#Europe’s first oil company to commit to climate neutrality

[intelligentliving]

On September 9, Poland’s largest oil refiner and petrol retailer – PKN Orlen – announced that it had become central Europe’s first oil company to commit to climate neutrality by 2050. The company plans to invest billions in energy efficiency, hydrogen, wind, and solar. To achieve its “emissions neutrality strategy,”...

[architectnews]

Dogger Bank Wind Farm O&M Base, Newcastle

Dogger Bank Wind Farm Port of Tyne, England, UK Architecture

Dogger Bank Wind Farm O&M Base

25 Mar 2021

Dogger Bank Wind Farm Building

Design: Ryder Architecture

Location: Port of Tyne, east of Newcastle, North East England, UK

Dogger Bank Wind Farm Unveils Design for Operations and Maintenance Base at the Port of Tyne

25th of March 2021 – The developers of the Dogger Bank Wind Farm have revealed the design for the multi million pound Operations and Maintenance (O&M) Base, that will serve the world’s biggest offshore wind farm.

Subject to planning approval, the base will be constructed in the Port of Tyne. It will serve as the main hub for operating the wind farm which when complete will be capable of powering 6m homes. The design is by Ryder Architecture.

SSE Renewables is leading on construction of the wind farm and Equinor will operate the wind farm for its lifetime of up to 35 years, creating over 200 direct jobs in the north east of England.

Some roles will be based onshore, such as planners, engineers and management, whilst other roles such as wind turbine technicians will be based offshore at the wind farm itself, living for two weeks at a time on a vessel over 130km out to sea. The main recruitment activity is expected from 2022.

Working with international design practice Ryder Architecture, headquartered in Newcastle, Equinor has designed the O&M Base to be built using environmentally friendly materials. EV chargers, solar panels and efficient heating systems have been included to ensure the facility has a low carbon impact.

As well as offices for those based onshore and a warehouse to store spare parts for the wind farm, the design includes development of a new quay suitable for the state of the art Service Operations Vessels (SOVs) that provide accommodation, and transport for technicians to and from the wind farm. The vessels will come to the port approximately twice a month for resupply and crew change.

Halfdan Brustad, vice president for Dogger Bank at Equinor, said: “Dogger Bank is set to have a huge impact in the North East of England. On top of the hundreds of direct jobs the project creates, opportunities from the project will reach many others in the region from industry suppliers to catering companies.

“Over the last month investment for a new manufacturing facility in Teesside has been announced, set to provide the 107m turbine blades to Dogger Bank, and the contract for our three operations vessels has been awarded to a Scottish company, creating further jobs in Scotland and the North East.

“We specifically chose a local firm, Ryder, to work closely with in designing this flagship facility, and have ensured it is both environmentally sustainable and future fit in order to attract the best local talents to join our team. We share the final designs with pride, and can’t wait to get started!”

Francesca Harrison, project architect at Ryder, said, “The design proposals reflect Dogger Bank’s drive for a more sustainable future. They have been designed to achieve net zero carbon and provide one of the best workspaces in the north east helping Dogger Bank to attract the best talent.”

Steve Wilson, project director for Dogger Bank Wind Farm, said: “This locally designed and sustainable Operation & Maintenance Base will become the heart of Dogger Bank operations, in a region that will also reap the economic benefits of Dogger Bank Wind Farm in its construction phase. It’s another important milestone for our project, but also for a region that is becoming a powerhouse for innovation and decarbonisation.”

Matt Beeton, chief executive officer of the Port of Tyne, said: “The site is well underway at the Port of Tyne with ground and quayside improvements taking place. The Port and the region are excited to see the start of Equinor’s new facility which will not only provide much needed jobs but also start our journey to supporting the biggest offshore wind farm in the world.”

The plans for the O&M facility have been submitted to South Tyneside Council for a planning application. The construction contractor will be appointed in the coming months.

Dogger Bank is being built in three equal phases of 1.2 gigawatts (GW) each. The first two phases, Dogger Bank A and B, are a joint venture between Equinor (40%) SSE Renewables (40%) and Eni (20%). The third phase, Dogger Bank C, is being developed on a different timescale and is owned by Equinor (50%) and SSE Renewables (50%).

About Ryder Architecture

Ryder was established in Newcastle in 1953, and now has a team of over 200 passionate people across the UK, Hong Kong, Vancouver and Amsterdam. We deliver pioneering architectural services across a diverse portfolio of sectors, collaborating globally with Ryder Alliance partners.

Our goal is simple – to improve the quality of the world around us and, in doing so, improve people’s lives.

https://ift.tt/1QZvajF #Everythingarchitecture

About SSE Renewables

SSE Renewables is a leading developer, owner and operator of renewable energy across the UK and Ireland, with a portfolio of around 4GW of onshore wind, offshore wind and hydro. Part of the FTSE listed SSE plc, its strategy is to drive the transition to a net zero future through the world class development, construction and operation of renewable energy assets.

SSE Renewables owns nearly 2GW of operational onshore wind capacity t. Its 1,459MW hydro portfolio includes 300MW of pumped storage and 750MW of flexible hydro. Its operational offshore wind portfolio consists of 487MW across two offshore joint venture sites, Beatrice and Greater Gabbard, both of which it operates on behalf of its asset partners.

SSE Renewables is aiming to treble its renewable energy output by 2030. In addition to Dogger Bank Wind Farm, SSE Renewables is currently leading the construction of the Seagreen 1 offshore wind farm (1,075MW, SSE Renewables share: 49%) and is developing the Berwick Bank and Marr Bank offshore wind farms (up to 4,150MW) in Scotland, North Falls (up to 504MW, SSE Renewables share: 50%) in England, and Arklow Bank Wind Park Phase 2 (520MW) in Ireland. Onshore it is constructing the Viking wind farm (443MW) in Shetland and Gordonbush Extension (38MW) and has a further 1GW of onshore wind in development.

SSE Renewables is a Principal Partner to the UK Government for COP26 UN climate summit taking place in Glasgow in November 2021.

About Equinor in the UK

Equinor has been operating in the UK for over 35 years. Headquartered in Norway, the company employs 22,000 people globally, and over 650 in the UK. As a broad energy company, Equinor is committed to long term value creation in a low carbon future, and targeting carbon neutral operations globally by 2030.

Equinor is the UK’s leading energy provider and supports the UK economy by investing billions in crucial energy infrastructure, working with over 700 suppliers across the country. Its energy supplies from Norway meet more than one quarter of the UK’s demand for natural gas and around one fifth of its demand for oil, both produced with one of the lowest carbon footprints in the industry. It operates the Mariner oil field, one of the largest and most digitally advanced offshore investments in the UK over the last decade, and is progressing Rosebank, the largest undeveloped field in the UK. Both projects support hundreds of jobs and economic activity in Scotland.

Equinor also operates two offshore wind farms off the East Coast of England, Dudgeon and Sheringham Shoal. It is developing plans to extend the capacity of both wind farms, doubling its offshore wind production in Norfolk.

Equinor is a pioneer in floating wind technology with Hywind Scotland, the world’s first floating wind farm off the coast of Peterhead, which is partnered with Batwind, the world’s first battery for offshore wind. Hywind Scotland has reached record breaking capacity factors, taking the title for the UK’s best performing wind farm three years in a row.

With its partners SSE Renewables, and Eni, Equinor is building the largest offshore wind farm in the world, Dogger Bank, off the North East coast of England. It is also a leader in both carbon capture utilisation and storage (CCUS) and hydrogen, and is developing a number of projects in Europe, including in the Humber and Teesside regions of North East England.

About Eni

Eni is an energy company operating in 66 countries worldwide and employing around 32,000 people. The company operates in oil and gas exploration, development and production, refining and marketing, trading and shipping, chemical, renewable energies and innovative solutions in circular economy. Eni’s mission is inspired by the UN 2030 Agenda and these values are reflected in its business model, itself based on three pillars of long term carbon neutrality, operational excellence and the creation of alliances for local development.

The new Eni is based on efficiency, integration and the deployment of new technologies.

Decarbonisation is structurally embedded in our overall strategy and ambitions and in Sustainalytics’ last update as of September 2020, Eni has achieved an ESG Risk Rating score of 25.7, ranking in the top 3% amongst its peers in the Energy Sector.

Eni has set the next intermediate target for renewables in 2035, when the company will generate 25 GW of installed capacity from renewable sources.

Eni is active in the UK as operator of the Liverpool Bay Area project in NW England, for which it was recently awarded a CO2 appraisal and storage licence by the Oil and Gas Authority.

Eni, together with BP, Equinor, National Grid, Shell and Total, has formed the Northern Endurance Partnership (NEP), with BP as operator. The partnership aims to develop offshore CO2 transport and storage infrastructure that will serve the two decarbonisation projects of the industrial clusters of NE England: Net Zero Teesside (of Which Eni is partner), and Zero Carbon Humber.

The two projects plan the combined capture and storage of climate-changing emissions from industrial sites and power plants, and the development of market for low emission hydrogen production (blue hydrogen).

UK authority consider this kind of project vital to support the Country’s effort to cut by 50% industrial emissions by 2030, while at the same time providing new jobs for the local communities.

Ryder Architecture

Dogger Bank Wind Farm at Port of Tyne in Newcastle images / information received 250321

Location: Port of TyneNewcastle upon Tyne, North East England, UK

Architecture in Newcastle

Newcastle Architecture

Newcastle Architecture Designs – chronological list

Newcastle Architecture News

Verde Student Accommodation Architects: SimpsonHaugh and Partners photo © Daniel Hopkinson Verde Student Accommodation

Sage Gateshead building for Gateshead Council Design: Foster + Partners Sage Gateshead

Byker Wall Estate Upgrade photo © Adrian Welch Byker Wall Housing

Eskdale Terrace Housing, Jesmond Design: FaulknerBrowns Architects image from architecture office Terrace Housing Jesmond

Newcastle Architecture – Selection

Woodhorn Colliery, Ashington, Northumberland Design: RMJM Architects Woodhorn Colliery

Sixth Form Academy Design: RMJM Architects Newcastle Sixth Form Academy

Dance City Newcastle Design: Malcolm Fraser Architects Dance City Newcastle

Newcastle Architect Offices

Newcastle City Library

Comments / photos for the Dogger Bank Wind Farm Port of Tyne in Newcastle page welcome

The post Dogger Bank Wind Farm O&M Base, Newcastle appeared first on e-architect.

[earaercircular]

How sustainable is Finland?

In more and more places in the world, citizens, companies and governments are focusing on sustainability. That is why there are several countries that we in the Low Countries can learn from. Change Inc. sort them out during the summer months. With a cool destination this time: Finland.

For holidaymakers, Finland is the land of trees, lakes and saunas: 10 percent of the country consists of water and 65 percent of forests. It is the fifth largest country in Europe in terms of size. A third of the country is located above the Arctic Circle and it is home to 5.5 million people.

The Scandinavian country has now led the list for two years in a row of countries that are best on track to achieve their sustainable development goals[1].[2] But nobody is perfect. Not even Finland. For example, it scores poorly on SDG 13: climate action. In doing so, the party conducting the assessment looks, among other things, at the way of pricing CO2 in various countries. Finland can still improve a lot in that regard. Still, we can learn a lot from Finland in the following subjects:

1. Rapid transition from fossil to clean energy

Finland proves that anyone can change. Finland wants to be carbon neutral by 2035, but at the beginning of this century it was still in the top five countries with the highest greenhouse gas emissions. In 1970, 90 percent of Finland's heat supply came from wood and oil. The World Energy Council praises Finland for the steps it is taking in the field of CO2 reduction measures within its energy systems.

The Finnish authorities already subsidise citizens to abandon oil-based heating, but want to accelerate this by allocating another 70 million euros through the European Union's corona recovery fund to replace oil boilers with low-carbon or carbon-free heating systems. These are mainly used in rural areas.

2. Largest environmental sector

Finland has the largest environmental sector in Europe[3]: 5.8 percent of GDP is accounted for by the environmental sector (in 2019). Estonia and Austria come in second and third. This was calculated by Statistics Netherlands. The research institute explains that a lot of renewable energy is produced in these three countries. In addition, the management of forest areas contributes relatively much to GDP. In the European Union, the environmental sector contributed an average of 2.3 percent to GDP. The score for the Netherlands was also around 2.3 percent. Belgium arrived at the bottom of the ranking with a poor 1.1 percent.

3. CO2 points system for citizens

The Finnish city of Lahti claims to be the first city in the world with a public CO2 points system for citizens[4]. Residents download an app in which they receive a weekly CO2 budget. If they do not consume their budget entirely by choosing sustainable means of transport, such as the bus or bicycle, they will receive credits. They can exchange these via the app for discounts on services and products. The app allows users to track their carbon footprint in real time.

The Finns not only measure the CO2 use of city dwellers, but also use data to monitor their forests.[5] “The future of the forestry industry lies in intelligent forests,” said Finnish forestry company Metsä Group. Radio-frequency identification tracking, laser scanning and virtual forest management... These are just a few of the ways digitisation is taking shape in the Finnish forestry sector.

4. Legally binding climate targets

With the Climate Change Act[6], Finland commits to climate neutrality by 2035 and by 2040 it wants to remove even more CO2 from the atmosphere than it emits. In 2040, Finland expects to still emit CO2, but at the same time remove more CO2 from the air. The climate goals are legally binding. That means that the government can be held accountable in court if the goals are not met.

Source

Rianne Lachmeijer, Hoe duurzaam is Finland?, Change Inc, 9-08-2022; https://www.change.inc/future-leadership/hoe-duurzaam-is-finland-38732

[1] https://www.sdgindex.org/reports/sustainable-development-report-2021/?_ga=2.83273877.2066741640.1660030798-1472931476.1658240840

[2] It scores a few decimal places higher than Denmark and Sweden

[3] The contribution of the environmental sector to GDP in the European Union was on average 2.3 percent in 2019. In the Netherlands this was also around 2.3 percent. The environmental sector is relatively largest in Finland, Estonia and Austria, with 5.8 percent, 4.6 percent and 4.2 percent of GDP respectively. A lot of renewable energy is produced in these countries, and the management of forest areas also contributes relatively much to GDP. At the bottom of the ranking were Ireland (0.9 percent), Malta (1 percent) and Belgium (1.1 percent). https://www.cbs.nl/nl-nl/nieuws/2022/27/belang-milieusector-in-nederlandse-economie-verder-toegenomen?_ga=2.116239365.2066741640.1660030798-1472931476.1658240840

[4] https://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/en/projects/Finland/citicap-app-rewards-residents-of-lahti-finland-for-greener-transport-choices?_ga=2.116239365.2066741640.1660030798-1472931476.1658240840

[5] The Finnish forestry company Metsä Group expects that digitisation will play a role throughout the entire forestry chain: from forest management to sales. On the website it gives examples of various developments.

In the field of forest management, ground laser scans, aerial photos and satellite photos not only collect information about the shape of tree trunks and the number of branches, but also information about the health of the trees. Metsä Group expects forest management in the future to take place using a virtual representation of the forest. https://www.change.inc/ict/hoe-digitalisering-vorm-krijgt-in-de-bosbouwsector-27995

[6] The key pillar of Finland's national climate policy is the Climate Change Act that entered into force on 1 June 2015. According to the Act, Finland must reduce its greenhouse gas emissions by at least 80% by 2050 from the levels in 1990. https://ym.fi/en/finland-s-national-climate-change-policy#:~:text=The%20key%20pillar%20of%20Finland's,from%20the%20levels%20in%201990.

