Home » Archives by category » News » Politics (Page 1375)
Google cash for largest solar plant

EcoWorldly : Innovative solar energy plant will generate 392 MW of power and is due for completion in 2013 Google’s product portfolio has now expanded from search engine power to solar power. The company has invested $168 million in a Mojave Desert facility that will become the world’s largest solar power tower plant. The site is located on 3,600 acres of land in the Mojave Desert in southeastern California. According to gizmag , “the Ivanpah Solar Electric Generating System (ISEGS) will boast 173,000 heliostats that will concentrate the sun’s rays onto a solar tower standing approximately 450 feet (137 m) tall.” Construction on this plant started in October 2010. When finished in 2013, the facility is expected to generate 392 MW of solar energy. Solar power tower development, while less advanced than the more common trough systems, may offer higher efficiency and better energy storage capabilities. Parabolic trough systems consist of parabolic mirrors that concentrate sunlight onto a Dewar tube running the length of the mirror through which a heat transfer fluid runs that is then used to heat steam in a standard turbine. Solar power tower systems such as the ISEGS on the other hand focus a large area of sunlight into a single solar receiver on top of a tower to produce steam at high pressure and temperatures of up to 550 ° C (over 1,000° F) to drive a standard turbine and generator. The ISEGS also uses a dry-cooling technology that reduces water consumption by 90 percent and uses 95 percent less water than competing solar thermal technologies. Water is also recirculated during energy before being reused to clean the plant’s mirrors. According to BrightSource Energy , the plant developer, this will be the first large-scale solar power tower plant built in the U.S. in nearly two decades and will single-handedly almost double the amount of commercial solar thermal electricity produced in the U.S. today and nearly equal the amount of total solar installed in the U.S. in 2009 alone. The Ivanpah Solar Electric Generating System • A 370-megawatt nominal (392 megawatt gross) solar complex using mirrors to focus the power of the sun on solar receivers atop power towers. • The electricity generated by all three plants is enough to serve more than 140,000 homes in California during the peak hours of the day. • The complex will reduce carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions by more than 400,000 tons per year. • Located in Ivanpah, approximately 50 miles northwest of Needles, California (about five miles from the California-Nevada border) on federal land managed by the Bureau of Land Management. • The complex is comprised of three separate plants to be built in phases between 2010 and 2013, and will use BrightSource Energy’s LPT 550 technology. Solar power Renewable energy Google California guardian.co.uk

Continue reading …

Speechless

No Comment

One hundred days and still no jobs bill. Democrat Joseph Crowley’s “speech” from the House floor.

Continue reading …
Kenyan girls fight genital mutilation

Nancy is about to face a brutal rite of passage. Watch this trailer ahead of film’s release on Monday Jacqui Timberlake Maggie O’Kane Chavala Madlena Guy Grandjean

