it:

Let's talk conventional wisdom for a moment. The conventional wisdom, Governor Palin with you, is that your Achilles heel is that you lack experience. Your conventional wisdom against you is that your Achilles heel is that you lack discipline, Senator Biden. What id it really for you, Governor Palin? What is it really for you, Senator Biden? Start with you, governor.

Instead of discussion her weakenesses or flaws, she rambled on incoherently about her so-called experience (read: she talked about energy again). One of her so-called qualities that makes her qualified to be Vice President, and possibly President? She's a mom. Since when does being a parent (a mother or a father for that matter) qualify one to lead a country? I much prefer Nader for this very reason: he's not a parent and has devoted his life to public service instead of contributing to overpopulation and seeing his DNA reproduced. Palin tops off her response by demonstrating hubris, another word she proved she didn't know when Charles Gibson interviewed her:

But even more important is that world view that I share with John McCain. That world view that says that America is a nation of exceptionalism. And we are to be that shining city on a hill, as President Reagan so beautifully said, that we are a beacon of hope and that we are unapologetic here. We are not perfect as a nation. But together, we represent a perfect ideal. And that is democracy and tolerance and freedom and equal rights. Those things that we stand for that can be put to good use as a force for good in this world.

There is no humility here. She said it herself: "we are unapologetic." Is this leadership? If she wants to use her folksy wisdom here about families around the kitchen table: is this how families behave? No apologies? No humility? In fact what we need from leaders is exactly that: apologies, reparations. And, perhaps most important of all: a quest for justice--not just for Americans, but for all those nations in the world we have caused harm through our historic and current imperial endeavors.

The developing nations, which now produce a substantial amount of emissions, have been left out and are not bound by any mandatory emissions reductions.

Both China and India are big players in the trade of carbon credits together accounting for nearly 80% of the credits sold. Even after earning funding for clean energy projects both these countries have failed to register any substantial reduction in their emissions. Although China is the biggest investor in renewable energy and India is witnessing a boom in the clean energy projects especially solar, their role as the new big emitters has made headlines around the world. 

A big portion of their emissions is due to the exports to developed countries. Now although the developed countries consume the products whose manufacturing is attributed to the emissions still they aren't held responsible for the same instead those emissions are registered as those of the developing nations. These emissions have so far being overlooked and the emissions of the developed nations are supposedly neutralised when they buy carbon credits and fund clean energy projects in the developing countries.

But as we can see this approach isn't working; even if the developed nations are able to meet the set goals the emissions of the developing nations will go unaddressed. 

Therefore, Japan recently argued that the developing nations must also be asked to set medium term emissions goals which would be slightly lenient in nature as compared to the ones set for the developed nations. Japan wants this clause to be a part of the new emissions treaty that would succeed Kyoto. Now, in addition to this, the whole system of carbon trading must also be regulated, be made more transparent and the overlooking agency must push the beneficiaries of the funding for regular audits (especially environmental audits) so as to evaluate the impact of those clean energy projects on the environment. 

Furthermore, the subject needs a closer and comprehensive look as cutting emissions would also impact trade volumes among nations. Taking the specific example of US and China, the US government has so far failed to persuade the Chinese government to adhere to clean manufacturing practices even though China exports huge amounts of goods to the US. Understandably any actions on the part of US can have not only economic but geopolitical repercussions as well therefore a new international law must be passed mandating companies of every country to indicate on each and every product the gases emitted to produce it. 

Making the developing nations accountable for the emissions, regulating the carbon trading system so that it is not misused and giving the power of choice to the informed & concerned consumers would be the right approach in the effort to reduce the growing carbon emissions worldwide. These are relatively small steps as compared to the hard to negotiate 2050 mandatory emissions reduction goals which the world leaders failed to agree up on at the last G8 meeting in Japan.

Trading the Rights [sic] to Pollute the Environment!

Belgium has bought the Hungarian "rights" to emit 2 million tons of greenhouse gas, spokeswomen for  the anti-environment ministries of both countries confirmed. The credits and funds have already been transferred.

Come again?

But, but ... wasn't the Kyoto Protocol a sophisticated joke designed to bring shame to the world's ... you are serious aren't you?

Actually, and no it's not a joke, the Kyoto Protocol allows industrialized countries to meet GHG emission targets by buying other countries emissions "rights."

What's the trading value of all other rights to rape the environment?

What about the rights to pollute the oceans, how much do they cost?

The rights to create more dead zones and their trading value?

And the rights to acidify your ocean, what's their trading value?

How much must a country pay to bleach, say, 30 percent of the world's coral reefs and, by the way, who owns those rights?

What about the right to pump raw sewage into your lakes or coastal waters, and its trading value?

The price of GHG emission rights is confidential!

"The (transaction) price is confidential as this was a private agreement between the two parties," a spokewoman for Belgium's Ministry of Climate and Energy told Reuters.

No way. secrecy is unacceptable! Its our air they are polluting and we want to know how many pieces of silver they are paying for it. Out with it now, you ugly beasts!