[orbemnews]

A Big Climate Problem With Few Easy Solutions: Planes The worst of the pandemic may be over for airlines, but the industry faces another looming crisis: an accounting over its contribution to climate change. The industry is under increasing pressure to do something to reduce and eventually eliminate emissions from travel, but it won’t be easy. Some solutions, like hydrogen fuel cells, are promising, but it’s unclear when they will be available, if ever. That leaves companies with few options: They can make tweaks to squeeze out efficiencies, wait for technology to improve or invest today to help make viable options for the future. “It’s a big crisis, it’s a pressing crisis — a lot needs to be done soon,” said Jagoda Egeland, an aviation policy expert at the International Transport Forum, a unit of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development. “It’s a hard-to-abate sector. It will always emit some carbon.” Experts say commercial air travel accounts for about 3 to 4 percent of total U.S. greenhouse gas emissions. And while planes become more efficient with each new model, growing demand for flights is outpacing those advancements. The United Nations expects airplane emissions of carbon dioxide, a major greenhouse gas, to triple by 2050. Researchers at the International Council on Clean Transportation say emissions may grow even faster. Before the pandemic, a “flying shame” movement, which aims to discourage air travel in favor of greener options like rail, was gaining ground globally thanks to Greta Thunberg, a Swedish climate activist. There were early signs that it may have reduced air travel in Germany and Sweden. Now French lawmakers are considering a ban on short flights that can be replaced by train travel. Investors are pushing businesses to disclose more about their efforts to lobby lawmakers on climate issues, too. And some large corporations, whose employees crisscross the globe and fill plush business class seats, are reviewing travel budgets to reduce expenses and emissions. The urgency isn’t lost on the industry. Scott Kirby, the chief executive of United Airlines, speaks often about the need to address climate change, but even he acknowledges that it will be difficult for the industry to clean up its act. He wants United and other airlines to try different things and see what works. “It is the biggest long-term issue that our generation faces. It is the biggest risk to the globe,” Mr. Kirby said in a recent interview. “There are plenty of things we can compete on, but we all ought to be trying to make a difference on climate change.” There are efforts to electrify small planes for short flights — including one backed by United — but doing the same for longer, larger flights will be tough, maybe impossible. Commercial planes like the Boeing 787 and Airbus A320, which can carry a few hundred passengers, require an immense amount of energy to reach cruising altitude — more energy than modern batteries can efficiently supply. Someday, hydrogen fuel cells and synthetic jet fuel could help to decarbonize the industry, and pilot projects have already begun, mainly in Europe, where Airbus says it plans to build a zero-emission aircraft by 2035. Boeing has put its emphasis on developing more fuel-efficient planes and is committed to ensuring that all of its commercial planes can fly exclusively on “sustainable” jet fuel made from waste, plants and other organic matter. ‘It’s going to be a real stretch.’ At a petrochemical plant outside Houston, Neste U.S. and Texmark Chemicals are converting imported undistilled diesel into renewable jet fuels. The undistilled diesel is made from used cooking oil and waste from vegetable and animal processing plants. Neste, a Finnish company, is the world’s largest producer of renewable jet fuel. Its U.S. customers include American Airlines, JetBlue and Delta Air Lines. United, which buys renewable jet fuel from Fulcrum BioEnergy and World Energy, recently announced a deal with more than a dozen major corporate customers, including Deloitte, HP and Nike, that will result in the airline’s buying about 3.4 million gallons of sustainable fuel this year. American has an agreement to buy nine million gallons of such fuel over several years, and Delta says it plans to replace a tenth of its jet fuel with sustainable alternatives by 2030. “There is huge growth potential for sustainable aviation fuel,” said Jeremy Baines, president of Neste U.S. “It’s a niche market today, but it’s growing very rapidly. Between today and 2023 we are going to increase our production at least 15-fold.” Neste produces 35 million gallons of renewable aviation fuel and hopes to reach 515 million gallons annually by the end of 2023 by ramping up production at refineries in Singapore and Rotterdam, the Netherlands. That is enough to fuel close to 40,000 flights by wide-body aircraft between New York and London, or well over a year’s worth of prepandemic air travel between the two cities. But it is important to put those numbers in perspective. U.S. airlines used more than 18 billion gallons of fuel in 2019, and the country as a whole consumes more than 100 billion gallons of petroleum products annually. Rystad Energy, a Norwegian consulting firm, predicts that renewable fuels will become increasingly economical after 2030 and supply 30 percent of all aviation fuel by 2050. But IHS Markit, a U.S. consulting firm, estimates that sustainable jet fuel will make up only 15 percent of all jet fuel by 2050. Renewable jet fuel has its limits, too. The fuel reduces carbon emissions by only 30 percent to 50 percent compared with conventional jet fuel, according to Daniel Evans, the global head of refining and marketing at IHS Markit. What’s more, production of the fuel can cause deforestation when the raw materials are farmed. Some companies want to get around those problems by avoiding agricultural crops. Fulcrum, in which United is invested, is planning to build a plant in Britain to produce jet fuel out of waste from landfills and other trash. Red Rock Biofuels, a Colorado company, hopes to use waste woody biomass. But development of renewable fuels from waste or substances like fast-growing algae and switch grass has been frustratingly slow. “It’s going to be a real stretch,” Mr. Evans said. “Even if you are burning 100 percent biofuel, it’s still not going to be getting you to carbon neutral.” Biofuels are also about 50 percent more expensive to make than conventional fuel, according to Michael E. Webber, chief science and technology officer of Engie, a French utility working on advanced jet fuels. Hydrogen offers another possibility, although probably not for several decades. Instead of batteries or fuel engines, the potential hydrogen-powered aircraft of the future would operate with hydrogen tanks and fuel cells, though the technology would need to be advanced to reduce the size of the tanks and cells. The hydrogen could be made with renewable power sources like the wind and sun to reduce planet-warming emissions. But such fuels cost two to three times more than conventional fuel, experts say. Several European countries also require refiners to produce and blend renewable jet fuel. The European Union is financially supporting Airbus’s development of a hydrogen-fueled aircraft, and the French government is encouraging Air France to research a synthetic jet fuel. In the United States, federal support is minimal, so far. Renewable jet fuel producers receive a $1 per gallon subsidy under existing federal tax credits for biodiesel, but a bill introduced this month in the House would provide a tax credit starting at $1.5 per gallon. Should airlines offset or store carbon? Another option that many airlines have turned to is carbon offsets. By buying an offset, a company or individual effectively pays somebody else to plant or not cut trees or to take other steps to reduce greenhouse gases. But the benefits of some offsets are difficult to measure — it’s hard to know, for example, whether landowners would have cut down trees had they not been paid to preserve woods, a common type of offset. Mr. Kirby, the United chief executive, is skeptical that such offsets are effective. “Traditional carbon offsets are a marketing initiative; they’re greenwashing,” he said. “Even in the few cases where they are real and are making a difference, they’re just so small that they can’t scale to solve the global problem.” United helps passengers and corporate customers buy offsets, but Mr. Kirby said the company was focusing more on sustainable fuel and removing and storing carbon in perpetuity. In December, the airline said it was investing in 1PointFive, a joint venture between Occidental Petroleum and a private equity firm that plans to build plants that suck carbon dioxide from the air and store the gas deep underground. This approach would theoretically allow United and other airlines to remove as much carbon from the atmosphere as their planes put into it. “It’s the only solution I know of that can help get us as a globe to zero, because the others, if you understand the math, they just don’t work,” Mr. Kirby said. Such efforts had long been dismissed as impractical, but corporations are increasingly pouring money into them as investors and activists pressure businesses to decarbonize. Mr. Kirby said such investments would help to drive down costs. But some experts warn that while direct air capture can help industries that are difficult to decarbonize, the ultimate aim should be to attack the problem at the source. “If you can avoid the emissions in the first place, it’s so much cheaper and easier than having to pull it back out,” said Jennifer Wilcox, an Energy Department official and expert on direct air capture. Despite the formidable challenges, Mr. Kirby is optimistic that investments in alternative fuels and carbon capture technology will yield a breakthrough. “In the near term, it’s about getting them to work economically,” he said. “Once you cross that threshold, you will have an exponential increase.” Source link Orbem News #Big #Climate #Easy #planes #Problem #Solutions

[whenjocastasayyesnobodycansayno]

geog

Week One Study Guide- Environment, Development, and the Third World

The environment (Human-Environment Relationship) ​- When we think of the environment, do not think of it as being “out there” or what the Earth has to offer because people are interconnected with the environment as well.Humans impact the environment in so many different ways such as consumption and production in our global economy. It is one of the major themes to identify the human-environment relationship.Across time and space, we see resources becoming scarce and many environmental problems occurring.

Examples of environmental issues: Deforestation, rising sea levels, and climate change.Solutions that “development” tries to work towards would be trying to change the way we use our resources and understanding the limitation that it has, but there are limits to this solution because it would require everyone to do this. In reality, what are the chances, everyone would do these things and it’s not like we can monitor their interactions with the environment.

Timeline of Development- Mid 17th century: “developed” – to unfold, to unroll- 18th century: “developing” – relating to the “faculties of the human mind”- Mid 19th century: “development” – society passing through evolutionary stages, paired with the idea of progress- Late 19th century: linked to processes of an industrial and trading economy-1945+: “underdeveloped” - Central tensions: the generous idea of ”aid,” value judgments in defining“underdeveloped,” imposition of development, and unequal world market

Development​- The word development itself has many meanings depending on the time period. Dating back to the 17th-century the term “developed” was used to explain the many discoveries that were being discovered at that time period so it was defined as “to unfold or to unroll” since the information that wasn’t known was coming into light. In the 18th century, it changed to developing since that was the time period of enlightenment, so it was defined as “relating to the faculties of the human mind.” Time and progress do not emerge until the modern era (approx. 19th century). In the 19th century during the time of major progression and industrial and economic growth, the term development was used to explain this process of change. Post World War 2, people thought it was a set of interventions to ameliorate the lives of people in the third world. A condensed post-WWII definition for development represents promoting growth.During the Cold war, it was defined as progress and improvement in integrating a capitalistic environment.  Development now implies improvement and integration into a capitalist economy.

The Third World (Capitalist vs. Communist)​- This is a historical context, people may think it is a hierarchy but in reality, it stemmed from certain relationships between groups of countries.Third World is a term that derived during the Cold War 

Advanced vs. Behind The countries that are in the advanced category chose sides during the cold war, whether to be capitalist or communist. The third world is defined as neutral countries that did not side in the Cold War and are now labeled as behind.- Idea of solidarity (from 3rd world countries) soon to be independent organizations.Geographical locations:Developing (Advanced): Global North including New Zealand, Australia, and South Africa Underdeveloped (Behind): Global South Global North and Global South eventually became more of a proper term and the terms such as Third World are dying out.

First ½ of ​TheTrue Cost​: Fast fashion and changing consumption practices-Main concepts: Environmental and Human Costs-Unable to support workers- putting the life of workers at risk while being underpaid- Because capitalism and big businesses want products for a low price people from third world countries to become exploited.-  Sweat factories don’t provide a safe working space causing the workers to be at risk for injury and possibly death- The community in the area of these sweatshops are also at risk of catching illnesses from the dumping of harsh chemicals in their waters.- The farmers in rural areas of third world countries have high suicide rates because they aren’t able to pay back big businesses and therefore get their farm taken away. Supporting their families becomes hard and it leads them to go and commit suicide.

●Development Definition (Class)○Post WWII set of interventions to ameliorate the lives of people in the Third World○Emerged out of the contexts of decolonization and the Cold War○Approaches vary but almost always focused on promoting capitalist economic growth○Intentional and value laden

●Reading○Capitalism built on 7 cheap things: nature, energy, food, work, care, money, and lives

■Developed through the necessary cheapening of nature

■Core of cheap nature = the Enlightenment, proletarianization, and privatization of property○Money = source of power■Tightly bound with nature (for example the American dollar tightly bound with barrels of Saudi Arabian oil)○Capital: transformation of money into commodities and back again■Not just money -  the circulation of money invested into commodity production (including the labor, power, machines, and raw material) for a profit and then reinvesting that money back into the process○Capitalocene: capitalism is the way in which relations between humans and nature are organized○Capitalism has had an influence and played a role for many centuries●

True Cost○This film describes the hidden costs of the american fashion industry.○After the 1950s, something called ​Fast Fashion​ came about where the clothing industry started drastically increasing their output and lowering their price by outsourcing their industry. Along with this they sold their consumers the idea that they needed new clothes to be happy, successful people.○While lower prices and more clothes seemed great to the Americans and other westerners buying them, it has some serious disadvantages to those who worked overseas for the companies as the companies demanded more and more with less and less.○Notably, this demand has led to some dangerous side effects:■when hundreds of people were killed in a building that was not up to safety standards, after the workers had pointed out the cracks and instability.○The clothing companies who are accused of this bad behavior point out:■That the so called “sweatshops” are how a country can raise its standard of living, leading to higher wages and better working conditions over time●This is because they bring physical capital, technology, and human capital (skills of workers)■the moral standards sheets and talk about how they pay as much is expected○There are also major environmental problems produced by this industry, such as:■The ever more dependent use of fertilizer●Like Round Up and other nitrogen fertilizers●Many of the crops grown in foreign countries weren’t a good mix with the fertilizer, so the seed companies stepped in and got all the farmers to start using their seed to compete which they had a patent on since it was genetically modified.■The rivers are being contaminated●This leads to contaminated drinking water and cleaning water,which has led to the retardation of many residents.●It has also led to other diseases, deformities, and cancer○Our economy is so materialistic that the people need to change for the economy to survive what would be necessary to fix this problem.○The system also makes workers work long hours with as little as one or two days off a year.

Week 2

Origins of Capitalism:●Mini Ice Age ​(16th-19th century)​:​ Mass starvation and disease. Common people were unable to provide for themselves due to the stress on the limited resources○Created ​power imbalance​ as the wealthy was able to purchase necessities while subsistence farmers had little currency○The Black Death spread due to malnutrition and weakened immune systems○Led to the decrease of feudalism●The Enclosure of the Commons○“Commons”: Publicly owned land that had resources available to the community○“Enclosure”: The conversion of the commons to private land■Occurred throughout the 19th century and violent. Commoners had limited ability to fight back and the wealthy elite were backed by parliament■This caused the beginning of farming for profit. Changed from subsistence farming​ to ​commodity markets​.■Created “free” labor market and wage labor●“Wage labor”: working to make money, not for subsistence●“Free” labor market: prices of labor are set by supply and demand○“Primitive accumulation”​:​​The process by which pre-capitalist modes of production (ex. feudalism) were transformed into the capitalist mode of production■ Private property is essential to the basis of capitalism■Landowning = power■Privatized production. Began capitalist accumulation and a new labor pool●“Capitalist Accumulation”: Accumulation for accumulation's sake. Production for production’s sake.

Colonialism:●According to Patel and Moore, what are some of the ways that colonialism supported the rise and expansion of capitalism?○Colonies offered new, crucial frontiers for capitalist expansion■Untapped natural resources such as land or labor■Profit from frontiers was reinvested back into western European countries●Triangular trade between Europe, Africa, and America○Developments in financial resources allowed wealth to be centralized in Britain and other places●As capitalism develops, there is an increased need for:○New markets○Raw Materials○Labor Force●“Uneven Development”: The development of the ​global north​ depended on the underdevelopment​ of the ​global south. The Characteristics of Capitalism*1)Private enterprise for producing commodities that are exchanged on the market Ex.) That orange wasn’t grown in my backyard but a private company is selling it for a profit.2)Supported by a monetary system that facilitates ​payment and exchange Ex.) Money: you need it to invest, loans. You need a banking system to support a business.3)Driven by a logic system of ​endless accumulation, expansion, and growth Ex.) Capitalism creates an ecology that expands over the planet through its frontiers, driven by forces of endless accumulation (Patel & Moore)4)Social differentiation​ is fundamental to the system○“Social Differentiation”: The process by which a status hierarchy develops within a society or group.*These are the distinguishing features of capitalism●People experience capitalist systems differently depending on the intersections of identity and experience.  How someone is classified determines how they view capitalism.

●Characteristics of Pre-Capitalist vs Capitalist Exchange:○Pre-Capitalist Exchange Goals: Satisfy needs, accumulate wealth via commodities■The goal is to acquire commodities for sustenance.○Capitalist Exchange Goals: Accumulation of money, reinvestment for profit.■The goal now is to make money.