Continue reading …
Emails show BP control of spill study

Documents obtained under the Freedom of Information Act show BP officials discussing how to influence the work of scientists • Read the BP internal meeting notes BP officials tried to take control of a $500m fund pledged by the oil company for independent research into the consequences of the Gulf of Mexico oil disaster , it has emerged. Documents obtained under the Freedom of Information Act show BP officials openly discussing how to influence the work of scientists supported by the fund, which was created by the oil company in May last year. Russell Putt, a BP environmental expert, wrote in an email to colleagues on 24 June 2010: “Can we ‘direct’ GRI [ Gulf of Mexico Research Initiative ] funding to a specific study (as we now see the governor’s offices trying to do)? What influence do we have over the vessels/equipment driving the studies vs the questions?”. The email was obtained by Greenpeace and shared with the Guardian. The documents are expected to reinforce fears voiced by scientists that BP has too much leverage over studies into the impact of last year’s oil disaster. Those concerns go far beyond academic interest into the impact of the spill. BP faces billions in fines and penalties, and possible criminal charges arising from the disaster. Its total liability will depend in part on a final account produced by scientists on how much oil entered the gulf from its blown-out well, and the damage done to marine life and coastal areas in Louisiana, Mississippi and Alabama. The oil company disputes the government estimate that 4.1m barrels of oil entered the gulf. There is no evidence in the emails that BP officials were successful in directing research. The fund has since established procedures to protect its independence. Other documents obtained by Greenpeace suggest that the politics of oil spill science was not confined to BP. The White House clashed with officials from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) last summer when drafting the administration’s account of what has happened to the spilled oil. On 4 August, Jane Lubchenco, the NOAA administrator, demanded that the White House issue a correction after it claimed that the “vast majority” of BP oil was gone from the Gulf. A few days earlier, Lisa Jackson, the head of the EPA, and her deputy, Bob Perciasepe, had also objected to the White House estimates of the amount of oil dispersed in the gulf. “These calculations are extremely rough estimates yet when they are put into the press, which we want to happen, they will take on a life of their own,” Perciasepe wrote. Commenting on BP’s email discussions about directing research, a spokeswoman for the oil company said: “BP appointed an independent research board to construct the long-term research programme.” But Kert Davies, Greenpeace US research director, said the oil company had crossed a line. “It’s outrageous to see these BP executives discussing how they might manipulate the science programme,” Davies said. “Their motivation last summer is abundantly clear. They wanted control of the science.” The $500m fund, which is to be awarded over the next decade, is by far the biggest potential source of support to scientists hoping to establish what happened to the oil. A number of scientists had earlier expressed concerns that BP would attempt to point scientists to convenient areas of study – or try to suppress research that did not suit its business. The first round of funds were awarded last May to a consortium of gulf coast researchers. “The rest we are all waiting with bated breath,” said Ajit Subramaniam, a marine scientist at the Lamont Doherty Earth Observatory . “A lot of the funds might be for understanding future spills. It is also unclear what kind of strings will be attached with that money.” Another email, written by Karen Ragoonanan-Jalim, a BP environmental officer based in Trinidad, contains minutes of a meeting in Houma, Louisiana, in which officials discussed what kind of studies might best serve the oil company’s interests. Under agenda item two, she writes: “Discussions around GRI and whether or not BP can influence this long-term research programme ($500m) to undertake the studies we believe will be useful in terms of understanding the fate and effects of the oil on the environment, eg can we steer the research in support of restoration ecology?” Ragoonanan-Jalim acknowledges that BP may not have that degree of control. “It may be possible for us to suggest the direction of the studies but without guarantee that they will be done.” The email goes on: “How do we determine what biological/ecological studies we (BP) will need to do in order to satisfy specific requirements (legislative/litigation, informing the response and remediation/restoration strategies).” BP oil spill Oil Pollution Oil spills BP Oil and gas companies Energy industry United States Greenpeace Suzanne Goldenberg guardian.co.uk

