by Drew J Jones
Sat Jan 21st, 2017 at 05:16:16 PM EST
I remember the moment David Gregory said on MSNBC to the interviewee, "Ohio has gone for Obama," and thinking, "Oh my god, this is going to happen." Jen and I were sitting in our dumpy little studio apartment in Alexandria. I had the window cracked open, chain-smoking, in hopes of not alerting the landlord (since we weren't supposed to smoke in the apartments but I didn't want to have to take the elevator down 16 floors every five minutes). They called Virginia, where I lived at the time (EuroTrib's own MareckNYC a part of the crew who made that happen), and Florida, where I'm from. Being a liberal white guy from the South, with all its history, I could not have been prouder. I remember Olbermann getting choked up as he said, "Barack Obama has been elected the next president of the United States of America."
I remember seeing this cartoon by Tom Toles in the Washington Post, on my way on the Metro through Southeast DC -- the heart of the black working class in America -- to the Census Bureau, and seeing the looks on the faces of black Americans, many of whom probably thought that day would never come.
by Frank Schnittger
Sat Jan 21st, 2017 at 09:41:40 AM EST
And also create things anew?
The Irish Independent, the largest circulation daily in Ireland has published an edited version of my Letter to the Editor. At 269 words, it is an edited version of my letter which in turn was a severely summarised version of my 3,000+ word blog A Brexit doomsday scenario. It all reads a bit stark and unqualified, with no supporting argument, but the gist is there. Perhaps it will start a more balanced discussion than what appears in UK dominated media...
Letters to the Editor: Irish Independent (Scroll down page)
Irish confederacy is coming
So far we have only heard one side of the story: what the UK says it wants. The EU response won't become clear for months - perhaps not until after the French and German elections in May and September.
Talks will break down, and there will be no substantial Brexit agreement, with the UK drifting off into transatlantic space with no lifeline to the EU.
Donald Trump will get involved, and make a complete mess of it, alienating both sides further. A trade war will result. British firms requiring access to the single market will relocate here. We will survive.
Ireland will hardly feature on the geo-political radar except when it refuses to implement a hard Border - effectively retaining the North within the Customs Union.
If Fine Gael tries to implement a hard Border, it will be brought down by FF/Sinn Féin. So we will have a stand-off with the EU. Then a deal will be cobbled together whereby customs controls will be carried out at air and sea ports and the odd random customs check on commercial vehicles within Ireland.
Smuggling on minor roads will be rampant and everyone will turn a blind eye. An Irish solution to a European problem.
Much later, when the North has finally been dragged into the abyss by an economic collapse in the UK, a marginal majority will come to the view that they had better make their peace with the only state that actually cares about them, and a Confederal Ireland within the EU will result. Let's hope not too many lives and livelihoods will be lost in the meantime.
Blessington, Co Wicklow
Discuss. For those of you who want a more detailed argument and justification, please read A Brexit doomsday scenario.
by Luis de Sousa
Fri Jan 20th, 2017 at 11:16:36 AM EST
Frank Schnittger has been a proficient writer here at ET on the exit of the UK from the EU. One of the questions he has been raising is the assumption that the UK will automatically fall back to WTO rules if it leaves the EU and the European Economic Area (EEA). The UK is a member of the WTO by virtue of its membership of the EU, if it leaves the union how can it still be member of the WTO?
With the UK government indicating to the press that indeed it wishes to extract the country both from the political and economic unions, the WTO question becomes pivotal. Days ago I raised this issue in the Financial Times commentary box and got an elaborate reply from a reader that seems far more acquainted with the subject. It is rather worthy of reproduction in this forum.
An important and under reported issue: Frontpaged - Frank Schnittger
Thu Jan 19th, 2017 at 03:51:23 AM EST
I know next to nothing about German politics, but I can paste links with the best of them. Here is what I have found. Please add context and content as interested and available.
Frontpaged - Frank Schnittger
Wed Jan 18th, 2017 at 01:28:13 AM EST
According to the press narrative, a "vibrant" and "enthusiastic" and "energetic" Emmanuel Macron is rising in the polls and challenging the nationalist and nativist mood.
What have we here?
Promoted - Frank Schnittger
by Frank Schnittger
Mon Jan 16th, 2017 at 10:03:11 AM EST
Theresa May to say UK is 'prepared to accept hard Brexit
In a speech to be delivered on Tuesday, the prime minister is said to be preparing to make clear that she is willing to sacrifice the UK's membership of the single market and customs union in order to bring an end to freedom of movement.
