Kyoto protocol means carbon footprints are calculated for the countries producing goods, not those consuming them Cuts in carbon emissions by developed countries since 1990 have been cancelled out three times over by increases in imported goods from developing countries such as China, according to the most comprehensive global figures ever compiled. Previous studies have shown the significance of “outsourced” emissions for specific countries , but the latest research, published on Monday, provides the first global view of how international trade altered national carbon footprints during the period of the Kyoto protocol. Under the protocol, emissions released during production of goods are assigned to the country where production takes place, rather than where goods are consumed. Campaigners say this allows rich countries unfairly to claim they are reducing or stabilising their emissions when they may be simply sending them offshore –
Continue reading …Gas prices continue to dominate in the Us and cast a serious pall over the administration. Last Thursday, Obama announced an inter-agency task force to investigate speculation. On television yesterday, freshman Democratic Senator Ralph Blumenthal pressed for empaneling a federal grand jury: Blumenthal, Connecticut’s former attorney general, said on CBS’ “Face the Nation” that federal officials need to play hardball. “I commend and applaud the president for focusing on this issue but I think there really needs to be an investigation involving, for example, subpoenas and compulsory process which I used as attorney general in similar investigations. There needs to be very possibly a grand jury to uncover the potential wrongdoing,” said Blumenthal, who was elected to the Senate last year. “The Justice Department should take the lead, seize this moment and send a message, a very strong deterrent message that this country will not tolerate the kind of illegal speculation and trading and hedge fund activity that may be driving prices up,” he added. To which Republicans have their ready-made answer. Hit F8 and out comes: But House Speaker John Boehner’s (R-Ohio) office on Friday called the Democratic focus on potential market abuses a distraction from the need to expand U.S. oil-and-gas drilling (although this would not affect prices in the short-term). I think that parenthetical is the handiwork of the reporter, that is, Boehner probably didn’t say it. If he did, good for him, but that’s not the m.o. The m.o. is to chant “drill baby drill” even though that might lower gas prices in about four or five years. On the issue of speculation, I have been reading some things, and it seems clear that the unrest in the Middle East has led to more speculation, which does help hike prices. Here’s some info from a Senator Al Franken press release, touting legislation he’s trying to advance: The senators are pushing for tougher regulation because new data shows oil trades by speculators have jumped 35 percent since the latest round of civil unrest began in late January in North Africa and then the Middle East. During that same period, U.S. gas prices have soared by almost 40 percent. And here’s a little more information for you: Speculators can currently buy $100 worth of oil futures with only $6 down, while investors in stocks put down 50%. The Commission has the authority to call for higher margin requirements from exchanges where oil futures and various other commodities are traded. “New margin requirements could take effect as soon as July, but the CFTC must begin the rulemaking process now,” the lawmakers wrote. “The commission” is the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, which oversees this. The House GOP wanted to cut its budget by around $90 million, or basically cut it in half. But under the deal that averted the government shutdown, it actually got a 20% increase, to $203 million. Meanwhile, says Think Progress, citing the Wall Street Journal, Exxon’s profits are expected to rise this year by 50%. Republicans are going to war on gas prices: drill drill drill. The Democrats have a populist response, and the benefit of talking about something (Franken’s idea) that could have impact immediately. Will they seize on it? Don’t answer that question. Obama administration US domestic policy Michael Tomasky guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …Gas prices continue to dominate in the Us and cast a serious pall over the administration. Last Thursday, Obama announced an inter-agency task force to investigate speculation. On television yesterday, freshman Democratic Senator Ralph Blumenthal pressed for empaneling a federal grand jury: Blumenthal, Connecticut’s former attorney general, said on CBS’ “Face the Nation” that federal officials need to play hardball. “I commend and applaud the president for focusing on this issue but I think there really needs to be an investigation involving, for example, subpoenas and compulsory process which I used as attorney general in similar investigations. There needs to be very possibly a grand jury to uncover the potential wrongdoing,” said Blumenthal, who was elected to the Senate last year. “The Justice Department should take the lead, seize this moment and send a message, a very strong deterrent message that this country will not tolerate the kind of illegal speculation