Continue reading …
Croatian general jailed for war crimes

Fury in Croatia as national hero Ante Gotovina is one of those convicted at The Hague for state-sponsored ethnic cleansing Two Croatian commanders of the 1990s war against the Serbs have been found guilty of war crimes for overseeing a policy of ethnic cleansing aimed at expelling tens of thousands of minority Serbs from newly independent Croatia. Judges in The Hague found Ante Gotovina and Mladen Markac guilty on eight of nine counts for commanding operations that entailed the shelling of civilians, the torching of Serbian homes in south-west Croatia, the murder of hundreds of elderly Serbs and the forced exodus of at least 20,000 from the Serbian minority rooted in the Dalmatian hinterland for centuries. A third accused, Ivan Cermak, was acquitted. It is the most damning verdict on Croatia’s conduct of the 1991-95 war against the Serbs in 17 years of investigations by the international war crimes tribunal for the former Yugoslavia. Gotovina was given a 24-year jail sentence. He commanded the August 1995 operations that ended a four-year Serbian insurgency and partition of Croatia and effectively won the war for Zagreb. Markac, who commanded police paramilitaries in the same Operation Storm, was jailed for 18 years. The verdicts were met with outrage in the cities of Croatia, where thousands of former fighters rallied in central Zagreb and in cities on the Adriatic coast to watch giant screens transmitting from The Hague. The judges in effect incriminated the state of Croatia for a policy of systematic ethnic cleansing against its Serbian minority. The verdict will create major problems for the prime minister, Jadranka Kosor. His administration is squeezed between a nationalist backlash supported by a recalcitrant and powerful Catholic church, and pressure from Brussels to be more proactive on war crimes and the treatment of minority Serbs as Croatia seeks to conclude its negotiations to join the European Union. In the most telling findings from the panel of judges, the tribunal found that the Croatian state under President Franjo Tudjman, a hardline nationalist, had prosecuted a policy of terror, persecution and violence calculated to rid the country of its Serb minority. Almost 200,000 Serbs fled Croatia in the summer and autumn of 1995. “Croatian military forces and the special police committed acts of murder, cruel treatment, inhumane acts, destruction, plunder, persecution and deportation. There was a widespread and systematic attack directed against this Serb civilian population,” the judges found. “The fear of violence and duress caused by the shelling created an environment in which those present there had no choice but to leave.” While focused on Gotovina and two fellow accused, the three-year trial loomed larger because it has been the main opportunity for examining the strategy and conduct of the leadership of Croatia during the war. The decisive political leaders such as Tudjman, the defence minister Gojko Susak and the army chief Janko Bobetko all died before having to face trial. The Gotovina case has served as a proxy trial. A former French legionnaire who returned to Croatia when the war erupted in 1991, Gotovina commanded the central operations that won the war for Croatia in August 1995, retaking the strategic town of Knin in the Dalmatian hinterland that was the seat of the four-year-old Serbian rebellion that left Croatia crippled. He was indicted for war crimes in 2001. Tipped off by contacts in the Croatian government, he went on the run for four years until he was arrested in a Tenerife hotel at the end of 2005. For years the Croatian government blocked attempts to locate him until it performed a U-turn to unlock its EU negotiations. Gotovina, along with Markac and Cermak, the Knin garrison commander, faced nine counts of war crimes and crimes against humanity for overseeing the alleged deportation of tens of thousands of Serbs through murder, the torching of homes and shelling of civilians. For many Croats, especially on the right, Gotovina is a national hero. Catholic bishops this week denounced the tribunal, accusing it of deliberately confusing victim and aggressor. The prime minister described the August 2005 operations as part of “a just and liberating war”. Operation Storm, which climaxed with the reconquest of Knin and the Serbian exodus, was prosecuted at lightning speed and highly successfully with strong American backing. It represented the denouement to the four-year war. A fortnight earlier at Srebrenica in Bosnia the Serbs had committed the worst massacre of the Yugoslav wars, murdering almost 8,000 Muslim males. Following the Croatian rout of the Serbian rebels the war was over and Croatia’s independence secured. Bosnia’s fragile peace pact was struck three months later. In the wake of the victory Croatian forces went on the rampage, torching the homes of elderly Serbs who did not flee and murdering hundreds. War crimes International criminal court Croatia Serbia Europe Ian Traynor guardian.co.uk

Continue reading …
Scrapyard fire shuts M1 in London

Closure between junctions one and four could last for up to 24 hours, threatening travel disruption for FA Cup semi-final A scrapyard fire has closed a large stretch of both sides of the M1 in north London, causing gridlock on the roads as well as disruption to peaktime rail services. Scores of firefighters were called to the blaze at Mill Hill at about 4am and have spent the morning battling the flames directly under the motorway and cooling a number of gas cylinders nearby to try to prevent any explosions. The closure could last for up to 24 hours and threatens to cause problems for fans driving to Wembley for Saturday’s FA Cup semi-final between Manchester United and Manchester City. The motorway was closed between junctions one and four, at Brent Cross and Elstree, as the fire brigade set up a temporary hazard zone. Forty firefighters and eight fire engines were at the scene. Train services have been disrupted, with Thameslink, Southeastern and East Midlands trains all experiencing delays as a result of the fire. A London fire brigade spokesperson said: “Firefighters from Wembley, Harrow and surrounding fire stations are at the scene. It is too soon to say what caused the blaze but the cause will be under investigation.” Station manager Dave Bird, who was at the scene, said: “The scrapyard is close to a residential area so a number of people have been evacuated from nearby houses as a precaution. We’re obviously aware this is causing some disruption so our crews are working really hard to bring the flames under control.” No injuries have been reported. London Road transport Karen McVeigh guardian.co.uk

