Lord Adair Turner meets cabinet ministers to help heal split over new emission targets Lord Adair Turner, the chairman of the government’s independent advisory body on climate change, has met cabinet ministers in a bid to heal a government split threatening to reject ambitious new targets for reducing carbon emissions . The chairman of the Committee on Climate Change (CCC) met the business secretary, Vince Cable, seeking to break down opposition to the new budget . Cable believes the proposed target will harm prospects for jobs and growth. The cabinet is divided on whether or not to back the advice of Lord Turner’s committee and commit to a fourth carbon budget. In 2008, three consecutive carbon budgets were set, up to the year 2023, but a decision has to be made for the next period. The budgets put the government of the day on target to meet a reduction of 80% of carbon emissions compared to 1990 levels by 2050. The CCC recommended that to reach this end target, carbon should be cut by 60% by 2030. Cable’s concerns are apparently supported by the chancellor, George Osborne, and transport secretary, Philip Hammond. All are ranged against the energy secretary Chris Huhne, the cabinet office minister, Oliver Letwin, the foreign secretary, William Hague, and environment secretary, Caroline Spelman. The prime minister is expected to make a decision on Monday. The CCC is independent and the government has not previously rejected its advice. A source said the business secretary respected the work of the CCC and that progress had been made since Cable wrote to his party’s leader, Nick Clegg, and Osborne, saying he was “unable to give clearance to the proposal as it stands”. However, other ministerial sources said Cable was still opposed to supporting the fourth carbon budget. In that letter, dated 19 April, and seen by the Guardian, Cable says the proposed carbon budget is not “cost-effective” and asks for a Treasury impact analysis to be made available to all involved in the decision. He wrote: “Agreeing too aggressive a level risks burdening the UK economy, which would be detrimental to UK, undermining the UK’s competitiveness and our attractiveness as a place to do business. “I have a number of concerns about supporting the CCC’s recommended level at this time. “It is important that we strike the right balance between our pursuit to decarbonise the UK economy whilst ensuring that UK economic growth and employment is sustained.” Cable fears the energy secretary’s plan relies on securing a cap on emissions trading across Europe that may never materialise. If this were not achieved, the UK would be left cutting carbon emissions unilaterally, which would risk putting industry at a disadvantage compared with outside competitors and “could lead to significant fiscal costs”. Instead, Cable argues for a weaker carbon target. “This level keeps us on course to meet our 2050 target and entails a steeper reduction in emissions than the previous government set for carbon budgets, which easily justifies our position as greenest government ever.” The official evidence Cable uses to back his compromise figure is a model that assumes no new investment in low-carbon energy sources until the second half of the 2020s. They are concerned Cable’s solution would mean no new investment in the clean energy industry. Cable also proposed buying “carbon offsets” to help the UK meet its targets in the 2020s, instead of cutting emissions and boosting green industries in the UK. This is opposed by some who believe the UK should change its behaviour rather than pay China or others to cut emissions. On Monday, the CCC’s chief executive, David Kennedy, told the Guardian that a decision to embrace his committee’s fourth carbon budget would be “of crucial importance. It will be the key test of the government’s commitment to the low-carbon agenda.” In another leaked letter, dated 17 April, Hague said he “strongly supports” the fourth carbon budget. He writes: “I agree that we should not reject the fourth carbon budget recommended by the Committee on Climate Change … in order to retain public support for our climate policy at home we need to be able to point to similar effort abroad. If our domestic resolve is seen to be weakening, we will lose traction elsewhere.” John Sauven, the executive director of Greenpeace, said: “The Liberal Democrats’ leadership keep saying they will learn from their kicking in last week’s election by putting clear water between their party and the Conservatives’ rightwing on issues like protecting the environment. But this letter reveals that Vince Cable is trying to water down the measures aimed at protecting the environment and boosting a green economic recovery.” Climate change Carbon emissions Green politics Vince Cable Chris Huhne Liberal-Conservative coalition Allegra Stratton guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …
Barack Obama ordered assault team be large enough to fight its way out of Pakistan if necessary, newspaper reveals The strained US-Pakistan relationship has come under further pressure after it emerged that the assault team which killed Osama bin Laden was prepared to fight its way out of Pakistan if necessary. President Barack Obama ordered two helicopter-borne backup squads to shadow the main US attack force in case it came under fire from Pakistani security forces as it stormed Bin Laden’s house. The Americans had orders to avoid a firefight but to use their weapons if unavoidable, a senior White House official told the New York Times. The revelations come amid continuing furore in Pakistan over the perceived breach of sovereignty by US forces. On Monday the Guardian reported that Pakistan and the US struck a secret deal permitting US military action to capture or kill Bin Laden almost a decade ago, during the rule of President Pervez Musharraf. Responding through a spokesman and his Facebook page, Musharraf denied that any deal, written or verbal, had been struck. “The accusation of my having allowed intrusion into Pakistan by US forces chasing Osama bin Laden is absolutely baseless,” he said. “Never has this subject even been discussed between myself and President Bush leave aside allowing such freedom of action that would violate our sovereignty (sic).” In January 2002, General Tommy Franks, who headed the US Central Command at the time, told the Associated Press the US had a deal allowing US troops to cross the border in pursuit of bin Laden. Pakistan denied it. Already fragile relations between Pakistan and the US have dipped to new depths following Bin Laden’s death. The US wants to speak to the al-Qaida leader’s three widows – two from Saudi Arabia and one from Yemen, who are currently in Pakistani custody. US officials said Pakistan had agreed to grant access to the women, but in Islamabad officials insisted no decision had been taken. “It’s too early to even think about it,” one official told Reuters. At least nine children are also being held. It is not clear how many were fathered by bin Laden. Controversy also rumbled on over the naming of the CIA station chief in Islamabad in some Pakistani media last weekend, six months after a similar “outing” caused the US spy chief to leave the country. The US said the official was incorrectly named and will not be leaving Pakistan, suggesting the leak was a deliberate attempt by Pakistani officials to divert attention from international criticism. Meanwhile, in South Waziristan in the tribal belt, a US drone fired missiles that killed three alleged Arab militants close to the Afghan border – the second such strike since bin Laden’s death. As further details of the raid emerged, it emerged that Obama had readied a specialist team of lawyers, interrogators and translators aboard a US navy ship in case the al-Qaida leader was taken alive. Obama is said to have revised the original assault plan after learning that two backup helicopters would be 90 minutes away in Afghanistan if called on to aid the commandos. Overhead, US surveillance and reconnaissance aircraft monitored Pakistani police and military channels to determine how long the commandos had to gather evidence. Asked about their rules of engagement, one official said: “Their instructions were to avoid any confrontation if at all possible. But if they had to return fire to get out, they were authorised to do it.” Pakistan’s government is struggling to unite its civilian and military leadership while simultaneously explaining how Bin Laden managed to live in a large house near a major military centre two hours’ drive north of Islamabad. Addressing parliament on Monday, Prime Minister Yousaf Raza Gilani rejected suggestions of complicity or incompetence as “absurd”, saying it was disingenuous to access Pakistan of being “in cahoots” with al-Qaida. In Washington, US legislators are demanding Obama slash Pakistan’s $3 billion annual aid package. But senior US officials admit privately that a strong relationship with Pakistan is crucial to continuing anti-militant operations and success in Afghanistan. Osama bin Laden Obama administration US foreign policy Pakistan US politics United States al-Qaida Sam Jones Declan Walsh guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …Barack Obama ordered assault team be large enough to fight its way out of Pakistan if necessary, newspaper reveals The strained US-Pakistan relationship has come under further pressure after it emerged that the assault team which killed Osama bin Laden was prepared to fight its way out of Pakistan if necessary. President Barack Obama ordered two helicopter-borne backup squads to shadow the main US attack force in case it came under fire from Pakistani security forces as it stormed Bin Laden’s house. The Americans had orders to avoid a firefight but to use their weapons if unavoidable, a senior White House official told the New York Times. The revelations come amid continuing furore in Pakistan over the perceived breach of sovereignty by US forces. On Monday the Guardian reported that Pakistan and the US struck a secret deal