Et tu, Hungary?

Hungary's Ministry of Environment and Water said it did not want to jeopardize Hungary's ability to drive a hard bargain with other countries by revealing price details of the Belgian deal.

Under Kyoto Protocol, Hungary can sell about 100 million AAUs, or "surplus rights to emit CO2" by 2012. Each AAU allows the buyer to release one ton of carbon dioxide to the environment.

Related Links:

• Death by Lethal Pollution

• World CO2 Emissions
• Protect Economy from Climate??!
• Blind scientists examining the economic elephant

• How Much Carbon Dioxide Does Your Money Make?
• Index of Human Impact on Nature

• World Problems:The Root Cause Matrix
• First Wave of World’s Collapsing Cities

• Our Oceans

By Bjørn Lomborg

From The Times, September 30, 2008

Britain's efforts to reduce the speed of global warming will cost huge sums of money and have a pitifully tiny effect.

Global warming is seen everywhere as one of the most important issues. From the EU to the G8, leaders trip over one another to affirm their commitment to cutting CO2 to heal the world. What they do not often acknowledge - in part because it would lose them support - is that the solutions proffered are incredibly costly and will end up doing amazingly little good, even in a century's time. This is the truly inconvenient truth of the politics of global warming.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/guest_contributors/article4849167.ece

The group's president told a gathering, which included Al Gore and Wangari Ma'athai, that WWF would not oppose efforts to include forests in international climate negotiations.

"The Amazon, if it were a country, would be in the top seven emitters of greenhouse gases in the world," Carter Roberts said.

"Unless the world has policies that recognize that value of standing trees and forests, we will have failed."

"WWF was pivotal in keeping forests out. We have changed our position," he added.

The news was welcomed by groups pushing forest conservation as a way to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

Tropical deforestation and degradation accounts for a fifth of global greenhouse gas emissions, more than the entire global transportation sector.

Some economists say that "avoided deforestation" represents one of the most-effective means for cutting emissions of heat-trapping gases, while many environmentalists see the concept as offering the best hope for saving endangered tropical forests.

WWF had opposed forest conservation in climate talks due to concerns over monitoring and implementation as well as a desire to focus on reducing industrial emissions.

Source: Mongabay.com
Date: 25/09/2008

In several parts of the USA there are government subsidies and interest free loans on the purchase and installations of solar panels for domestic use. New Zealand has major problems with power. This year the lakes which are used to generate hydro electricity in the South Island were close to empty and given that this has been a recurring situation, it is only a matter of time before we start having enforced power cuts.

The government has been quick to sign the Kyoto Protocol which apparently gives us a sustainability debt which we will have to pay to other countries. In my humble opinion this is stupid, not the least because countries including our Australian cobbers and the USA have not signed. But more so because we would be far better using those funds, taxpayers dollars, to do better things at home, such as interest free subsidies for urban water tanks for drinking water and solar panels on our homes to generate water to heat it. Surely that would make better sense?

When I started to research this, I found that South Australia is enforcing a concept that they got from the NZ Green Party which is a Feed-in-Tarriff. I'm amazed that I had never heard of it! I'm not sure if that reflects more poorly on me for not knowing or on the Greens for not being more vocal about it. Anyway, rather than providing subsidies and interest free finance, which I feel we should still enforce, this concept requires the power companies to purchase excess power from consumers who have solar power in their homes, at a price higher than they pay to the commercial grid.

If we are in for some serious problems as a consequence of global warming, rising sea lavels, increased pollution in lakes and rivers, exacerbated by increasing water temperature, how is it that the Greens do not feature high on the political radar. I suspect that a lot of it is driven by their perception as tree huggers, driving sooty diesel vans who used ot be extremely vocal, but just didn't seem like us, the average Joe Public. They don't fit the mould of the ordinary politician, perhaps because they represent only one (important) facet of life on planet Earth today. They haven't convinced us that we need them, which is a shame, because they may have some great ideas that we dn't know about. Maybe they need to make some changes to the way they present themselves.

So here's the problem. I can't afford to spend between $30,000 for water heating and $100,000 for generate power to my home equivalent to what I get off the grid today. But if I could borrow the money interest free and pay for it from savings as well as selling excess back into the grid I'd be keen.

Don't vote for McCain, either. He's done nothing as far as illegal immigration. In fact, he wants to legalize the millions of illegals already here. Add to that his intention to sign the Kyotol Protocol which will wreak further economic havoc on the United States which means he certainly should not be looking down his nose at Obama's tax increases to fund socialist programs.

While many cities have subscribed to the Kyoto protocol, over the rejection by the Federal Government, Chicago has recently released perhaps the most comprehensive and quantified plan to get to the 25% reduction by 2020 under 1990 levels.  As needed, the plan will focus on buildings' efficiency, and include plans for green roofs and solar panels.  By making high-density buildings and living more attractive and efficient, you also take a huge simultanious bite out of transportation energy and cost.

