On the announcement that the Clean Energy Jobs (CEJ) bill cleared a key Senate committee last week, Friends of the Earth complained:

The bill’s backbone is a poorly regulated carbon trading scheme that entrusts the Wall Street bankers who brought us the current economic crisis with the responsibility to solve global warming.

Sheesh.

Of course, this isn’t true. It’s not even sort of true. It’s just an attempt to torpedo a bill by sowing confusion about an important and sensitive issue. (There are some legitimate critiques of the bill -- and Friends of the Earth (FoE) makes some of them -- but this one is a red herring.) You can rest assured that if CEJ passes, it will not be administered by Bernie Madoff.

At heart, the argument is not about CEJ, and it’s not really even about cap-and-trade. It’s about a basic mistrust of market economics. And it has very high stakes: it’s rhetoric that could sabotage a real chance of putting a legal limit on greenhouse gas emissions.

This kind of critique isn’t a first for FoE. In fact, in March 2009, it authored a surprisingly influential and widely cited critique of carbon trading: a 13-page policy paper called “Subprime Carbon: Rethinking the World’s Largest New Derivatives Market” (summary here). The paper does make a few sound points along the way, but it substantially over-reaches in its conclusions. What’s worse, however, is that the paper is dressed up to appear to be a critique of cap-and-trade, but in fact the substance of the attack really applies only to offset programs -- and then only in a debatable and hypothetical way.

In a nutshell, the argument spins out a doomsday scenario in which bad offsets replay the housing bubble, muck up the financial sector, and destroy the global economy. More specifically, the argument goes like this: FoE worries that financial firms would intermediate in providing carbon offsets by purchasing offsets and offset derivatives (especially futures), some of which could be of questionable value. Firms might then repackage and securitize the offset products, much as happened with mortgage-backed securities, selling them to various kinds of investors and ultimately, perhaps, to the firms regulated under the carbon cap. If it turns out that large numbers of offset projects go bad (meaning that they cannot be certified as legitimate offsets because they do not sufficiently reduce carbon), then the offset-backed securities could be worth less than they were believed to be. And if the carbon derivatives market is sufficiently gigantic (as FoE believes it will be), the reduction in value of carbon derivatives might lead to a worldwide financial collapse mimicking the recent asset bubble collapse in 2008.

As you can see, there are several strands of arguments and it takes a moment to untangle them. Let’s dig in.

Offsets -- and problems with offsets -- are not unique to cap-and-trade

Before we wade in, let’s get something straight: offsets are not unique to cap-and-trade programs. A carbon tax program -- a real one, I mean, that has a legitimate chance of passing Congress -- would almost certainly include offsets, allowing polluting firms to purchase offsets rather than pay the tax. Similarly, straight-up regulatory policies can also include offsets, just as voluntary carbon-reduction schemes do now, by allowing polluters to acquire offsets instead of reducing emissions. In other words, risky offsets are not just a problem for cap-and-trade but for any carbon-reduction policy. And because offsets are not unique to cap-and-trade, it follows that the arguments in “Subprime Carbon” -- the risk of bad offsets screwing up the financial sector -- is a worry for any realistic carbon policy. Simply put: the concern about so-called “subprime carbon” is no grounds for objecting to cap-and-trade per se.

But of course, FoE isn’t objecting to a generic version of cap-and-trade, but to a specific bill, the CEJ, which does allow a large number of offsets. So maybe the first thing we need to figure out is whether the program’s offsets are likely to go bad.

Will offsets go off?

I’m not about to wade into the whole hairy debate about offsets here, except to say that I think FoE is rightly skeptical about the integrity of offset projects, at least as they’ve been conceived so far. Poor quality offsets are, in my judgment, the number one risk to the environmental integrity of U.S. climate policy. And I worry that because the major cap-and-trade bills allow large numbers of offsets, they could create demand-side pressure for offset providers to produce a lot of offsets, which could in turn reduce the quality of the offsets in circulation.

But let’s be clear, this is a worry about the environmental integrity of the program, not about its potential to single-handedly destroy the world economy.

(Quickly, however, there are some practical solutions to the offset problem. CEJ, for example, goes a long way toward restricting them, devoting literally hundreds of pages to offset provisions and oversight. Regardless, any offset-allowing legislation will require ongoing regulatory vigilance by both government agencies and independent auditors. And since there will always be some degree of uncertainty inherent in offsets, it’s smart to “discount” them -- stipulating that, say, five offset credits are equal to four carbon credits -- which is exactly what CEJ proposes to protect the program’s environmental integrity.)

Bad offsets -- even if they do happen, which is debatable -- would not, of course, necessarily lead to financial catastrophe. So what’s the risk? This is where FoE’s arguments start getting slippery.

Might bad offsets threaten the economy?

FoE postulates that the sheer size of a market in carbon and derivatives will be so huge as to pose an existential threat to the global economy. Then, the argument goes, large-scale market manipulation by bad actors could have severe consequences.

You could argue about the scale of the markets created by carbon policy. (I think FoE is blowing it way out of proportion, but what do I know?) Nonetheless, offsets -- and potential offset derivatives and other carbon market products -- are going to need regulation, plain and simple. It’s just like with housing. The correct policy response to the housing bubble is not to simply outlaw mortgages, or even the trading in derivatives based on mortgages, but to provide regulations that improve transparency and protect the public interest. The same pragmatic regulatory approach should go for carbon.

Fortunately, FoE isn’t the only one to notice this. The major cap-and-trade bills advanced in Congress actually do include stringent market oversight provisions. (In a later post for this series, I’ll go into more detail about the provisions in CEJ.) One good regulatory approach is the Carbon Market Oversight Act, which will reportedly get rolled into CEJ. Another solution, which FoE notes, is the Derivatives Market Transparency and Accountability Act, which passed the House agricultural committee and would require carbon to be regulated as an ordinary commodity -- a potentially smart idea and one that is supported by the chair of the Commodity Futures Trading Commission.

Just as the financial markets need regulation, so will any carbon or carbon-derivatives market. Everyone agrees about this. It’s simply not a controversial subject. That’s why important regulation is included -- and more is soon to be added -- to the Clean Energy Jobs Act. Toward that end, FoE may make a positive contribution. They have recently promoted some constructive ideas in a joint letter with industrial polluters and in a follow-up paper on carbon market regulation.