permitting US military action to capture or kill Bin Laden almost a decade ago, during the rule of President Pervez Musharraf. Responding through a spokesman and his Facebook page, Musharraf denied that any deal, written or verbal, had been struck. “The accusation of my having allowed intrusion into Pakistan by US forces chasing Osama bin Laden is absolutely baseless,” he said. “Never has this subject even been discussed between myself and President Bush leave aside allowing such freedom of action that would violate our sovereignty (sic).” In January 2002, General Tommy Franks, who headed the US Central Command at the time, told the Associated Press the US had a deal allowing US troops to cross the border in pursuit of bin Laden. Pakistan denied it. Already fragile relations between Pakistan and the US have dipped to new depths following Bin Laden’s death. The US wants to speak to the al-Qaida leader’s three widows – two from Saudi Arabia and one from Yemen, who are currently in Pakistani custody. US officials said Pakistan had agreed to grant access to the women, but in Islamabad officials insisted no decision had been taken. “It’s too early to even think about it,” one official told Reuters. At least nine children are also being held. It is not clear how many were fathered by bin Laden. Controversy also rumbled on over the naming of the CIA station chief in Islamabad in some Pakistani media last weekend, six months after a similar “outing” caused the US spy chief to leave the country. The US said the official was incorrectly named and will not be leaving Pakistan, suggesting the leak was a deliberate attempt by Pakistani officials to divert attention from international criticism. Meanwhile, in South Waziristan in the tribal belt, a US drone fired missiles that killed three alleged Arab militants close to the Afghan border – the second such strike since bin Laden’s death. As further details of the raid emerged, it emerged that Obama had readied a specialist team of lawyers, interrogators and translators aboard a US navy ship in case the al-Qaida leader was taken alive. Obama is said to have revised the original assault plan after learning that two backup helicopters would be 90 minutes away in Afghanistan if called on to aid the commandos. Overhead, US surveillance and reconnaissance aircraft monitored Pakistani police and military channels to determine how long the commandos had to gather evidence. Asked about their rules of engagement, one official said: “Their instructions were to avoid any confrontation if at all possible. But if they had to return fire to get out, they were authorised to do it.” Pakistan’s government is struggling to unite its civilian and military leadership while simultaneously explaining how Bin Laden managed to live in a large house near a major military centre two hours’ drive north of Islamabad. Addressing parliament on Monday, Prime Minister Yousaf Raza Gilani rejected suggestions of complicity or incompetence as “absurd”, saying it was disingenuous to access Pakistan of being “in cahoots” with al-Qaida. In Washington, US legislators are demanding Obama slash Pakistan’s $3 billion annual aid package. But senior US officials admit privately that a strong relationship with Pakistan is crucial to continuing anti-militant operations and success in Afghanistan. Osama bin Laden Obama administration US foreign policy Pakistan US politics United States al-Qaida Sam Jones Declan Walsh guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …
A member of the Austrian Olympic swim team had to be rescued after he used a bucket to dig a large hole that collapsed and trapped him, authorities said. It took 60 rescuers two hours to free Jakub Maly, 19. (May 10)
Continue reading …
A member of the Austrian Olympic swim team had to be rescued after he used a bucket to dig a large hole that collapsed and trapped him, authorities said. It took 60 rescuers two hours to free Jakub Maly, 19. (May 10)
Continue reading …
Reba McEntire and Tim Graw join forces with other artists and city leaders in Nashville to help expand the city’s ever growing music industry. (May 10)
Continue reading …Reba McEntire and Tim Graw join forces with other artists and city leaders in Nashville to help expand the city’s ever growing music industry. (May 10)