New York has its excellent PlaNYC 2030 initiative, but Chicago has moved above them in how close they are to implementation.

EnviroMission's Solar Tower technology is focused on large-scale, clean, green renewable energy generation from the world's first 200MW solar thermal power station.

One 200MW power station will provide enough electricity to around 200,000 typical Australian households and abates over 900,000 tonnes of greenhouse producing gases from entering the environment annually.

The monolithic scale of the project may also add value to the construction of the power station through tourism and associated economic benefits.

The prototype Solar Tower has been tested and proven with a small-scale pilot project in Manzanares, Spain, as a result of collaboration between the Spanish government and German designers, Schlaich Bergermann and Partner.

It even operated for seven years between 1982 and 1989, and consistently generated 50kW output of green energy, proving the concepts works as well as providing data for design modifications to achieve greater commercial and economic benefits associated with an increased scale of economy.

Where Next?

After an extensive search, EnviroMission selected the site for the world's first Solar Tower power station to be built in the Buronga district of the Wentworth Shire in NSW and 25km NE of Mildura in Victoria, Australia.  The proposed site shows EnviroMission's commitment to the Australia's Sunraysia Region of NSW and Victoria. The project still requires planning approval codes, regulations and legislation from Australia's State and Local Governments.

Background on the Solar Tower and the Market in Australia

Formerly referred to as Solar Chimney technology in academic literature – the Solar Tower is now marketed without the reference to chimney (to avoid confusion with the pollution associated with chimneys - this technology is emission free) - the Solar Tower has had in excess of A$35 million and 20 years of research and development invested in it.  EnviroMission believe that now, more than ever before, the time is ideal to apply this technology.

For more than 100 years it has been relatively cheap, environmentally unaccountable and simple to dig up coal as a fuel source to produce electricity. With concerns over climate change and increasing need for clean, renewable energy solutions account for still less than 10% of all electricity generated in Australia.

Community concern about Australia's over reliance on coal-based 'black' and 'brown' energy and the negative impact on the environment has helped to drive political change. There is now a legislated market for clean, green renewable energy, legislated as a Mandated Renewable Energy Target (9500 gWh annual renewable energy target by 2010) has opened the way for investment in new approaches to renewable energy generation.  This recent incentive is important to the growth of renewable energy development including Solar Tower technology.

A further political incentive in the form of the Renewable Energy Credit (REC) developed by the Australian Government in 2001 has encouraged new investment in renewable energy development, with the purpose of reducing greenhouse gases and increasing the amount of renewable energy output.

As new materials, construction methods and government policy are now available to the extent that there is environmental, social and commercial advantage in the development of Solar Tower technology.

EnviroMission claims that each 200MW solar thermal power station will abate over 900,000 tonnes of carbon dioxide from entering the environment annually. The Solar Tower technology will help Australia meet its Kyoto obligations, provide a bonus to the environment, and will be a major producer of scaleable renewable energy with flow on benefits to the community and our investors.

Terms of Recent Deal with SMT

Following the mutual termination of the 2007 merger proposal between EnviroMission Limited with SolarMission Technologies, Inc (SMT), EnviroMission and SMT have continued to explore alternative corporate actions and structures to facilitate the shared ambition and vision for the long-term Solar Tower development.

As a result, EnviroMission implemented an acquisition model to leverage off the advantage of its public listing, providing the inducement of listing liquidity to SMT common share and warrant holders under the terms of a Stock Exchange Offer, with the aim of securing at least majority control of SMT.

In the weeks leading up to the close of the Stock Exchange Offer (August 1, 2008), EnviroMission negotiated a license agreement with SMT to confirm the strategic intent of the acquisition and ensure the licence also contained sufficient commercial terms to provide equity to all SMT security holders, including security holders that may decline the EnviroMission Stock Exchange Offer. EnviroMission's license agreement with SMT takes effect from July 31, 2008 to secure the global SolarTower development license in all markets, excluding China.

EnviroMission will issue 5,000,000 (five million) ordinary free trading shares to SMT as an equity consideration for the global Solar Tower license (excluding China), with additional 'commercial in confidence' provisions to satisfy the immediate and equitable assignment of the Solar Tower license to EnviroMission; subject also to EnviroMission shareholder approval of the Stock Exchange Offer to SMT.

Commercial terms are based on development milestones to provide an ongoing equity opportunity to SMT (EnviroMission anticipates owning 58.92% of SMT subject to shareholder approval). On this basis, EnviroMission has negotiated an agreement assigning the global Solar Tower license to EnviroMission.

It goes on to talk about a former Telstra employee who committed suicide shortly after having a vehicle tracking system attached to his company vehicle. The employee was being treated for depression and the story infers that his suicide was in part a consequence of Fleet Management equipment being installed in his vehicle.

Over the last decade I have been in various ways involved with Vehicle and Personal Tracking technology and only once have I come accross a company that wanted it to be able to check up on the honesty of their staff.