Climate policy in a market economy

I don’t want to minimize concerns about market manipulation. There’s no way to be certain that we won’t see another harmful bubble in western capital markets. (To the contrary, history strongly suggests that bubbles are an engrained feature; see The Devil Take the Hindmost by Edward Chancellor for a good survey.) Yet there are few who would seriously consider banning trading in stocks, bonds, or the numerous derivatives products that populate the financial landscape because we generally believe that the advantages of markets outweigh their risks. It’s the same for commodities: there’s no movement afoot to ban trading in oil or pork bellies -- and rightly so. Fundamentally, carbon need not be any different. There is good reason to believe that regulation and careful oversight can substantially reduce, even if never entirely eliminate, the risk of sinister financial activity.

And that’s just the point. These concerns aren’t really about cap-and-trade. They’re not even really about the Clean Energy Jobs Act. They’re about finance and markets and capitalism. It’s worrisome stuff, no doubt, but it’s hard to see why this albatross should be hung around the neck of a serious carbon bill with a serious chance of becoming law. As Paul Krugman has argued, hysteria about carbon speculation is “not a case of the perfect being the enemy of the good, it’s a case of the perfect being an enemy of the planet.”

This post originally appeared at Sightline's Daily Score blog.

Related Links:

What to make of the new climate poll

Fair, Ambitious & Binding: Essentials for a Successful Climate Deal

Carol Browner strongly backs bipartisan cap-and-trade bill

A new report, "Forging the Climate Consensus: Domestic and International Offsets" makes clear exactly how important a role high-quality offsets play in maintaining the integrity of climate legislation -- and how they could allow an international climate agreement to achieve far stronger emissions reductions targets than would otherwise be possible.

The report was issued by the National Commission on Energy Policy, which represents major corporations, NGO's, and labor unions (and whose executive director is Jason Grumet, Obama's top energy advisor during the campaign, so it should be taken at least somewhat seriously as the type of thinking being seriously considered in the White House and on Capitol Hill). It includes strong support for offsets, but questions if the verification requirements in the legislation are too tough to allow offsets to be brought to market in sufficient quantity to deliver major cost savings for climate legislation, especially in the first years.

If the bill's restrictions on use of offsets are so severe as to prevent them from being developed, their cost containment value would be reduced and the cost of climate legislation would be higher. That's of concern to the members of the commission, many of whom represent utilities and other interests that are, to a great extent, focused on keeping the cost of climate legislation down (a concern shared by many senators whose votes we'll need to pass climate legislation).

As a result, the commission recommends adopting alternate cost-containment measures like a price collar or an allowance auction reserve to hold prices down.

That's a huge problem. Unlike offsets, which, when done right, deliver emissions reductions by financing affordable (and important) activities like forest conservation and reforestation, price collars let polluters off the hook whenever the price of carbon rises above a certain level -- a dangerous policy, given that we can't be 100 percent sure what the price of carbon will be at any given time. An allowance auction reserve works in a similar way -- the government just releases more pollution permits whenever the price rises. Unlike offsets, which deliver affordability through pollution reductions, these mechanisms deliver affordability but no emissions reductions.

That's a fundamental calculus that offset critics just don't seem to get: if you remove offsets from legislation or an international climate agreement and you have to find cost control mechanisms somewhere else -- or just lower the targets. And that doesn't do any good for the planet or its people.

It was a perspective certainly missing from two anti-offsets broadsides issued this week by opponents of climate legislation: the "Dangerous Distraction" report by Friends of the Earth and a Greenpeace website mocking their use.

Of course, it's essential that offsets actually deliver reductions in pollution. FOE and Greenpeace recycle decades-old claims to imply that many offsets are less than credible.

But these are not your daddy's offsets. There have been tremendous advances to ensure that offsets, especially forest-based offsets, deliver the reductions they promise. Consider the offsets in the American Clean Energy and Security Act passed by the House of Representatives.

In addition to establishing a rigorous scientific board to evaluate any proposed offsets, the bill also includes an essential requirement: in order for any offsets to receive credit, they must have already taken place. In other words, you can't get credit for a plan to offset emissions, but only for verified emission reductions that have already occurred.

In addition, there are a variety of very strict requirements to ensure, for instance, that indigenous and forest-dependent people benefit from tropical forest conservation offsets (indeed, if a country doesn't meet the bill's standards for protection of indigenous people, they could be entirely shut out of the program) and that domestic reforestation activities use only native species and protect biodiversity.

Protection of indigenous people is an especially important issue. Deforestation has brought disease, terror, and displacement to indigenous communities around the world. In the Amazon alone, more than 90 indigenous tribes have been wiped out since 1900. These forests are being destroyed because they're not valued for the immense quantity of carbon they store.  To unscrupulous agribusiness and timber interests, their only value is as plantation land. In other words, they're worth more dead than alive.  And to some corporations, the same goes for the communities who live in them. Offset critics sometimes forget that the greatest threat to forest-dependent indigenous people is the destruction of forests, not their conservation. The simple fact that forest offset critics sometimes forget is that the greatest threat to the indigenous people of the forests is their destruction, not their conservation. It's for this reason that rainforest nations have been the leaders in calling for inclusion of incentives to protect forests in climate legislation.

But it's not just Greenpeace and Friends of the Earth who underestimate offsets' potential. I think those who are skeptical about how many will be eligible to be brought to market may underestimate the ability of even the poorest nations to develop, for instance, robust national plans and baselines to monitor the effects of deforesttation and conservation. With the possibility of big development resources on the table, they may be spurred to action faster than anyone realizes. Indeed, Brazilian states, in particular, have shown tremendous capacity to ramp up to monitor and attract forest conservation projects.

Of course, I don't want to pretend that all offsets are good. A variety of polluting industries have in the past successfully lobbied for crediting of their dubious activities. Friends of the Earth is absolutely right to point out the absurdity of providing carbon credit to, for instance, big dams, as has been done under the Clean Development Mechanism. Even if one accepts their carbon reductions, the damage they do to rivers and local communities is enormous. These dams should be removed, not subsidized (tell that to the World Bank, which has drastically increased their subsidies for dams).

For instance, there are real worries that the standards behind the domestic agricultural and biomass offsets are way too weak -- meaning that they could undermine a lot of the good work the legislation does to protect forests (see this post for more).

I think there's a fairly easy way to tell which kinds of offsets we should be suspicious of and which we shouldn't: look at what those backing certain kinds of offsets are saying: in general, those willing to embrace rigorous scientific and social standards can be trusted more than those who are lobbying for weaker standards, such as the Big Ag lobby. I wish offset critics were able to see the difference between crediting activities to save forests and giant environmentally destructive hydropower projects or unsustainable biofuels cultivation. Their legitimate criticisms might be listened to more seriously if they didn't try to demonize, for instance, saving endangered forests as well.