Patel & Moore: Introduction & Cheap Nature“...the most iconic symbol of the modern era isn’t the automobile or the smartphone but the Chicken McNugget.” Patel & Moore pg. 5●“Cheapening”: A method of capitalism used to extract the most profit with the least cost○Ex.) Making chickens bigger so they can feed more people for a smaller cost to the consumer○“Cheap is a strategy, a practice, violence that mobilizes all kinds of work with as little compensation as possible”●The authors use “cheap” as○A set of ​strategies​ for capitalism○A word that temporarily fixes flaws within capitalism○Transforming or reducing something to a consumable product○Making nature work as much as possible for as little compensation as possible●Capitalism has cheapened:○​Nature, money, work, care, food, energy, and lives●Capitalism exists only through frontiers​: expanding and transforming socio-ecological relations by producing goods and services that circulate through an expanding series of exchanges○“Frontiers”: Sites where power (economic, culture, knowledge, violence) is exercised to put nature to work at the lowest possible cost■“Capitalism thrives not by destroying natures, but by putting natures to work - as cheaply as possible”●The idea of world-ecology allows us to see how the modern world’s violent and exploitative relationships are contingent and in the midst of an unprecedented crisis.●Early Colonialism and Nature○Columbus channeled the strategy of cheap nature when he saw the new world.●Nature vs. Society - a distinction used to cheapen; anything apart from ​Society ​was seen as wild and untamed and termed as ​Nature○“...most women, Indigenous Peoples, slaves, and colonized peoples everywhere were not fully human and thus not full members of society. These people were not- or were only barely - human. They were part of Nature, treated as social outcasts - they were ​cheapened​” (Patel and Moore, 24).

Second Half of ​The True Cost

●Fast fashion brands make consumers feel powerful since they can buy a lot.●Garment workers in Cambodia have protested for a minimum wage increase.○This led to several violent confrontations between government officials and workers.●Many countries are in need of the business that fast fashion brings so this causes many countries to hold down wages and avoid enforcement of labor laws.●The Decent Working Conditions and Fair Competition Act were bills that tried to prevent the import or sale of goods made with sweatshop labor, but all of the companies unified and were against it.●Richard Wolff recommends that we should stop looking at improving working conditions and change the whole system first in order to prevent companies from having the same decision-making process when it comes to garment factories.●There have been many linkages in men aged 45-65 who have worked in the agricultural industry or the oil field and to having tumors.

Discussion Questions○Given the enormous profits that the fast fashion industry generates, why is it unable to support and ensure the safety of millions of workers? Is it because it doesn’t work properly?■Companies outsource to factories to conduct labor, so companies themselves do not necessarily have control of what measures are taken.●The supply chain is compartmentalized●Sweatshops are seen as “good” because they are better than the other options people periphery countries have. The fashion industry takes advantage of this, allowing them to avoid paying a living wage and providing safe working conditions.○What are the “true costs” of fast fashion? Can we justify those costs?■Lives of people who manufacture clothes■Environment that is exploited■Exacerbation of societal issues■Farmer suicide■Health problems from chemicals■Agriculture is dominated by seed and pesticide companies - loss of biodiversity and unable to grow food to feed themselves○What alternatives can we imagine?■As consumers, we need to demand better working/living conditions for garment workers. Consumers dictate what the market is like.■Support ethically and environmentally friendly companies.■Buy fewer clothes and buy them second hand.■We must fix our ​economic system​. It’s the root in many societal problems 

Week 3

Sustainable Development→●    Rise of Sustainability:“The environment does not exist as a sphere separate of human action, ambition, and needs”Big question: How will we transform and act upon the environment to greater benefit humankind?Sustainability- development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations.●   Core values of sustainability:-right of future generations to inherit the planet-international justice-constant natural capital*idea is for these values to remain constant●    

Development Paradigms 1960’s- modernization, industrialization, and trickle-down growth; thought fixing the economy would benefit everything else;1970’s- poverty and human development, meeting basic needs, a new focus on women and redistribution of wealth should be targeted to be “fixed”; more than just one thing needs to be the main focus; 1980’s- emphasis on free-market capitalism, structural adjustment policies, and an increase in distrust of state as an agent for development; environment kept coming up but never was the priority in our world;●    Think the Chicago boys, World Bank, IMF 1990’s- the reemergence of interest in poverty and the environment; this was the most firmly appointed subject that needed to be fixed/altered to better the world; 

●    “Green Development” / Operationalizing Sustainability:1.   Radical resource productivity; “more crop per drop” study observes water use productivity (e.g. irrigated maize vs rainfed maize) - essentially getting the most we can out of the least input;2.   Biomimicry; looking at how we better construct our human designs to be more efficient; natural processes inspire natural designs: eg. building in Zimbabwe designed like a termite mound in order to eco-friendly cool itself 3.   Investing in natural capital; conservation & restoration involves human cost; investing in ecosystem services: eg. forests, nutrient cycling, food consumption, etc.4.   Circular Economy; reduction of waste through the use of recycling and reusing products for consumption GOAL: closing the linear economy into a recycling functional loop;

●    Reading:  “Ecological Unequal Exchange” Rice 2009 Premise of the arguments: -economic production is increasingly transnational and is driven by a “treadmill” logic (inputs from the environment and output of profit that is reinvested) takes place in a world-system-treadmill logic: maintained by convergence of interests; increasing expenditure of resources-Private capital uses the environment in pursuit of profit -> reinvestment of profit increases the demand on the environment; maintained by convergence of interests;-exploitation of periphery countries by core countries for cheap materials and large profit leading to ecological damage and lack of resources in the peripheries-withdrawals: core countries remove raw materials and energy from periphery countries-additions: environmental degradation and waste into periphery countries-it takes place in a world system, meaning a way of thinking about the economy and thinking more towards the globe as an entire production movement;Other notes from Rice: - transnational tilt: economic production is transnational in scope, core countries can externalize and impose the costs of natural resources on periphery countries- unequal exchange: asymmetrical power relationships between developed/undeveloped countries-International trade stabilizes the international division of labor because of the unequal power relations between core/periphery countries-World-systems analysis- the unequal exchange is central to exploitation - development and underdevelopment are mutually constituted-systemic ecological unequal exchange is the environmentally damaging withdrawal of energy and natural resources or externalization of environmentally damaging production within the periphery-important engine of accumulation for core countries, point of instability for periphery countries

Film: Plastic China-Some people see the issues with importing plastic (air, land, and water pollution, cancer) -Others don’t think it leads to pollution-For many, plastic farming is their only source of income - there are consequences with every action to solve this issue;-Big Question: Is sustainability truly sustainable, or just for select individuals/countries?-US recycling is/was imported to China, where it is sorted by plastic farmers working in terrible conditions - also results in high levels of pollution in areas around factories-(Sustainable) development somewhere means underdevelopment elsewhere. How do we succeed in a win/win life for all people within the use of plastics?

Four Main Contradictions of Sustainable Development:1.   Labor vs Capital- laborers want an increase in salaries, but owners want to keep profits up by keeping labor costs low; eg. why fast fashion doesn’t pay fair and fast fashion moved the industry to a place where the cost can be lowered “without a consequence”;2.   Community of capitalists vs individual capitalists (Capital vs. capital)- tension between interests of industry and individual companies creates a race to the bottom in a global context 3.   Production vs Consumption- drive to produce more versus our ability to consume more products; eg. influx of cheap clothing on the market - workers may be losing their jobs because they are no longer needed with the amount of clothing coming in;4.   Waste vs The Environment- waste produced in production and consumption versus the Earth’s ability to absorb that waste. Eg. clothes are causing a toxicity to the third world countries that are dealing with these consequences our consumption is bringing;

Week 4

Lecture 1: Global Governance Institutions: the World Bank and the IMF 

Bretton Woods, 1944:​ resulted in the formation of the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the World Bank-The conference commenced to establish the global economic standards post-WWII; w/the goal of securing world peace and prosperity through economic cooperation-Institutions were established to help rebuild Europe post-WWII; development of the global South was not the original goal of these institutions-Goal was to strike a balance between domestic autonomy and international norms-Cooperation based on world markets in which capital and commodities could move freely, but was to be regulated by global institutions-Conference stressed the idea of collectivity, but only 44 countries were present/represented, and only 15 finance representatives were present. Large portions of the global actors were not present, thus the inherent issues w/ the conference.-“Hidden” US agenda; US hegemony influenced the economic idea that‘capitalism is sound and doesn’t need a reform’ which defined the entire system.Hegemony: ​the capacity to exercise control by means other than coercive force-Consent (to an extent) is present-Ex: marketing; coerce isn’t happening directly, but very influential and difficult to escape. International Monetary Fund (IMF):-Originally established to regulate currency exchange and provide short-term, emergency loans for international/developing countries.-Created for European countries after WWII, ran by gentlemens club of Europeans-Temporary financing loans-$$ = power; how much a nation contributes affects their voting power in the IMF-US is the largest stakeholder, w/ 17% of the total financial contributions-Since the 1980’s, IMF has taken upon a more interventional role/stance World Bank:-Very similar to the IMF; largest development institution in the world-Five agencies:​​International Bank for Reconstruction and Development (IBRD),the International Development Association (IDA), the International Finance Corporation (IFC), the Multilateral Investment Guarantee Agency (MIGA), and the International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID).-This institution has set the development agenda of the world since the 1940s-1950s-60s: loans/lending mostly to ‘richer’ third-world countries; which was an effect of the Cold War-During this time, social programs were seen as a waste of resources and$; economic/industry investment was considered to be the best ways to develop nations-1960s-70s: shift to ‘poverty alleviation’-Late 1970’s: shift towards neoliberalism, promoting exportation economics and trade liberalization-1970s-80s: Ascendance towards neoliberalism and movement away from centralized government aid in development-Margret Thatcher and Ronald Reagan policies Neoliberalism:​ shaped IMF and World Bank thinking/ideology; limited/no government entities regulating economic growth, rather, the relationship between society and market should be unmodified-The belief that...-The market is the ultimate arbiter of fairness-Privatization as the best way to ensure efficiency-Reduced government intervention-Competition as the organizing principle for human activity-Intensification of ‘economic’ work, individualism, and the emphasis of profits and monetization 

Structural Adjustment Programs (SAPS):-In order to receive a loan, countries have to:-Open up to foreign capital-Remove protections on local industries-Remove subsidies for food, fuel, health, and education-Shift $ to export industries to pay off debts-Privatize state-owned industries-Focus on short-term debt obligations-Third-world countries were not in the position to bargain w/ IMF and World Bank;essentially at the mercy of these institutions that prioritized ​profit​ over ​development-Poverty reduction was not the goal or the result of SAPs-Nations didn’t have autonomy; structured/ordered by these institutions from thetop-down-The idea of neocolonialism; effects of colonization by the World Bank and IMF-Ecological disputes; environmental protection is not conducive w/ economic growth (their main goal), funded their own environmental assessments to hold themselves not liable for further degradation.

Articulated v. Disarticulated Economies:Articulated Economy Disarticulated Economy Has 2 sectors:-Sector 1: capital goods-Sector 2: consumer goods. Both sectors are present and connected. Lacks Sector 1 Sector 2 is weak (if present)-Sector 2 inputs imported from another country. Produces what it needs & exports high-skill products Exports raw materials Imports necessities Considered “developed” Considered “developing” or “less developed”

Discussion Notes: Producing Green Science:What makes the World Bank so powerful?-The only institution of its kind and it has the ability to produce knowledge-Carefully controls knowledge production-“Reinforcing Cycle”Example;Doctors produce/present knowledge on a certain disease to a patient to be able to diagnose or treat it. This knowledge reinforces the power of medicine and who has authority in medicine.-Has a prestigious reputation with other countries-There are no “real” rival-The World Bank focuses less on discovery and debate. How does the World Bank “manufacture consent” at each of these steps in knowledge production?-Policy Research-Project Design-Environmental Assessment and Analysis-Publication and Dissemination World Bank Hegemony-With the presence of capitalist modernization, environmental improvement is inevitable-“Can environmental improvement ever be conceived of as a project of ‘no intervention’ or of local practices that do not require Bank Capital and economic advice?” (149)Has five specialized agencies:-International bank for reconstruction development-International development association-International finance corporation-Multilateral investment guarantee agency-International center for settlement of investment disputes

Lecture 2: Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs)NGOs:-A local, national, or international private organization with no oversight or representation from the government-Carry out development projects or provide social services-The structure is often bottom-up, grassroots-based-Act when government can’t/won’t help with development-Big differences between NGOs of different sizes-Tend to be more effective on a smaller scale-Number of NGOs rose dramatically in the 1980s → due to governmental lack of social service-Limited by:-Inability to affect legal proceedings (can’t change laws)-Influence of donors → may fund projects that aren’t those most needed by the community

Film notes: Life & Debt:-Paying special attention to how SAPs impacted Jamaica’s:-Banana trade-A trade agreement with Great Britain, that Great Britain can only buy their banana supply from Jamaica.-The United States is trying to eliminate this trade agreement between Great Britain and Jamaica.-The Banana Trade in Jamaica is much smaller now than it used to be.-Most of the produce Jamaican grocery stores sell is imported from other countries and sold for a cheaper price, so farmers are barely making anything.-Milk industry-Growing smaller and smaller each year.-Imported powdered milk is cheaper for locals to buy than for people to buy “real” milk that is made by the Milk Industry in Jamaica.-Since all the “real” milk is not getting sold in Jamaica, they have to dump out most of the milk they produce and make no profit.-If the Jamaica's Milk Industry does not improve its profits in the next upcoming years, they will be forced to close down production.-It would be very hard to start up the Milk Industry in Jamaica if it closes down production. ●    Garment industry (Export Processing Zones): ○    Jamacian workers were making $32/week and the company that owned the factory brought in workers from Asia that were cheaper○    Shipping textiles to the free market sector and shipped those right back out to other countries so it wasn’t benefiting Jamaican economy■    Companies not paying local taxes○    Tommy Hilfiger and Brooks Brothers are some examples of companies exploiting this unique export processing zone in Jamaica

Week 5

I. Cheap Care●    Sex vs gender○    Sex refers to the biological differences between male and female (genatalia, genetic differences, chromosomes,etc.)○    Gender refers to how individuals choose to express themselves and their concept of gender identity. Gender is more of a spectrum and is not binary.●    Cheap care,  dichotomies○    Society vs nature○    Man vs woman○    Paid work vs unpaid work●    Care work =  The work of caring for, nurturing, and raising human communities. Acts of labor that are unpaid but take effort. For example cooking, cleaning, looking after children, etc. These types of work are gendered and are typically and socially expected from women.●    women's work, taken for granted by capitalism○    Hard labor became “man’s work”, very important to society, and took away women’s ability to contribute●    Central to capitalism's ecology because we have needs that must be fulfilled daily in order to successfully go to work; makes wage work possible○    I.e. need someone to take care of kids,  feed you,  need a new generation to work,  elderly people don't work so they do work in the home/ must be cared for○    Is work useful if it's unpaid? Does capitalism think so?●    Where/ when did gender inequality start?○    Plough great domestication, work vs home, women lose a job, plough/agriculture is man's work○    Enclosure of the commons, women can't go there anymore and support their families by:■    Gathering fuel ■    Gleaned from commons■    DairyingII. Women, Gender, and Development●    Women's role in development-there are less women in the “workforce”, but this doesn’t include care work at home-women are mainly in the service industry-less women in agriculture, industry, and positions of power-globally women make 77 cents to the dollar a man makes-women carry out 2.5 times more unpaid housework than men○    Not benefiting women○    Women can potentially have a “double burden” if they join the workforce (they may still be engaging in care work)-economic inequality leads to women’s problems interacting with the environment 1.   Water collection2.   Cooking pollution 3.   Natural resources/ forests●    Development policy (50’s and 60’s)-trickle down was supposed to be gender neutral-welfare to 3rd world to help women ( childcare, fertility control, nutrition training)-women considered to be mothers not a person contributing to the economy●    “Woman’s Role in Economic Development”-published in 1970-focused on women in Africa and Asia in farming industry-discussed how development is not helping women its hurting them-challenged neutrality of development policy●    Women in Development (WID)-1960’s - acknowledges division of labor-women as productive members of society and their need to be integrated into the economy-limitations: ignores unequal GENDER relations, risks of double burden●    Gender and Development (GAD)-1980’s-beyond women’s roles in economy-gender equality-transformation of gender roles and gender equality as main goals-limitations: hard to translate into policy and practice, still frequent conflation of gender and women, gender fatigueIII. Gendered Interests and the Environment●    Ecofeminism○    Two models■    Women are closer to nature than men●    Women more caring and nurturing○    Producing, caring and raising of children●    Based in historical, cultural factors, or biology■    Women are identified as being closer to nature●    Implies hierarchy between woman and men○    Men are above women●    Domination and exploitation of women and nature interrelated○    men= culture○    women=nature●    More fluid than other model○    Women have motivation in ending domination of nature to end own submission○    Agarwal’s critique of Ecofeminism:■    Models stress social-heterogeneity among women●    Women are diverse, therefore one unifying model does not work■    Behaviors vary across class, region, and context●    Ex. Women of different socio-economic status rely on nature differently 