There is no question that some companies have found a sudden increase in profitability and decrease in vehicle costs since they put FM systems in place, but monitoring staff integrity was not the reason the system went in. This particular company wanted to know which vehicles were close to clients that needed urgent service so that they could allocate the nearest vehicle to provide a quality reponsive service.

A few years ago I met the CEO of a rapid response plumbing firm. They guaranteed a minimum response time for people who needed a plumber in an emergancy. He was able to manage this as a consequence of using Navman Wireless technology to locate the nearest vehicle to the job.

They also wanted to compare time based service contracts to the actual time the vehicle was parked at the client site. They wanted to know if they had under or overquoted because there was sometimes a gap between the sales person's enthusiasm to win a contract and the reality of the job being done.

What did happen was that a number of staff people whom they had suspected of taking liberties with the vehicle on the job and after hours, left the company within a month or so of their own volition.

I am against (and it may well be illegal) tracking people and their vehicles without their knowledge. The only people able to do that should be the Police and even then, only with a legal warrant produced through the courts.

On the other hand there are many potential benefits. In the courier and freight industry, Fleet Management means that people can easily apply track and trace to good being picked up and delivered without needing additional staff to place calls to drivers.

In the security industry it means that security guards on patrol can confirm the safety and location of their staff and also provide clear evidence to clients that their premises have been visited when they said they were. It can also mean that these people can be backed up in an emergancy. This technology is used internationally to track and protect the safety of VIP's such as politicians in government vehicles.

Another area that is becoming popular is using this technology to keep track of a personal vehicle's location. For example, when Dad lends the car to his son or daughter who is just popping down to the shops or a mate's place, who could be boy racers. There have been a number of occassions where a stolen vehicle has been recovered with the thief still inside, such as the case earlier this year. Sometimes a car is irreplacable such as a classic, or sports car. Insurance money can't always allow someone to recover the time spent in restoring or bulding a vehicle. This technology can also be used to secure trailer water craft and motorcycles which are often easy targets for criminals.

Another area which is becoming very popular and which I have written about a number of times before is tracking elderly people. With the Baby Boomers living longer and being more mobile, there is a growing population of elderly people, some of whom are sprightly of mind, but less of body and at risk of breaking hips or other body parts, while others are sound in body but suffering onset of Alzheimers Disease or other forms of dementia and likely to wander off and not remember where they live. Whether it is the Retirement Village or Rest Home, or their children, this common problem becomes much easier to manage if you can send a text message to the device they are carrying and receive one back with the nearest street address to their current location.

I think tracking is a great thing for unions to use to help them shore up membership and totally endorse them helping people out when it comes to unethical practice on behalf of the company they work for. However, in most cases FM (Fleet Management) is about providing better service to a company's clients, being able to stay competitive in a time of heavy traffic, high cost of petrol and consumers who expect cheaper prices.

 Does that mean, we can abuse our environment for 16 more years? I dont think so.

There are opinions on the significance of global warming and if, in fact, it even exists. For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction and for every message  published by some scientific institute , there is a counter view given by someone else. All UN does is submit report after report on the effects of global warming. United States is the only developed country that has not ratified the treaty and is one of the significant greenhouse gas emitters. China and India  have no obligation beyond monitoring and reporting emissions.

No matter what path our goverment chooses , we must understand that this is a  global issue. No single person can reverse the effects of global warming but togather we can solve it. By using energy-efficient products at home and at work, we can significantly reduce our greenhouse gas .

Join wecansolveit.org. We are already a million strong .

T1. Legal and Political Environment: The political environment in the Philippines has been volatile in the 1990s, with the fall of Marcos and then Estrada, highlighting each break in the economic situation of the country. Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo's term, due to end in 2010, has shown promise in stabilizing the economic policies of the country. Most people are optimistic that the country could do better in the coming years. The MTPDP for 2004-2010 outlined the most important Philippine concerns such as Economic Growth and Job Creation; Energy; Social Justice and Basic Needs; Education and Youth Opportunity; and Anti-Corruption and Good Governance.

Furthermore, the remnants of Jacinto (NSC News, 12 September 1990) and Cacho cases, inherited from the NSC and NDC, might not bear much effect to the industrial position of the company and will be a lingering reminder of the past. If GSPI has the legal right to deal with these cases, they should also be pursued for legal finality, or a set of guidelines be drafted such that the reputation of the new corporate identity be separate from the old.

T2. Unbundled Power and Worsening Energy Supply: The Philippines passed a landmark law (R.A. 9136) which embarked on the restructuring the power sector in 08 June 2001. The Electric Power Industry Act (EPIRA) envisions an industry with an independent regulator; privately owned and competitive generating plants; single regulated and privately owned transmission system; power distribution companies with incentives for performance; and vibrant competition for retailing power to end-users. It provides for the privatization of state-owned companies in the industry, most notably NPC, establishment of wholesale electricity spot market (WESM), creation of new regulatory body, government's absorption of P200 billion of NPC's liabilities, and review of NPC-IPP contracts (Abrenica, 2004).