An article in the Sunday Telegraph cites "sources familiar with the prime minister's thinking" as saying that May is seeking to appease the Eurosceptic wing of her party by contemplating a "hard", or "clean", Brexit. In the speech to an audience of diplomats at London's Lancaster House May will hope to end months of speculation about her intentions by setting out her aims for Brexit. According to the Sunday Telegraph, she will say that the UK must:
- be prepared to leave the EU customs union;
- regain full control of its borders, even if that means losing access to the single market, and
- cease to be subject to rulings by the European court of justice.
by Frank Schnittger
Tue Jan 3rd, 2017 at 04:10:22 PM EST
The British Government appears to be blithely proceeding on the basis that it will be able to cherry pick the parts of the EU it wants, whilst at the same time achieving the freedom to do many things that it claims the EU is now preventing it from doing. When you are building an opening negotiating position it is no harm to put forward what you would regard as an ideal outcome of the negotiations. In theory it increases your chances of actually influencing the negotiations in that direction. In practice it may very much disillusion your supporters when they discover that the final outcome falls some way short of their ideal outcome.
But there is also the danger that in hyping your version of how a successful negotiating process should proceed you end up antagonising the other party to the negotiation still further. The EU 27 might well conclude that the UK is living in cloud cuckoo land and that there is no great point in engaging in a serious negotiation at all. Such a response may be amplified if the British media then go on a rampage ridiculing the antediluvian, obstructive, and inflexible EU bureaucrats who simply refuse to see the utter sensibility of the UK proposals. Negotiators are only human after all.
One of the more amusing spectacles of recent times is seeing Leave campaigners argue that they really have the best interests of the EU at heart, and that what they are proposing is in the best interests of all. After all the EU needs access to the UK market as well, they argue, and a continuation of a free trade zone including the UK can only help economic growth in Europe over all. But what if the negotiations were to go seriously off the rails and no substantive Brexit deal of any kind were to be agreed? What would a worst case scenario look like both for the UK and the EU? Follow me below the fold for a sneak preview...
by Frank Schnittger
Sun Jan 1st, 2017 at 12:27:22 AM EST
For many people 2016 was a forgettable year, with Brexit, Trump, the terrorist attacks in Nice and Berlin, the Syrian war and the refugee crisis the leading low lights for many. But everyone experiences each year differently. So what were the highlights and lowlights of 2016 for you?
And what are your hopes and expectations for 2017? Any predictions you would like to make? Any New Year resolutions or special projects for 2017 you would like to take on?
Please feel free to add your musings to the comments below.
by Frank Schnittger
Fri Dec 30th, 2016 at 01:48:34 PM EST
Jon Worth is one of the few knowledgeable UK commentators on the EU who has some idea of how politics works on the other side of the channel based, as he is, in Berlin. I had the pleasure of meeting him at a blogging conference in Rotterdam some years ago and even did a short video interview with him about his political and journalistic ambitions against the backdrop of a boat trip around Rotterdam harbour:
Naturally his critical but basically pro-EU views get him into a lot of trouble with Leavers in the UK who seem to specialize in demonizing and abusing him rather than engaging with the actual factual points he makes. Recently he fisked Andrew Marr's delusional view of Brexit which drew a lot of abuse which he referenced in a follow up blog. None of his detractors seem to have the slightest idea of the political realities of the EU and fondly imagine that the UK can have more or less what it wants out of the Brexit negotiations and that the UK will be able to negotiate far more advantageous trade deals with the rest of the world than it ever could as part of the EU.
I have tried to show him a little support and add some "balance" to the debate by highlighting how the Brexit campaign is viewed from outside the UK. Even though I was as provocative as possible, no Leavers have acknowledged never mind responded to the points I made. They appear to be operating in a parallel universe. Anyway, for what it's Worth, I copy and elaborate on my comments below:
Sat Dec 24th, 2016 at 06:16:15 PM EST
Notes from China's National Cap-and-Trade Program: The Promise and the Reality Wednesday, November 9
3:30PM TO 4:45PM
Harvard, 100F Pierce Hall, 29 Oxford Street, Cambridge
Wang Pu, Fellow at the Science, Technology, and Public Policy Program, Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs, HKS.
Co-sponsored by the China Project, SEAS, and the Environment and Natural Resources Program, HKS.
China Project Seminar Series
Contact Name: Tiffany Chan firstname.lastname@example.org
China started 7 different pilot programs with local administration of carbon trading in 2013, covering electricity and heavy industry but also including buildings in the Shenzhen pilot program. The average carbon price was $4-5 per ton. Problems included lack of consistency and transparency, weak legal enforcement, and lack of accurate emission data, but there was very high compliance, up to 98% participation by the entities covered.
The national program has no specified emission reduction goals, projections, or trajectory for carbon reduction. It is a bottom up approach with the national cap to be based on the sum of facility data. The national carbon trading administration identifies industry sectors and thresholds while the regions identify the covered facilities: steel, electricity, petrochemical, cement, nonferrous metal, paper mills and aviation. Around 10,000 firms are included, covering 30-40% of national carbon emissions. The allowance allocation is similarly two tiered with provincial authorities allocating allowances based upon the national allowances using a combination of benchmarking, grandfathering, and auctions.
