UK’s former chief scientist calls instead for a system where each nation is awarded a carbon emissions quota based on population The world should abandon the Kyoto protocol on climate change and move instead to a system where each nation would have a carbon emissions quota based on population, the UK’s former chief scientist has urged, in an explosive contribution to the long-running climate negotiations. Sir David King is one of the most respected figures in climate change policy.He is the architect of the UK’s response to global warming, credited with reviving the flagging climate talks in 2004 when he called the problem “a greater threat than international terrorism “. He told the Guardian: “I can’t see the Kyoto protocol making any headway – there are enough blocks in place, especially from the US and China, that it is wholly unlikely that it will go on. We need to be pragmatic.” He said his proposals – by which countries could take their own actions on greenhouse gases without agreeing them at an international level – offered “a far more realistic pathway than hoping countries will come together in an international agreement at a single point”. “If you say only a full [legally binding] treaty is any good, we will still be arguing about it in 20 years,” he said. King – who was born in Durban, South Africa, where the next round of climate talks will take place this December – will publish a report on Monday intended to inject new life into the long-running United Nations talks. The ultimate aim, he said, should be that by mid-century each country should have an emissions quota based on their population – probably set at around two tonnes of carbon per person – supported by a carbon trading system, by which rich countries wanting to exceed their quota could buy carbon credits from poorer nations. The average UK citizen has a carbon footprint around 4.5 times that, while the average US citizen’s footprint is 10 times as large. In order to get to that point, according to King, negotiators should accept that countries must be allowed to make their own decisions on measures to reduce emissions without the framework of an over-arching agreement. King’s views are an attack on some of the most dearly held tenets of the climate change talks. While the idea of a per capita emissions quota will appeal to some, many developing countries are insistent that the Kyoto protocol must be continued, as the only international treaty that requires rich nations to cut their greenhouse gas emissions. They, along with green campaigning groups, also want any new agreement to be a fully legally binding treaty – not a voluntary system countries can enter if they wish, and under which they can change their minds on emissions targets at any time. But King believes these entrenched positions need to be abandoned and radical new ideas and more “realism” injected into the negotiations, if they are to be successful. He argues that moving away from the goal of a fully articulated global treaty to a system of voluntary actions, and bilateral or multilateral agreements among nations will achieve this. This would mean governments and the United Nations would have to accept some countries – perhaps including the US, Opec countries and others – might effectively opt out of the process. King’s report, for Oxford’s Smith School of Enterprise and Environment, where he is director, shows that the 1997 Kyoto protocol had little effect on emissions outside Europe. This means that in nearly 20 years of negotiations the world has failed to produce an effective and comprehensive global agreement on emissions. “Since 1992 [when the first talks took place], 192 nations have achieved remarkably little – despite the fact that no other single topic in the world has been given so much of policymakers’ time,” he said. “But in parallel, national actions and actions by business have brought about very substantial change.” By scrapping the Kyoto protocol and moving to a voluntary system whereby countries could make commitments on curbing emissions and later revise them – so-called “pledge and review” – the world could build on the progress that some countries have already made, he said. As part of the report, King’s team tracked progress on emissions around the world, producing a map showing which countries have done most. Several Latin American countries, including Brazil and Mexico, and Indonesia, Japan and Norway all emerged as “very good”. The European Union was rated “good” in terms of its progress, and the US, Canada, Australia and parts of the Middle East were classed “very poor”. King’s contribution was welcomed by some observers of the talks who have long argued that the deadlock can only be broken by accepting that a legally binding treaty may be out of reach and concentrating instead on concrete actions that would achieve reductions in emissions. “This report confronts the fact that a binding treaty is not going to occur in the near future, and that the pledge and review approach can bring important gains,” said Paul Bledsoe, a former Bill Clinton White House official on climate change and veteran of the climate talks. “For too long negotiators and activists have let the perfect be the enemy of the good. The motto