Wednesday, January 30, 2019
Many Countries at UN Oppose Trump Interference in Venezuela
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Yvuapn5jEc
Politics means leadership, not only giving people what they want
Yanis Varoufakis
Yanis Varoufakis, the Spitzenkandidat for
the EUROPEAN SPRING, set up by DiEM25, told EURACTIV Germany that: “If the European Left were
united, coherent and civilised, we wouldn’t have created Diem25, we’d have
joined them. Now we are running against them, which is very painful to us,” the
former Greek finance minister told EURACTIV Germany in an interview.
In the interview, Varoufakis
lashed out against leftist parties in Europe, saying that their lack of unity
cannot bring tangible electoral results and, therefore, changes in the
continent.
“There is no real European
Left anymore. There are people like Gregor Gysi [President of the European
Left], then there’s Alexis Tsipras, who imposes the most ridiculous austerity
policies on his people, or Podemos in Spain, who have no policy for Europe at
all.”
“The left parties have such
different fractions in them that issuing a party manifesto becomes a carte
blanche, it’s not coherent. This way you’re not going to draw voters from the
right or from progressive parties. You shrink,” Varoufakis said.
Asked if he considered joining
the leftist GUE/NGL political group in the next EU Parliament, Varoufakis said
ideally his movement would join none of them.
“We’d like to collaborate with
different groups on different issues. What the bureaucratic processes in terms
of the right to speak etc. may force us into is another thing. But I don’t
think this is the time to discuss this. We’ll cross that bridge when we come to
it.”
EU lawmakers from the GUE-NGL,
the Greens and the EU social democrats (S&D) have formed the so-called
Progressive Caucus, an informal group, which aims to build bridges among the
three political families and in the long run, form a “progressive” front.
But the European left remains
widely fragmented, as seen in the case of the leader of La France Insoumise,
Jean-Luc Mélenchon.
Asked about this move,
Varoufakis said it was “just big talk”.
“They’re not really approaching
each other. The elections are in May but they don’t work together. They have no
common programme, the discourse on Progressive Caucus doesn’t affect their
electoral campaigns. It’s irrelevant.”
Why run in Germany?
Asked why he decided to run in
Germany, he replied, “If you want to change the Roman Empire, you start in
Rome”.
“Germany is the economic heart
of Europe, the engine that pulls it, whether we like it or not. But also
because public opinion in Germany, until recently at least, was much closer to
Europeanism than in France for example,” he said.
He added that the French
elites had always looked at the EU as an opportunity to project French power
globally whereas Germany really wanted to integrate into the European project.
“That’s why it is the best
place to work on democracy in Europe.”
https://www.euractiv.com/section/eu-elections-2019/news/varoufakis-there-is-no-real-european-left-i-am-running-against-them/
Brexit is good news for those in the business of war
LYDIA NOON 28
January 2019
While Brits have grown
accustomed to turbulence in political fairyland, last week the action moved
from Whitehall to hotels, and the subject matter has been the UK’s future as
cheerleader for free trade.
No less than six cabinet
ministers attended Davos’ World Economic Trade Forum, resulting in
Britain’s first
potential post-Brexit trade deal with Israel and, an announcement by
the foreign secretary that
£2.5 million would be pledged to support the UN peace process in Yemen,
followed a day later by, rather embarrassingly, a swanky “arms
dealers’ dinner” in London’s Park Lane with many on the guest list enabling
the Saudi-led bombardment of Yemen.
And so, as the Brexit engine
rumbles on, so does one of the most controversial and disturbing aspects of it:
the dealings of the UK’s weapons industry with unscrupulous regimes.
Free trade agreements outside
of the EU mean less regulation, and dodgy deals bode well for many countries in
the business of buying weapons.
Business and politics:
convenient bedfellows
The Government has
identified arms
sales as a priority for the brave new world post-Brexit, and a global
Britain, or arguably a more desperate Britain, looks set to invest in this
sector. Europe accounts for few military contracts so there is little downside
to the changing market, according to the UK’s trade group for arms companies,
euphemistically called the Aerospace, Defence, Security and Space association
(ADS).