and trading and hedge fund activity that may be driving prices up,” he added. To which Republicans have their ready-made answer. Hit F8 and out comes: But House Speaker John Boehner’s (R-Ohio) office on Friday called the Democratic focus on potential market abuses a distraction from the need to expand U.S. oil-and-gas drilling (although this would not affect prices in the short-term). I think that parenthetical is the handiwork of the reporter, that is, Boehner probably didn’t say it. If he did, good for him, but that’s not the m.o. The m.o. is to chant “drill baby drill” even though that might lower gas prices in about four or five years. On the issue of speculation, I have been reading some things, and it seems clear that the unrest in the Middle East has led to more speculation, which does help hike prices. Here’s some info from a Senator Al Franken press release, touting legislation he’s trying to advance: The senators are pushing for tougher regulation because new data shows oil trades by speculators have jumped 35 percent since the latest round of civil unrest began in late January in North Africa and then the Middle East. During that same period, U.S. gas prices have soared by almost 40 percent. And here’s a little more information for you: Speculators can currently buy $100 worth of oil futures with only $6 down, while investors in stocks put down 50%. The Commission has the authority to call for higher margin requirements from exchanges where oil futures and various other commodities are traded. “New margin requirements could take effect as soon as July, but the CFTC must begin the rulemaking process now,” the lawmakers wrote. “The commission” is the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, which oversees this. The House GOP wanted to cut its budget by around $90 million, or basically cut it in half. But under the deal that averted the government shutdown, it actually got a 20% increase, to $203 million. Meanwhile, says Think Progress, citing the Wall Street Journal, Exxon’s profits are expected to rise this year by 50%. Republicans are going to war on gas prices: drill drill drill. The Democrats have a populist response, and the benefit of talking about something (Franken’s idea) that could have impact immediately. Will they seize on it? Don’t answer that question. Obama administration US domestic policy Michael Tomasky guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …
The Obama administration has condemned ‘the brutal violence used by the government of Syria’, describing it as deplorable The White House is preparing to introduce new sanctions against the Syrian regime in response to a military crackdown that saw tanks and armoured cars deployed against protesters on Monday. The Obama administration condemned “the brutal violence used by the government of Syria”, describing it as deplorable, and adding: “The United States is pursuing a range of possible policy options, including targeted sanctions, to respond to the crackdown and make clear that this behaviour is unacceptable.” Human rights groups estimate that about 350 people have died so far in Syria, 100 of them on Friday. Troops mounted a major assault Monday on Deraa, the city where the uprising began a month ago, and Douma, a suburb of Damascus. It was apparently the first time that tanks have been used. Ammar Qurabi, head of the National Organisation for Human Rights in Syria, who is in exile in Egypt, was quoted by Reuters as saying at least 18 people died in Deraa alone. The US, having announced sanctions unilaterally, is putting pressure on the UK and other European countries to impose sanctions against the Syrian regime. The US treasury department and other American agencies are discussing freezing the assets of senior officials accused of human rights abuses and banning them from travelling to the US or doing business there. Such sanctions are mainly symbolic, as the US has long had stringent measures in place against Syria and has little trade with the country. Sanctions by European countries, with whom Syria has extensive trade, would have more impact and several members of the Syrian government have assets in Europe. In another sign of increasing diplomatic pressure, the UN security council is considering a draft statement condemning the violence and calling for restraint. Such a statement, introduced on Monday by four European members of the security council – Britain, France, Germany and Portugal – is a necessary first step towards any eventual imposition of UN sanctions. The draft backs a call by UN secretary-general Ban Ki-moon for an investigation into the killings. A UN diplomat said: “We hope there will be a vote on adopting it within the next 24 to 48 hours.” The western response towards Syria falls between the military intervention in Libya and the hands-off approach to Bahrain. The government in Bahrain is engaged in a violent crackdown against pro-democracy demonstrators, but it is close to Saudi Arabia – America and Britain’s closest Arab ally. The US and its European allies, after a few expressions of disquiet about the suppression of dissent in Bahrain, have been relatively quiet. The initial response to Syria was equally slow, with Barack Obama making his first statement condemning the violence only on Friday. This reflects fear in the US, Europe