This is especially true when it comes to tropical forests. Critics successfully fought to keep tropical forest offsets out of the Kyoto Protocol. The world has suffered the consequences since then. Because of this giant mistake, more than 300 million acres of forest have gone up in smoke in the last ten years, producing an amount of global warming pollution equivalent to ten times the United States' annual emissions. That mistake has not only polluted the climate, it's also made extinct an untold number of species and allowed genocide and murder to be perpetrated against indigenous peoples throughout the tropical forest belt. It's time to come up with solutions to the deforestation crisis, not just dump on one of the key mechanisms that could provide ammo to solve it. 

A final point: the use of offsets shouldn't be conceived of as some kind of necessary concession.  They should be used in any climate legislation (or international agreement), no matter how strong, to make it even stronger by getting bigger pollution reductions for the same economic and political cost.

Related Links:

Environmental education in Guinea Bissau

Winning the clean energy race: a new strategy for American leadership

Greenpeace calls on world leaders to stop rainforest destruction

Related Links:

What to make of the new climate poll

Carol Browner strongly backs bipartisan cap-and-trade bill

Hot planet to Obama: What’s your Plan B?

Related Links:

‘Subprime carbon’: Risk or hype?

Corn-based meat and ethanol: burning the planet to a crisp

Fixing the bioenergy accounting loophole

Related Links:

What Do Coal and Dirty Dorm Rooms Have in Common?

Toward a medically defensible energy policy

Top 25 reasons to give a damn about climate change

Related Links:

John McCain’s troubles are the world’s troubles

George Voinovich (R-Ohio) [UPDATED]

Al Franken (D-Minn.)

Related Links:

What Do Coal and Dirty Dorm Rooms Have in Common?

Toward a medically defensible energy policy

John McCain’s troubles are the world’s troubles

Related Links:

For McCain, it’s really all about the fake snow

John McCain’s troubles are the world’s troubles

Two senators push to ramp up nuclear energy

It wasn't all in your imagination: Private security company Beckett Brown International spied on Greenpeace, Friends of the Earth, and other big environmental organizations in the late 1990s through at least 2000, according to documents obtained by Mother Jones. To produce intelligence reports for PR firms and corporations involved in environmental kerfuffles with green groups, BBI operatives snooped through garbage, cased offices, collected phone records, and tried to infiltrate groups with spies. Records show that operatives managed to attend confidential meetings and gain access to confidential internal records including donor lists, financial statements, security-system instructions, and staff members' Social Security numbers. Says an ex-CIA operative who worked for BBI, "I have worked for a number of security companies. Some are ethical, some are not. Beckett Brown was not especially so."

Related Links:

Obama headed to Copenhagen, sets the bar for success

Obama going to Copenhagen

‘Copenhagen Diagnosis’ offers a grim update to the IPCC’s climate science

Related Links:

‘Copenhagen Diagnosis’ offers a grim update to the IPCC’s climate science

John McCain’s troubles are the world’s troubles

Make the kids pay: The economic effects of climate change on future generations

Related Links:

‘Copenhagen Diagnosis’ offers a grim update to the IPCC’s climate science

Capturing the massive social benefits of fuel efficiency requires regulation

Make the kids pay: The economic effects of climate change on future generations

Hoping to quell criticism from biofuel bashers, palm-oil producers have drawn up criteria for certifying their product as sustainable. It's a nice idea, but green group Friends of the Earth has threatened to withdraw its support of the standards, saying that Malaysia and Indonesia -- which together produce nearly 85 percent of the world's palm oil -- are using the voluntary initiative as an excuse to keep from legislating against rainforest-pillaging palm plantations.

Related Links:

Obama headed to Copenhagen, sets the bar for success

Obama going to Copenhagen

‘Copenhagen Diagnosis’ offers a grim update to the IPCC’s climate science

In the wake of the catastrophic oil spill in San Francisco Bay, green group Friends of the Earth has started a petition drive urging Congress to ban the use of bunker fuel, which is gooey, chock full o' toxins, and slow to break down. The fuel, a byproduct of oil refining, is favored by the shipping industry because it's cheap; it's also "the dirtiest fuel on the planet," says aptly named activist Teri Shore. In other catastrophic oil spill updates, the one in Russia may end up killing some 30,000 birds and countless fish.

Related Links:

Obama headed to Copenhagen, sets the bar for success

Obama going to Copenhagen

‘Copenhagen Diagnosis’ offers a grim update to the IPCC’s climate science

Unapproved GM rice from China pops up in European stores

A variety of genetically modified rice from China has made it into Asian specialty stores and Asian restaurants in the E.U. -- and the Europeans ain't too happy about it. A new report from Greenpeace and Friends of the Earth claims that some rice noodles imported into France, Germany, and Britain contain a strain of GM rice which is not approved for human consumption in the E.U. -- or in China, for that matter. Activists worry that Cry1Ac, the appropriately named compound present in the Chinese GM rice, could cause allergic reactions, though there have been no reports yet of anaphylactic events. For its part, China denies that its GM rice could have reached European markets. Just a week ago, Europe tightened requirements on imports of U.S. long-grain rice because of possible GM contamination. "This latest illegal GM contamination scandal shows that the biotech industry cannot be trusted. How many more foods around the world have been contaminated by unlicensed GM crops?" asked Clare Oxborrow of Friends of the Earth.

Related Links:

Obama headed to Copenhagen, sets the bar for success

Obama going to Copenhagen

‘Copenhagen Diagnosis’ offers a grim update to the IPCC’s climate science

Eric Pallant is a professor of environmental science at Allegheny College in Meadville, Pa., and codirector of the NATO Advanced Study Institute on Integrated Water Resources Management.

Monday, 13 Feb 2006

Kibbutz Ketura, Israel

A Moldovan, two Bulgarians, and three Canadians walk into the desert. It's like the start of a bad joke, but this is a specific desert -- an extreme one, according to local hydrologists. The Arava, in the southern Negev of Israel, is one of the driest deserts in the world, with an average amount of annual precipitation that would barely breach the soles on a pair of sandals.

The Moldovan, Bulgarians, and Canadians are in the company of 41 colleagues, who have come from 14 countries and the Palestinian Authority for a 10-day institute on water resources management. The event is sponsored by NATO, which understands that a future conflict in the Middle East -- heck, in many places on the planet -- could arise over natural resources. And water is the most embattled liquid, after oil.

I organized this institute with Clive Lipchin of the Arava Institute for Environmental Studies. The organization is a liberal survivor of the 1990s, when peace between Israel and its neighbors seemed imminent and environment and peace groups sprouted like spring flowers. Arava is located on Kibbutz Ketura, a small communal village generating income from growing voluptuous medjool dates, farming fish in cages floating in the Red Sea about 35 miles from here, and raising cows that produce the best chocolate milk in Israel. On many mornings, before the desert winds flow down the Syrio-African rift valley, the aroma of desiccating cow manure blankets the kibbutz.