With unbundling of power rates in October 2002, the new power rates posed a threat to the bottom line. The present rate system allows for the imposition of sub-transmission rates for all systems below 138kV. NSC's electrical system used both 138kV and 69kV power supplies. Most sheet-production facilities, HSM, CSM and ETL manufacturing, are connected to the 138kV supply. Although the latter is specifically for the BSP operations, it also supplies the whole of NSC plant in case of power fluctuations or interruption. Thus, GSPI pays monthly for a power supply not directly used for flats production. From October 20002, transmission charge for 138kV was about P171.62/kw, while total Transmission Charges for 69kV was P242.83, or an additional P71.21/kw for sub-transmission. These charges are continually revised with increasing trend. It is imperative, therefore, that proposed project to relieve the 69kV supply and the plant to be solely supplied by 138kV be pursued (PFP, 2002).

T3. Increasing Steel Imports, Meager Steel Exports: Total imports is stable at 19% increase per annum with Iron and Steel imports regaining from a decline starting in the first quarter of 2000 and a strong climb at the end of the fourth quarter in 2002. Recent data from NEDA online shows that imports will climb from 42.6% increase during the second quarter of the current year to a level lower than the highest attained in 2002. Total exports decreased beginning 2001 and will gradually remain at low levels seen in the last quarter of 2004. While, Iron and Steel Exports accounts to a meager 0.06% of the total Manufactured Exports, NEDA predicts that it will continue to hover between P18 and 20M for the succeeding years.

T4. Rising “Brain Drain”: With the construction boom in the Middle East, especially in the United Arab Emirates, Kuwait, plus neighboring ASEAN countries like Vietnam, Cambodia and Malaysia, technically inclined Filipinos, e.g., engineers, technicians, or experts, are joining in the bandwagon in search of the proverbial pot of gold (Tullao, Jr., 2000). This is even true at GSPI, when each time offers of job on foreign lands are posted somewhere, employees—from managers down to the low-ranked personnel—flocked in hordes hoping to be slotted for at least an interview. Employees who were hired in 2004, promised with rosy future after the closure of NSC for almost four years, hoped for easier months ahead, yet remained in the same position with the same pay level for four years—pegged at 1999 exchange rates, plus holding respective familial obligations and responsibilities have no recourse but to look for greener pastures. Worse of all, these same ex-NSC employees observe that their counterpart expats, toting their GSPI-issued laptops, hired in 2004 at a salary level based on 2004 exchange rates, are pampered. Expats are afforded with shuttle buses to ferry their children enrolled to premier private school all expenses paid for by GSPI. They relax in their fully furnished no-rent blue houses with free electricity, free cable, landline and internet connections, plus free-flowing no-charge potable water, and sport amenities that could rival a five-star hotel: Olympic-size swimming pool, a covered tennis court, a standard size basketball court, guarded every hour 24/7!

Highly trained Systems Engineers and Technicians, although loyal at first to GSPI, are now considering employment in Middle East because of employment status uncertainty. Between 2005 and 2006, a number of experienced mechanical and electrical tenders plus well-trained quality assurance inspectors resigned to fill vacancies with higher competitive compensation packages outside of GSPI. Fortunately, fresh college graduates from nearby universities and colleges, including MSU-IIT, St. Peter's College and Xavier University, were immediately drafted to fill the void, but by 2007, these same replacements followed suit their predecessors for high-paying jobs.

T5. The Challenge of the Natural Environment: Philippine government is a signatory of the Kyoto Protocol, and several landmark laws have been enacted in support of this gesture, such as the Clean Air Act, Water Conservation Act, among others.

In April 1994, NSC shared with two other companies—Coca- Cola Bottlers Philippines, Inc., and Honda Cars Philippines, Inc.—the first Macli-ing Dulag Environmental Achievement Awards Special Citation for Corporation for demonstrating deep commitment and outstanding achievements in protecting and conserving the environment (Illut, 1994).

By 1995, NSC completed the Acid Regeneration Plant, its eleventh environmental control facility since 1984 in addition to dust collectors, fume scrubber, treatment plants, neutralization facilities, and smoke stacks. Furthermore, NSC adopted a Business Chapter for the Environment in 1993 based on the Philippine Business Charter for Sustainable Development. An Environmental Management Group administered NSC's efforts in waste reduction, recycling, treatment and disposal (NSC News, August, 1995).

In contrast, GSPI has but a single person who used to be part of NSC's Environmental Management Group dealing with all this concern.