ReadingsPatel & Moore - Cheap Care●    Columbus-Era Gender Differentiation○    Contextualized by conquest of “virgin lands”■    Indigenous peoples captured for work (men and women)●    Women taken in as a tool to make captured men more efficient/productive!■    Act of global conquest akin to sexual conquest, or conquering of women○    Pre-dating capitalism■    The nature of care often was in-line with methods of subjugation, sexual or otherwise●    Early Christian ideas often equated sex and power○    Examples include the subjugation of young indigenous men by Spanish military officials■    Notions of defeating such peoples involved their, “sexual as well as military subjugation.”■    Carnal traditions of Mayan peoples were seen as seditious and purely-sexual by Spanish colonialists●    Another example of sex being a catalyst, or essentially being a factor, of seizing power/authority○    Implications of indigenous gender systems compared to European systems■    Indigenous - inclusive of women relative to Europe●    Incompatible with emerging capitalist methodologies○    Reproductive labor would be a result of this incompatibility■    Further led to binarization of genders●    Men and Women○    Parallels the similar approach to dividing society and nature, as well as paid and unpaid work●    Great Domestication○    Refers to the normalization of latent gender discrimination in everyday things■    World Values Survey of Vienna (2010-2014)●    “When jobs are scarce, men should have more right to a job than women.”■    Rooted in the presence of the plough in societies that believe in such a notion of discrimination ●    The Plough○    As ancient as Egyptian hieroglyphics, yet responsible for modern gender divisions■    Case study of Spanish colonialists ●    Spanish farming/tilling/corralling methods seen as bizarre○    Interrupt natural orders ○    Involved allowing for automatic work (the kind where the colonialists had to do little to gain many)[example of cheap work]●    Spanish choosing of farming land similarly bizarre○    Flat-land (haciendas) vs. hills●    Altogether, agriculture relative to the plough during the 16th Century was seen as odd○    Domestication of animals and humans were - are - rampant in this type of agriculture■    Enclosure (of the commons) strengthened this domestication●    Work and the Commons○    The commons provided women an avenue for working in fields■    Primarily through dairying (and general grazing)○    Enclosure removed such an avenue■    Led to women primarily involved in spring milking of cows (note - this was a once a year source of income)■    Sheep wool became a more valuable property●    Shearing - primarily men’s work○    In general, most farming work became “men’s work”○    Enclosure led to the emergence of what we now call the “wage gap”●    Parallels Between Enclosure and Executive Systems○    The relationships between certain societal constructs/powers became increasingly masculine■    “God and man”, “King and country”●    Among such relationships, the notion of the man as being the “ruler” of their household○    Notions of women submitting to men became increasingly prominent ■    This could be seen as yet another example of sex being corollary to power●    Hegemony of the Household○    Humans needed to be disciplined to exist/support the emerging capitalist systems■    Women, in particular, were conditioned to be “machines of reproduction”●    Via force and fear, and through social policing○    Witches tortured in public, heretics re-educated, etc.■    Essentially strongarmed into complacency●    Public and Private Spheres○    John Locke’s Second Treatise on Government■    Emphasized contrasting realms within human society●    “Father over children”, “Master over his servant”, “Husband over wife,” etc. [private]●    “Magistrate over subject” [public]■    Clarified that the public sphere is a realm in which men roam free, and similarly, that the private realm is one where men are dominant●    Mr. and Mrs. Andrews - Painting by Thomas Gainsborough○    Depicts a wealthy landowner and his wife in their estate■    All of which involve the land owner (Robert Andrews) being the archetypal owner, aka the archetypal “man of the house”, surveying his land●    Meanwhile, the wife (Frances Andrews) is portrayed as property, enclosed by the estate, sitting idly and upright aside her husband○    Portrays social changes and relations under a capitalist regime (aka “capitalist monoculture”)●    Coverture○    Status of married women relative to their husband■    Essentially emphasizes that women gain only a third of all property to be acquired during marriage●    In effect, robbed women of any sense of identity, as well as their rights■    Originates the women taking the husband’s last name as their own○    Quiet, in-overt rebellion combated coverture■    Motivated by interest in daughter’s futures, as well as the chance at inheriting more than a fraction of the potential wealth they could attain via marriage●    In some ways, made property more of a “notional issue” - that is, one of a theoretical nature○    Conversion of property into providence○    Provided unmarried women the opportunity to participate in the economy■    Contrary to this, marriage often allowed women to come into providence/wealth●    Emphasizes notion that, just because women could choose marriage as a path for themselves, it was ultimately rooted in uncoerced capitalism○    Again, another parallel to workers in certain jobs (despite such jobs being cruel, unrewarding, and unhealthy) having a choice to work such a job (when in reality, this isn’t necessarily the case)■    Another example of cheap care and cheap work going hand-in-hand●    Adam Smith - Liberty and Marriage○    Context: Adam Smith lived his life unmarried, and with his single mother■    Father died before he was born -> mother lived with his son as her dependent●    An example of the Great Domestication, where even a boy-toddler has more inheritance to property than a grown mother■    Inexperienced with marriage as a concept firsthand○    Compared indigenous practices of marriage to that of Europe (particularly Britain)■    Elders would arrange a contract to marry two individuals, rather than each individual choosing to marry one another (the British method)■    Indigenous method ties to the notion of love being a weakness, and a sign of effimancy (relates to Columbian ideals of masculine conquest of sex and power)●    Invention of Women○    Colonization of Nigeria by the British■    Led to the shift of state-power to male-power●    Very quickly, women were “invented” to be household property, while men were given opportunities to be rulers/in control○    Paralleled the public and private spheres that Locke discussed in his Second Treatise■    To be in society, one needed to be male, otherwise, you were property○    Slaves of Barbados■    Said to have “reproductive potential” greater than a white, European woman●    Basically involved notions that slaves could be used as factories for bodies via reproduction ○    Furthermore, while sustaining such women would prove to be expensive, the gains due to the production of slaves would balance such a risk■    An example of cheap lives, cheap work, and cheap care●    Income and Women’s Providence○    IMF declared that, as of 2016, the status of women was increasing■    Factors included more education, participation in economy, parliament, etc., and more●    Part of an overall theme of the liberation of women being related to wealth○    And furthermore, a sign of women being intrinsically related to wealth (and the baggage wealth entails, like property, for example)○    Case studies of India emphasize that, despite overall status of women being better than the past, they still are in poor conditions■    They often work more than their male counterparts, and reap less benefits than them despite this●    Modern Domestication○    Extends the prevailing divide of male and female work developed over time■    Despite technological advancements of certain work, including cleaning (see the washing machine, for example), such advancement did not change the users, or workers, of such advancements●    Women were the ones who used washing machines, and results were primarily of higher expectation by men on women than otherwise■    Relates back to men doing more physically demanding work, while women engaged in more mentally-draining work (ie. cleaning, nurturing, etc.)●    Because women are women, they are sought more for work of a nurturing, caring, sort, than something like, for example, construction○    Again, emphasizes cheap work and cheap care being a common pair●    Response to Domestication○    Generally involved in themes of modern care work (and its related counterparts) being indifferent from slavery■    Rooted in timeless, latent values of binary social norms●    Not just seeking reform via fair pay○    Pay will not adjust the mind to perceive work as being anything other than cruel■    Thus, focused on whole-scale reform of the system●    Such an endeavour, of asking capitalism to pay back its servants, is essentially asking capitalism to destroy itself○    Essentially, modern response to the cheapening of care work asks primarily for recognition of the work as being valuable - thus, focused on the valuing, or recognition of the occupation as being unexploitable and intrinsic to the success of society, not just as a factor to the capitalist project●    Conclusion on Cheap Care○    Emphasized the latent domestication of women in society■    Binarization of society into male and female (public and private) spheres of influence●    Agricultural origins, involved in the commons being increasingly enclosed to the point of nonexistence○    Women’s work becoming increasingly mentally-demanding, in contrast to men’s work being physically exhaustive●    Colonial origins, involved in the relation of sex and conquest○    The act of conquering indigenous peoples being a parallel to the subjugation of women○    Overall rooted in women, and care work, being property, or capital, to the driving force of capitalismAgarwal - Gendered Interests and the Environment1.   Gendered Stakes in Forests●    Do women and men have different stakes and therefore different interests in forest conservation? 1.1 Dependence on Forests●    Women have a greater and more daily dependence on nature than men○    Stems from the gender division of labor and economic resources○    Face greater seasonal fluctuation in employment●    Forests provide important supplements to diet●    Serve as a place for privacy or for social interaction1.2 Impact of Forest Decline and Degradation●    Six critical aspects: time, income, nutrition, health, social-support networks, and knowledge systems ○    Time:■    Women’s working day gets lengthened with reduced access to forests■    Some girls are pulled out of school to help their mothers ○    Income:■    Time reduces ability to gather more materials■    Scarcity of items reduces income○    Nutrition:■    Less nutritious food that is more accessible/easier to cook○    Health■    Smoke from fuel○    Social support / public spaces■    Population displacement as a result of deforestation○    Indigenous knowledge■    Gathering of products creates a wide knowledge 2.   Gendered Interests and Forest Conservation2.1 Are Women More Conservationist than Men?●    Two arguments○    Women are closer to nature than men ○    Women are identified as closer2.2 Shared and Divergent Interests●    Interests can diverge across gender lines○    Nature of the product of concern○    Time that needs to be obtained○    Gestation period for product to grow●    What choices do people have when they need to survive?3.   Between Interests and Action3.1 Are Women More Cooperative than Men?●    Have different networks●    Women are more dependent on localized networks○    Less likely to have conflict○    Different social constraints that can interfere in participation3.2 Freedom to Cooperate●    Agency freedom: A person is free to do and achieve in pursuit of whatever goals or values they regard as important (Amartya Sen)●    Women may be at the forefront, but they have difficulty entering decision making forums3.3 Between Cooperation and Conflict●    People dependent on forests have reasons to cooperate to manage their resources○    There is inner conflict (gender, class, etc.)4.   Concluding Comments●    Time dimensions are extremely important●    Differences can help us understand the response to environmental change

Week 6 Phagocene - Bonneuil & Fressoz●    The environmental and ecological effects of humans have been apparent and concerning for a long time○    Began with the goal of improving the efficiency of manufacturing■    The idea that humans need to be convinced to work more and thus buy more to promote capitalism●    Resulted in a change in the relationship between working and recycling○    A manufacturer desire for New or Brands●    Questions why consumerism has become the key driver of modern capitalism in spite of its dangers and evidence that it does not promote human happiness.○    There are important roots in European history○    Modern forces continue to promote the consumerism ●    Goods and consumables started becoming popular around the 1700s when wage-earners and merchant classes that had money to purchase items○    Were considered luxury items○    Examples: watches, clocks, sugar, and tobacco●    Globalization of production contributed to the desire to work more hours so they could earn more money over the traditional culture that valued leisure time over money○    Fueled by coal and oil industry○    Success of an economy began to be measured by the gross-national product ○    Brought forth the marketing of brands and the advertising industry■    Capitalist population placed on a treadmill of production and consumption●    Following WWII, there was an explosive growth of suburbs that separated traditional families○    Increased the growth of: automobiles, refrigerators, washing machines, and televisions○    Commuting from suburbs to work became common○    Repair and reuse came out of fashion■    More products became disposable●    Consumerism continued to advance with the electronics revolution and there was a large expansion of consumer credit●    As competition with the Soviet Union increased during the cold war, consumption was seen as a patriotic way of showing off the superior American Way of Life.●    The Green Revolution was hailed as a solution to world hunger○    Took several years for people to realize it was ruining topsoil and polluting planet with fertilizers, pesticides, and toxins●    Modern recognition of climate change○    Extreme consumerism contributes to overuse of fossil fuels, destruction of forests and wetlands, and over production of plastics that destroy our planet●    Bonneuil and Fressoz want us to realize that our current state of extreme consumerism is not a natural state to be in○    Within our power to back off from this habit find find ways that fulfill human needs and improve quality of life 

Lecture - Overconsumption vs Overpopulation:The “Population Problem”●It took 200,000 years to gain 1B people in the world and within the last 200 years we have added 6.6B people●Spike in population in 20th century because of medical advancements○Vaccines, common medical techniques, etc.○Children began to have higher life expectancies ●Majority of population occurring in undeveloped countries ●Population causes stress on environmental resources, which leads to Scarcity Malthusian Population Theory:●Thomas Malthus: British philosopher and political economist ●Natural Law: food growth is arithmetic (linear), population growth in exponential●Premises: people need food and will “engage in passions of the sexes”, reproduce●Thinks there should be no welfare or charity for the poor because it would only increase the population. Neo-Malthusian Population Theory:●Great Restrictive Law: population growth, left unchecked, will outstrip food production●Carrying Capacity: direct relationship between the availability of resources, population size and demand and depletion of resources●Degradation Narratives: in rural parts of the global south, population pressure along with poverty is the main cause of land degradation 

Overpopulation OR Overconsumption:●Assumption: resources are scarce when demand exceeds supply●Scarcity is socially constructed○25% of the world's hungry people live in India○194 million or 14.5% of the world's population is malnourished●The problem is not enough food, the problem is an unequal distribution of wealth and therefore resources●The green revolution: increased wheat yields in least developed countries which was a large component in why the idea that India would be starving in 15 years by Elrich was wrong. In Class Discussion - Threats and Burdens

The Youth Bulge Theory:●A large proportion of young people in a population correlates with increased risk of political unrest; youth as vulnerable to and drivers of economic and environmental scarcity The Burden of an Aging Population:●As drivers of scarcity due to the “competition for resources” between the resources needed for aging populations (health care, pensions) and defense spending Climate Change Migration:●    Scarcities of food, water, and energy trigger conflict and drive people to migrate to developed countries

[sociologyquotes]

CIA Atrocities from 1941 to 1993

from A Timeline of CIA Atrocities by Steve Kangas

”The following timeline describes just a few of the hundreds of atrocities and crimes committed by the CIA. (1)

CIA operations follow the same recurring script. First, American business interests abroad are threatened by a popular or democratically elected leader. The people support their leader because he intends to conduct land reform, strengthen unions, redistribute wealth, nationalize foreign-owned industry, and regulate business to protect workers, consumers and the environment. So, on behalf of American business, and often with their help, the CIA mobilizes the opposition. First it identifies right-wing groups within the country (usually the military), and offers them a deal: "We'll put you in power if you maintain a favorable business climate for us." The Agency then hires, trains and works with them to overthrow the existing government (usually a democracy). It uses every trick in the book: propaganda, stuffed ballot boxes, purchased elections, extortion, blackmail, sexual intrigue, false stories about opponents in the local media, infiltration and disruption of opposing political parties, kidnapping, beating, torture, intimidation, economic sabotage, death squads and even assassination. These efforts culminate in a military coup, which installs a right-wing dictator. The CIA trains the dictator’s security apparatus to crack down on the traditional enemies of big business, using interrogation, torture and murder. The victims are said to be "communists," but almost always they are just peasants, liberals, moderates, labor union leaders, political opponents and advocates of free speech and democracy. Widespread human rights abuses follow.