To kick things off, NATO sent its program director for Scientific and Environmental Affairs, Professor F. Carvalho Rodrigues, to explain why an organization formed during the Cold War to protect Europe from the Warsaw Pact had become a funder of a conference in Israel on water use in the Middle East. Carvalho, built like Luciano Pavarotti, sported a black suit and floral bowtie beneath a coal-black beard. He said the challenges to NATO's core countries and partners (there are 56 nations now) "have been transformed from national security to broadly defined social security." NATO now worries about failures in transportation, energy, communications, and what Carvalho calls "life support systems": water, air, soil, and climate.

Immediately after Carvalho sat down, we heard "good news and bad news" from David Brooks, a Canadian septuagenarian who is the closest thing to a globally recognized, impartial expert on Middle Eastern water. Brooks said the good news is that water wars aren't imminent, thanks to reasonably good cooperation among erstwhile enemies. The bad news is that water scarcity is pronounced, and getting worse. The overwhelming majority of surface water in the region is polluted, mostly by raw sewage. Inappropriate disposal of industrial and chemical waste is widespread. Farmers receive water for irrigation at absurdly subsidized prices, and groundwater is being extracted at unsustainable rates.

Brooks predicted that as Middle Eastern populations continue to expand, water shortages would be felt first in food production, nearly all of which depends on irrigation. There wouldn't be a shortage of drinking water; humans can survive on mere gallons per day. In fact, the average Palestinian consumes just 15 gallons a day -- half as much as a Jordanian, a fifth as much as an Israeli, and about one-twentieth as much as a Californian.

We got a hint of things to come when Dr. Samir Hijazin, from the Jordanian Ministry of Water and Irrigation, asked, "How can Israel grow vegetables [and raise cows] in the middle of the desert, when Jordanians and Palestinians have to wait for sporadic water deliveries during the middle of the summer?" To paraphrase David Brooks, water shouldn't be a cause for war in the Middle East -- but it could become an excuse.

Tapped Out

Tuesday, 14 Feb 2006

Kibbutz Ketura, Israel

Nader El Khatib is the Palestinian director of Friends of the Earth Middle East. During most of the year, he meets with his Israeli and Jordanian counterparts to promote environmental protection of the region. During the summer, however, he is a dictator.

Nader lives with his two brothers in a house on the West Bank. There are 35 water tanks on the roof, but inside there is no running water. Speaking softly, he told the participants at this week's NATO institute, "I become a dictator in my family during the summer, when no rain falls for six or seven months. I am constantly checking that no one in the household is wasting water."

Nader El Khatib.

Photo: Eric Pallant.

In Amman, Jordan, there are water shortages, but at least there is a schedule: water comes every Wednesday. "But in Palestine," continued Nader, "it could be weeks or months, because Israel controls water allocations to Palestinians on the West Bank. When we were under curfew for 40 days in Bethlehem [during the worst of the intifada], we were constantly worried about water supplies." The only predictable increase in water provisions on the West Bank comes on Saturday, when religious Jews observe the Sabbath in their West Bank settlement communities and do no work.

To Nader and his fellow citizens, this is the reality of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. During the peaceful 1990s, Palestinian children were out in the street handing olive branches to Israeli soldiers. After seeing their hopes for an independent Palestine dashed, Nader says it is very hard to tell kids to conserve. "They tell me to get lost, because they do not have enough water to use."

Nader once participated in a study of water supply to Palestinian cities on the West Bank. In 1997 in Hebron, a city of approximately 110,000, he found most people got water from the piped system only once a week from May to October. This was only enough for 27 liters per day -- a little more than six gallons. Picture that many Coke bottles, and imagine using just that amount for cooking, cleaning, washing, and toilet activities. "People have to buy water from suppliers, tanker trucks, and this is an economic burden," Nader says.

Evgeni Levner, a gray-haired Israeli scientist from the Holon Academic Institute of Technology, listened to Nader's stories with quiet intensity before finally speaking up. "First of all, I want to say that I never knew any of what Nader just told us. I also want to say that I don't think we should generalize, we should not create an image of a monster of Israel, nor should we aim to praise it. We should do our very best to find a solution."

Susana Neto, an urban and regional planner from the Technical University of Lisbon, could not believe Israelis were unaware of Palestinian water shortages. Other Israeli participants confirmed Evgeni's observation. Israelis don't know how hard it is. The same can be said for most residents of the developed world.

The participants produced one example of "consciousness raising" from Jordan. A few months ago, there was a campaign in Jordan called "Right to Water." It was designed to raise awareness among the privileged part of the country's population about scarcity and lack of water experienced by its poor residents. Participants wondered why there couldn't be something similar throughout the Middle East.

Jonathon Chenowith from the Center for Environmental Strategy, University of Surrey, England, put his finger on the problem of conferences like these. "The thing is, we are sitting in a small room in a small kibbutz in the middle of the Arava Desert. How can we get the message out beyond our bubble to the rest of the world?"

Now you know.

Dead on Arrival

Wednesday, 15 Feb 2006

Dead Sea, Israel

The public beach on the Dead Sea is filled with gleeful voices: Russian, Italian, Portuguese, Arabic, Turkish, heavily accented English, German, and Armenian. Chris Bowser, a graduate student from Poughkeepsie, N.Y., laughs as he paddles on his back, his feet in the air, his head, shoulders, and half his chest well above the surface.

Frolickers like us can still walk to the public beach, but the walk has gotten longer every year. And reaching the fancy beach at the Ein Gedi Spa now requires a mile tram ride. The snake-like road from spa to beach must be extended annually in order to reach the edge of the Dead -- a shrinking body of water that has lost about one-third of its surface area over time.

Dead Sea salt.

Photos: Eric Pallant.

The famed sea is actually a terminal lake. Water flows into this, the lowest point on the earth's surface, from the River Jordan. Its only way out is evaporation. But the last time any fresh water from the Jordan reached this point was in 2005.

As Gidon Bromberg, Israeli director of Friends of the Earth Middle East, puts it, the one-meter-per-year drop in the level of the lake is the best example of international cooperation in the Middle East: "Syria, Israel, Lebanon, and Jordan have all worked together to drain it."

The Jordan River flows through the Sea of Galilee on its way to the Dead Sea in a nearly straight line from north to south, along the border between Jordan and Israel. North of the Galilee, its tributaries in Syria and Lebanon are dammed. Farther downstream, it is piped to farms in southern Israel. Water is extracted from the Sea of Galilee to supply Israel and Jordan. By the time the river exits the Sea of Galilee to continue south, it consists of brackish water and sewage.