Notes:

NSC News (1990), What Employees Should Know About The Jacinto Claim, NSC News Supplement, Iligan City: NSC, 12 September 1990, p. i-ii. back to text

Abrenica, Ma. Joy V. (2004), “Contracting for Power: The Philippine Case.” Manila: Asian Development Bank, 01 December 2004. pp. 18-19. back to text

Plant Facilities Preservation (PFP, 2002), Power and Energy Analysis, Iligan: Plant Facilities Preservation, NSC, 07 October 2002. back to text

Tullao, Tereso Jr. (2000). An Evaluation on the Readiness of Filipino Professionals to Meet International Competion. CBE Working Paper Series 2000-01 Manila: De LaSalle University, 08 August 2003. p. 6. back to text

Illut, Jek (1994), NSC Cited for Environmental Concern. NSC News, XIX: 5, Makati: Corporate Communications, NSC, 31 May, 1994. p. 13. back to text

Balali, Macky (ed.) (1995), Protect and Preserve. NSC News, Vol. XX: 8. Makati: Corporate Communications, NSC, August 1995. pp. 8 - 10. back to text

The European Union has made a great deal of progress in its climate change talk.  Most member states have made good progress towards meeting their Kyoto goals.  But much of this progress is illusory.  Germany, for example, has generally met its targets due to a dramatic decline in the industrial output in the former east.  Presumable recession is not a desirable way to satisfy Kyoto targets.  But real progress may be much more difficult to achieve.  There is low hanging fruit to be gathered.  But beyond the easy (and cost-efficient) solutions, how much is Europe likely to be willing to pay to address climate change.  And more importantly, how much is the United States willing to pay?  Or is the American way of life still non-negotiable?

The price the Government is assuming for the purpose of reporting its liability under the Kyoto Protocol in the Crown accounts is €11 ($23) a tonne.

But the high-quality, low-risk units New Zealand companies with obligations under the scheme are expected to favour are trading for €20.

And is the money being paid for this hot air going into research or developments which will improve the environment? No, and it might even make it worse:

It would be a perverse outcome for the global climate if growth of the pastoral farming sector in New Zealand were hobbled by climate change policy here, only for the demand for dairy products and meat it might have satisfied to be met instead by production elsewhere in the world whose carbon hoof-print (emissions per litre of milk or kilogram of meat) is greater.

Agriculture isn't the only area where exporting emissions is likely and that's because of a basic flaw in the Kyoto protocol. It takes a country by country approach to a global problem which means carbon emissions might be reduced in one place but increased elsewhere by moving production.

We pay the economic and social cost and the whole world pays the environmental cost because the ETS will add to the costs of production, transport and consumption but won't reduce emissions.

It's an expensive feel-good achieve-nothing fraud.

Canadian PM calls snap election

Mr Harper's minority government has needed opposition support to pass bills

Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper has called an early election for 14 October in a bid to strengthen his minority Conservative government.

He met Governor General Michaelle Jean - the representative of Canada's head of state, Queen Elizabeth II - to request the dissolution of parliament.

The latest polls indicate the Conservatives are ahead of the opposition Liberals.

The PM, elected in 2006, has complained that parliament is deadlocked.

The vote will be Canada's third national election in four years.

Economic issues

Mr Harper's government has needed the support of the main opposition parties, the Liberals and the Bloc Quebecois, to pass legislation and adopt budgets.

The election call had been widely expected, with Mr Harper complaining in recent weeks that parliament was "dysfunctional".

Between now and October 14, Canadians will choose a government to look out for their interests at a time of global economic trouble Stephen Harper

Holding the election this year breaks Mr Harper's own fixed-date election law, something he had said was necessary to prevent prime ministers calling elections when polls indicated they were in a favorable position.

Mr Harper has made it clear he is running on economic issues and criticized the Liberals' plan to tax greenhouse gas polluters while cutting other taxes.

"Between now and October 14, Canadians will choose a government to look out for their interests at a time of global economic trouble," Mr Harper said in a statement.

"They will choose between direction or uncertainty; between common sense or risky experiments; between steadiness or recklessness."

The opposition leaders are expected to make their own addresses later on Sunday.

Favourable polls

Mr Harper led the Conservatives to victory in the 2006 election, ending 12 years of Liberal government.

The party heads into the election with 127 of parliament's 308 seats. The Liberals have 95, the Bloc Quebecois has 48 and the New Democratic Party (NDP) 30.

There are three Independent MPs, the Green Party has one seat and four are vacant.

Opposition Liberal leader Stephane Dion proposes taxing polluters

An opinion poll held last week suggested support for the Conservatives had grown over the summer.

The Environics survey suggested that 38% of Canadians would vote for the Conservatives; 28% for the Liberals; 19% for the NDP, eight for the Bloc Quebecois and seven for the Greens.

The figures put the Conservatives within striking distance of a majority government, Donna Dasko, senior vice-president of Environics Research Group, told CBC News.

The leader of the separatist Bloc Quebecois, Gilles Duceppe, said his party was best positioned to stop the Conservatives gaining a majority.

The same Environics poll indicated increased support for the Conservatives in Quebec, where separatist ardour has faded in recent years.

Liberal leader Stephane Dion is staking his command of the party on his "Green Shift" plan, which would tax polluters but reduce other taxes.

If his party does not do well on 14 October, his leadership will likely come under scrutiny at a party convention in December.

Mr Dion has described Mr Harper as Canada's most right-wing prime minister in history.