should be start and strengthen, a method that has worked well for the Montreal protocol process. That said, pressure on major emitters to make cuts must be made in all venues, including the G20 and the major economies forums, to be fully effective.” But King’s proposals are likely to be controversial for many participants, including some developing countries and green pressure groups. “Scrapping Kyoto and waiting for something better to come along is a bit like abandoning your car by the side of the road in the hope someone will pick you up later,” said Ruth Davis, chief policy adviser at Greenpeace. “The new report’s authors are right to stress that global co-operation and common rules are essential, but Kyoto is the only agreement the world has made so far that moves us closer to those goals. Scrapping it would send a destructive signal to investors and undermine the green economy.” She urged governments to agree to a “second commitment period” for the protocol, to continue when the current commitments expire in 2012. “Europe’s leaders can secure the future of the Kyoto later this year, by agreeing to a second commitment period,” she said. “It is in their interests to do so, both to drive much-needed investment in the clean energy sector, and to begin the transition to a comprehensive global agreement over the next decade.” King’s proposal of a global emissions quota based on population has its roots in the idea of “contraction and convergence”, first put forward in the early 1990s, by which countries would reduce their greenhouse gas output and move towards equal emissions across the world. King said the system could be devised in such a way that it did not simply encourage population growth. Kyoto protocol Climate change Global climate talks Carbon emissions Emissions trading United Nations David King Population Fiona Harvey guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …UK’s former chief scientist calls instead for a system where each nation is awarded a carbon emissions quota based on population The world should abandon the Kyoto protocol on climate change and move instead to a system where each nation would have a carbon emissions quota based on population, the UK’s former chief scientist has urged, in an explosive contribution to the long-running climate negotiations. Sir David King is one of the most respected figures in climate change policy.He is the architect of the UK’s response to global warming, credited with reviving the flagging climate talks in 2004 when he called the problem “a greater threat than international terrorism “. He told the Guardian: “I can’t see the Kyoto protocol making any headway – there are enough blocks in place, especially from the US and China, that it is wholly unlikely that it will go on. We need to be pragmatic.” He said his proposals – by which countries could take their own actions on greenhouse gases without agreeing them at an international level – offered “a far more realistic pathway than hoping countries will come together in an international agreement at a single point”. “If you say only a full [legally binding] treaty is any good, we will still be arguing about it in 20 years,” he said. King – who was born in Durban, South Africa, where the next round of climate talks will take place this December – will publish a report on Monday intended to inject new life into the long-running United Nations talks. The ultimate aim, he said, should be that by mid-century each country should have an emissions quota based on their population – probably set at around two tonnes of carbon per person – supported by a carbon trading system, by which rich countries wanting to exceed their quota could buy carbon credits from poorer nations. The average UK citizen has a carbon footprint around 4.5 times that, while the average US citizen’s footprint is 10 times as large. In order to get to that point, according to King, negotiators should accept that countries must be allowed to make their own decisions on measures to reduce emissions without the framework of an over-arching agreement. King’s views are an attack on some of the most dearly held tenets of the climate change talks. While the idea of a per capita emissions quota will appeal to some, many developing countries are insistent that the Kyoto protocol must be continued, as the only international treaty that requires rich nations to cut their greenhouse gas emissions. They, along with green campaigning groups, also want any new agreement to be a fully legally binding treaty – not a voluntary system countries can enter if they wish, and under which they can change their minds on emissions targets at any time. But King believes these entrenched positions need to be abandoned and radical new ideas and more “realism” injected into the negotiations, if they are to be successful. He argues that moving away from the goal of a fully articulated global treaty to a system of voluntary actions, and bilateral or multilateral agreements among nations will achieve this. This would mean governments and the United Nations would have to accept some countries – perhaps including the US, Opec countries and others – might effectively opt out of the process. King’s report, for Oxford’s Smith School