To compound matters, an enormous industrial complex at the southern end of the Dead Sea -- known as the Arab Potash Company in Jordan and the Dead Sea Works in Israel -- has established evaporation ponds to extract commercially important salts. The factories produce magnesium, bromide, potash, and phosphorus fertilizers for export. Through evaporation, the two companies are responsible for approximately 30 percent of the Dead Sea's demise.

In the last decade, 800 sinkholes have opened on the Israeli side of the lake. The holes have absorbed highways, bridges, and date orchards. When rainwater or fresh springwater washes away salts in the soil, craters 30 feet deep and wide enough to swallow a bus open without warning.

Sinkholes forming on the former lake bottom.

Eduard Interweis, a German ecologist at the Institute for International and European Policy, said it best -- while standing next to a sinkhole the size of a condo. "How can I make it clear to my mother? She goes to the store to buy peppers. They come from Israel. Those peppers contain water that once flowed into the Dead Sea and fertilizers manufactured by the Dead Sea Works. How do I explain to her that the salad she prepares for me is killing the Dead Sea?"

The water exported in those vegetables could have been used to support people in Jordan, foster agricultural development in Palestine, preserve endangered riparian species in the Jordan River Valley, or prevent the Dead Sea from drying up.

The Dead Sea won't disappear. Springs on its floor supply some water that can't be tapped by surrounding countries. Furthermore, as the lake shrinks, salt concentrations will get so high the rate of evaporation will eventually decline. Nevertheless, in just a few decades, one of the world's most unique resources -- a lake known for millennia for its ability to buoy bodies and spirits -- will become a tiny, painfully salty, human-made puddle.

A Sight for Besor Eyes

Thursday, 16 Feb 2006

Kibbutz Ketura, Israel

The Besor River is just like the 14 other streams that begin in the mountains of the West Bank and flow west toward the Mediterranean Sea across the border between the Palestinian territory and Israel. Like the other streams, the Besor is utterly polluted.

The Besor looking sickly.

Photo: Lior Assaf

Raw sewage from 200,000 people in the Palestinian city of Hebron and the Jewish settlement of Kiryat Arba is dumped into the Besor. At its start, the stream is a milky white slurry, but 60 percent of this sewage will seep into the ground before the stream reaches the sea. On its 70 mile trip, the Besor picks up sewage from the Israeli industrial city of Dimona, turns velvety brown, collects agricultural chemicals from Israeli farms in the northern Negev, gathers solid waste, leaves Israeli territory for the Gaza Strip, and finally empties into the Mediterranean. The Besor is the largest watershed in Israel. In Gaza, it is the only flowing water.

Lior Assaf, an Israeli staff hydrologist at the Arava Institute for Environmental Studies, is part of a team of Palestinians and Israelis working together to model the hydrology and chemistry of the Besor. As happens at meetings like these, he presented a PowerPoint profile of the stream: "Biological Oxygen Demand," "Index of Biological Integrity," "Nitrate Concentrations," and so on. Every measure indicates the stream is deadly. Lior summed up his presentation in Israeli-accented English. "If it smells like sewage and it looks like sewage, then guess what: it's sewage."

When he finished his presentation he was attacked. Jordanians, Canadians, and Europeans felt certain he was laying the blame inside the bathrooms of Palestinians for dumping their sewage into the Besor's headwaters. First, Lior insisted he was only presenting data; the city of Hebron was simply the first to dump its waste. Second, he tried to remind the countries of NATO that Israel also added chemical, agricultural, and human waste. He could not assuage the audience. In the Middle East, even feces (this is a polite publication) is political.

A troubled river helps bring people together.

Photo: Lior Assaf.

Nevertheless, hidden in Lior's message is a news story bubbling below the line of sight of the world's television cameras: Palestinian and Israeli scientists are working together. While their leaders hurl vitriol at one another and their armed forces launch missiles, people who care about the environment have steadfastly continued to call, email, and meet.

The Besor River study is not the only cooperative venture in the region to cross borders. The last formal talk of our NATO Advanced Study Institute was delivered by David Lehrer, director of the Arava Institute for Environmental Studies and host for the meeting. David said the goal of the Arava Institute is to bring Jewish and Arab citizens together to protect the environment, "because nature knows no boundaries."

In one example, college-level students attending the Arava Institute will prepare curricula on transboundary environmental issues during the upcoming semester. They will discuss the religion of birds in high-school classrooms in Eilat, Israel, and Aqaba, Jordan.

The cities of Aqaba and Eilat, which sit side by side on the Red Sea, separated only by the Israeli/Jordanian border, present the first food and rest for nearly a billion migrating birds a year, making it the busiest flyway in the world. The high-school students will be asked to decide whether squacco herons, white storks, little crakes, or tawny pipits choose Judaism or Islam before selecting which side of the border to land on, or whether the quality of the habitat and resources are more important. It proves David's point. Migrating birds know no boundaries and only cooperative efforts between Jordanians and Israelis will ensure that open space is protected from developers.

There are dozens of cooperative environmental projects in the Middle East, each one rather tiny in the grand scheme of Middle Eastern politics. What they have in common is recognition that everyone here depends on the same dwindling aquifers and breathes the same polluted air. The Middle East is a densely populated, small, dry place, but seen from a bird's eye view, environmentalists are defying politicians, building bridges across religious, ethnic, and political borders that separate people, but not nature.

Related Links:

Water, conflict, and security on the banks of the Hudson

‘Subprime carbon’: Risk or hype?

So what if global warming is a hoax?

With what environmental organization are you affiliated?

I am president of Friends of the Earth.

What does your organization do? What, in a perfect world, would constitute "mission accomplished"?

Friends of the Earth is a national environmental organization celebrating our 35th anniversary this year. We are part of Friends of the Earth International, with member groups in 68 countries. We defend the environment and champion a healthy and just world.

FoE often serves as a pioneer on environmental issues that are later adopted by other groups. For example:

We believe that economics are the root cause of environmental degradation. In a very real sense we are "environmental accountants." Our flagship program is Green Scissors, in which we point out wasteful and environmentally harmful spending in the federal budget. In the last two years, we have taken our program to the next level and begun working on state-level budgets.

Our other campaigns also get at the root causes of environmental problems here and around the world.