Mr Harper supported the Iraq war while in opposition and withdrew Canada from the Kyoto Protocol that aims to cut greenhouse gases. He has also increased Canada's troop commitment to Afghanistan.

20 years with no warming and now the same dumb fucks at the BBC say it's getting warmer all the time .

Give it up. Here's a video from 1958 warning of global warming. I'm still waiting.

Global Warming Video 1958

1922 the ice melted - and then it froze again!

Getting Warm; Seals Vanish and Icebergs Melt. November 2nd, 1922. Arctic Ocean

This whole game is so they can introduce a Carbon Tax. Period!

It's time the world stood together and told these thieves to get their hands out of our pockets.

Want the truth - read the Green Agenda

Ice cores indicated that temperatures now are unusually high

A new study by climate scientists behind the controversial 1998 "hockey stick" graph suggests their earlier analysis was broadly correct.

Ten years on from the study that provoked all the ire, Michael Mann's conclusion is that far from being broken, "the hockey stick is alive and well".

But, the Penn State University researcher added: "If we want to understand things like El Nino and how it relates to climate change, it's not enough to know just how anomalously warm the climate is today.

Full load of Bullshit at the BBC

More information about the Digital Fringe Festival can be found here.

The "Kyoto Series" was released recently by the netlabel "PublicSpaces" and is the colab work between QuarterBit and Pedro Monteiro.

As New Orleans is being evacuated and response teams are put in place, it strikes me that this time George Bush is learning from his mistakes over Hurricane Katrina.

But will Hurricane Gustav make the Republicians reassess their stance on climate change?

John McCain has at least made encouraging noises in the direction of tackling the situation. Then he goes and appoints as his Vice Presidental candidate a woman who believes that global warming is not man-made and has an appalling environmental record in her home state in Alaska.

A clear sign that he is pandering to the hard right of the Republican party.

This just smacks of a continuation of the Republican environmental policy instigated under George W. Bush. The defining environmental policy of Bush's government was a refusal to sign the Kyoto agreement that introduced emission targets.

So do I think the Republicans will reassess their stance? I suspect not directly.

What may make the difference is that these Hurricanes affect the oil price in the United States, as they cut off oil production in the U.S. gulf coast.

Unfortunately, it may take a few of these hurricanes before America finally gets the message on climate change. By that time the global oil price could have sky rocketed and the U.S. may well have made more environmental damage by drilling for oil in environmentally sensitive areas in its lust to keep its oil price low.

As climate change becomes more pronounced, hurricanes and other weather phemonema will get more dangerous.

How many of these extreme hurricanes will New Orleans, Louisiana and the Gulf coast have to endure before Republicans take the environment seriously?

MEDIA ALERT

29 August 2008

Walk Against Woodchips will be launched from Canberra next Monday, 1^st September. Keri James and her six year old daughter Clover will be starting the first leg of a long walk from Canberra to Hobart, to educate and inform communities across Australia of the very real threat our native forests face from the giant woodchip industry.

Keri will also be highlighting the climate change impacts of native forest logging. A recent report from researchers at the ANU¹ has shown that native forest logging in Australia is responsible for a large amount of greenhouse gas emissions, which are not accounted for under the Kyoto Protocol.

Keri and others will be walking through native forest hot spots to highlight the continued logging of old growth forests in the South East of NSW and East Gippsland, and Tasmania’s southern forests. The walk will also take in the woodchip catchment area for Gunns Ltd’s proposed pulp mill.

The walk will start from Canberra’s Aboriginal Tent Embassy at 10am Monday 1st September. The walk will first head to Bega then down the coast to Eden, where they will join locals to rally against the woodchip mill.

Key time for interviews and photo opportunity:

10am Monday 1^st September, Aboriginal Tent Embassy

For updates on the walk’s progress, contact walkagainstwoodchips@gmail.com, visit the blog woodchipwalk.com, or see Facebook for the Walk Against Woodchips event and the Canberra Forest Alliance group.

Simon Dawes of DNV, has agreed to be interviewed on the basis that the following are acknowledged as his personal views not the views of his company, the largest auditor of carbon credits in the world with 50% of the global carbon market.

Mr. Simon Dawes - Heads DNV's Australasia activities in climate change, and among his many carbon credit roles he helped develop and served as program manager for the Australian Greenhouse Office's Greenhouse Friendly program and served as the DNV verifier of the New Zealand Government Carbon Neutral Public Service program. He holds an undergraduate degree in electrical engineering from NSW Institute of Technology and a masters degree in Business.

Q1: Do you think that the Australian ETS system should adopt a similar cap and trade system to other global systems or is there any merit in the Opposition Leader's, Brendon Nelson plan?

A: Simon Dawes: On balance, I think the most effective position will be to prepare for a trading system with caps and an abatement trajectory following the international consensus pathway (whenever that may be achieved and whatever it may be) and to implement an ETS following either the international consensus trajectory or, if there is no agreement, a slower trajectory that does not simply result in emissions intensive industry going off shore for no net environmental gain.