Continue reading …(Above video is from a Cavuto appearance ) I’ve discussed Social Security with President Obama at the White House and he assured us that he wouldn’t hurt Social Security. I know many of us on the left have said this before, but I’ll say it again: Why appoint somebody like Alan Simpson to his Catfood Commission if he’s serious about saving and strengthening our social safety nets? Here’s Alan, the High Lord of Mean: Alan Simpson’s cold relationship with AARP is no secret, but the former Republican Senator from Wyoming took it to a new level Friday. At an event hosted by the Investment Company Institute, Simpson delighted the finance industry audience members by aiming a rude gesture at the leading lobby for senior citizens. Financial and investment interests have long been supportive of Simpson’s broad critique of Social Security, since privatizing the old-age and disability support program would be a tremendous boon for Wall Street’s financial managers. ICI represents mutual funds and other money managers who control more than $13 trillion in assets. Simpson’s forceful gesture came after an extended diatribe against Social Security, which he said is a “Ponzi” scheme, “not a retirement program.” Simpson argued that Social Security was originally intended more as a welfare program. “It was never intended as a retirement program. It was set up in ‘37 and ‘38 to take care of people who were in distress — ditch diggers, wage earners — it was to give them 43 percent of the replacement rate of their wages. The [life expectancy] was 63. That’s why they set retirement age at 65” for Social Security, he said. In 2010, President Obama appointed Simpson to a deficit commission that recommended cutting taxes and reducing entitlement spending. The commission’s outline is being used as a framework for reform in Congress. This is totally insane thinking and he’s welcome to his twisted logic, but what he said and did with his Bras d’honneur was completely inappropriate as well, since he accepted a position on Obama’s commission. Sir, if you could only see my hand now. If he hates Social Security and Medicare that’s fine. Start a PAC. But when you’re in a position of trying to help the most beloved social programs America has ever had, at least show some respect. Oh, and stop lying about it. By the way, this isn’t the first time he’s stated misinformation about Social Security, either. RJ Eskow wrote a post for C&L about a Simpson exchange with Alex Lawson that was sickening because of all his lies: Digby writes : Uhm no. This life expectancy misinformation is so widespread, I don’t know if we’ll ever be able to set it straight. But I might have expected that one of President Obama’s Deficit commission appointees — the co-chairman no less — would not be among those who believe it. (Normally I would suggest that he was just a liar, but from this account it’s pretty clear to me that he really doesn’t understand it.) This is a very important point and one that everyone needs to understand if they hope to beat back the social security assault: HuffPost suggested to Simpson during a telephone interview that his claim about life expectancy was misleading because his data include people who died in childhood of diseases that are now largely preventable. Incorporating such early deaths skews the average life expectancy number downward, making it appear as if people live dramatically longer today than they did half a century ago. According to the Social Security Administration’s actuaries, women who lived to 65 in 1940 had a life expectancy of 79.7 years and men were expected to live 77.7 years. “If that is the case — and I don’t think it is — then that means they put in peanuts,” said Simpson. Simpson speculated that the data presented to him by HuffPost had been furnished by “the Catfood Commission people” — a reference to progressive critics of the deficit commission who gave president’s panel that label. Told that the data came directly from the Social Security Administration, Simpson continued to insist it was inaccurate, while misstating the nature of a statistical average: “If you’re telling me that a guy who got to be 65 in 1940 — that all of them lived to be 77 — that is just not correct. Just because a guy gets to be 65, he’s gonna live to be 77? Hell, that’s my genre. That’s not true,” said Simpson, who will turn 80 in September. Why is Dick Durbin acting like a beard for these people? Simpson is an old hack, but Durbin should be ashamed of himself because he does know the truth and the figures that we’re talking about here. Back to Digby: Simpson surely knows about the Greenspan Commission. He’s just lying about that (or he’s senile.) But what’s Erskine Bowles’ excuse? Or Dick Durbin or Saxby Chambliss or all the other politicians who parrot this misinformation all the time? Are they all senile too? The people who designed the system understood very well that if “life expectancy” went up it would mean that there were also more younger workers who hadn’t died in childbirth paying into the system. And they understood the concept of productivity gains and knew that more people would be brought into the system — paying as well as receiving benefits — over time. They weren’t cave men. It was only 70 years ago. Simpson was a teen-ager at the time. What they may not have anticipated was just how badly the political system would be distorted by corporate propaganda that made people believe that black is white and up is down. It’s the real problem and solving social security’s minor shortfall in 2038 is a piece of cake compared to solving that one. I doubt they ever imagined that our political system in seventy years would have turned out members of Congress right out of a John Birch Society hoedown.