"Mission accomplished" would consist of having an environmentally sustainable global economy; in other words, nations and transnational corporations would not be gobbling up natural resources faster than they can regenerate. The economy would be powered primarily by renewable energy, industrial agriculture with its inhumane treatment of animals and massive use of pesticides, hormones, and antibiotics would be a thing of the past, and pollution with all its devastation and injustice would be largely gone. It would be a world in which we could all breathe easier.

What do you really do, on a day-to-day basis?

My day is usually packed with stuff to do. In the morning, I check my voicemail and email. After that my day may be filled up with any or all of the following activities:

Toward the end of the day I will make and return phone calls and review the daily mail, email, and faxes, and take note of the news of the day. I strive to keep an open-door policy, so that if my staff needs to talk with me about something they consider important I always try to make time for them.

The day does not stop for me at 5:00 p.m. In the evenings on several nights a week I often attend fundraisers and receptions. For example, last week on Tuesday it was a dinner and panel discussion by the Interfaith Religious Partnership on the Anacostia River; on Wednesday the annual dinner of the Natural Resources Council of America, which honored Ted Turner; and on Thursday a fundraiser for the Environmental Leadership Project. No rest for the weary!

What long and winding road led you to your current position?

In the words of Jerry Garcia and the Grateful Dead, "What a long and strange trip it's been." I did not set out to work in the environmental arena. I received a Ph.D. in philosophy from the University of Maryland and an M.A. in math from Yale University. I thought my whole life would be devoted to teaching at the college level. For two years (1966-68), I was chairman of the math department at Philander Smith College, a black college in Little Rock, Ark. Everything seemed to be going as I envisioned it would, until that fateful day back in 1970. It was the first Earth Day -- by the end of the day my life would change forever, after I heard Friends of the Earth and the League of Conservation Voters make presentations.

I began by doing volunteer work for each group. Little did I know at the time that this would start me off on a 35-year career in environmental advocacy, helping to start organizations like American Rivers and serving on the boards of others like the League of Conservation Voters. In 1994, I became president of Friends of the Earth.

How many emails are currently in your inbox?

I have hundreds of emails. I run through these daily and read all the in-house ones first as well as any others that are important and leave the rest unopened. Because my name appears on so many documents, I have become a prime target for spammers. We have a filter system in place, but a lot still gets through. So if anyone needs a new mortgage, I have an email I can forward them.

Who's the biggest pain in the ass you have to deal with?

Here are two thorns currently in my side:

Rep. Tom DeLay of Texas, the House majority leader, has authored legislation to repeal the Clean Air Act and runs the House of Representatives so as to prevent progress from being made in cleaning up our air, land, and water. The Hammer, as he is known, does all he can to prevent pro-environment amendments from ever coming to a vote on the floor of the House. He has brought environmental progress in the House to a halt.

Deputy Secretary Steve Griles, the No. 2 person at the Interior Department, has been the key person opening up America's public lands to oil, coal, and other mineral extraction and has violated his conflict-of-interest agreements. He has been receiving about $1 million over these four years from his former firm, which deals in energy.

Who's nicer than you would expect?

I found some members of Congress exceptionally fine and understanding people. To name a few:

Where were you born? Where do you live now?

I was born in Buffalo, N.Y., and now live in Washington, D.C. I traded cold for humidity.

What do you consider your environmental coming-of-age moment or experience?

The worsening air and water pollution in the 1960s really concerned me but not until the first Earth Day in 1970 did I connect with two organizations that showed me many ways to make a difference, including how to lobby Congress.

What has been the worst moment in your professional life to date?

Having to testify before the House Appropriations Committee on dams in 1972, when the committee tried to humiliate me as a witness and suggest that I had no right to testify against the worthy canal and dredging projects they were considering. I was young and had minimal experience testifying in front of a hostile committee, and I let them intimidate me.

What's been the best?

Defeating the 1978 rivers and harbors bill full of disastrous projects for the Army Corps of Engineers by lobbying three straight days and two nights without stop at the end of the session. They were trying to sneak over a billion dollars worth of river-destroying projects through under titles like "The Emergency Pothole Repair Bill" or "A Bill to Rename a Federal Office Building after Congressman Wagoner." This marked a real change in momentum in reforming water policy in the United States.

What's on your desk right now?

So that's what's underneath all these papers! My desk!

The things I am concerned with right now are:

What environmental offense has infuriated you the most?

The use of jet skis really rubs me the wrong way. These machines have destroyed the tranquility and the swimming conditions of the lakes I used to enjoy growing up. Far too many jet ski operators are oblivious to the noise, the massive water pollution they create, and the hazard they pose to sailboats, canoes, and wildlife. Thoughtful people should not take their recreation at the expense of others' recreation.

Who is your environmental hero?

Henry David Thoreau and Aldo Leopold provided the underlying challenge to modern industrial civilization and today serve as an inspiration to me. Thoreau provided the case for simpler living, and he was one of the first to write about how dams wreck rivers. In his A Sand County Almanac, Aldo Leopold described the urgent need for a land ethic -- how we humans relate to the land.

Who is your environmental nightmare?

President George Bush, who is the most anti-environmental president we have had this century. This is not a partisan judgment. Under two Republican presidents, Bush senior and Richard Nixon, important environmental progress was made; but Bush Jr. has put polluters in charge of agencies and weakened protections on more land than Teddy Roosevelt, Jimmy Carter, and Bill Clinton were able to protect.

What's your environmental vice?

I have to admit that I use a clothes dryer and do not hang my laundry out on the line. Also I eat desserts with a ton of sugar. I bake a lot of them myself.

How do you get around?

I am a very big advocate of public transportation. I ride my bike and the subway to work every day. For intercity travel on the East Coast, I always take the train to New York. FoE is pushing for dramatically improved intercity rail passenger service so that people have genuine transportation choices.

What are you reading these days?

Carl Hiaasen, Skinny Dip; Jerry Dennis, The Living Great Lakes; John Herman Randall Jr., The Making of the Modern Mind (a 750-page history of the best ideas of the 20th century in music, art, literature, science, and philosophy).

What's your favorite meal?

I enjoy pasta dishes, corn on the cob, and fruit cobblers. I also make a delicious Irish whiskey cake and a dense chocolate mousse cake. These can give you a boost any time of the day or night.

Are you a news junkie? Where do you get your news?

When not reading Grist (great interviews with John Kerry and Andre Heinz, by the way) I read The Washington Post and The New York Times, watch CNN, and listen to NPR. I am not a 24/7 news junkie, but try to keep abreast of all breaking environmental news.

Which stereotype about environmentalists most fits you?

I am a tree hugger. Clear-cutting of forests should be outlawed and only selective cutting allowed. We cannot as a nation afford to lose any more magnificent ancient forests. There are so few left that they should be off-limits to logging.