This scenario has been repeated so many times that the CIA actually teaches it in a special school, the notorious "School of the Americas." (It opened in Panama but later moved to Fort Benning, Georgia.) Critics have nicknamed it the "School of the Dictators" and "School of the Assassins." Here, the CIA trains Latin American military officers how to conduct coups, including the use of interrogation, torture and murder.

The Association for Responsible Dissent estimates that by 1987, 6 million people had died as a result of CIA covert operations. Former State Department official William Blum correctly calls this an "American Holocaust."

The CIA justifies these actions as part of its war against communism. But most coups do not involve a communist threat. Unlucky nations are targeted for a wide variety of reasons: not only threats to American business interests abroad, but also liberal or even moderate social reforms, political instability, the unwillingness of a leader to carry out Washington’s dictates, and declarations of neutrality in the Cold War. Indeed, nothing has infuriated CIA Directors quite like a nation’s desire to stay out of the Cold War.

The ironic thing about all this intervention is that it frequently fails to achieve American objectives. Often the newly installed dictator grows comfortable with the security apparatus the CIA has built for him. He becomes an expert at running a police state. And because the dictator knows he cannot be overthrown, he becomes independent and defiant of Washington's will. The CIA then finds it cannot overthrow him, because the police and military are under the dictator's control, afraid to cooperate with American spies for fear of torture and execution. The only two options for the U.S at this point are impotence or war. Examples of this "boomerang effect" include the Shah of Iran, General Noriega and Saddam Hussein. The boomerang effect also explains why the CIA has proven highly successful at overthrowing democracies, but a wretched failure at overthrowing dictatorships.

The following timeline should confirm that the CIA as we know it should be abolished and replaced by a true information-gathering and analysis organization. The CIA cannot be reformed — it is institutionally and culturally corrupt.

1929

The culture we lost — Secretary of State Henry Stimson refuses to endorse a code-breaking operation, saying, "Gentlemen do not read each other’s mail."

1941

COI created — In preparation for World War II, President Roosevelt creates the Office of Coordinator of Information (COI). General William "Wild Bill" Donovan heads the new intelligence service.

1942

OSS created — Roosevelt restructures COI into something more suitable for covert action, the Office of Strategic Services (OSS). Donovan recruits so many of the nation’s rich and powerful that eventually people joke that "OSS" stands for "Oh, so social!" or "Oh, such snobs!"

1943

Italy — Donovan recruits the Catholic Church in Rome to be the center of Anglo-American spy operations in Fascist Italy. This would prove to be one of America’s most enduring intelligence alliances in the Cold War.

1945

OSS is abolished — The remaining American information agencies cease covert actions and return to harmless information gathering and analysis.

Operation PAPERCLIP – While other American agencies are hunting down Nazi war criminals for arrest, the U.S. intelligence community is smuggling them into America, unpunished, for their use against the Soviets. The most important of these is Reinhard Gehlen, Hitler’s master spy who had built up an intelligence network in the Soviet Union. With full U.S. blessing, he creates the "Gehlen Organization," a band of refugee Nazi spies who reactivate their networks in Russia. These include SS intelligence officers Alfred Six and Emil Augsburg (who massacred Jews in the Holocaust), Klaus Barbie (the "Butcher of Lyon"), Otto von Bolschwing (the Holocaust mastermind who worked with Eichmann) and SS Colonel Otto Skorzeny (a personal friend of Hitler’s). The Gehlen Organization supplies the U.S. with its only intelligence on the Soviet Union for the next ten years, serving as a bridge between the abolishment of the OSS and the creation of the CIA. However, much of the "intelligence" the former Nazis provide is bogus. Gehlen inflates Soviet military capabilities at a time when Russia is still rebuilding its devastated society, in order to inflate his own importance to the Americans (who might otherwise punish him). In 1948, Gehlen almost convinces the Americans that war is imminent, and the West should make a preemptive strike. In the 50s he produces a fictitious "missile gap." To make matters worse, the Russians have thoroughly penetrated the Gehlen Organization with double agents, undermining the very American security that Gehlen was supposed to protect.

1947

Greece — President Truman requests military aid to Greece to support right-wing forces fighting communist rebels. For the rest of the Cold War, Washington and the CIA will back notorious Greek leaders with deplorable human rights records.

CIA created — President Truman signs the National Security Act of 1947, creating the Central Intelligence Agency and National Security Council. The CIA is accountable to the president through the NSC — there is no democratic or congressional oversight. Its charter allows the CIA to "perform such other functions and duties… as the National Security Council may from time to time direct." This loophole opens the door to covert action and dirty tricks.

1948

Covert-action wing created — The CIA recreates a covert action wing, innocuously called the Office of Policy Coordination, led by Wall Street lawyer Frank Wisner. According to its secret charter, its responsibilities include "propaganda, economic warfare, preventive direct action, including sabotage, antisabotage, demolition and evacuation procedures; subversion against hostile states, including assistance to underground resistance groups, and support of indigenous anti-communist elements in threatened countries of the free world."

Italy — The CIA corrupts democratic elections in Italy, where Italian communists threaten to win the elections. The CIA buys votes, broadcasts propaganda, threatens and beats up opposition leaders, and infiltrates and disrupts their organizations. It works -- the communists are defeated.

1949

Radio Free Europe — The CIA creates its first major propaganda outlet, Radio Free Europe. Over the next several decades, its broadcasts are so blatantly false that for a time it is considered illegal to publish transcripts of them in the U.S.

Late 40s

Operation MOCKINGBIRD — The CIA begins recruiting American news organizations and journalists to become spies and disseminators of propaganda. The effort is headed by Frank Wisner, Allan Dulles, Richard Helms and Philip Graham. Graham is publisher of The Washington Post, which becomes a major CIA player. Eventually, the CIA’s media assets will include ABC, NBC, CBS, Time, Newsweek, Associated Press, United Press International, Reuters, Hearst Newspapers, Scripps-Howard, Copley News Service and more. By the CIA’s own admission, at least 25 organizations and 400 journalists will become CIA assets.

1953

Iran – CIA overthrows the democratically elected Mohammed Mossadegh in a military coup, after he threatened to nationalize British oil. The CIA replaces him with a dictator, the Shah of Iran, whose secret police, SAVAK, is as brutal as the Gestapo.

Operation MK-ULTRA — Inspired by North Korea’s brainwashing program, the CIA begins experiments on mind control. The most notorious part of this project involves giving LSD and other drugs to American subjects without their knowledge or against their will, causing several to commit suicide. However, the operation involves far more than this. Funded in part by the Rockefeller and Ford foundations, research includes propaganda, brainwashing, public relations, advertising, hypnosis, and other forms of suggestion.

1954

Guatemala — CIA overthrows the democratically elected Jacob Arbenz in a military coup. Arbenz has threatened to nationalize the Rockefeller-owned United Fruit Company, in which CIA Director Allen Dulles also owns stock. Arbenz is replaced with a series of right-wing dictators whose bloodthirsty policies will kill over 100,000 Guatemalans in the next 40 years.

1954-1958

North Vietnam — CIA officer Edward Lansdale spends four years trying to overthrow the communist government of North Vietnam, using all the usual dirty tricks. The CIA also attempts to legitimize a tyrannical puppet regime in South Vietnam, headed by Ngo Dinh Diem. These efforts fail to win the hearts and minds of the South Vietnamese because the Diem government is opposed to true democracy, land reform and poverty reduction measures. The CIA’s continuing failure results in escalating American intervention, culminating in the Vietnam War.

1956

Hungary — Radio Free Europe incites Hungary to revolt by broadcasting Khruschev’s Secret Speech, in which he denounced Stalin. It also hints that American aid will help the Hungarians fight. This aid fails to materialize as Hungarians launch a doomed armed revolt, which only invites a major Soviet invasion. The conflict kills 7,000 Soviets and 30,000 Hungarians.

1957-1973

Laos — The CIA carries out approximately one coup per year trying to nullify Laos’ democratic elections. The problem is the Pathet Lao, a leftist group with enough popular support to be a member of any coalition government. In the late 50s, the CIA even creates an "Armee Clandestine" of Asian mercenaries to attack the Pathet Lao. After the CIA’s army suffers numerous defeats, the U.S. starts bombing, dropping more bombs on Laos than all the U.S. bombs dropped in World War II. A quarter of all Laotians will eventually become refugees, many living in caves.

1959

Haiti — The U.S. military helps "Papa Doc" Duvalier become dictator of Haiti. He creates his own private police force, the "Tonton Macoutes," who terrorize the population with machetes. They will kill over 100,000 during the Duvalier family reign. The U.S. does not protest their dismal human rights record.

1961

The Bay of Pigs — The CIA sends 1,500 Cuban exiles to invade Castro’s Cuba. But "Operation Mongoose" fails, due to poor planning, security and backing. The planners had imagined that the invasion will spark a popular uprising against Castro -– which never happens. A promised American air strike also never occurs. This is the CIA’s first public setback, causing President Kennedy to fire CIA Director Allen Dulles.

Dominican Republic — The CIA assassinates Rafael Trujillo, a murderous dictator Washington has supported since 1930. Trujillo’s business interests have grown so large (about 60 percent of the economy) that they have begun competing with American business interests.

Ecuador — The CIA-backed military forces the democratically elected President Jose Velasco to resign. Vice President Carlos Arosemana replaces him; the CIA fills the now vacant vice presidency with its own man.

Congo (Zaire) — The CIA assassinates the democratically elected Patrice Lumumba. However, public support for Lumumba’s politics runs so high that the CIA cannot clearly install his opponents in power. Four years of political turmoil follow.

1963

Dominican Republic — The CIA overthrows the democratically elected Juan Bosch in a military coup. The CIA installs a repressive, right-wing junta.

Ecuador — A CIA-backed military coup overthrows President Arosemana, whose independent (not socialist) policies have become unacceptable to Washington. A military junta assumes command, cancels the 1964 elections, and begins abusing human rights.

1964

Brazil — A CIA-backed military coup overthrows the democratically elected government of Joao Goulart. The junta that replaces it will, in the next two decades, become one of the most bloodthirsty in history. General Castelo Branco will create Latin America’s first death squads, or bands of secret police who hunt down "communists" for torture, interrogation and murder. Often these "communists" are no more than Branco’s political opponents. Later it is revealed that the CIA trains the death squads.

1965

Indonesia — The CIA overthrows the democratically elected Sukarno with a military coup. The CIA has been trying to eliminate Sukarno since 1957, using everything from attempted assassination to sexual intrigue, for nothing more than his declaring neutrality in the Cold War. His successor, General Suharto, will massacre between 500,000 to 1 million civilians accused of being "communist." The CIA supplies the names of countless suspects.

Dominican Republic — A popular rebellion breaks out, promising to reinstall Juan Bosch as the country’s elected leader. The revolution is crushed when U.S. Marines land to uphold the military regime by force. The CIA directs everything behind the scenes.

Greece — With the CIA’s backing, the king removes George Papandreous as prime minister. Papandreous has failed to vigorously support U.S. interests in Greece.

Congo (Zaire) — A CIA-backed military coup installs Mobutu Sese Seko as dictator. The hated and repressive Mobutu exploits his desperately poor country for billions.

1966

The Ramparts Affair — The radical magazine Ramparts begins a series of unprecedented anti-CIA articles. Among their scoops: the CIA has paid the University of Michigan $25 million dollars to hire "professors" to train South Vietnamese students in covert police methods. MIT and other universities have received similar payments. Ramparts also reveals that the National Students’ Association is a CIA front. Students are sometimes recruited through blackmail and bribery, including draft deferments.

1967

Greece — A CIA-backed military coup overthrows the government two days before the elections. The favorite to win was George Papandreous, the liberal candidate. During the next six years, the "reign of the colonels" — backed by the CIA — will usher in the widespread use of torture and murder against political opponents. When a Greek ambassador objects to President Johnson about U.S. plans for Cypress, Johnson tells him: "Fuck your parliament and your constitution."

Operation PHEONIX — The CIA helps South Vietnamese agents identify and then murder alleged Viet Cong leaders operating in South Vietnamese villages. According to a 1971 congressional report, this operation killed about 20,000 "Viet Cong."

1968

Operation CHAOS — The CIA has been illegally spying on American citizens since 1959, but with Operation CHAOS, President Johnson dramatically boosts the effort. CIA agents go undercover as student radicals to spy on and disrupt campus organizations protesting the Vietnam War. They are searching for Russian instigators, which they never find. CHAOS will eventually spy on 7,000 individuals and 1,000 organizations.

Bolivia — A CIA-organized military operation captures legendary guerilla Che Guevara. The CIA wants to keep him alive for interrogation, but the Bolivian government executes him to prevent worldwide calls for clemency.

1969

Uruguay — The notorious CIA torturer Dan Mitrione arrives in Uruguay, a country torn with political strife. Whereas right-wing forces previously used torture only as a last resort, Mitrione convinces them to use it as a routine, widespread practice. "The precise pain, in the precise place, in the precise amount, for the desired effect," is his motto. The torture techniques he teaches to the death squads rival the Nazis’. He eventually becomes so feared that revolutionaries will kidnap and murder him a year later.

1970

Cambodia — The CIA overthrows Prince Sahounek, who is highly popular among Cambodians for keeping them out of the Vietnam War. He is replaced by CIA puppet Lon Nol, who immediately throws Cambodian troops into battle. This unpopular move strengthens once minor opposition parties like the Khmer Rouge, which achieves power in 1975 and massacres millions of its own people.

1971

Bolivia — After half a decade of CIA-inspired political turmoil, a CIA-backed military coup overthrows the leftist President Juan Torres. In the next two years, dictator Hugo Banzer will have over 2,000 political opponents arrested without trial, then tortured, raped and executed.

Haiti — "Papa Doc" Duvalier dies, leaving his 19-year old son "Baby Doc" Duvalier the dictator of Haiti. His son continues his bloody reign with full knowledge of the CIA.

1972

The Case-Zablocki Act — Congress passes an act requiring congressional review of executive agreements. In theory, this should make CIA operations more accountable. In fact, it is only marginally effective.

Cambodia — Congress votes to cut off CIA funds for its secret war in Cambodia.

Wagergate Break-in — President Nixon sends in a team of burglars to wiretap Democratic offices at Watergate. The team members have extensive CIA histories, including James McCord, E. Howard Hunt and five of the Cuban burglars. They work for the Committee to Reelect the President (CREEP), which does dirty work like disrupting Democratic campaigns and laundering Nixon’s illegal campaign contributions. CREEP’s activities are funded and organized by another CIA front, the Mullen Company.

1973

Chile — The CIA overthrows and assassinates Salvador Allende, Latin America’s first democratically elected socialist leader. The problems begin when Allende nationalizes American-owned firms in Chile. ITT offers the CIA $1 million for a coup (reportedly refused). The CIA replaces Allende with General Augusto Pinochet, who will torture and murder thousands of his own countrymen in a crackdown on labor leaders and the political left.

CIA begins internal investigations — William Colby, the Deputy Director for Operations, orders all CIA personnel to report any and all illegal activities they know about. This information is later reported to Congress.

Watergate Scandal — The CIA’s main collaborating newspaper in America, The Washington Post, reports Nixon’s crimes long before any other newspaper takes up the subject. The two reporters, Woodward and Bernstein, make almost no mention of the CIA’s many fingerprints all over the scandal. It is later revealed that Woodward was a Naval intelligence briefer to the White House, and knows many important intelligence figures, including General Alexander Haig. His main source, "Deep Throat," is probably one of those.

CIA Director Helms Fired — President Nixon fires CIA Director Richard Helms for failing to help cover up the Watergate scandal. Helms and Nixon have always disliked each other. The new CIA director is William Colby, who is relatively more open to CIA reform.

1974

CHAOS exposed — Pulitzer prize winning journalist Seymour Hersh publishes a story about Operation CHAOS, the domestic surveillance and infiltration of anti-war and civil rights groups in the U.S. The story sparks national outrage.