Continue reading …
The Y-word debate in football

The Baddiel brothers have made a film in order to combat antisemitism in football, but it’s a tricky issue to deal with The first time I ever heard the word “yid” I was at school. A girl in my class, who happened to be a Tottenham fan, called a Jewish girl – who had no football allegiance – a “yid”. I didn’t know what that meant then, but I knew it must be a bad word because of the way she sneered when she said it. The incident was reported and the school took action. I didn’t think of the football connection at the time, but afterwards, remembering the way the girl used to stand on the classroom tables at break-time defiantly waving her Tottenham scarf to a room full of Arsenal supporters, I did wonder if it was through football that she first learned the term. Certainly she would have heard it on the terraces, sung proudly by Tottenham supporters all around her, a positive reclamation of the word. So how did it happen that she came to use it as an insult against a Jewish girl in her class? Therein lies the muddle of this great “yiddo” debate, given fresh impetus following the release of David and Ivor Baddiel’s campaign film. While you would be a moron to excuse any kind of overt antisemitism such as the horrific gas chamber noises recorded at Stamford Bridge, when it comes to the Y-word things get a little bit more complicated. Many Tottenham fans – Jewish included – identify the word as a badge of honour, Spurs fans united in defiance against all those who hate the club and all those who hate Jews. They might say that just as the gay community and sections of the black community have reclaimed derogatory words used against them, so too have Tottenham fans turned an insult into a unifying cry. There are other arguments too – surely “Yid” is just short for Yiddish, so where’s the offence? (Try “Paki” is just short for Pakistani and that argument dries up pretty quickly). And the age-old lament that football is a game, a place to enjoy yourself, so why should we be told what we can and can’t shout? But as long as Tottenham fans can chant “yid”, the question will always arise: why can’t Chelsea or Arsenal or any other fans do the same? On the football message boards this very debate has raged for years. I recently read one Chelsea fan’s tale of watching his fellow supporters get arrested for chanting “yid” – and receive three year bans from attending matches – while over in the away end Tottenham fans chanted the same word without consequence. Many will argue that it is the intent of a word that informs its meaning, but try telling a policeman or club steward that they will need to apply semantics on a matchday to decide whether anyone needs ejecting from the ground. Amid it all are the clubs themselves. Tottenham and Chelsea in particular have cooperated in trying to raise awareness on this issue, but without clearer guidance from the Jewish community and football’s governing bodies, what stance exactly should they take? Some years ago I attended a debate on the subject, hosted by football’s anti-racism campaign Kick It Out. On the night the loudest voices came from Tottenham supporters who did not want to stop using the word, but in the days and weeks that followed I received many emails from Jewish Tottenham fans who said they were offended by the chants but felt unable to truly speak their minds. No one wants to be the party pooper. This seems to be a large part of the problem – just as in the 1970s and 1980s it was difficult to recruit black and Asian voices brave enough to speak out against racism in football, so the same can be said now for antisemitism in the game. Why, for example, are there no Jewish voices in the Baddiel film? There are plenty of high profile Jews in football, why did they not add their names to the campaign? Four years ago I set to work on an article about antisemitism in the professional game, but I didn’t get very far because the vast number of the Jews I approached for interview refused to talk about it. Off the record their reasons came thick and fast – they had plenty to say but wouldn’t risk upsetting anyone or ruining their careers over it, maybe they would speak out when they retired, or maybe the public didn’t perceive them as Jewish and they would rather it stayed that way. Feeling a bit fed up I contacted the Chief Rabbi’s office for a quote – if the Chief Rabbi can’t settle a Jewish dilemma, who can? Having read that he is a keen football fan I thought he surely must have something to say. Sadly he was too busy to accommodate my request, and in the intervening years does not appear to have tackled the issue. I do sympathise. No one wants to be the lone campaign voice. Despite the success of the anti-racism campaign in football even now many black figures in the game are still reluctant to openly discuss the issue. So whatever your views you have to admire the courage of the Baddiel brothers in making – and publicising – this film. They are both season ticket holders at Stamford Bridge and it will be interesting to hear how their fellow supporters react when Tottenham visit Chelsea at the end of this month. Especially the bloke that sits a few rows behind them shouting antisemitic abuse. Watch the full Y-word video here Tottenham Hotspur Judaism Anna Kessel guardian.co.uk