Continue reading …(Above video is from a Cavuto appearance ) I’ve discussed Social Security with President Obama at the White House and he assured us that he wouldn’t hurt Social Security. I know many of us on the left have said this before, but I’ll say it again: Why appoint somebody like Alan Simpson to his Catfood Commission if he’s serious about saving and strengthening our social safety nets? Here’s Alan, the High Lord of Mean: Alan Simpson’s cold relationship with AARP is no secret, but the former Republican Senator from Wyoming took it to a new level Friday. At an event hosted by the Investment Company Institute, Simpson delighted the finance industry audience members by aiming a rude gesture at the leading lobby for senior citizens. Financial and investment interests have long been supportive of Simpson’s broad critique of Social Security, since privatizing the old-age and disability support program would be a tremendous boon for Wall Street’s financial managers. ICI represents mutual funds and other money managers who control more than $13 trillion in assets. Simpson’s forceful gesture came after an extended diatribe against Social Security, which he said is a “Ponzi” scheme, “not a retirement program.” Simpson argued that Social Security was originally intended more as a welfare program. “It was never intended as a retirement program. It was set up in ‘37 and ‘38 to take care of people who were in distress — ditch diggers, wage earners — it was to give them 43 percent of the replacement rate of their wages. The [life expectancy] was 63. That’s why they set retirement age at 65” for Social Security, he said. In 2010, President Obama appointed Simpson to a deficit commission that recommended cutting taxes and reducing entitlement spending. The commission’s outline is being used as a framework for reform in Congress. This is totally insane thinking and he’s welcome to his twisted logic, but what he said and did with his Bras d’honneur was completely inappropriate as well, since he accepted a position on Obama’s commission. Sir, if you could only see my hand now. If he hates Social Security and Medicare that’s fine. Start a PAC. But when you’re in a position of trying to help the most beloved social programs America has ever had, at least show some respect. Oh, and stop lying about it. By the way, this isn’t the first time he’s stated misinformation about Social Security, either. RJ Eskow wrote a post for C&L about a Simpson exchange with Alex Lawson that was sickening because of all his lies: Digby writes : Uhm no. This life expectancy misinformation is so widespread, I don’t know if we’ll ever be able to set it straight. But I might have expected that one of President Obama’s Deficit commission appointees — the co-chairman no less — would not be among those who believe it. (Normally I would suggest that he was just a liar, but from this account it’s pretty clear to me that he really doesn’t understand it.) This is a very important point and one that everyone needs to understand if they hope to beat back the social security assault: HuffPost suggested to Simpson during a telephone interview that his claim about life expectancy was misleading because his data include people who died in childhood of diseases that are now largely preventable. Incorporating such early deaths skews the average life expectancy number downward, making it appear as if people live dramatically longer today than they did half a century ago. According to the Social Security Administration’s actuaries, women who lived to 65 in 1940 had a life expectancy of 79.7 years and men were expected to live 77.7 years. “If that is the case — and I don’t think it is — then that means they put in peanuts,” said Simpson. Simpson speculated that the data presented to him by HuffPost had been furnished by “the Catfood Commission people” — a reference to progressive critics of the deficit commission who gave president’s panel that label. Told that the data came directly from the Social Security Administration, Simpson continued to insist it was inaccurate, while misstating the nature of a statistical average: “If you’re telling me that a guy who got to be 65 in 1940 — that all of them lived to be 77 — that is just not correct. Just because a guy gets to be 65, he’s gonna live to be 77? Hell, that’s my genre. That’s not true,” said Simpson, who will turn 80 in September. Why is Dick Durbin acting like a beard for these people? Simpson is an old hack, but Durbin should be ashamed of himself because he does know the truth and the figures that we’re talking about here. Back to Digby: Simpson surely knows about the Greenspan Commission. He’s just lying about that (or he’s senile.) But what’s Erskine Bowles’ excuse? Or Dick Durbin or Saxby Chambliss or all the other politicians who parrot this misinformation all the time? Are they all senile too? The people who designed the system understood very well that if “life expectancy” went up it would mean that there were also more younger workers who hadn’t died in childbirth paying into the system. And they understood the concept of productivity gains and knew that more people would be brought into the system — paying as well as receiving benefits — over time. They weren’t cave men. It was only 70 years ago. Simpson was a teen-ager at the time. What they may not have anticipated was just how badly the political system would be distorted by corporate propaganda that made people believe that black is white and up is down. It’s the real problem and solving social security’s minor shortfall in 2038 is a piece of cake compared to solving that one. I doubt they ever imagined that our political system in seventy years would have turned out members of Congress right out of a John Birch Society hoedown.
Continue reading …Despite an absence of DeLoreans, muscle-bound cyborgs, or blue police boxes, the island of Samoa is going time traveling. But don’t break out your old investment tables or racing forms just yet; it’s just moving one day. After 119 years of being the last country in the world to see…
Continue reading …