of Enterprise and Environment, where he is director, shows that the 1997 Kyoto protocol had little effect on emissions outside Europe. This means that in nearly 20 years of negotiations the world has failed to produce an effective and comprehensive global agreement on emissions. “Since 1992 [when the first talks took place], 192 nations have achieved remarkably little – despite the fact that no other single topic in the world has been given so much of policymakers’ time,” he said. “But in parallel, national actions and actions by business have brought about very substantial change.” By scrapping the Kyoto protocol and moving to a voluntary system whereby countries could make commitments on curbing emissions and later revise them – so-called “pledge and review” – the world could build on the progress that some countries have already made, he said. As part of the report, King’s team tracked progress on emissions around the world, producing a map showing which countries have done most. Several Latin American countries, including Brazil and Mexico, and Indonesia, Japan and Norway all emerged as “very good”. The European Union was rated “good” in terms of its progress, and the US, Canada, Australia and parts of the Middle East were classed “very poor”. King’s contribution was welcomed by some observers of the talks who have long argued that the deadlock can only be broken by accepting that a legally binding treaty may be out of reach and concentrating instead on concrete actions that would achieve reductions in emissions. “This report confronts the fact that a binding treaty is not going to occur in the near future, and that the pledge and review approach can bring important gains,” said Paul Bledsoe, a former Bill Clinton White House official on climate change and veteran of the climate talks. “For too long negotiators and activists have let the perfect be the enemy of the good. The motto should be start and strengthen, a method that has worked well for the Montreal protocol process. That said, pressure on major emitters to make cuts must be made in all venues, including the G20 and the major economies forums, to be fully effective.” But King’s proposals are likely to be controversial for many participants, including some developing countries and green pressure groups. “Scrapping Kyoto and waiting for something better to come along is a bit like abandoning your car by the side of the road in the hope someone will pick you up later,” said Ruth Davis, chief policy adviser at Greenpeace. “The new report’s authors are right to stress that global co-operation and common rules are essential, but Kyoto is the only agreement the world has made so far that moves us closer to those goals. Scrapping it would send a destructive signal to investors and undermine the green economy.” She urged governments to agree to a “second commitment period” for the protocol, to continue when the current commitments expire in 2012. “Europe’s leaders can secure the future of the Kyoto later this year, by agreeing to a second commitment period,” she said. “It is in their interests to do so, both to drive much-needed investment in the clean energy sector, and to begin the transition to a comprehensive global agreement over the next decade.” King’s proposal of a global emissions quota based on population has its roots in the idea of “contraction and convergence”, first put forward in the early 1990s, by which countries would reduce their greenhouse gas output and move towards equal emissions across the world. King said the system could be devised in such a way that it did not simply encourage population growth. Kyoto protocol Climate change Global climate talks Carbon emissions Emissions trading United Nations David King Population Fiona Harvey guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …
PM paid for former News of the World editor to stay over, two months after he quit as media chief amid phone-hacking scandal David Cameron hosted Andy Coulson at Chequers in March, two months after the former News of the World editor resigned as Downing Street director of communications, No 10 has said. In a sign of his determination to stand by the man he described as a “friend”, the prime minister paid out of his own pocket to welcome Coulson for an overnight stay at Chequers. Downing Street disclosed Coulson’s visit to Chequers as it published details of all of Cameron’s contacts with media proprietors and executives since he became Tory leader in 2005. The prime minister had told MPs on Wednesday that he would publish details of the contacts since he became prime minister but he later decided that this should cover all contacts since he became Tory leader. Labour attacked Cameron’s decision to invite Coulson to Chequers two months after his resignation in January, saying it showed an “extraordinary lack of judgment”. Ivan Lewis, the shadow culture secretary, said: “This is yet more evidence of an extraordinary lack of judgment by David Cameron. He hosted Andy Coulson at Chequers after, in the prime minister’s own words, Mr Coulson’s second chance hadn’t worked out. David Cameron may think that this is a good day to bury bad news but he now has an increasing number of serious questions to answer.” The prime