Continue reading …
The Y-word debate in football

The Baddiel brothers have made a film in order to combat antisemitism in football, but it’s a tricky issue to deal with The first time I ever heard the word “yid” I was at school. A girl in my class, who happened to be a Tottenham fan, called a Jewish girl – who had no football allegiance – a “yid”. I didn’t know what that meant then, but I knew it must be a bad word because of the way she sneered when she said it. The incident was reported and the school took action. I didn’t think of the football connection at the time, but afterwards, remembering the way the girl used to stand on the classroom tables at break-time defiantly waving her Tottenham scarf to a room full of Arsenal supporters, I did wonder if it was through football that she first learned the term. Certainly she would have heard it on the terraces, sung proudly by Tottenham supporters all around her, a positive reclamation of the word. So how did it happen that she came to use it as an insult against a Jewish girl in her class? Therein lies the muddle of this great “yiddo” debate, given fresh impetus following the release of David and Ivor Baddiel’s campaign film. While you would be a moron to excuse any kind of overt antisemitism such as the horrific gas chamber noises recorded at Stamford Bridge, when it comes to the Y-word things get a little bit more complicated. Many Tottenham fans – Jewish included – identify the word as a badge of honour, Spurs fans united in defiance against all those who hate the club and all those who hate Jews. They might say that just as the gay community and sections of the black community have reclaimed derogatory words used against them, so too have Tottenham fans turned an insult into a unifying cry. There are other arguments too – surely “Yid” is just short for Yiddish, so where’s the offence? (Try “Paki” is just short for Pakistani and that argument dries up pretty quickly). And the age-old lament that football is a game, a place to enjoy yourself, so why should we be told what we can and can’t shout? But as long as Tottenham fans can chant “yid”, the question will always arise: why can’t Chelsea or Arsenal or any other fans do the same? On the football message boards this very debate has raged for years. I recently read one Chelsea fan’s tale of watching his fellow supporters get arrested for chanting “yid” – and receive three year bans from attending matches – while over in the away end Tottenham fans chanted the same word without consequence. Many will argue that it is the intent of a word that informs its meaning, but try telling a policeman or club steward that they will need to apply semantics on a matchday to decide whether anyone needs ejecting from the ground. Amid it all are the clubs themselves. Tottenham and Chelsea in particular have cooperated in trying to raise awareness on this issue, but without clearer guidance from the Jewish community and football’s governing bodies, what stance exactly should they take? Some years ago I attended a debate on the subject, hosted by football’s anti-racism campaign Kick It Out. On the night the loudest voices came from Tottenham supporters who did not want to stop using the word, but in the days and weeks that followed I received many emails from Jewish Tottenham fans who said they were offended by the chants but felt unable to truly speak their minds. No one wants to be the party pooper. This seems to be a large part of the problem – just as in the 1970s and 1980s it was difficult to recruit black and Asian voices brave enough to speak out against racism in football, so the same can be said now for antisemitism in the game. Why, for example, are there no Jewish voices in the Baddiel film? There are plenty of high profile Jews in football, why did they not add their names to the campaign? Four years ago I set to work on an article about antisemitism in the professional game, but I didn’t get very far because the vast number of the Jews I approached for interview refused to talk about it. Off the record their reasons came thick and fast – they had plenty to say but wouldn’t risk upsetting anyone or ruining their careers over it, maybe they would speak out when they retired, or maybe the public didn’t perceive them as Jewish and they would rather it stayed that way. Feeling a bit fed up I contacted the Chief Rabbi’s office for a quote – if the Chief Rabbi can’t settle a Jewish dilemma, who can? Having read that he is a keen football fan I thought he surely must have something to say. Sadly he was too busy to accommodate my request, and in the intervening years does not appear to have tackled the issue. I do sympathise. No one wants to be the lone campaign voice. Despite the success of the anti-racism campaign in football even now many black figures in the game are still reluctant to openly discuss the issue. So whatever your views you have to admire the courage of the Baddiel brothers in making – and publicising – this film. They are both season ticket holders at Stamford Bridge and it will be interesting to hear how their fellow supporters react when Tottenham visit Chelsea at the end of this month. Especially the bloke that sits a few rows behind them shouting antisemitic abuse. Watch the full Y-word video here Tottenham Hotspur Judaism Anna Kessel guardian.co.uk