State-owned enterprises control 50% of electricity capacity and much of heavy industry. The electricity sector has generation quotas and prices set by the government so market mechanisms don't necessarily work. Steel, cement and glass production are decreasing but becoming more efficient. The electricity and petrochemical industries may buy up their allowances to create inequities and reduce emission effects. Climate policy is thus being used to force manufacturing to upgrade technology and improve energy efficiency to reduce air pollution, a pressing political issue around the country. (And one becoming increasingly urgent given the most recent news in December 2016.)
CO2 is not categorized as a pollutant and the trading is supported only by administrative documents, with the climate department outranked by many state-owned enterprises and a very small staff, about 30 people in the NDRC (National Development and Research Commission). Emission data is very weak, a problem of credibility more than technology, with self-reporting, third party verification and emission data checked against production data for consistency. As China has strong regional differences in emissions and economic benefits - high emission/middle income (North), low emission/high income (South coast) and low emission/low income sectors (Western provinces), the calculations for each province of air pollution co-benefits range from $2 to $200 per unit of carbon capped, extremely unequally across the country.
This cap and trade program may simply be symbolic, a gesture to the international community, but it can also serve as an experiment to build institutional capacity, and a market based policy for reform. It's the only policy control on CO2, more flexible than command and control, and can help toward an economic soft landing by driving the less efficient businesses out without a big shock. It also certainly builds the public awareness of climate change. However, the speaker, Wang Pu, believes the program will not provide all the advertised benefits.
If Alex Steffen is right in this article Trump, Putin, and the Pipelines to Nowhere (https:medium.com@AlexSteffen/trump-putin-and-the-pipelines-to-nowhere-742d745ce8fd#.k2tuyyh7g ), and I believe he is correct in identifying what is happening as a global carbon coup to monetize as much fossil fuel as possible before climate change becomes undeniable, then I suspect the Trumpian USA and Putin's Russia will try to distract China from its own climate change activities like this national cap and trade program. Might be good to keep that in mind as we descend into the depths of the fossil fools.
More information on the current cost of carbon at http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/8/16/1412568/-The-Current-Cost-of-Carbon
by Frank Schnittger
Fri Dec 16th, 2016 at 03:00:19 AM EST
Irish TV news showed a clip of EU leaders gathering for their last summit of 2016 yesterday. All were busily chatting to one another - except one: Teresa May stood there awkwardly, looking for someone to talk to, but everyone had their backs turned to her.
I very much doubt that the move was choreographed. EU leaders wouldn't be so petty, would they? But the scene encapsulated a feeling that I have had for some time: The Brexit negotiations are going to be bloody, and more likely than not will lead to no substantial agreement at all.
Tue Dec 20th, 2016 at 05:00:54 PM EST
What Those Who Studied Nazis Can Teach Us About The Strange Reaction To Donald Trump HuPo
On election night, MSNBC's Chris Matthews had a revelation. Matthews, with a pained expression, began to piece together the basis for Hillary Clinton's pending defeat. She had failed to communicate a tough position on illegal immigration. She had supported bad trade deals. She had not renounced all of the "stupid wars."
Her presidential rival, Donald Trump, on the other hand, had waged what Matthews called a "legitimate" campaign on these issues, a claim that seemed to stretch the bounds of legitimacy, but Matthews was not alone. In the following days and weeks, others would make similar claims implying a victory that, weeks before, had been impossible was actually inevitable ― and liberalism was largely to blame
In a New York Times op-ed, "The End of Identity Liberalism," Mark Lilla argued that "moral panic about racial, gender and sexual identity" had "distorted liberalism's message and prevented it from becoming a unifying force capable of governing." Trump's popularity, Lilla argued, was not a consequence of a white backlash (whitelash) but rather a reaction to "the omnipresent rhetoric of identity or `political correctness.'"
And the problem with 'identity politics' is that everyone can play. All of the minority identity political agendas were blown out of the water by the simple expedient of mobilizing the now largest minority in a 'no majority' population - by a right winger. It was a disaster waiting to happen.
For more lasting success campaigns have to address the needs of all, but have to repudiate the bigotry and hate of any. Universalism is the concrete foundation for governing.
Sat Dec 17th, 2016 at 12:20:52 AM EST
Guizhou - Mountain Forest Hotel: a vertical forest hotel so green that it may also purify the surrounding air
Paris "Mille Arbres" or Thousand Trees building with an urban park on the ground and a forest in the sky
Vertical farming and urban ag tech article
Living wall in London for construction site
Amsterdam - redesigning Amsterdam for urban agriculture and more
Artisan Moss - moss for green walls - I wonder if they are doing edible mosses too
Mississauga Food Bank starts an aquaponics food farm
Living Food Bank - their first is in Haiti at the Northwest Haiti Christian Mission in St. Louis Du Nord
Agora Gardens in Taipei - a green building that absorbs CO2
Michigan Urban Farming Initiative - America's First Sustainable Urban Agrihood is "two-acre urban garden, a 200-tree fruit orchard, a children's sensory garden, and more. Annually, the urban garden provides fresh, free produce to about 2,000 households within two square miles of the farm."