It is clearly to Australia's benefit to identify and implement each of those actions which provide an immediate economic benefit, and to position the economy and, most importantly, public opinion, to embrace the real cuts which will eventually be required.

Regardless of how much both the Government and Opposition discuss easing the financial pain for the Australian community the cap and trade process is essentially one of increasing prices to force alternative action, in this case low carbon solutions. The "Architecture of Australia's tax and transfer system" was released by Treasury recently, and one clear message from that document is that all costs (whether it is a tax or the cost of an emission permit) end up with the final consumer.

Q2: Do you think transport meaning oil will be included in the Australian ETS system?

And the related Q: Do you think including petrol in an Australian ETS would make much difference to the rise in petrol, which the CSIRO in the SMH, July 11th has predicted could reach $8.00 a litre by 2018?.

A: Simon Dawes "Yes" to the first question and  Fuel pricing is already sensitive. The variability of fuel prices is driven by external market forces, and is likely to progressively increase. From this perspective including a carbon price could be seen as simply bringing forward any overall price increase by a matter of months rather than creating some greater signal for change. The present proposals to offset any ETS cost impact on fuel with a reduction in excise is politically expedient, but will probably have little effect on the final outcome.

Q3: Do you think it is realistic for Australia to embrace hybrid electric vehicle, diesel and natural gas as alternatives?

A: Simon Dawes: Policy makers should not try and pick technology winners - that is better achieved by proving the potential gains in a vigorous free market. It can be helpful for government to provide early mover, technology neutral support to provide a basis for early competition of new technologies with incumbent technologies, particularly if the risk is high and there is a significant barrier to entry - carbon sequestration is a good example.

In terms of transport, even now the most efficient new petrol vehicles can have an equal or lower consumption than comparable diesel fuelled vehicles, and be similar to rival hybrid vehicles. Australian's will, I think, be looking for means of individual transport for a long time to come and so finding non-petroleum transport energy sources is a critical task.

Q4: Do you believe this is the way forward for the transport sector?

If you take a long view of the use of petroleum fuels, then it makes economic and technological good sense to preserve petroleum fuels for those purposes where it cannot be readily replaced - air transport is one example - and use alternate fuels in other places, such as land transport and stationary energy.

Q5: Could Australian automakers start producing these vehicles?.

Australian manufacturers find it difficult to be cost competitive with existing technologies. A robust and internationally competitive alternate vehicle industry will require more than a small contribution to the largest car maker in the world to encourage it to build hybrid vehicles in Australia.

On the international scene

Q6: Do you think the failure of the G8 to get India and China to agree to 50% reductions in GHG is just round 1 in the negotiations or a more serious position taken by the developing world?

A: Simon Dawes:  It does not seem in any sense likely that India and China will choose to leave their citizens deprived of the comforts we in the developed world take for granted for a minute longer than they need to. If politics is the art of the possible, then the possible for these two countries is framed in their respective domestic political and economic realities. The hard truth may well be that for these two countries there will be no reduction (at least in the short term) but an increase along a low emission per capita pathway. That leaves net reductions in the hands of the developed world. Will there ever be a complete contraction and convergence to actual equivalent per capita global emissions? Probably not in any simple analysis because of national differences and the impact of exports and imports to production and consumption emission patterns.

Q7: What are the important signposts along the road to the Copenhagen meeting end of 2009 and How important is the meeting in Copenhagen next year in terms of the post Kyoto 2012 agreements?

A: Simon Dawes: Realistically, if there is no framework in place by that time it is difficult to see other than a continuation of the status quo in terms of CDM type projects and regional trading systems. The Doha round of trade talks may have failed (at least that it is how it appears), but trade still goes on and bilateral and multilateral trade agreements continued to be forged. It should be remembered that there is now a depth of awareness and concern for the impact of climate change in the West that has scarcely been tapped. Businesses are looking to reduce costs through improving efficiency and marketing their green credentials. If the impact of modernisation has been moving progressively from the developed to the developing world then the benefits of low carbon technologies can be the same. Imagine if achieving a low carbon lifestyle had the same sense of benefit as the owning the latest large screen LCD television, and a sense of entitlement was attached to being able to achieve the benefits of modernity with low emissions.

Q8: Are you optimistic about turning around climate change?

Climate change will not be turned around, but it may be slowed with the global climate reaching a new point of relative stability, but at higher temperatures. Thoughts now seem to be moving towards plans to mitigate to a 2 degree rise and plan to adapt to a 4 degree rise.

Q9: What do you think the market needs as the major auditor of carbon credits internationally?

The main difficulties the market faces are getting enough competent human resources and complex administrative systems. The two are linked - complex systems require people with more training and greater skills. Of course, the skills required to manage complex systems are to an extent non-productive if the systems are more complex than is needed. If the systems can be simplified, harmonised and to the extent possible automated the market will grow more quickly and efficiently.

I would like to thank Simon Dawes for his candid comments on the Kyoto Protocol and Emissions Trading system.