“Europe will continue to be
important, but there are perhaps other areas where there is now a bigger
incentive to develop longer-term relationships. Brexit provides the
circumstances and the catalyst for faster and more efforts”, said
ADS in August 2016.
One of ADS’ members, British
multinational BAE systems, is similarly nonchalant. The UK’s largest
manufacturer says that Brexit is “just
not that big a deal”, and is excited about frictionless trade. It is worth
noting that the corporation’s main customers are Saudi Arabia, the US and the
UK, with Europe only accounting for 8%eight percent of its income in 2017.
Theresa May set up five
business councils in November 2018 in order for companies to advise
her on “post-Brexit opportunities”. The chair of BAE systems, Roger Carr, along
with Rolls- Royce chair Ian Davis, co-lead the industrial, infrastructure, and
manufacturing council, which is to meet three times a year.
Meanwhile, ADS and its member companies, which include
Airbus, missiles manufacturer MBDA and G4S, among others, invited MPs to meet
them in parliament on 9 January, to plead the business case for voting for
Theresa May’s ultimately doomed EU withdrawal deal, which was rejected on 15
January.
ADS chief executive Paul
Everitt has spoken of the continued uncertainty of Brexit being damaging
to business investment, forcing companies to implement costly contingency
plans, while Airbus
warned this week that the company could pull out of the country in the event of
a no-deal Brexit, or perhaps even with one. It’s worth noting that
Airbus, which manufacturers commercial and military aircraft, has been propped
up by both British government and EU subsidies in recent years.
Taxpayer subsidies don’t end
there. An extra £2
billion was allocated to the international trade budget last October to increase
Britain’s presence across the world, of
which touting arms deals is a large part.
A very Brexit race to the
bottom
In the 12 months following the
2016 EU referendum, Britain cleared export licences worth £2.9 billion to 30
countries with oppressive regimes – such as Bahrain, Azerbaijan and Uzbekistan
– up almost a third on the previous year where export licences were granted to
just 17 such countries, according
to research by Campaign Against the Arms Trade and inews.
The UK’s weapons trade was
worth a total of £74 billion in
2017, with exports reaching £41 billion, providing direct employment for
380,000 people.
At the DSEI arms fair in
London, the largest of its kind in the world, that year, international trade
secretary and staunch Brexit supporter, Liam Fox, insisted in his keynote
speech that Britain had measures in place to allow “ethical
defence exports”, worth £5.9 billion a year to the British economy.
Fast forward 16 months and Fox
has just secured Britain’s first post-Brexit “in principle” trade deal with Israel
while at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland. The announcement on 24
January comes after a mega year of trade between the two countries. Plans are
afoot for trade meetings in London with Israeli government ministers in the
coming months.
The UK’s increasingly closer
ties with Israel include rising levels of arms sales. In 2017, the government
issued a record £221 million worth of weapons licenses to British defence
companies exporting missiles, sniper rifles and other equipment to the regime.
These deals flew in the face of international conventions condemning Israel’s
human rights violations against its Palestinian population and in the West Bank
and Gaza.
Black tie dinner
On 23 January, the cream of
Britain’s arm traders attended an annual
black tie dinner at Grosvenor House Hotel in London. The ADS drinks
reception and three-course dinner brought MPs, military figures and arms
dealers together, with tickets costing £225 for members and £450 for
non-members.
Government minister for trade
and export promotion Rona Fairhead, and former Labour Home Secretary, Alan
Johnson, spoke at the event, along with BAE Systems chief executive Charles
Woodburn. The multinational company was also one of the sponsors of the event.
Rona Fairhead works with Liam
Fox on the UK’s export strategy, and has spoken of her ambition to increase UK
exports from 30 percent of GDP to 35 percent.