Angleton fired — Congress holds hearings on the illegal domestic spying efforts of James Jesus Angleton, the CIA’s chief of counterintelligence. His efforts included mail-opening campaigns and secret surveillance of war protesters. The hearings result in his dismissal from the CIA.

House clears CIA in Watergate — The House of Representatives clears the CIA of any complicity in Nixon’s Watergate break-in.

The Hughes Ryan Act — Congress passes an amendment requiring the president to report nonintelligence CIA operations to the relevant congressional committees in a timely fashion.

1975

Australia — The CIA helps topple the democratically elected, left-leaning government of Prime Minister Edward Whitlam. The CIA does this by giving an ultimatum to its Governor-General, John Kerr. Kerr, a longtime CIA collaborator, exercises his constitutional right to dissolve the Whitlam government. The Governor-General is a largely ceremonial position appointed by the Queen; the Prime Minister is democratically elected. The use of this archaic and never-used law stuns the nation.

Angola — Eager to demonstrate American military resolve after its defeat in Vietnam, Henry Kissinger launches a CIA-backed war in Angola. Contrary to Kissinger’s assertions, Angola is a country of little strategic importance and not seriously threatened by communism. The CIA backs the brutal leader of UNITAS, Jonas Savimbi. This polarizes Angolan politics and drives his opponents into the arms of Cuba and the Soviet Union for survival. Congress will cut off funds in 1976, but the CIA is able to run the war off the books until 1984, when funding is legalized again. This entirely pointless war kills over 300,000 Angolans.

"The CIA and the Cult of Intelligence" — Victor Marchetti and John Marks publish this whistle-blowing history of CIA crimes and abuses. Marchetti has spent 14 years in the CIA, eventually becoming an executive assistant to the Deputy Director of Intelligence. Marks has spent five years as an intelligence official in the State Department.

"Inside the Company" — Philip Agee publishes a diary of his life inside the CIA. Agee has worked in covert operations in Latin America during the 60s, and details the crimes in which he took part.

Congress investigates CIA wrong-doing — Public outrage compels Congress to hold hearings on CIA crimes. Senator Frank Church heads the Senate investigation ("The Church Committee"), and Representative Otis Pike heads the House investigation. (Despite a 98 percent incumbency reelection rate, both Church and Pike are defeated in the next elections.) The investigations lead to a number of reforms intended to increase the CIA’s accountability to Congress, including the creation of a standing Senate committee on intelligence. However, the reforms prove ineffective, as the Iran/Contra scandal will show. It turns out the CIA can control, deal with or sidestep Congress with ease.

The Rockefeller Commission — In an attempt to reduce the damage done by the Church Committee, President Ford creates the "Rockefeller Commission" to whitewash CIA history and propose toothless reforms. The commission’s namesake, Vice President Nelson Rockefeller, is himself a major CIA figure. Five of the commission’s eight members are also members of the Council on Foreign Relations, a CIA-dominated organization.

1979

Iran — The CIA fails to predict the fall of the Shah of Iran, a longtime CIA puppet, and the rise of Muslim fundamentalists who are furious at the CIA’s backing of SAVAK, the Shah’s bloodthirsty secret police. In revenge, the Muslims take 52 Americans hostage in the U.S. embassy in Tehran.

Afghanistan — The Soviets invade Afghanistan. The CIA immediately begins supplying arms to any faction willing to fight the occupying Soviets. Such indiscriminate arming means that when the Soviets leave Afghanistan, civil war will erupt. Also, fanatical Muslim extremists now possess state-of-the-art weaponry. One of these is Sheik Abdel Rahman, who will become involved in the World Trade Center bombing in New York.

El Salvador — An idealistic group of young military officers, repulsed by the massacre of the poor, overthrows the right-wing government. However, the U.S. compels the inexperienced officers to include many of the old guard in key positions in their new government. Soon, things are back to "normal" — the military government is repressing and killing poor civilian protesters. Many of the young military and civilian reformers, finding themselves powerless, resign in disgust.

Nicaragua — Anastasios Samoza II, the CIA-backed dictator, falls. The Marxist Sandinistas take over government, and they are initially popular because of their commitment to land and anti-poverty reform. Samoza had a murderous and hated personal army called the National Guard. Remnants of the Guard will become the Contras, who fight a CIA-backed guerilla war against the Sandinista government throughout the 1980s.

1980

El Salvador — The Archbishop of San Salvador, Oscar Romero, pleads with President Carter "Christian to Christian" to stop aiding the military government slaughtering his people. Carter refuses. Shortly afterwards, right-wing leader Roberto D’Aubuisson has Romero shot through the heart while saying Mass. The country soon dissolves into civil war, with the peasants in the hills fighting against the military government. The CIA and U.S. Armed Forces supply the government with overwhelming military and intelligence superiority. CIA-trained death squads roam the countryside, committing atrocities like that of El Mazote in 1982, where they massacre between 700 and 1000 men, women and children. By 1992, some 63,000 Salvadorans will be killed.

1981

Iran/Contra Begins — The CIA begins selling arms to Iran at high prices, using the profits to arm the Contras fighting the Sandinista government in Nicaragua. President Reagan vows that the Sandinistas will be "pressured" until "they say ‘uncle.’" The CIA’s Freedom Fighter’s Manual disbursed to the Contras includes instruction on economic sabotage, propaganda, extortion, bribery, blackmail, interrogation, torture, murder and political assassination.

1983

Honduras — The CIA gives Honduran military officers the Human Resource Exploitation Training Manual – 1983, which teaches how to torture people. Honduras’ notorious "Battalion 316" then uses these techniques, with the CIA’s full knowledge, on thousands of leftist dissidents. At least 184 are murdered.

1984

The Boland Amendment — The last of a series of Boland Amendments is passed. These amendments have reduced CIA aid to the Contras; the last one cuts it off completely. However, CIA Director William Casey is already prepared to "hand off" the operation to Colonel Oliver North, who illegally continues supplying the Contras through the CIA’s informal, secret, and self-financing network. This includes "humanitarian aid" donated by Adolph Coors and William Simon, and military aid funded by Iranian arms sales.

1986

Eugene Hasenfus — Nicaragua shoots down a C-123 transport plane carrying military supplies to the Contras. The lone survivor, Eugene Hasenfus, turns out to be a CIA employee, as are the two dead pilots. The airplane belongs to Southern Air Transport, a CIA front. The incident makes a mockery of President Reagan’s claims that the CIA is not illegally arming the Contras.

Iran/Contra Scandal — Although the details have long been known, the Iran/Contra scandal finally captures the media’s attention in 1986. Congress holds hearings, and several key figures (like Oliver North) lie under oath to protect the intelligence community. CIA Director William Casey dies of brain cancer before Congress can question him. All reforms enacted by Congress after the scandal are purely cosmetic.

Haiti — Rising popular revolt in Haiti means that "Baby Doc" Duvalier will remain "President for Life" only if he has a short one. The U.S., which hates instability in a puppet country, flies the despotic Duvalier to the South of France for a comfortable retirement. The CIA then rigs the upcoming elections in favor of another right-wing military strongman. However, violence keeps the country in political turmoil for another four years. The CIA tries to strengthen the military by creating the National Intelligence Service (SIN), which suppresses popular revolt through torture and assassination.

1989

Panama — The U.S. invades Panama to overthrow a dictator of its own making, General Manuel Noriega. Noriega has been on the CIA’s payroll since 1966, and has been transporting drugs with the CIA’s knowledge since 1972. By the late 80s, Noriega’s growing independence and intransigence have angered Washington… so out he goes.

1990

Haiti — Competing against 10 comparatively wealthy candidates, leftist priest Jean-Bertrand Aristide captures 68 percent of the vote. After only eight months in power, however, the CIA-backed military deposes him. More military dictators brutalize the country, as thousands of Haitian refugees escape the turmoil in barely seaworthy boats. As popular opinion calls for Aristide’s return, the CIA begins a disinformation campaign painting the courageous priest as mentally unstable.

1991

The Gulf War — The U.S. liberates Kuwait from Iraq. But Iraq’s dictator, Saddam Hussein, is another creature of the CIA. With U.S. encouragement, Hussein invaded Iran in 1980. During this costly eight-year war, the CIA built up Hussein’s forces with sophisticated arms, intelligence, training and financial backing. This cemented Hussein’s power at home, allowing him to crush the many internal rebellions that erupted from time to time, sometimes with poison gas. It also gave him all the military might he needed to conduct further adventurism — in Kuwait, for example.

The Fall of the Soviet Union — The CIA fails to predict this most important event of the Cold War. This suggests that it has been so busy undermining governments that it hasn’t been doing its primary job: gathering and analyzing information. The fall of the Soviet Union also robs the CIA of its reason for existence: fighting communism. This leads some to accuse the CIA of intentionally failing to predict the downfall of the Soviet Union. Curiously, the intelligence community’s budget is not significantly reduced after the demise of communism.

1992

Economic Espionage — In the years following the end of the Cold War, the CIA is increasingly used for economic espionage. This involves stealing the technological secrets of competing foreign companies and giving them to American ones. Given the CIA’s clear preference for dirty tricks over mere information gathering, the possibility of serious criminal behavior is very great indeed.

1993

Haiti — The chaos in Haiti grows so bad that President Clinton has no choice but to remove the Haitian military dictator, Raoul Cedras, on threat of U.S. invasion. The U.S. occupiers do not arrest Haiti’s military leaders for crimes against humanity, but instead ensure their safety and rich retirements. Aristide is returned to power only after being forced to accept an agenda favorable to the country’s ruling class.

[...] The history of the agency is growing painfully clear, especially with the declassification of historical CIA documents. We may not know the details of specific operations, but we do know, quite well, the general behavior of the CIA. These facts began emerging nearly two decades ago at an ever-quickening pace. Today we have a remarkably accurate and consistent picture, repeated in country after country, and verified from countless different directions.

The CIA’s response to this growing knowledge and criticism follows a typical historical pattern. (Indeed, there are remarkable parallels to the Medieval Church’s fight against the Scientific Revolution.) The first journalists and writers to reveal the CIA’s criminal behavior were harassed and censored if they were American writers, and tortured and murdered if they were foreigners. (See Philip Agee’s On the Run for an example of early harassment.) However, over the last two decades the tide of evidence has become overwhelming, and the CIA has found that it does not have enough fingers to plug every hole in the dike. This is especially true in the age of the Internet, where information flows freely among millions of people. Since censorship is impossible, the Agency must now defend itself with apologetics.

[...] Another common apologetic is that "the world is filled with unsavory characters, and we must deal with them if we are to protect American interests at all." There are two things wrong with this. First, it ignores the fact that the CIA has regularly spurned alliances with defenders of democracy, free speech and human rights, preferring the company of military dictators and tyrants. The CIA had moral options available to them, but did not take them.

Second, this argument begs several questions. The first is: "Which American interests?" The CIA has courted right-wing dictators because they allow wealthy Americans to exploit the country’s cheap labor and resources. But poor and middle-class Americans pay the price whenever they fight the wars that stem from CIA actions, from Vietnam to the Gulf War to Panama. The second begged question is: "Why should American interests come at the expense of other peoples’ human rights?"

The CIA should be abolished, its leadership dismissed and its relevant members tried for crimes against humanity. Our intelligence community should be rebuilt from the ground up, with the goal of collecting and analyzing information. As for covert action, there are two moral options. The first one is to eliminate covert action completely. But this gives jitters to people worried about the Adolf Hitlers of the world. So a second option is that we can place covert action under extensive and true democratic oversight. For example, a bipartisan Congressional Committee of 40 members could review and veto all aspects of CIA operations upon a majority or super-majority vote. Which of these two options is best may be the subject of debate, but one thing is clear: like dictatorship, like monarchy, unaccountable covert operations should die like the dinosaurs they are.”

[coachlydia]

EU Energy Companies Pledge No New Plants From 2020

Europe’s energy utilities have rung a death knell for coal, with a historic pledge that no new coal-fired plants will be built in the EU after 2020.

The surprise announcement was made at a press conference in Brussels on Wednesday, 442 years after the continent’s first pit was sunk by Sir George Bruce of Carnock, in Scotland.

National energy companies from every EU nation – except Poland and Greece – have signed up to the initiative, which will overhaul the bloc’s energy-generating future.

A press release from Eurelectric, which represents 3,500 utilities with a combined value of over €200bn, reaffirmed a pledge to deliver on the Paris climate agreement, and vowed a moratorium on new investments in coal plants after 2020.

“26 of 28 member states have stated that they will not invest in new coal plants after 2020” said Kristian Ruby, Eurelectric’s secretary-general. “History will judge this message we are bringing here today. It is a clear message that speaks for itself, and should be seen in close relation to the Paris agreement and our commitment to provide 100% carbon-neutral electricity by 2050.”

“Europe’s energy companies are putting their money where their mouths are,” he added.

Coal has been central to Europe’s development, powering the industrial revolution, trades union history, and even the EU’s precursor, the European coal and steel community.

But it also emits more carbon dioxide than any other fossil fuel, plus deadly toxins such as sulphur dioxide, nitrogen dioxide, and particulate matter, which are responsible for more than 20,000 deaths each year.

Wendel Trio, the director of Climate Action Network Europe, hailed the new move as “the beginning of the end for coal”. 

“It is now clear that there is no future for coal in the EU,” he said. “The question is: what is the date for its phase out in the EU, and how hard will the coal industry fight to keep plants open, even if they are no longer economically viable?”

The coal industry though was sceptical about the utilities’ announcement. Brian Ricketts, the secretary-general of the Euracoal trade group said: “Steam engines were replaced by something better,cheaper and more productive – electric motors and diesel engines. When we see a new energy system – with lots of energy storage – that works at an affordable price, then coal, oil and gas will not be needed. In the meantime, we still rely on conventional sources.”

Renewable industry sources also welcomed the news, albeit with the caveat that it would allow continued new investments in the industry for another three years.

“The debate about coal is over,” one industry insider told the Guardian. “This is the only way that we can go forward with decarbonisation. But it would be good to see a phase out of existing coal plants.” 

The energy utilities’ initiative faced initial resistance in Germany which is relying on coal to bridge a move away from nuclear energy to renewables under the “energiewende” transition.

In the end though, only Poland which depends on coal for around 90% of its electricity and Greece, which still plans new coal plants, bucked what is becoming a global trend.

New coal plant constructions fell by almost two thirds across the world in 2016, with the EU and US leading the way in retiring in existing coal capacity.

The move is also in line with a pathway for meeting the 2C target laid out by climate scientists last month, as a way of limiting future stranded asset risks.

Europe will have to phase out all of its coal plants by 2030 or else “vastly overshoot” its Paris climate pledges, climate experts say.

António Mexia, the CEO of Portuguese energy giant EDP and president of the Eurelectric trade association, said: “The power sector is determined to lead the energy transition and back our commitment to the low-carbon economy with concrete action.”

“With power supply becoming increasingly clean, electric technologies are an obvious choice for replacing fossil fuel based systems, for instance in the transport sector to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.”

“The challenge for policy makers in the next two years will be to target the political instruments, ensure that they are complementary and advance decarbonisation and electrification at the same time,” said Ruby.