Continue reading …
The week in wildlife

Gallery: A penguin with joie de vivre, an eagle with va va voom and a spider with a certain … je ne sais quoi

Continue reading …
Buy the best or make your own seashell caramels

Thinking of shelling out? These are the Easter eggs which our panel of enthusiasts think tasted the best • Food blog: do you prefer a taste of childhood or something more grown-up at Easter? This is a list of all the Easter eggs tasted which scored 3 or more out of a possible 5. Paul A Young salted caramel egg (milk) £19.95, 90g (min) 4.5 out of 5 “Gooey and delicious and almost too good. Best shared with a close friend, and not only because of the price!” “The business” Betty’s milk chocolate & orange Easter egg (milk) 315g, £19.95 4.1 out of 5 “Lovely, slightly orangey but not overpowering. Moreish” “Simple but very tasty. Good, clean hit of orange” La Maison du Chocolat Harold the bunny (milk) 205g, £45 4 out of 5 “An somewhat kitsch take on the Easter egg but all high-quality and very tasty chocolate” “Toothsome!” Cloud Cocoland 3 little eggs (milk) 150g, £8 3.9 out of 5 “A perfect Easter egg – unfussy with the maximum amount of delicious, creamy chocolate” “Best shared – even though it’s small, it is unbelievably rich. But also delicious – the chocolate is sweet and creamy” Marks & Spencer white chocolate and raspberry topped egg (white) 155g, £5.99 3.6 out of 5 “Delicate red raspberry flavour” Rococo dark chocolate foiled Easter egg no.3 (dark) 220g, £21 3.6 out of 5 “Very rich, high quality chocolate with delicious sweets inside” Green & Blacks butterscotch egg (milk) 180g, £6.59 3.5 out of 5 Green & Black’s Maya gold egg (dark) 180g, £6.59 3.5 out of 5 “Quite like the spicing but it’s about the flavours not the chocolate” “Classic, delicious” Montezuma’s chunky dark chocolate egg (dark) £7.99, 150g 3.4 out of 5 “Lovely and bitter although a sugary aftertaste cost it a point” “Lovely! Good snap, really round taste, very complex warm flavour” Hotel Chocolat ostrich egg (dark) 1.3kg, £65 3.3 out of 5 “Lovely generously thick egg with nuts. Great” Betty’s dark chocolate & rose Easter egg (dark) 315g, £19.95 3.2 out of 5 “Perfect amount of rosiness, my favourite. Oo, Betty!” William Curley sea salt caramel Easter egg (dark) 350g, £30 3.1 out of 5 “Like the double layer effect” “Very creamy for dark chocolate – delicious” The Co-operative truly irresistible fairtrade milk chocolate Easter egg with fairtrade chocolate selection (white) 210g, £7 3.1 out of 5 “Promises a rush of vanilla because of the visible pod, but there’s no discernible vanilla flavour” Rawr Organic solid chocolate Easter eggs (dark) 280g, £8.95 3.0 out of 5 “The graininess of raw chocolate can be strange at first but a leap over that hurdle leads to flavours – particularly the mint and orange – that are deep and satisfying” Prestat dark salt caramel truffle Easter egg (dark) 227g, £25 3.0 out of 5 “Salty enough without being too much, chocolate nice and thin and snappy” “Lovely but perhaps a bit salty” Waitrose organic and fairtrade dark chocolate egg (dark) 250g, £14 (reduced to £10) 3.0 out of 5 “Nice but a bit vague” “Smooth but a little underpowered” Artisan du Chocolat mallow bunny Easter egg (milk) 325g, £15 3.0 out of 5 “Delicious, nice texture” Pierre Marcolini bunny egg (“oeuf oreilles”) (dark) 45g, £13.99 3.0 out of 5 Easter Chocolate Food & drink guardian.co.uk

Continue reading …