Alan Johnson, meanwhile, was
quoted on the ADS event web page, which has since been taken down, saying that
during his after-dinner speech, he would: “reflect on my time in Parliament,
drawing parallels with programmes such as ‘Yes Minister and “The thick of it”.
Campaign against the Arms
Trade and Stop the Arms Fair organised a demonstration outside the venue
highlighting the complicity of the UK in Yemenis’ suffering. Chants of “Arms
dealers feast while Yemen is starved” meant that none of the attendees could
plead ignorance: over 14 million people risk starvation in the ravaged country.
Britain’s arms deals with
Saudi Arabia garner a great deal of controversy: the government has issued £5
billion of licenses for military exports to the regime since it started bombing
Yemen in 2015, and, despite widespread calls for an arms embargo from many
politicians, campaign groups, Yemeni activists and members of the European
Parliament, Theresa May’s government is undeterred.
Police pushed, pulled and
dragged protesters out of the way as they disrupted the entrance of the largely
middle-aged, white male guest-list. They formed protective lines around those
attending, ushering them into the hotel in a show of misplaced loyalty,
symbolic of the state’s ongoing support of repressive regimes.
On asking three men in black
tie if they knew why people were protesting, one said that he worked in civil
aviation; it had nothing to do with him, another, angrily: “you don’t know what
you’re talking about”, while the third said that he made planes, not weapons.
There’s no hiding from the
fact though that many of the 1000 UK-registered companies in ADS make and sell
weaponry – whether to countries on watchlists or to countries compiling the
watchlists. Some, like Northrop
Grumman, also offer personnel support, in the form of training the Saudi
military and providing technical services to the Ministry of the National
Guard.
Supporting Yemen?
Wilfully detached from the
horrors of war, obstinately focusing on what the electorate want to hear – job
creation, British-made, contributing to the economy – those in the business of
sustaining it must start listening to those affected by its consequences.
“All across Yemen people are
suffering and dying. This is a very, very dirty war”, said Sarah, at the
demonstration. From Aden, a city in southern Yemen, she has lived in the UK for
19 years. “I hope our voice can reach those responsible for what’s happening
and I hope that they stop what they are doing.
I asked Sarah whether she’s
worried that Brexit will increase the UK’s involvement in the onslaught on
Yemen.
“I can’t say much about the
politics, I can just say the human side. I hope it doesn’t get worse under
Brexit, I pray to God it doesn’t. I know that the people have nothing to do
with it and it is just some who are responsible for it – I hope that they will
stop selling these weapons and look at the people that are dying.”
In an ill-timed move, the day
before the arms dealers’ dinner, foreign secretary Jeremy Hunt announced an
extra £2.5 million to support the UN peace process in Yemen. This brings the
total amount of British financial support to Yemeni people to a paltry £570
million since 2015.
Hunt added that Britain would
support the “deployment and coordination of demining and explosive ordinance
disposal capacity in Hodeidah city”, explosives that may not – and should not –
have been sold to the Saudi regime by the UK – but clarity on that, thanks to
the government’s opaque licensing
system, is near impossible to ascertain.
Climate change reshaping how heat moves around globe
Shifts in ocean, atmosphere
heat transfer important to watch, researchers say
January 28, 2019
Ohio State University
The Earth's atmosphere and
oceans play important roles in moving heat from one part of the world to
another, and new research is illuminating how those patterns are changing in the
face of climate change.
"The greenhouse effect
and carbon dioxide aren't the only issues to consider as the planet grows
warmer -- they are just one part of the equation. The way that the atmosphere
and oceans move heat around is changing, too, and this could have significant
effects on temperatures around the world," said Zhengyu Liu, co-lead
author of the study and professor of climate dynamics in the Department of
Geography at The Ohio State University.
Liu and Chengfei He, a
graduate student in Ohio State's atmospheric science program, analyzed model
simulations to illustrate how heat is expected to be transferred by the oceans
and atmosphere in the near future. The researchers compared the models with
historical temperature data from the oceans themselves to paint a clearer
picture of how climate change is shifting and will continue to shift these
patterns in this century. Their study appears online today (Jan. 28, 2019) in
the journal Nature Climate Change.