Ruby called for a ratcheting up of the cap on CO2 emissions under the EU’s emissions trading system, to speed the transition to a low carbon economy. source:the guardian

http://ift.tt/2ohLV4v from Blogger http://ift.tt/2nxaIme via Climate Change Action Group

[sweatygardencollectorblr]

(Bloomberg) -- When it comes to Green Deals, Europe has a lesson or two for liberal politicians in the U.S. trying to engineer far-reaching policies to address climate change.An American lawmaker, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, may have done more than anyone else to popularize the concept of a sweeping “green deal” to shift away from fossil fuels. But now the European Union is much closer to translating the goal into concrete policies that have a decent chance of actually being implemented.Both the U.S. Green New Deal resolution and the European Green Deal, which was unveiled this week by the EU’s executive arm, share the same targets: limiting global temperature increase to 1.5 degrees Celsius compared to pre-industrial levels, in line with the landmark Paris climate accord. To meet this objective, backers of the plans in the EU and the U.S. aim to eliminate emissions by 2050 at the latest. Both plans trace their lineage explicitly to the New Deal of the 1930s, a series of social programs, public work projects and financial reforms championed by U.S. President Franklin D. Roosevelt as a way to counteract the Great Depression. The Green Deals may have identical goals and nearly matching branding, but the policies are oceans apart when it comes to the means of delivery.The European version is strictly focused on climate, and those policy areas which can affect it, such an industry, energy and public procurement. The U.S. Green New Deal — as it is laid out in the Ocasio-Cortez-sponsored resolution and the policy programs of Democratic presidential hopefuls such as Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren — is tied to a series of contentious issues unrelated to climate, from health care coverage to employment.Europe’s narrow focus helped the plan gain the backing of conservative, centrist and center-left governments across the 28 nation-bloc, while the sweeping U.S. manifestos have little chance of garnering across-the-aisle support from legislators. Even ultra-conservative European governments, such as Poland’s, which resisted committing themselves to Green Deal goals, didn’t object to the bloc striving to meet the objective. Across the Atlantic, even modest efforts to curb climate change have been met with hostility by conservatives in the U.S. Congress, so reaction to the resolution was bound to split along political fault lines from the start. However, the Green New Deal’s very broad ambition has made it a favorite target of Republicans, who have tried to cast it as an illustration of how their liberal opponents are both dangerous and laughably unrealistic.Larry Kudlow, Trump’s chief economic advisor, stated that it would “literally destroy the economy.” Republican Senator John Barrasso suggested that the Green New Deal would result in the banning of cows, who burp methane, a greenhouse gas, and therefore the end of ice cream. The House Republican Conference and U.S. Chamber of Commerce dismissed it as a “Trojan horse for socialism.”The European Green Deal is also more concrete. The EU Commission unveiled on Wednesday a roadmap of specific legislative proposals divided by sector, measurable policy goals with due to be agreed interim benchmarks, and fixed dates. On the other hand, there are few numbers and details to be seen in any version of the Green New Deal advocated by U.S. Democratic hopefuls, other than public spending pledges.Europe’s step-by-step and sector by sector approach has already delivered real wins. The world’s biggest multilateral financial institution, owned by EU governments, has announced it will end funding for fossil fuel energy projects and its intention to mobilize a trillion euros ($1.1 trillion) over the next decade to finance the bloc’s transition to a low-carbon economy.To minimize risks for a pushback from skeptics, the EU’s Green Deal is also more flexible. While its U.S. counterpart aims 100% electricity production from renewables by 2030 — a target criticized by many as unrealistic — the EU lets its member states choose their energy mix, including zero-emitting nuclear power.The benefits of flexibility may end up outweighing any costs in terms of ambition and speed. Through a series of incentives and deterrents, such as the world’s biggest cap-and-trade program for polluters and progressively stricter limits on emissions from transport, the EU is effectively pushing its industries and companies toward ever cleaner technologies.Another way the European climate push differs is by successfully engaging the private sector. The continent’s biggest business leaders threw their weight behind a plan to make the bloc climate neutral, on the condition that appropriate safeguards “to avoid carbon and investment leakage and guarantee a global level playing field for competition,” are adopted. The EU is already considering such measures, including adjusting restrictions on state aid for companies, changing public procurement rules and penalizing imports from countries with looser emissions controls.In a sign of such private-sector support, earlier this month Spain’s Repsol SA became the first oil major to align itself with the Paris climate goals, saying it will eliminate all greenhouse gas emissions from its own operations and its customers by 2050.  Luxembourg-based ArcelorMittal — the world’s largest steel-maker — announced on Friday that it set a target to reduce emissions by 30% by 2030 to contribute to the Green Deal.To be sure, the European Green Deal is facing its own headwinds. Leading airlines attacked plans to impose a region-wide kerosene tax as part of a sweeping new environmental strategy, saying investment in sustainable fuels and electric planes would be more effective in reducing carbon emissions. More is still to come. While the European Commission will draft all the rules to bring the bloc’s Green Deal to life, they will require the support of EU governments and the bloc’s assembly. Expect every word and comma to be analyzed by national governments, parliamentarians, companies, industry lobbies and environmental activists. But rallying more than two dozen governments behind a shared goal to eliminate emissions and initiating the process of legislative proposals is something to start with. That’s the way the EU does things — one small, tedious, win at a time. \--With assistance from Jonathan Stearns and Ewa Krukowska.To contact the authors of this story: Nikos Chrysoloras in Brussels at nchrysoloras@bloomberg.netLeslie Kaufman in New York at lkaufman27@bloomberg.netTo contact the editor responsible for this story: Aaron Rutkoff at arutkoff@bloomberg.net, Ben SillsFor more articles like this, please visit us at bloomberg.com©2019 Bloomberg L.P.

from Yahoo News - Latest News & Headlines https://ift.tt/2PkaqLS

[saadullah-faisal-world]

(Bloomberg) -- When it comes to Green Deals, Europe has a lesson or two for liberal politicians in the U.S. trying to engineer far-reaching policies to address climate change.An American lawmaker, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, may have done more than anyone else to popularize the concept of a sweeping “green deal” to shift away from fossil fuels. But now the European Union is much closer to translating the goal into concrete policies that have a decent chance of actually being implemented.Both the U.S. Green New Deal resolution and the European Green Deal, which was unveiled this week by the EU’s executive arm, share the same targets: limiting global temperature increase to 1.5 degrees Celsius compared to pre-industrial levels, in line with the landmark Paris climate accord. To meet this objective, backers of the plans in the EU and the U.S. aim to eliminate emissions by 2050 at the latest. Both plans trace their lineage explicitly to the New Deal of the 1930s, a series of social programs, public work projects and financial reforms championed by U.S. President Franklin D. Roosevelt as a way to counteract the Great Depression. The Green Deals may have identical goals and nearly matching branding, but the policies are oceans apart when it comes to the means of delivery.The European version is strictly focused on climate, and those policy areas which can affect it, such an industry, energy and public procurement. The U.S. Green New Deal — as it is laid out in the Ocasio-Cortez-sponsored resolution and the policy programs of Democratic presidential hopefuls such as Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren — is tied to a series of contentious issues unrelated to climate, from health care coverage to employment.Europe’s narrow focus helped the plan gain the backing of conservative, centrist and center-left governments across the 28 nation-bloc, while the sweeping U.S. manifestos have little chance of garnering across-the-aisle support from legislators. Even ultra-conservative European governments, such as Poland’s, which resisted committing themselves to Green Deal goals, didn’t object to the bloc striving to meet the objective. Across the Atlantic, even modest efforts to curb climate change have been met with hostility by conservatives in the U.S. Congress, so reaction to the resolution was bound to split along political fault lines from the start. However, the Green New Deal’s very broad ambition has made it a favorite target of Republicans, who have tried to cast it as an illustration of how their liberal opponents are both dangerous and laughably unrealistic.Larry Kudlow, Trump’s chief economic advisor, stated that it would “literally destroy the economy.” Republican Senator John Barrasso suggested that the Green New Deal would result in the banning of cows, who burp methane, a greenhouse gas, and therefore the end of ice cream. The House Republican Conference and U.S. Chamber of Commerce dismissed it as a “Trojan horse for socialism.”The European Green Deal is also more concrete. The EU Commission unveiled on Wednesday a roadmap of specific legislative proposals divided by sector, measurable policy goals with due to be agreed interim benchmarks, and fixed dates. On the other hand, there are few numbers and details to be seen in any version of the Green New Deal advocated by U.S. Democratic hopefuls, other than public spending pledges.Europe’s step-by-step and sector by sector approach has already delivered real wins. The world’s biggest multilateral financial institution, owned by EU governments, has announced it will end funding for fossil fuel energy projects and its intention to mobilize a trillion euros ($1.1 trillion) over the next decade to finance the bloc’s transition to a low-carbon economy.To minimize risks for a pushback from skeptics, the EU’s Green Deal is also more flexible. While its U.S. counterpart aims 100% electricity production from renewables by 2030 — a target criticized by many as unrealistic — the EU lets its member states choose their energy mix, including zero-emitting nuclear power.The benefits of flexibility may end up outweighing any costs in terms of ambition and speed. Through a series of incentives and deterrents, such as the world’s biggest cap-and-trade program for polluters and progressively stricter limits on emissions from transport, the EU is effectively pushing its industries and companies toward ever cleaner technologies.Another way the European climate push differs is by successfully engaging the private sector. The continent’s biggest business leaders threw their weight behind a plan to make the bloc climate neutral, on the condition that appropriate safeguards “to avoid carbon and investment leakage and guarantee a global level playing field for competition,” are adopted. The EU is already considering such measures, including adjusting restrictions on state aid for companies, changing public procurement rules and penalizing imports from countries with looser emissions controls.In a sign of such private-sector support, earlier this month Spain’s Repsol SA became the first oil major to align itself with the Paris climate goals, saying it will eliminate all greenhouse gas emissions from its own operations and its customers by 2050.  Luxembourg-based ArcelorMittal — the world’s largest steel-maker — announced on Friday that it set a target to reduce emissions by 30% by 2030 to contribute to the Green Deal.To be sure, the European Green Deal is facing its own headwinds. Leading airlines attacked plans to impose a region-wide kerosene tax as part of a sweeping new environmental strategy, saying investment in sustainable fuels and electric planes would be more effective in reducing carbon emissions. More is still to come. While the European Commission will draft all the rules to bring the bloc’s Green Deal to life, they will require the support of EU governments and the bloc’s assembly. Expect every word and comma to be analyzed by national governments, parliamentarians, companies, industry lobbies and environmental activists. But rallying more than two dozen governments behind a shared goal to eliminate emissions and initiating the process of legislative proposals is something to start with. That’s the way the EU does things — one small, tedious, win at a time. \--With assistance from Jonathan Stearns and Ewa Krukowska.To contact the authors of this story: Nikos Chrysoloras in Brussels at nchrysoloras@bloomberg.netLeslie Kaufman in New York at lkaufman27@bloomberg.netTo contact the editor responsible for this story: Aaron Rutkoff at arutkoff@bloomberg.net, Ben SillsFor more articles like this, please visit us at bloomberg.com©2019 Bloomberg L.P.

from Yahoo News - Latest News & Headlines https://ift.tt/2PkaqLS

[orendrasingh]

(Bloomberg) -- When it comes to Green Deals, Europe has a lesson or two for liberal politicians in the U.S. trying to engineer far-reaching policies to address climate change.An American lawmaker, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, may have done more than anyone else to popularize the concept of a sweeping “green deal” to shift away from fossil fuels. But now the European Union is much closer to translating the goal into concrete policies that have a decent chance of actually being implemented.Both the U.S. Green New Deal resolution and the European Green Deal, which was unveiled this week by the EU’s executive arm, share the same targets: limiting global temperature increase to 1.5 degrees Celsius compared to pre-industrial levels, in line with the landmark Paris climate accord. To meet this objective, backers of the plans in the EU and the U.S. aim to eliminate emissions by 2050 at the latest. Both plans trace their lineage explicitly to the New Deal of the 1930s, a series of social programs, public work projects and financial reforms championed by U.S. President Franklin D. Roosevelt as a way to counteract the Great Depression. The Green Deals may have identical goals and nearly matching branding, but the policies are oceans apart when it comes to the means of delivery.The European version is strictly focused on climate, and those policy areas which can affect it, such an industry, energy and public procurement. The U.S. Green New Deal — as it is laid out in the Ocasio-Cortez-sponsored resolution and the policy programs of Democratic presidential hopefuls such as Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren — is tied to a series of contentious issues unrelated to climate, from health care coverage to employment.Europe’s narrow focus helped the plan gain the backing of conservative, centrist and center-left governments across the 28 nation-bloc, while the sweeping U.S. manifestos have little chance of garnering across-the-aisle support from legislators. Even ultra-conservative European governments, such as Poland’s, which resisted committing themselves to Green Deal goals, didn’t object to the bloc striving to meet the objective. Across the Atlantic, even modest efforts to curb climate change have been met with hostility by conservatives in the U.S. Congress, so reaction to the resolution was bound to split along political fault lines from the start. However, the Green New Deal’s very broad ambition has made it a favorite target of Republicans, who have tried to cast it as an illustration of how their liberal opponents are both dangerous and laughably unrealistic.Larry Kudlow, Trump’s chief economic advisor, stated that it would “literally destroy the economy.” Republican Senator John Barrasso suggested that the Green New Deal would result in the banning of cows, who burp methane, a greenhouse gas, and therefore the end of ice cream. The House Republican Conference and U.S. Chamber of Commerce dismissed it as a “Trojan horse for socialism.”The European Green Deal is also more concrete. The EU Commission unveiled on Wednesday a roadmap of specific legislative proposals divided by sector, measurable policy goals with due to be agreed interim benchmarks, and fixed dates. On the other hand, there are few numbers and details to be seen in any version of the Green New Deal advocated by U.S. Democratic hopefuls, other than public spending pledges.Europe’s step-by-step and sector by sector approach has already delivered real wins. The world’s biggest multilateral financial institution, owned by EU governments, has announced it will end funding for fossil fuel energy projects and its intention to mobilize a trillion euros ($1.1 trillion) over the next decade to finance the bloc’s transition to a low-carbon economy.To minimize risks for a pushback from skeptics, the EU’s Green Deal is also more flexible. While its U.S. counterpart aims 100% electricity production from renewables by 2030 — a target criticized by many as unrealistic — the EU lets its member states choose their energy mix, including zero-emitting nuclear power.The benefits of flexibility may end up outweighing any costs in terms of ambition and speed. Through a series of incentives and deterrents, such as the world’s biggest cap-and-trade program for polluters and progressively stricter limits on emissions from transport, the EU is effectively pushing its industries and companies toward ever cleaner technologies.Another way the European climate push differs is by successfully engaging the private sector. The continent’s biggest business leaders threw their weight behind a plan to make the bloc climate neutral, on the condition that appropriate safeguards “to avoid carbon and investment leakage and guarantee a global level playing field for competition,” are adopted. The EU is already considering such measures, including adjusting restrictions on state aid for companies, changing public procurement rules and penalizing imports from countries with looser emissions controls.In a sign of such private-sector support, earlier this month Spain’s Repsol SA became the first oil major to align itself with the Paris climate goals, saying it will eliminate all greenhouse gas emissions from its own operations and its customers by 2050.  Luxembourg-based ArcelorMittal — the world’s largest steel-maker — announced on Friday that it set a target to reduce emissions by 30% by 2030 to contribute to the Green Deal.To be sure, the European Green Deal is facing its own headwinds. Leading airlines attacked plans to impose a region-wide kerosene tax as part of a sweeping new environmental strategy, saying investment in sustainable fuels and electric planes would be more effective in reducing carbon emissions. More is still to come. While the European Commission will draft all the rules to bring the bloc’s Green Deal to life, they will require the support of EU governments and the bloc’s assembly. Expect every word and comma to be analyzed by national governments, parliamentarians, companies, industry lobbies and environmental activists. But rallying more than two dozen governments behind a shared goal to eliminate emissions and initiating the process of legislative proposals is something to start with. That’s the way the EU does things — one small, tedious, win at a time. \--With assistance from Jonathan Stearns and Ewa Krukowska.To contact the authors of this story: Nikos Chrysoloras in Brussels at nchrysoloras@bloomberg.netLeslie Kaufman in New York at lkaufman27@bloomberg.netTo contact the editor responsible for this story: Aaron Rutkoff at arutkoff@bloomberg.net, Ben SillsFor more articles like this, please visit us at bloomberg.com©2019 Bloomberg L.P.

from Yahoo News - Latest News & Headlines https://ift.tt/2PkaqLS

[myeclecticcollectorblazeus]