minister has come under fire for what Ed Miliband described as a catastrophic misjudgment in taking Coulson into No 10 after the election. Cameron said at a press conference in Downing Street last Friday that he had met his “friend” Coulson since his resignation but not recently or frequently. In the past week he has started to distance himself from Coulson after facing intense criticisms for ignoring warnings from Nick Clegg and Lord Ashdown about the political dangers of bringing Coulson into No 10 after the general election. On Wednesday, Cameron told MPs: “I hired a tabloid editor. I did so on the basis of assurances he gave me that he did not know about the phone hacking and was not involved in criminality. He gave those self-same assurances to the police, to a select committee of this house and under oath to a court of law. If it turns out he lied, it will not just be that he should not have been in government; it will be that he should be prosecuted. But I do believe that we must stick to the principle that you are innocent until proven guilty.” This marked a change in tone from his press conference last Friday in Downing Street. Asked then whether he had been in touch with Coulson, Cameron said: “Yes, I have spoken to him. I have seen him, not recently and not frequently. But when you work with someone for four years, as I did, and you work closely, you do build a friendship, and I became friends with him. I think he did his job for me and the Conservative party and then the country – I think he did it in a very effective way. So, yes, he became a friend and is a friend.” When the phone-hacking affair erupted again earlier this month, Downing Street said that the prime minister stood by a statement he made when Coulson resigned as the No 10 director of communications on 21 January. This said that he had resigned simply because the allegations about phone hacking were making it impossible for him to concentrate on his job. The details of the prime minister’s contacts with media executives will show that he had lunch with James Murdoch on occasions which have previously not been reported. They also show, as the Guardian revealed in January, that he visited Rebekah Brooks at her Oxfordshire home over the Christmas period. A Downing Street source said: “We are releasing details of all of the meetings the prime minister has ever had with media executives. This goes right back to the beginning. David took the view that he should release details of meetings with everyone – every lunch and every dinner. This really is an example of transparency.” Lewis said: “I have been asking David Cameron to come clean about his dinner with James Murdoch and Rebekah Brooks last Christmas for five months. Confirmation that David Cameron attended this dinner two days after Vince Cable was stripped of his responsibility for the BSkyB deal and in the middle of a quasi-judicial process raises further questions about the prime minister’s judgment. People will want to know whether BSkyB was discussed and what messages were then relayed to Jeremy Hunt.” The list published by Downing Street shows: • The prime minister had a second social engagement with Rebekah Brooks over the Christmas period in addition to a dinner in January at her Oxfordshire home attended by James Murdoch. This was disclosed by the Guardian in January. Downing Street has repeatedly refused to answer questions from the Guardian about this second event for the past few months. • James Murdoch and his wife, Kathryn, lunched at Chequers in November 2010. • Brooks visited Chequers twice, in June 2010 and August 2010. • Colin Myler, former editor of News of the World, met Cameron in July 2010. • Editors and proprietors of other news groups, including Guardian News and Media, met the prime minister. Andy Coulson David Cameron Phone hacking Newspapers & magazines National newspapers Newspapers News of the World News International News Corporation Media business Nicholas Watt guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …PM paid for former News of the World editor to stay over, two months after he quit as media chief amid phone-hacking scandal David Cameron hosted Andy Coulson at Chequers in March, two months after the former News of the World editor resigned as Downing Street director of communications, No 10 has said. In a sign of his determination to stand by the man he described as a “friend”, the prime minister paid out of his own pocket to welcome Coulson for an overnight stay at Chequers. Downing Street disclosed Coulson’s visit to Chequers as it published details of all of Cameron’s contacts with media proprietors and executives since he became Tory leader in 2005. The prime minister had told MPs on Wednesday that he would publish details of the contacts since he became prime minister but he later decided that this should cover all contacts since he became Tory leader. Labour attacked Cameron’s decision to invite Coulson to Chequers two months after his resignation in January, saying it showed an “extraordinary lack of judgment”. Ivan Lewis, the shadow culture secretary, said: “This is yet more evidence of an extraordinary lack of judgment by David Cameron. He hosted Andy Coulson at Chequers after, in the prime