What's your favorite place or ecosystem?

For vacation, I like Sleeping Bear Dune National Lakeshore in northern Michigan. In the Washington area where I live, the remarkable Potomac River and its gorge just outside the city is my favorite.

If you could institute by fiat one environmental reform, what would it be?

Get the ecological price right on every product (i.e., no more shoving health and environmental costs off on society, future generations, and the rest of nature). Today the price of oil and coal does not reflect, for example, the cost of the military needed to safeguard Middle East oil or the long-term consequences of the Martian landscape left from blowing the tops off West Virginia mountains to get at the coal.

Got a question for Brent?

Send it on in by noon PDT on Wednesday, Sept. 22, 2004.

Who do you think (not hope) is going to be elected president in November?

Kerry will win in a landslide because people concerned about health, the environment, civil liberties, social justice, war and peace, etc., are mobilizing in a way I have never seen in 35 years of work. I also serve as president of Friends of the Earth Action, a non-tax-deductible organization with a bipartisan PAC. The Friends of the Earth Action PAC has endorsed Kerry, who has an outstanding environmental record -- 92 percent lifetime average on the League of Conservation Voters scorecard. In contrast, Bush is too close to corporate polluters and has attempted to weaken protections for clean air and clean water to benefit his big campaign contributors.

Would you label yourself an environmentalist?

I am an environmentalist. That means I aspire to environmentally sustainable living. That is why I do not drive to work, why I purchase green power for our house, and why I try to purchase organically grown food. I try to practice what I preach.

What's one thing the environmental movement is doing particularly well?

Protecting open space, wilderness, and ancient forests. As a movement, we have increased the number of protected national scenic rivers from eight in 1973 to more than 2,000 today. Major wilderness areas have been set aside in Alaska and the lower 48 states. State and national land trusts are protecting more and more critical parcels of land for future generations.

What's one thing the environmental movement is doing badly, and how could they do it better?

Changing global energy use. We know that it's technically possible to run the global economy largely on efficiency, solar, wind, and other renewable energy, but we have not produced the strategy to overcome the power of big oil and coal, which now dominate both Congress and the White House. The tragic irony is that global climate change, sparked by the massive use of fossil fuels, could undo the great gains cited above in protecting important natural areas. These areas possess diverse plant and animal life, all of which could disappear with a major shift in climate.

What important environmental issue is frequently overlooked?

The environmental movement does not pay enough attention to the tax code, which today rewards big polluters. The tax code is the biggest driver of behavior and should be written so as to reward clean, renewable energy businesses, for example, rather than dishing out subsidies and exemptions to oil companies and gas-guzzling SUVs. Almost unbelievably, urban assault vehicles like Hummers are now eligible for $100,000 tax write-offs for small businesses.

What was your favorite band when you were 18? How about now?

Fats Domino played at our high school prom, so I would pick him and his band. The lyrics on many of the old rock and roll songs were pretty superficial. An exception is Paul McCartney's remarkable Yesterday. Today I most like to hear the greatest classical pianists playing Beethoven, Brahms, Schubert, and Mozart.

What's your favorite TV show? Movie?

I don't watch that much TV, but do follow Duke basketball closely. I like the documentaries that Bill Moyers pulls together.

As for movies, my wife and I go to theaters near us several times a month. I like submarine movies -- I don't think there has ever been a bad submarine movie. Escapes and high seas adventure movies are among my favorites -- Master and Commander and The Great Escape are especially memorable.

Mac or PC?

Mac at home; PC at the office.

What are you happy about right now?

Personally, I have a wonderful family of thoughtful, caring people. In broader terms, the amazing cleanup of a lot of pollution and the protection of some of the world's most magnificent rivers has brought great joy to me. This is something for all of us to cheer about.

If you could have every InterActivist reader do one thing, what would it be?

Vote their environmental values in every election at every level. We need a better group of elected public officials at all levels of government in order to progress.

Brent Blackwelder, president of Friends of the Earth

The word "sustainable" does not interest local decision makers in the least. Is there another way to sell the power elite on the idea and practice of sustainability?    -- Mary Halliday, Defiance, Mo.

When seeking environmental sustainability, it is important to phrase demands for change in specific terms, with arguments that combine the environmental, moral, social, and economic benefits of the requested action. For example, getting cities or states to adopt goals of 20 percent renewable energy by the year 2010 is a specific objective that would move us toward a sustainable world, and the case for this could be made on all the grounds cited above.

How are FoE U.S. and FoE International working toward the cleanup of radioactive combat sites in Iraq, Afghanistan, and the Balkans? What national and international pressure is being exerted to assure that radioactive contamination from uranium-containing ordnance is not left to cause harm to civilians in these countries?    -- Robert Rands, Hobart, Australia

FoE U.S. and FoE International have pointed out the huge range of disastrous impacts of war on the planet and opposed the war in the first place. You point out one of the most serious consequences of war. The issue of radioactive contamination must be raised vigorously, but I do not foresee the Bush administration taking remedial action on these matters.

What do you feel is the real motive behind the war?    -- Name not provided

Ask this question: If Iraq's major export were green beans instead of oil, would the United States care any more about it than it does about the islands of Mauritius or the Seychelles? The war in Iraq is costing more than $100 billion, and perhaps a lot more. By comparison, the annual budget for the U.S. EPA, which enforces most of our pollution control laws, is around $8 billion.

How would you describe the quality of enforcement under Bush's EPA?    -- Hal Pierce, Mariette, Ga.

Enforcement of laws under the Bush EPA has declined, as have the regulations implementing environmental statutes. Furthermore, in his budget this year Bush proposed for EPA the second biggest cut for any agency.

Assuming John Kerry is elected in November, how many years do you think it will take to undo the damage done by the environment's No. 1 enemy -- Dubya and his administration?    -- Anne Link, La Harpe, Ill.

Some things can be done rapidly, such as issuing new executive orders, while others will take much longer. Some outstanding people in key agencies have already left government service, and re-staffing agencies will take years.

Would you mind sharing your chocolate mousse cake recipe?    -- Brooke Hemming, Durham, N.C.

It is in Maida Heatter's Book of Great Chocolate Desserts under the heading Countess Toulouse-Lautrec's French Chocolate Cake. [Editor's note: See the recipe here.]

How effective do you think having a "Green" Gross Domestic Product (current GDP less environmental/health/social costs) would be in helping us shift our economy? Do you know of any organizations currently tracking this?    -- Lila Buckley, Washington, D.C.