and Israel that a new Syrian government could turn out to be more difficult to deal with than the current president, Bashar al-Assad, and could pose more of a threat to Israel. Over the last decade, both US and European governments have engaged in fruitless talks with Assad that they hoped would lead to a rapprochement and would woo it away from its alliance with Iran. The UN high commissioner for human rights, Navi Pillay, added her voice to the international calls for restraint and an investigation into the killings. She said Assad’s response so far had been erratic. “Just a few days after the announcement of sweeping and important reforms, we are seeing such disregard for human life by Syrian security forces. The killings must stop immediately,” she said. Syria Bashar Al-Assad Arab and Middle East unrest Middle East Barack Obama US foreign policy United States United Nations Ewen MacAskill guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …
The Obama administration has condemned ‘the brutal violence used by the government of Syria’, describing it as deplorable The White House is preparing to introduce new sanctions against the Syrian regime in response to a military crackdown that saw tanks and armoured cars deployed against protesters on Monday. The Obama administration condemned “the brutal violence used by the government of Syria”, describing it as deplorable, and adding: “The United States is pursuing a range of possible policy options, including targeted sanctions, to respond to the crackdown and make clear that this behaviour is unacceptable.” Human rights groups estimate that about 350 people have died so far in Syria, 100 of them on Friday. Troops mounted a major assault Monday on Deraa, the city where the uprising began a month ago, and Douma, a suburb of Damascus. It was apparently the first time that tanks have been used. Ammar Qurabi, head of the National Organisation for Human Rights in Syria, who is in exile in Egypt, was quoted by Reuters as saying at least 18 people died in Deraa alone. The US, having announced sanctions unilaterally, is putting pressure on the UK and other European countries to impose sanctions against the Syrian regime. The US treasury department and other American agencies are discussing freezing the assets of senior officials accused of human rights abuses and banning them from travelling to the US or doing business there. Such sanctions are mainly symbolic, as the US has long had stringent measures in place against Syria and has little trade with the country. Sanctions by European countries, with whom Syria has extensive trade, would have more impact and several members of the Syrian government have assets in Europe. In another sign of increasing diplomatic pressure, the UN security council is considering a draft statement condemning the violence and calling for restraint. Such a statement, introduced on Monday by four European members of the security council – Britain, France, Germany and Portugal – is a necessary first step towards any eventual imposition of UN sanctions. The draft backs a call by UN secretary-general Ban Ki-moon for an investigation into the killings. A UN diplomat said: “We hope there will be a vote on adopting it within the next 24 to 48 hours.” The western response towards Syria falls between the military intervention in Libya and the hands-off approach to Bahrain. The government in Bahrain is engaged in a violent crackdown against pro-democracy demonstrators, but it is close to Saudi Arabia – America and Britain’s closest Arab ally. The US and its European allies, after a few expressions of disquiet about the suppression of dissent in Bahrain, have been relatively quiet. The initial response to Syria was equally slow, with Barack Obama making his first statement condemning the violence only on Friday. This reflects fear in the US, Europe and Israel that a new Syrian government could turn out to be more difficult to deal with than the current president, Bashar al-Assad, and could pose more of a threat to Israel. Over the last decade, both US and European governments have engaged in fruitless talks with Assad that they hoped would lead to a rapprochement and would woo it away from its alliance with Iran. The UN high commissioner for human rights, Navi Pillay, added her voice to the international calls for restraint and an investigation into the killings. She said Assad’s response so far had been erratic. “Just a few days after the announcement of sweeping and important reforms, we are seeing such disregard for human life by Syrian security forces. The killings must stop immediately,” she said. Syria Bashar Al-Assad Arab and Middle East unrest Middle East Barack Obama US foreign policy United States United Nations Ewen MacAskill guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …
Even if Barack Obama had not been born in the US, the birther version of the constitution would’ve excluded John McCain too Barack Obama was born in the United States. But even if he had not been (as the birthers believe), he would still be the legitimate President of the United States. The birther movement (apparently, now led by Donald Trump) argues that article 2, section 1 of the US constitution (“No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President”) requires that the Barack Obama of their universe (that is, born “abroad”) cannot be the legitimate president. For the birthers, the translation of “natural born citizen’” is simply “those born inside the United States”. To them, anyone born outside the United States is ineligible for the presidency. They are wrong. First, a little disclaimer: the birther attacks are personal to me. I was born in London to an American father and British mother. While I have a great and abiding respect for the UK (my British grandfather was an RAF officer of whom I am incredibly proud), my ultimate allegiance has always belonged to the United States. My father is a former US diplomat and his father was a career US military officer, whose second world war service included Guadalcanal and Okinawa. I believe that my family heritage has earned my right to be a “natural born citizen” of the United States. And I believe any cogent reading of the constitution supports me in this belief. While the thinking behind the founding fathers’ adoption of the natural born citizenship clause is not clear, most legal scholars assume that the motivating intention was to prevent (English) royalist infiltration of the US government – an understandable concern at the time. Regardless of that, though, in determining the meaning of the clause, we must consider the developed law. The Naturalisation Act of 1790 provided that “the children of citizens of the United States that may be born beyond Sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born Citizens.” Just three years after the constitution’s adoption, this would seem to give an early and powerful repudiation of the birther reading of the clause. But it cannot, on its own, clarify the constitution. In Wong Kim v Ark , the US supreme court ruled that a child born in the United States to two US domiciled foreign parents not serving with a foreign government was a natural born citizen. This set the precedent that natural born citizenship could be granted by the principle of “jus soli”, or citizenship from birth in the United States. However, as illustrated by the Naturalisation Act, jus soli cannot account for all Americans. To fill the space of absent court clarification on American citizens born abroad, Congress has provided statutory definition for natural born citizenship. Title 8, section 1401 of the US Title Code provides these definitions to include (among other qualifying citizens) those born abroad to one American parent and one foreign parent, provided the American parent spent five years in the US prior to the child’s birth. The strength of section 1401 is in its clarification of the clause in a logical manner, compatible with the constitution and in a way that can account for American citizens not physically born in the United States. Because the law grants citizenship even to the Obama of the birther universe, the birthers reject section 1401 as unconstitutional. In contrast to the logic of section 1401, the birther reading of the natural born citizenship clause is highly problematic. Put simply, if the only natural born citizens are those born inside the United States, then many “natural’” Americans are left out in the cold. The state department foreign affairs manual (pdf) notes that under the constitution’s 14th amendment, US government installations abroad are not part of the United States. Therefore, according to the birther approach, this would mean, for example, that while a child born inside the United States to foreign tourists or to illegal immigrants is a natural born citizen, John McCain – born on a military base in Panama – is not . The absurdity of such a reading of the constitution is profound. Under the birther approach, foreign service and experience are acts to be punished by deprivation of citizenship rights for the children of servicemen and women and public officials posted overseas. How can we honestly believe that the founding fathers would regard the citizenship of children of those who have served their country abroad as less than that of those residing in the United States? To make this argument as the birthers do is illogical and reflective their distorted and deficient understanding of the US constitution. Barack Obama Donald Trump Tea Party movement Republicans US Congress US constitution and civil liberties John McCain Tom Rogan guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …
Iain Gray launches personal attack and warns disaffected Liberal Democrats to vote against the break-up of the UK The Scottish Labour leader Iain Gray has warned disaffected Liberal Democrats that Alex Salmond is too “downright dangerous” to deserve their support, and is not a “safe option”. Gray has been stung by a series of opinion polls suggesting that the Scottish National party has taken a commanding lead in the race to win the Holyrood election in 10 days, with Alex Salmond set to win a second term as first minister. In a speech intended to reinvigorate Labour’s faltering campaign, Gray admitted that the SNP had “a real chance” of forming the next Scottish government but warned voters they now “stand on the edge” of bringing in a government intent on breaking up the UK. In a message targeting wavering Lib Dem voters, Gray added: “The message on separation is simple: if you don’t want it, don’t vote for it, because Alex Salmond says a second term will give him the moral