Without heat transfer, the
world's hottest spots would be sizzling and the coolest spots would be even
more frigid. Conditions in both hot and cold climates are affected by the
movement of heat from the equator toward the poles in the atmosphere and
oceans, He said.
As scientists look for a
better understanding of all the factors contributing to climate change -- and
for ways to ameliorate the problem -- these heat-transfer patterns are
important to watch, He said.
This is the first study to
examine current changes in heat transfer and to conclude that warming
temperatures are driving increased heat transfer in the atmosphere, which is
compensated by a reduced heat transfer in the ocean. Additionally, the
researchers concluded that the excess oceanic heat is trapped in the Southern
Ocean around the Antarctic.
"The ocean stores a lot
of heat and in the last 50 years that has increased. And we can correlate that
directly with increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide caused by human
activity," Liu said. "Most studies like this have looked at future
changes, hundreds of years from now. We examined the near-term differences of a
warming climate."
For now, that heat is not
re-entering the atmosphere, but at some point it may. If that were to happen,
changes in heat transfer could contribute to significant shifts in normal
temperatures worldwide, he said.
"For instance, if we
didn't have heat transfer, Ohio would be 20 or 30 degrees colder than we are
right now," Liu said. "Therefore, it is important to predict how the
heat transfer will be changed in the future."
Aixue Hu of Colorado's
National Center for Atmospheric Research also worked on the study.
The National Science
Foundation supported the study.
Story Source:
Materials provided by Ohio State University. Original
written by Misti Crane. Note: Content may be edited for style and length.
Journal Reference:
Chengfei He, Zhengyu Liu,
Aixue Hu. The transient response of atmospheric and oceanic heat
transports to anthropogenic warming. Nature Climate Change, 2019;
DOI: 10.1038/s41558-018-0387-3
Tuesday, January 29, 2019
In Germany's plan to phase out coal, a big polluter will benefit
A proposal to stop Germany
from using coal for power generation within two decades may leave an unexpected
beneficiary: The company that burns the most of the fuel.
While RWE AG was quick to say
it’s “too soon” to shed all fossil fuel plants by 2038, the recommendations
outlined this weekend by a panel advising Chancellor Angela Merkel called for
compensation for the utilities and 40 billion euros ($45.6 billion) for regions
coping with the transition.
Together, the measures would
significantly soften the blow on industry from Merkel’s vow to scale back
greenhouse gases. They show how far the government has moved away from a quick
clampdown on the most polluting fossil fuel and give more certainty for the
future of some of RWE’s most valuable assets. And while the proposals could yet
be watered down by politicians, they signal a longer life for many of the
utility’s plants than environmentalists had hoped for.
“We believe that clarity,
compensation payments, and a relatively long phase-out period should trigger a re-rating
for the company’s conventional power generation,” said Guido Hoymann, an
analyst at the private bank B. Metzler Seel. Sohn & Co. KGaA who added RWE
to a list of top 10 German stocks.
Germany’s 120 or so remaining
coal and lignite plants have a combined capacity of about 45 gigawatts. That’s
enough to feed 40 percent of the nation’s power demand or about 32 million
homes. Germany is already falling short on its targets to slash greenhouse gas
emissions and sees closing coal plants as one of the most important ways to
make the reductions needed. The coal commission includes members from the main
political parties, environmental groups and industry charged with developing a
consensus that Germany can live with for years to come.
The commission began outlining
its proposals on Saturday ahead of its final publication on Feb. 1. It
recommended closing the last of the coal plants in 20 years – by 2038 – a much
slower phaseout for coal than the abrupt closure ordered for nuclear reactors
in 2011. Then, a meltdown at the Fukushima plant in Japan set in motion plans
in Berlin to close all of Germany’s atomic plants within 11 years. While the
nuclear industry had to sue for compensation, coal operators will be paid for
closing their plants.