We urgently need to have a measure of economic well-being other the GDP, which basically measures how rapidly we convert natural resources into waste and counts as economic benefits what most people would consider costs. In the late 1980s, Friends of the Earth actually got Congress to pass a law requiring the Commerce Department to prepare an index of gross sustainable productivity along with the usual GDP. Unfortunately, in the mid-1990s the energy industry got this requirement repealed. Hazel Henderson has some good information on this subject on her website.

What do you think poses the best alternative to desalination to solve water shortages globally?    -- Scott Potter, Crescent City, Calif.

We need to move forward with clean-energy strategies; otherwise, global climate change will exacerbate water shortages. More efficient use of water in every sector will help reduce the wastage of water. Greater local food self-sufficiency is crucial; otherwise, transnational agribusiness with its irrigated agriculture can consume vast quantities of water for export crops. During the height of the drought in Ethiopia in the 1980s, carnations and strawberries were being grown for export to Europe.

One major global water concern is the privatization of water. Visit our website and that of the International Forum on Globalization for more information on water privatization.

I sent my favorite member of Congress a letter recently outlining what the global warming problem is doing to the world. He wrote me back saying there is no proof that global warming is a threat and for me to forget it. What do you say to this?    -- Ruth Williams, Spavinaw, Okla.

I would write several letters to the editor for key papers in his congressional district, quoting from his letter and then contrasting it with several statements from the overwhelming majority of climate scientists.

What would you say or do to convince today's adults and kids who use the outdoors as their dumping grounds to spend a buck on disposal (or find a trash can) and do the right thing?    -- Wade Holden, North Bend, Wash.

Some adults may be pretty hopeless and that is why deposit laws are needed. For kids, the more environmental education in the schools, the better they will understand the energy and pollution costs of our throw-away society.

What would most turn around the typically polluted and trashed American city and drive developers to more conscientious urban planning and building?    -- Jan Danforth, Baltimore, Md.

Two key items are green buildings and dramatically increased public transportation. Cities and the surrounding suburbs could require buildings that are essentially energy self-sufficient. The key challenge is to transform transportation spending so that the majority of the funding goes into providing a variety of public transportation services. The current unfortunate practice exemplified by transportation spending is that highways are the answer. Well, if highways were the answer, Los Angeles would be paradise.

What are your thoughts on the contribution of vegetarianism to the environmental movement?    -- Marylou Noble, Portland, Ore.

The lower we eat on the food chain, the less the environmental impact. Those who are not vegetarians can try to reduce meat consumption and buy only organic free-range meat.

If we all, every single activist out there, swamped the president's snail mail with letters/photos of why we love/need this fragile planet, along with our outrage at what has been done by the current administration, would it make a difference in an email/fax world?    -- Patricia R. Hopkins, Biddeford, Maine

I commend you for your commitment to protect the earth. In terms of snail mail or email, sending this to the White House doesn't hurt, but unless it is part of a massive mobilization, it will not have an effect. Specific mobilizations can have a decisive effect, as they did when several hundred thousand communications of protest were sent to the Agriculture Department about its proposed definition of organic food. The most important action of all is mobilizing people to vote their environmental concerns in every election at every level.

Sending letters to the editor or contacting radio or TV stations with your concerns can also be very important. Anti-environmental forces have set up their own radio talk shows.

My favorite area in North Carolina for backpacking is called the Wilson Creek Wilderness Area, near Morganton, but it's only a proposed wilderness. What steps should I take to encourage permanent wilderness designation?    -- Frank Ferrell, Durham, N.C.

You should contact the Conservation Council of North Carolina at 919.839.0006 and the Wilderness Society at 202.833.2300 to determine first whether there are any state or local groups already working on this objective. If so, they probably would be delighted to get your help. If no one is focused on this protection, you need to meet with some wilderness experts to formulate a strategy, and again these two organizations can advise you.

Does FoE produce a magazine or other literature? If it does, how do we access it, and what is the cost?    -- Jerry Broadbent, Bucoda, Wash.

The annual membership dues are $25 and members receive a quarterly newsmagazine. We produce many reports throughout the year. Go to our website for details on all of our programs and to access to our reports.

Related Links:

‘Subprime carbon’: Risk or hype?

A video interview with Bill Moyers

The Yes Men reveal their next big stunt

Britain Mulls Ways to Limit Impact of Aviation Industry

With the holidays looming, the airports and skies are fuller than ever -- unfortunately for the environment. Air travel is the most environmentally damaging way to get around, with planes using vast quantities of fossil fuels and emitting toxic byproducts and greenhouse gases. The issue is looming large on the radar screen in Britain, where the government just released a white paper on the future of aviation. Environmentalists were disappointed by the contents of the paper, which they say failed to adequately address the problems of pollution, airport expansion, and greenhouse gas emissions. With air travel growing at 3 to 5 percent per year, the impact of aviation on the U.K.'s carbon dioxide emissions will double -- or more -- by 2020, according to Friends of the Earth. FOE and others want Britain to tax the aviation industry for its fuel use to encourage the development of more efficient planes.

Related Links:

Toward a medically defensible energy policy

Growing up green: Breathing for two

‘Subprime carbon’: Risk or hype?

Bush Met in London by Environmental Protestors

Protesting the U.S. government's refusal to address the problem of global warming, environmental demonstrators gave President Bush a less-than-warm welcome yesterday as he arrived in London for a state visit. Up to 600 people noisily marched to the U.S. embassy to criticize Bush's rejection of the Kyoto Protocol on climate change, carrying banners with such messages as, "Wanted for crimes against the planet" and "Bush go home." Tony Juniper, head of Friends of the Earth, told the crowd that Bush was "one of the world's arch environmental villains." And that's just the tip of the iceberg: As many as 100,000 people are expected to turn out for the biggest day of protests tomorrow, to lambaste Bush for the war in Iraq as well as for his environmental agenda and other policies.

Related Links:

Obama administration may (finally) offer greenhouse-gas targets

The Climate Post: You heard it here first—Copenhagen a success

Copenhagen panic is premature

The European Commission, the executive arm of the European Union, is coming under fire from environmentalists after the London Guardian published information from apparently secret E.C. documents describing efforts to liberalize trade by privatizing state-run services in poor nations. The market for such services is estimated at more than $1 trillion per year. Under the auspices of the World Trade Organization, the E.U. is currently engaged in talks about the General Agreement on Trade in Services. Green groups say the E.U. is paving the way for exploitation of developing nations by huge multi-national corporations eager to control critical resources such as water, as well as services such as sewage. One such group, Friends of the Earth, said liberalization of public services would lead to lax environmental regulation.

Related Links:

Water, conflict, and security on the banks of the Hudson

‘Subprime carbon’: Risk or hype?

Europe places outcome of Copenhagen squarely on Obama