(Bloomberg) -- When it comes to Green Deals, Europe has a lesson or two for liberal politicians in the U.S. trying to engineer far-reaching policies to address climate change.An American lawmaker, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, may have done more than anyone else to popularize the concept of a sweeping “green deal” to shift away from fossil fuels. But now the European Union is much closer to translating the goal into concrete policies that have a decent chance of actually being implemented.Both the U.S. Green New Deal resolution and the European Green Deal, which was unveiled this week by the EU’s executive arm, share the same targets: limiting global temperature increase to 1.5 degrees Celsius compared to pre-industrial levels, in line with the landmark Paris climate accord. To meet this objective, backers of the plans in the EU and the U.S. aim to eliminate emissions by 2050 at the latest. Both plans trace their lineage explicitly to the New Deal of the 1930s, a series of social programs, public work projects and financial reforms championed by U.S. President Franklin D. Roosevelt as a way to counteract the Great Depression. The Green Deals may have identical goals and nearly matching branding, but the policies are oceans apart when it comes to the means of delivery.The European version is strictly focused on climate, and those policy areas which can affect it, such an industry, energy and public procurement. The U.S. Green New Deal — as it is laid out in the Ocasio-Cortez-sponsored resolution and the policy programs of Democratic presidential hopefuls such as Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren — is tied to a series of contentious issues unrelated to climate, from health care coverage to employment.Europe’s narrow focus helped the plan gain the backing of conservative, centrist and center-left governments across the 28 nation-bloc, while the sweeping U.S. manifestos have little chance of garnering across-the-aisle support from legislators. Even ultra-conservative European governments, such as Poland’s, which resisted committing themselves to Green Deal goals, didn’t object to the bloc striving to meet the objective. Across the Atlantic, even modest efforts to curb climate change have been met with hostility by conservatives in the U.S. Congress, so reaction to the resolution was bound to split along political fault lines from the start. However, the Green New Deal’s very broad ambition has made it a favorite target of Republicans, who have tried to cast it as an illustration of how their liberal opponents are both dangerous and laughably unrealistic.Larry Kudlow, Trump’s chief economic advisor, stated that it would “literally destroy the economy.” Republican Senator John Barrasso suggested that the Green New Deal would result in the banning of cows, who burp methane, a greenhouse gas, and therefore the end of ice cream. The House Republican Conference and U.S. Chamber of Commerce dismissed it as a “Trojan horse for socialism.”The European Green Deal is also more concrete. The EU Commission unveiled on Wednesday a roadmap of specific legislative proposals divided by sector, measurable policy goals with due to be agreed interim benchmarks, and fixed dates. On the other hand, there are few numbers and details to be seen in any version of the Green New Deal advocated by U.S. Democratic hopefuls, other than public spending pledges.Europe’s step-by-step and sector by sector approach has already delivered real wins. The world’s biggest multilateral financial institution, owned by EU governments, has announced it will end funding for fossil fuel energy projects and its intention to mobilize a trillion euros ($1.1 trillion) over the next decade to finance the bloc’s transition to a low-carbon economy.To minimize risks for a pushback from skeptics, the EU’s Green Deal is also more flexible. While its U.S. counterpart aims 100% electricity production from renewables by 2030 — a target criticized by many as unrealistic — the EU lets its member states choose their energy mix, including zero-emitting nuclear power.The benefits of flexibility may end up outweighing any costs in terms of ambition and speed. Through a series of incentives and deterrents, such as the world’s biggest cap-and-trade program for polluters and progressively stricter limits on emissions from transport, the EU is effectively pushing its industries and companies toward ever cleaner technologies.Another way the European climate push differs is by successfully engaging the private sector. The continent’s biggest business leaders threw their weight behind a plan to make the bloc climate neutral, on the condition that appropriate safeguards “to avoid carbon and investment leakage and guarantee a global level playing field for competition,” are adopted. The EU is already considering such measures, including adjusting restrictions on state aid for companies, changing public procurement rules and penalizing imports from countries with looser emissions controls.In a sign of such private-sector support, earlier this month Spain’s Repsol SA became the first oil major to align itself with the Paris climate goals, saying it will eliminate all greenhouse gas emissions from its own operations and its customers by 2050.  Luxembourg-based ArcelorMittal — the world’s largest steel-maker — announced on Friday that it set a target to reduce emissions by 30% by 2030 to contribute to the Green Deal.To be sure, the European Green Deal is facing its own headwinds. Leading airlines attacked plans to impose a region-wide kerosene tax as part of a sweeping new environmental strategy, saying investment in sustainable fuels and electric planes would be more effective in reducing carbon emissions. More is still to come. While the European Commission will draft all the rules to bring the bloc’s Green Deal to life, they will require the support of EU governments and the bloc’s assembly. Expect every word and comma to be analyzed by national governments, parliamentarians, companies, industry lobbies and environmental activists. But rallying more than two dozen governments behind a shared goal to eliminate emissions and initiating the process of legislative proposals is something to start with. That’s the way the EU does things — one small, tedious, win at a time. \--With assistance from Jonathan Stearns and Ewa Krukowska.To contact the authors of this story: Nikos Chrysoloras in Brussels at nchrysoloras@bloomberg.netLeslie Kaufman in New York at lkaufman27@bloomberg.netTo contact the editor responsible for this story: Aaron Rutkoff at arutkoff@bloomberg.net, Ben SillsFor more articles like this, please visit us at bloomberg.com©2019 Bloomberg L.P.

from Yahoo News - Latest News & Headlines https://ift.tt/2PkaqLS

[teeky185]

(Bloomberg) -- When it comes to Green Deals, Europe has a lesson or two for liberal politicians in the U.S. trying to engineer far-reaching policies to address climate change.An American lawmaker, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, may have done more than anyone else to popularize the concept of a sweeping “green deal” to shift away from fossil fuels. But now the European Union is much closer to translating the goal into concrete policies that have a decent chance of actually being implemented.Both the U.S. Green New Deal resolution and the European Green Deal, which was unveiled this week by the EU’s executive arm, share the same targets: limiting global temperature increase to 1.5 degrees Celsius compared to pre-industrial levels, in line with the landmark Paris climate accord. To meet this objective, backers of the plans in the EU and the U.S. aim to eliminate emissions by 2050 at the latest. Both plans trace their lineage explicitly to the New Deal of the 1930s, a series of social programs, public work projects and financial reforms championed by U.S. President Franklin D. Roosevelt as a way to counteract the Great Depression. The Green Deals may have identical goals and nearly matching branding, but the policies are oceans apart when it comes to the means of delivery.The European version is strictly focused on climate, and those policy areas which can affect it, such an industry, energy and public procurement. The U.S. Green New Deal — as it is laid out in the Ocasio-Cortez-sponsored resolution and the policy programs of Democratic presidential hopefuls such as Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren — is tied to a series of contentious issues unrelated to climate, from health care coverage to employment.Europe’s narrow focus helped the plan gain the backing of conservative, centrist and center-left governments across the 28 nation-bloc, while the sweeping U.S. manifestos have little chance of garnering across-the-aisle support from legislators. Even ultra-conservative European governments, such as Poland’s, which resisted committing themselves to Green Deal goals, didn’t object to the bloc striving to meet the objective. Across the Atlantic, even modest efforts to curb climate change have been met with hostility by conservatives in the U.S. Congress, so reaction to the resolution was bound to split along political fault lines from the start. However, the Green New Deal’s very broad ambition has made it a favorite target of Republicans, who have tried to cast it as an illustration of how their liberal opponents are both dangerous and laughably unrealistic.Larry Kudlow, Trump’s chief economic advisor, stated that it would “literally destroy the economy.” Republican Senator John Barrasso suggested that the Green New Deal would result in the banning of cows, who burp methane, a greenhouse gas, and therefore the end of ice cream. The House Republican Conference and U.S. Chamber of Commerce dismissed it as a “Trojan horse for socialism.”The European Green Deal is also more concrete. The EU Commission unveiled on Wednesday a roadmap of specific legislative proposals divided by sector, measurable policy goals with due to be agreed interim benchmarks, and fixed dates. On the other hand, there are few numbers and details to be seen in any version of the Green New Deal advocated by U.S. Democratic hopefuls, other than public spending pledges.Europe’s step-by-step and sector by sector approach has already delivered real wins. The world’s biggest multilateral financial institution, owned by EU governments, has announced it will end funding for fossil fuel energy projects and its intention to mobilize a trillion euros ($1.1 trillion) over the next decade to finance the bloc’s transition to a low-carbon economy.To minimize risks for a pushback from skeptics, the EU’s Green Deal is also more flexible. While its U.S. counterpart aims 100% electricity production from renewables by 2030 — a target criticized by many as unrealistic — the EU lets its member states choose their energy mix, including zero-emitting nuclear power.The benefits of flexibility may end up outweighing any costs in terms of ambition and speed. Through a series of incentives and deterrents, such as the world’s biggest cap-and-trade program for polluters and progressively stricter limits on emissions from transport, the EU is effectively pushing its industries and companies toward ever cleaner technologies.Another way the European climate push differs is by successfully engaging the private sector. The continent’s biggest business leaders threw their weight behind a plan to make the bloc climate neutral, on the condition that appropriate safeguards “to avoid carbon and investment leakage and guarantee a global level playing field for competition,” are adopted. The EU is already considering such measures, including adjusting restrictions on state aid for companies, changing public procurement rules and penalizing imports from countries with looser emissions controls.In a sign of such private-sector support, earlier this month Spain’s Repsol SA became the first oil major to align itself with the Paris climate goals, saying it will eliminate all greenhouse gas emissions from its own operations and its customers by 2050.  Luxembourg-based ArcelorMittal — the world’s largest steel-maker — announced on Friday that it set a target to reduce emissions by 30% by 2030 to contribute to the Green Deal.To be sure, the European Green Deal is facing its own headwinds. Leading airlines attacked plans to impose a region-wide kerosene tax as part of a sweeping new environmental strategy, saying investment in sustainable fuels and electric planes would be more effective in reducing carbon emissions. More is still to come. While the European Commission will draft all the rules to bring the bloc’s Green Deal to life, they will require the support of EU governments and the bloc’s assembly. Expect every word and comma to be analyzed by national governments, parliamentarians, companies, industry lobbies and environmental activists. But rallying more than two dozen governments behind a shared goal to eliminate emissions and initiating the process of legislative proposals is something to start with. That’s the way the EU does things — one small, tedious, win at a time. \--With assistance from Jonathan Stearns and Ewa Krukowska.To contact the authors of this story: Nikos Chrysoloras in Brussels at nchrysoloras@bloomberg.netLeslie Kaufman in New York at lkaufman27@bloomberg.netTo contact the editor responsible for this story: Aaron Rutkoff at arutkoff@bloomberg.net, Ben SillsFor more articles like this, please visit us at bloomberg.com©2019 Bloomberg L.P.

from Yahoo News - Latest News & Headlines https://ift.tt/2PkaqLS

[sweatygardencollectorblr]

(Bloomberg) -- When it comes to Green Deals, Europe has a lesson or two for liberal politicians in the U.S. trying to engineer far-reaching policies to address climate change.An American lawmaker, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, may have done more than anyone else to popularize the concept of a sweeping “green deal” to shift away from fossil fuels. But now the European Union is much closer to translating the goal into concrete policies that have a decent chance of actually being implemented.Both the U.S. Green New Deal resolution and the European Green Deal, which was unveiled this week by the EU’s executive arm, share the same targets: limiting global temperature increase to 1.5 degrees Celsius compared to pre-industrial levels, in line with the landmark Paris climate accord. To meet this objective, backers of the plans in the EU and the U.S. aim to eliminate emissions by 2050 at the latest. Both plans trace their lineage explicitly to the New Deal of the 1930s, a series of social programs, public work projects and financial reforms championed by U.S. President Franklin D. Roosevelt as a way to counteract the Great Depression. The Green Deals may have identical goals and nearly matching branding, but the policies are oceans apart when it comes to the means of delivery.The European version is strictly focused on climate, and those policy areas which can affect it, such an industry, energy and public procurement. The U.S. Green New Deal — as it is laid out in the Ocasio-Cortez-sponsored resolution and the policy programs of Democratic presidential hopefuls such as Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren — is tied to a series of contentious issues unrelated to climate, from health care coverage to employment.Europe’s narrow focus helped the plan gain the backing of conservative, centrist and center-left governments across the 28 nation-bloc, while the sweeping U.S. manifestos have little chance of garnering across-the-aisle support from legislators. Even ultra-conservative European governments, such as Poland’s, which resisted committing themselves to Green Deal goals, didn’t object to the bloc striving to meet the objective. Across the Atlantic, even modest efforts to curb climate change have been met with hostility by conservatives in the U.S. Congress, so reaction to the resolution was bound to split along political fault lines from the start. However, the Green New Deal’s very broad ambition has made it a favorite target of Republicans, who have tried to cast it as an illustration of how their liberal opponents are both dangerous and laughably unrealistic.Larry Kudlow, Trump’s chief economic advisor, stated that it would “literally destroy the economy.” Republican Senator John Barrasso suggested that the Green New Deal would result in the banning of cows, who burp methane, a greenhouse gas, and therefore the end of ice cream. The House Republican Conference and U.S. Chamber of Commerce dismissed it as a “Trojan horse for socialism.”The European Green Deal is also more concrete. The EU Commission unveiled on Wednesday a roadmap of specific legislative proposals divided by sector, measurable policy goals with due to be agreed interim benchmarks, and fixed dates. On the other hand, there are few numbers and details to be seen in any version of the Green New Deal advocated by U.S. Democratic hopefuls, other than public spending pledges.Europe’s step-by-step and sector by sector approach has already delivered real wins. The world’s biggest multilateral financial institution, owned by EU governments, has announced it will end funding for fossil fuel energy projects and its intention to mobilize a trillion euros ($1.1 trillion) over the next decade to finance the bloc’s transition to a low-carbon economy.To minimize risks for a pushback from skeptics, the EU’s Green Deal is also more flexible. While its U.S. counterpart aims 100% electricity production from renewables by 2030 — a target criticized by many as unrealistic — the EU lets its member states choose their energy mix, including zero-emitting nuclear power.The benefits of flexibility may end up outweighing any costs in terms of ambition and speed. Through a series of incentives and deterrents, such as the world’s biggest cap-and-trade program for polluters and progressively stricter limits on emissions from transport, the EU is effectively pushing its industries and companies toward ever cleaner technologies.Another way the European climate push differs is by successfully engaging the private sector. The continent’s biggest business leaders threw their weight behind a plan to make the bloc climate neutral, on the condition that appropriate safeguards “to avoid carbon and investment leakage and guarantee a global level playing field for competition,” are adopted. The EU is already considering such measures, including adjusting restrictions on state aid for companies, changing public procurement rules and penalizing imports from countries with looser emissions controls.In a sign of such private-sector support, earlier this month Spain’s Repsol SA became the first oil major to align itself with the Paris climate goals, saying it will eliminate all greenhouse gas emissions from its own operations and its customers by 2050.  Luxembourg-based ArcelorMittal — the world’s largest steel-maker — announced on Friday that it set a target to reduce emissions by 30% by 2030 to contribute to the Green Deal.To be sure, the European Green Deal is facing its own headwinds. Leading airlines attacked plans to impose a region-wide kerosene tax as part of a sweeping new environmental strategy, saying investment in sustainable fuels and electric planes would be more effective in reducing carbon emissions. More is still to come. While the European Commission will draft all the rules to bring the bloc’s Green Deal to life, they will require the support of EU governments and the bloc’s assembly. Expect every word and comma to be analyzed by national governments, parliamentarians, companies, industry lobbies and environmental activists. But rallying more than two dozen governments behind a shared goal to eliminate emissions and initiating the process of legislative proposals is something to start with. That’s the way the EU does things — one small, tedious, win at a time. \--With assistance from Jonathan Stearns and Ewa Krukowska.To contact the authors of this story: Nikos Chrysoloras in Brussels at nchrysoloras@bloomberg.netLeslie Kaufman in New York at lkaufman27@bloomberg.netTo contact the editor responsible for this story: Aaron Rutkoff at arutkoff@bloomberg.net, Ben SillsFor more articles like this, please visit us at bloomberg.com©2019 Bloomberg L.P.

from Yahoo News - Latest News & Headlines https://ift.tt/2PkaqLS