minister’s own words, Mr Coulson’s second chance hadn’t worked out. David Cameron may think that this is a good day to bury bad news but he now has an increasing number of serious questions to answer.” The prime minister has come under fire for what Ed Miliband described as a catastrophic misjudgment in taking Coulson into No 10 after the election. Cameron said at a press conference in Downing Street last Friday that he had met his “friend” Coulson since his resignation but not recently or frequently. In the past week he has started to distance himself from Coulson after facing intense criticisms for ignoring warnings from Nick Clegg and Lord Ashdown about the political dangers of bringing Coulson into No 10 after the general election. On Wednesday, Cameron told MPs: “I hired a tabloid editor. I did so on the basis of assurances he gave me that he did not know about the phone hacking and was not involved in criminality. He gave those self-same assurances to the police, to a select committee of this house and under oath to a court of law. If it turns out he lied, it will not just be that he should not have been in government; it will be that he should be prosecuted. But I do believe that we must stick to the principle that you are innocent until proven guilty.” This marked a change in tone from his press conference last Friday in Downing Street. Asked then whether he had been in touch with Coulson, Cameron said: “Yes, I have spoken to him. I have seen him, not recently and not frequently. But when you work with someone for four years, as I did, and you work closely, you do build a friendship, and I became friends with him. I think he did his job for me and the Conservative party and then the country – I think he did it in a very effective way. So, yes, he became a friend and is a friend.” When the phone-hacking affair erupted again earlier this month, Downing Street said that the prime minister stood by a statement he made when Coulson resigned as the No 10 director of communications on 21 January. This said that he had resigned simply because the allegations about phone hacking were making it impossible for him to concentrate on his job. The details of the prime minister’s contacts with media executives will show that he had lunch with James Murdoch on occasions which have previously not been reported. They also show, as the Guardian revealed in January, that he visited Rebekah Brooks at her Oxfordshire home over the Christmas period. A Downing Street source said: “We are releasing details of all of the meetings the prime minister has ever had with media executives. This goes right back to the beginning. David took the view that he should release details of meetings with everyone – every lunch and every dinner. This really is an example of transparency.” Lewis said: “I have been asking David Cameron to come clean about his dinner with James Murdoch and Rebekah Brooks last Christmas for five months. Confirmation that David Cameron attended this dinner two days after Vince Cable was stripped of his responsibility for the BSkyB deal and in the middle of a quasi-judicial process raises further questions about the prime minister’s judgment. People will want to know whether BSkyB was discussed and what messages were then relayed to Jeremy Hunt.” The list published by Downing Street shows: • The prime minister had a second social engagement with Rebekah Brooks over the Christmas period in addition to a dinner in January at her Oxfordshire home attended by James Murdoch. This was disclosed by the Guardian in January. Downing Street has repeatedly refused to answer questions from the Guardian about this second event for the past few months. • James Murdoch and his wife, Kathryn, lunched at Chequers in November 2010. • Brooks visited Chequers twice, in June 2010 and August 2010. • Colin Myler, former editor of News of the World, met Cameron in July 2010. • Editors and proprietors of other news groups, including Guardian News and Media, met the prime minister. Andy Coulson David Cameron Phone hacking Newspapers & magazines National newspapers Newspapers News of the World News International News Corporation Media business Nicholas Watt guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …
A routine court hearing turned aggressive in southern Kentucky when a woman attacked the judge. (July 15)
Continue reading …
A routine court hearing turned aggressive in southern Kentucky when a woman attacked the judge. (July 15)
Continue reading …Poppy Montgomery talks about playing the Harry Potter author in new television film “Magic Beyond Words: The JK Rowling Story.” (July 15)
Continue reading …
Poppy Montgomery talks about playing the Harry Potter author in new television film “Magic Beyond Words: The JK Rowling Story.” (July 15)