RWE said the commission’s
proposals are at the edge of what the power industry can deliver and would do
significant damage to the company. It said the panel calls for closing some
coal and lignite plants by 2022 and would have a “serious impact’’ on its
operations. It’s still analysing the initial conclusions in the report, which
didn’t set out exactly what plants will have to close and when. Some of those
details may come with the final publication, while others are likely to be a
matter for negotiation with the government.
“The commission's proposals
have serious consequences for RWE's lignite business,’’ Rolf Martin Schmitz,
chief executive officer of RWE, said in a statement on Saturday. “The yardstick
for the assessment must be that politicians find solutions that neither
disadvantage the affected employees nor the company. We are committed to
safeguarding the interests of our employees and shareholders. Of course, we are
open to discussions."
The coal phase-out is part of
a 500 billion-euro switch away from fossil fuels and toward renewables ordered
by Merkel and her colleagues – part of the fight against global warming.
The shift for Germany is much
more painful than the decision the U.K. and other European countries took to
scrap coal in the middle of the next decade. That’s partly because Germany and
RWE still employ thousands at lignite mines, which produce a soft form of coal
that’s both cheap and highly polluting.
Germany needs low-cost and
reliable energy to stay competitive against rival manufacturing powerhouses
like the U.S. and China. That leaves a further hurdle before the government can
order a total exit from coal – and it’s only one of the political complexities
Merkel is struggling to balance.
A few events boosted voter
concern about climate change this summer.
Hotter than usual weather
caused this summer. [CAUSED WHAT THIS SUMMER?
-- v.m.] Rivers dried up in the heat and because flows from glaciers
have declined. Protests at RWE’s lignite mine at Hambach made the site an
emblem for the environmental movement, which wants to protect an ancient forest
there. The unions that want to preserve jobs also demonstrated at the site.
Those issues bled away support
from Merkel’s party, boosting both the anti-coal Green Party to second place in
national opinion polls and the right-wing AfD. The commission has recommended
preserving the forest at Hambach, something RWE says will require major changes
at the pit.
RWE has warned that scrapping
coal plants and halting mining would cost thousands of jobs and lead to hundreds
of millions of euros of writedowns. Hoymann, the analyst at Metzler, estimates
that RWE’s market value of about 13 billion euros includes a valuation of
negative 4 billion euros for its conventional power generation assets.
Guaranteeing the life of some of those facilities could be a boost for RWE in
the eyes of investors, who were concerned the company may face a stricter
schedule of closures. The company also could benefit from higher electricity
prices as more of its big power plants close, reducing baseload generation.
Economy Minister Peter
Altmaier has indicated concerns about jobs and energy security are at the top
of his mind. The shift away from coal “has to be affordable, has to ensure
power security and it has to be sustainable,” Altmaier said in a speech in
Berlin on Jan. 19. “The issue of affordability isn’t just any old issue. The
exit from coal will lead to big upheavals in the coal regions including jobs
and we’re preparing the necessary finance for that.”
Jobs appear to be on Merkel’s
mind, too. The populist AfD — which stands against Merkel’s energy transition —
has made gains in disadvantaged coal regions where elections are due later this
year. Analysts say poor showings there could push the center-left Social
Democratic Party to pull the plug on Merkel’s coalition, bringing a swift end
to her record-breaking reign as chancellor.
The coal commission itself has
indicated its sensitivity to those issues.
“These regions and the people
that live in them expect, justifiably, solidarity from society and
politicians,” the coal commission draft report says.
“Structural reform policies
must take account of the experiences of those living in east German states.”
A lengthy period of
negotiation with the government over which coal plants must retire and when
could result in costly court battles and a bitter end to German miners once
dubbed “black gold.” For RWE, a slower phaseout would lend it a lifeline that
would allow profit to keep flowing a little longer from those assets on its
books. “But RWE is about more than just coal,” Schmitz said in Berlin last
week. “The commission’s results should give us planning certainty.”
(Reporting by William Wilkes
and Brian Parkin).
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)