Mobile greenhouse for urban farming
Fri Dec 16th, 2016 at 12:29:50 AM EST
Post-election events in the US have been as depressing as expected. Two developments, in particular, suggest that American democracy is really and truly in its death throes.
Tue Dec 6th, 2016 at 10:49:57 PM EST
On November 21, 2016 Scott Nyquist of McKinsey & Company (http://www.mckinsey.com) spoke to the public at MIT's Sloan School (https://docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLSeTLrGhwLlrx3wx3eTYcnTX6pIS6iziw4RTLiYNL9uP0dWmVQ/viewform
Over the next 20 years, there are projections for 80% more demand on resources as a result of growing populations and growing economic production. However, higher energy intensity, efficiency, and slower GDP growth leads McKinsey and Company to consider a less than base case view.
McKinsey sees 74% of our energy still coming from fossil fuels by 2050, with an energy related CO2 peak by 2035, and a similar peak in transportation by 2025. COP 21, the Paris Agreement, has businesses going ahead and beyond waiting for negotiation, regulations and governments. Nyquist pointed us toward not only the Energy Transitions Commission (http://www.energy-transitions.org), 28 leaders from business who recognize that COP21 is not enough and are setting zero carbon as a planning goal but also the Oil and Gas Climate Initiative (http://www.oilandgasclimateinitiative.com), 10 companies with 20% of global oil and gas production, which has pledged $1 billion for low carbon technology.
Sun Dec 4th, 2016 at 12:09:49 PM EST
I have, perhaps foolishly, promised to produce a policy contribution on the above subject, in the context of policy development for DiEM 25.
Currently the only official policy we have is the original manifesto, supplemented by a few ad-hoc issues settled by a vote of members.
The policy formation process itself is still very much a work in progress, but basically it works like this :
- a policy convener writes a questionnaire on a policy domain,
- local (or virtual) groups respond with proposals
- three generations of Green Papers are generated
- there is a vote to validate a White Paper.
There are six domains identified :
- Refugees and Migration
- the European New Deal
- Green Investment
- A European Constitution.
This proces is underway for the first three domains, with a deadline of 15th December for the first round of contributions.
The rest of this diary is the questionnaire written by Dániel Fehér.
You know what I'm asking you to do now, don't you?
That's right. My homework.
More precisely : my Diem25 local group is meeting tomorrow night on the subject, and we have ten days to present a contribution. So any ideas batted around here in the meantime are quite likely to end up in that contribution.
Frontpaged - Frank Schnittger
by THE Twank
Thu Dec 1st, 2016 at 11:37:24 AM EST
I'm composing my first email to Mr. Louis J. Marinelli, leader of the Calexit movement. Included will be your questions/comments from my previous Calexit diaries. Anything else? I'll keep E.T. apprised of my email exchange. I've already informed the Calexit VP that I'll post Calexit recruitment fliers on the Sac State campus come Jan. `17 along with my tutoring fliers; start of my 14th year, how time flies. P.S. I just checked the E.T. archives ... I've been visiting here for OVER 9 years !
by Luis de Sousa
Tue Nov 29th, 2016 at 07:35:18 PM EST
This question is slowly percolating through the wall of noise around the UK's exit from the EU. More attentive folks are wondering if to leave the European Economic Area (EEA) a formal notification is required. I.e., if beyond triggering Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty, in order to fully exit its social and economics commitments the UK needs to trigger Article 127 of the EEA Agreement.
This question is highly relevant for a simple reason: membership of the EEA was not voted in referendum, therefore the UK institutions - Government, Parliament and House of Lords - are not morally obliged to any particular course of action in this regard. If leaving the EU does not automatically exclude the UK from the EEA, it will then remain a full member of the so called "Common Market" with all the rights and obligations it entails.
Frontpaged - Frank Schnittger
by THE Twank
Tue Nov 29th, 2016 at 06:26:15 PM EST
Find below the fold editorials by Keith Olbermann who seems concerned about the future of democracy in the U.S. Empire.
by THE Twank
Wed Nov 23rd, 2016 at 09:24:34 AM EST
Below the fold find a page from the Calexit Manifesto pdf. and
two three gems I found on YouTube. I've omitted a number of Calexit topics which I thought were unimportant (Will we have our own Olympic team? Yeah, I'm losing sleep over that one.). Thanks for the use of the hall and I wish you all good luck.