Continue reading …Rebekah Brooks has resigned from News International in the wake of the phone hacking scandal. She released a carefully-worded letter to the staff. Via The Guardian : At News International we pride ourselves on setting the news agenda for the right reasons. Today we are leading the news for the wrong ones. The reputation of the company we love so much, as well as the press freedoms we value so highly, are all at risk. As Chief Executive of the company, I feel a deep sense of responsibility for the people we have hurt and I want to reiterate how sorry I am for what we now know to have taken place. I have believed that the right and responsible action has been to lead us through the heat of the crisis. However my desire to remain on the bridge has made me a focal point of the debate. This is now detracting attention from all our honest endeavours to fix the problems of the past. Therefore I have given Rupert and James Murdoch my resignation. While it has been a subject of discussion, this time my resignation has been accepted. Rupert’s wisdom, kindness and incisive advice has guided me throughout my career and James is an inspirational leader who has shown me great loyalty and friendship. I would like to thank them both for their support. I have worked here for 22 years and I know it to be part of the finest media company in the world. News International is full of talented, professional and honourable people. I am proud to have been part of the team and lucky to know so many brilliant journalists and media executives. I leave with the happiest of memories and an abundance of friends. As you can imagine recent times have been tough. I now need to concentrate on correcting the distortions and rebutting the allegations about my record as a journalist, an editor and executive. My resignation makes it possible for me to have the freedom and the time to give my full cooperation to all the current and future inquiries, the police investigations and the CMS appearance. I am so grateful for all the messages of support. I have nothing but overwhelming respect for you and our millions of readers. I wish every one of you all the best. Rebekah The wording of the letter suggests she had tried to resign already and had her resignation refused. The part about having time to correct the record seems to be CYA language in light of the downward spiral News International has been on over the past couple of weeks. Take rumors for what they’re worth here, but it appears that at least one member of the Murdoch family was quite unhappy about Ms. Brooks . Elisabeth Murdoch is reported to be furious over the scandal. The 42-year-old is said to have privately “railed” against the News International chief executive and former editor of the News of the World. Miss Murdoch, who is set to be given a seat on the board of her father’s News Corp empire, told friends that Mrs Brooks had “f—– the company”. Meanwhile, if one were to watch only Fox News, they would have no clue anything untoward was happening elsewhere, because it’s ” the subject [they're] not talking about today. ”
Continue reading …
Subprime borrowers have been largely unwelcome in the lending market since the financial crisis, but it’s becoming easier for them to get a home loan. A number of private investment firms are lending to home buyers whose credit scores do not meet the standards of banks, accordng to the Wall Street Journal. The firms are also more willing to accept alternative forms of documentation as proof of income. The WSJ report comes only a day after a paper published by Kevin Lansing, an economist at the Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco, who argues that runaway subprime lending was one of several “red flags” policymakers might have heeded in advance of the financial crisis. Buyers with questionable credit, and the financial institutions that issued them mortgages, have received a lion’s share of blame for the financial crisis, which was presaged by widespread defaults on subprime mortgages and a collapse in mortgage-backed securities. According to the WSJ, the firms draw a distinction between what they’re doing now and what took place during the run-up to the subprime crisis. They’re requiring higher down payments than banks would, and seem to believe they’re lending to borrowers who pose less risk than those who defaulted in large numbers a few years ago. In catering to borrowers with imperfect credit, the firms’ behavior is reminiscent of that of Ally Financial, which has been deliberately courting used car buyers with subprime loans despite concerns about risk. Last week, the WSJ reported that the federal government will likely stop backing mortgage loans above a certain size in October, meaning that come fall, there may be more homeowners seeking “jumbo loans” — in most cases, a loan above $417,000 — from private firms. Currently the government guarantees loans up to $729,750, but in October that figure is expected to come down to $625,500 in major markets like New York and Los Angeles, and as low as $271,050 elsewhere. The WSJ reports that there are at least two firms making jumbo loans to borrowers with questionable credit. One of them is New Penn Financial, a subsidiary of the mortgage company Shellpoint Partners. In a recent item about Shellpoint and one of its founders, the financier Lewis Ranieri, the WSJ noted that one of the company’s goals is to to make mortgages accessible to borrowers whom banks would turn away. “Former traditional prime borrowers with good credit scores who could comfortably make mortgage payments are being precluded from home ownership due to banks’ rigid criteria,” Ranieri then told the WSJ.
Continue reading …