authority to pursue it.” Gray made a series of personal attacks on Salmond, in a dramatic switch in tactics, claiming the first minister “only cares about his own job, he doesn’t care about yours … he will say anything to anyone to make his vision of independence come true”. After watching their apparent 10-point advantage in the polls evaporate over the past three weeks, stunned Labour officials are openly contemplating defeat on 5 May and some backbench MPs are now directly attacking the handling of the Scottish campaign. Party officials admit that a much larger number of Lib Dem voters and some Tory voters appear to be switching to the SNP in the suburbs and rural areas outside Labour’s core areas in central and west Scotland. Labour’s strategy of focusing their energies on winning 20 target seats has solidified support in those seats but has made the error of ignoring other constituencies and non-core voters. Gray tried to rally Labour activists and campaigners by urging them to attack Salmond’s desire for independence with floating voters and to attack the SNP leader himself. He said Salmond’s pledge to see 100% of Scotland’s electricity generated by renewables by 2020 as “rhetorical fantasy”, and his pledge to deliver a five-year council tax freeze as “not credible”, and his estimated efficiency savings “vague and mysterious”. Labour now estimates that the SNP could win up to 53 or 54 seats, taking constituencies in the Highlands, north-east Scotland and the Borders, in part because some Lib Dem voters want to keep Labour out of power, while Tories may vote tactically for the same reason. Driven by a significant backlash over Nick Clegg’s coalition with David Cameron the polls show the Lib Dem vote has now halved to about 8%, while the Tory vote has also fallen to 12%. “The collapse in Lib Dem support introduces an element of chaos into the election: we can’t pretend that isn’t the case,” said one party official. Labour sources still insist the polls have exaggerated the scale of the SNP’s lead, and believe it will take seats from the SNP and Lib Dems. One senior official said he still believed Labour would win on 5 May, but by a very narrow margin. The polls suggest up to a third of voters are undecided: polling headlines putting the SNP 10 points ahead were based on the opinions of 680 voters. However, the same polls still showed that less than a third of voters support independence, suggesting many voters will disbelieve Gray’s warnings. They also show Salmond remains the most popular leader and most popular choice for first minister. Gray told reporters after his speech that their canvassing showed “a huge number of ‘don’t knows’ and undecideds. So there’s still a lot to play for over the next 10 days”. He added: “What’s happened is that there are very large numbers of Lib Dem and, to a degree, Conservative voters apparently in this poll who look as if they’re either considering shifting to other parties or don’t know who they’re voting for.” They add that some pre-general election polls showed the Clegg and the Lib Dems were beating Labour into third place. Before the 2007 election, the SNP were also 10 points ahead, but only won by one seat over Labour. Alex Salmond Scottish National Party (SNP) Scottish politics Scotland Severin Carrell guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …
From an idea on Twitter to an online event: Wray village highlights rural broadband campaign and benefits of ‘symmetrical’ fast upload to digital future The ‘world’s first’ streaming of a village cricket match took its place in internet folklore today with thousands tuning in to the #twicket. Complete with an appearance from a 15 foot scarecrow and the issuing of yellow cards more usually associated with football, the cricket match from Wray in Lancashire was broadcast across as far afield as America and Australia. Organiser John Popham, who first came up with the plan to highlight the need for faster rural broadband provision just a few week ago, told me: “It worked better than my wildest expectations both in terms of viewers and the technology. The BBC even came along – I think they might be a bit worried!” At its height the match attracted more than 2,300 live viewers – and succeeded in making a local woman who stepped in to be commentator, Brenda Nickle, into an immediate online star with her observations about players as she sipped her Pimms. Popham now hopes to use other live events as part of the campaign to highlight the need for fast upload speeds to enable people to share content more easily. Almost all broadband provision in the UK is “asymmetric” – meaning that download speeds are far greater than upload speeds. Studies in Australia have found that symmetrical upload and download speeds leads to more creativity among users, while asymmetric connections creates a “consumer culture”. The UK government has repeatedly said that it wants the UK to be a leader in content creation, but there is little sign that it has taken in the importance of symmetric broadband in achieving this goal. Future events could well prove more difficult to achieve – Wray was chosen because, thanks to a network installed by Lancaster University, it is one of only three villages in the UK to have a symmetrical community network . “It’s going to be hard to live up to this, to do it again to this standard,” Popham said. The livestream was managed by Birmingham company Aquila which used basic camera equipment (two Sony Z1 cameras and and a DSR 350) with microphones on the boundary and at the commentary. There was also an audio only stream brovided by Radio Youthology with iPhone and Android apps. The hash tag #twicket started trending on Twitter shortly before the end of the match. Broadband Digital Britain Internet Digital Economy Act Sarah Hartley guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …
Rigid ticketing policy and high prices spark concerns over empty seats and disappointed fans at London 2012 Olympics Olympic bosses are expecting a last-minute surge for London 2012 tickets ahead of the Tuesday midnight deadline for applications, though organisers have confirmed that this is not the last chance for members of the public to buy tickets. Officials said they were “hugely encouraged” by ticket sales, which have surged ahead of the deadline, with Easter Sunday evening the busiest period so far. But there have been complaints that the rigid ticketing policy will leave many fans disappointed and thousands of seats empty. “Tickets will be made available again,” said a spokesman for the London Olympic Games Organising Committee (Logoc). “But the best opportunity to get one is now, and we’d really encourage anyone who wants one to try now.” Prices range from £20 for the cheapest seats at preliminary events to £750 for the best views of the prestigious 100m final. The most expensive – for the opening ceremony – come in at £2,012. Where demand outstrips supply, organisers will hold a lottery to select applicants at random. Logoc gave no breakdown on Monday, but said it had received applications for all sports from across the UK and as far afield as the Falkland Islands. It said it had promoted the six-week sale as a “marathon not a sprint”. Logoc will be creating an online exchange forum, allowing ticketholders to resell at face value, but any attempt to tout will be liable to prosecution. “It’s not like at Glastonbury where there’s a photograph of the buyer on the ticket, but there is a lot of monitoring by our security and the police to make sure that people aren’t reselling for profit. “It is illegal to resell tickets for profit on sites such as eBay and we will be keeping a close eye on them.” The system has drawn criticism from some private ticketing firms who say it must be opened up to avoid leaving grandstands empty. Seatwave, a ticket exchange website that could potentially profit if 2012 auctions were allowed, demanded Logoc scrap its “confusing” lottery and sell seats on the open market. “There is a growing risk that millions of Olympic fans will not get the chance to attend the games and events they want to,” said Seatwave founder Joe Cohen. “The current ballot system is confusing, unnecessarily burdensome and the restrictions on ticket resale will mean that thousands of tickets will go unused. Let’s not repeat the images of blocks of empty seats we saw in Beijing.” There have also been complaints from some buyers over transparency and cost. Jack Miller, vice-president of the British Athletics Supporters Club, said he was caught unawares by prices “considerably more than Beijing”. “I blinked slightly when it totalled up what it would cost if I got everything I applied for,” he said. Ticket applicants will find out if they have been successful by 24 June. Olympic Games 2012 London Organising Committee of the Olympic and Paralympic Games (Locog) Athletics London Barry Neild guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …George Stephanopoulos: Nation’s ‘Gas Gripes’ Are ‘Knocking Down’ Obama’s Polls
April 25, 2011 No Comment
Good Morning America's George Stephanopoulos on Monday described the country's “gas gripes ” over rising fuel costs, spinning, ” Soaring prices lead to new pain for the President as big oil gets ready to report record profits .” The former Democratic operative turned journalist tried to put the best face on Barack Obama's growing problems: “And, Jake, these gas prices are also knocking down President Obama's poll numbers, which is why he's out there nearly every day addressing this problem.” Reporter Jake Tapper, on the other hand, provided a more balanced look, pointing out, “When President Obama was sworn in, gas averaged $1.84 a gallon. Today, it's $3.86. And as prices have spiked since January, the President's approval ratings have sunk.” He even featured an angry motorist who complained, “Maybe President Obama could step down and let somebody else take over.” After noting that four in ten Americans say gas prices are causing an “extreme hardship” for them, Tapper informed, “And those Americans are much more apt to say they won't even consider voting for President Obama's reelection.” Tapper's segment is a change from Friday when the program didn't mention political problems as a result of rising fuel costs. (See a study by the Business and Media Institute's Julia Seymour for more on media coverage of Obama and gas prices.) A transcript of the April 25 segment, which aired at 7:08am EDT, follows: 7am tease GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS: Gas gripes. Soaring prices lead to new pain for the President as big oil gets ready to report record profits.
Continue reading …