Impeachment of Paraguayan President Sparks Institutional Crisis

June 23, 2012 by

Global Geopolitics & Political Economy / IPS

By Natalia Ruiz Diaz

ASUNCION, Jun 23 2012 (IPS) – The Paraguayan Congress removed President Fernando Lugo from office Friday in an impeachment trial that lasted only a few hours.

The move, formally based on the constitution, triggered an institutional crisis for the fragile democracy in this South American country, and has been rejected by the rest of Latin America.

Lugo accepted the summary decision, which cannot be appealed, although he likened it to a coup and said the law had been “twisted.”

Vice President Federico Franco will complete Lugo’s term, which ends in August 2013.

Calls from the rest of the region, from Washington to Buenos Aires, for the proceedings to be carried out with guarantees for due process, fell on deaf ears. Nor was a mission of UNASUR (Union of South American Nations) foreign ministers, who arrived Thursday, successful in mediating the crisis.

While thousands of demonstrators gathered outside Congress to protest the impeachment of Lugo, a former Catholic bishop considered a moderate leftist, UNASUR studied the possibility of refusing to recognise the Franco administration, and members of the mission described the impeachment as a coup.

Latin America is thus facing a new institutional crisis, after the June 2009 coup in Honduras, where then President Manuel Zelaya was ousted and flown out of the country in a military coup backed by Congress.

After accepting the decision, Lugo said in a speech that “Today it was not Fernando Lugo who was removed from power; it was Paraguayan history, Paraguayan democracy that have been deeply hurt.”

When he took office in August 2008, the man who was known as “the bishop of the poor” put an end to 61 years of rule by the Colorado Party and launched a process of social inclusion, in one of the most unequal countries of the world.

“Fernando Lugo does not answer to the political classes, or to the mafia or the drug traffickers,” he said.

The lower house of Congress voted Thursday to impeach him, and in the Senate vote on Friday, 39 senators voted to remove him, four opposed the move, and two were absent.

Franco of the Authentic Radical Liberal Party (PLRA), one of Paraguay’s traditional parties, immediately replaced Lugo, who was elected in April 2008 with the backing of an alliance of the PLRA and left-wing political movements.

This week the PLRA suddenly withdrew its support from Lugo, and threw its backing behind the majority coalition in Congress led by the Colorado Party and including two smaller parties, UNACE and Patria Querida, to impeach the president.

”Today in Paraguay, through a constitutional mechanism, the parties are alternating in power,” Franco said, after promising that all international laws and treaties would be respected by the new government.

He announced measures in favour of land reform, referring to the immediate cause of the impeachment, which was the bloody eviction of landless small farmers a week ago who were occupying part of an estate in the northeastern province of Canindeyu.

Eleven peasants and six police were killed in the clash, the latest episode of violence in the context of a long-running problem of land tenure in a country where 85 percent of all farmland is owned by just two percent of the population.

Franco also promised to hand over power on Aug. 15, 2013 to the winner of the April 2013 elections.

Franco was one of the political leaders who met with the mission of foreign ministers sent by UNASUR ahead of the impeachment trial.

The bloc’s secretary general, Ali Rodríquez, said Friday before the Senate vote that the bloc feared bloodshed if Lugo were impeached.

In a statement, the UNASUR mission said it “had not received a satisfactory response” with respect to the preservation of democratic procedures in the impeachment trial.

Rodríguez had stated that the group was pessimistic regarding the success of its mediation efforts because “little can be done about a decision that has already been reached ahead of time.”

UNASUR warned that the impeachment could violate the democracy clauses of the Southern Common Market (Mercosur) trade bloc – to which Paraguay belongs, along with Argentina, Brazil and Uruguay – the 12-member UNASUR, and other Latin American organisations.

Rodríguez told the Telesur TV station that one of the mission’s aims was to help prevent violence from breaking out when the Senate handed down its decision.

The UNASUR’s democratic clause specifies measures to be taken against countries where the political process is not respected, including the possible suspension or expulsion from the bloc.

Brazilian President Dilma Rousseff called the impeachment trial a coup – a view shared by the foreign ministers of other UNASUR countries, and by Lugo himself.

Organisation of American States (OAS) Secretary General Miguel Insulza expressed deep concern over the crisis in Paraguay and the apparent lack of guarantees of due process for Lugo.

Lugo’s lawyers, who were given just two hours for their defence, were refused more time to prepare. Lugo did not attend the Senate impeachment trial.

Venezuelan Foreign Minister Nicolás Maduro, another member of the UNASUR mission, warned that the bloc was about to take measures “that will shake this country,” and wondered why the country’s political authorities did not wait for Lugo to hand power over to his elected successor in August 2013.

He did not elaborate on the measures that could be taken.

Many businesses and some schools in the capital closed Friday, and hospitals got extra beds ready in case violence broke out.

After the vote in the Senate, disturbances took place outside Congress, where the security forces broke up demonstrations by Lugo supporters.

Analyst Alfredo Boccia said the situation obviously directly benefited Franco, but hurt the country because it created a situation of profound uncertainty.

“It will not be easy for Franco to govern, because he will not have legitimacy,” Boccia told IPS.

He cited the economic impact of the coup in Honduras. “When they removed Zelaya in a very similar way, the economy was seriously hurt. And the same thing could happen in Paraguay,” he said.

Colorado Party analyst Bernardino Cano told IPS that Lugo’s removal was the product of an agreement between the two traditional parties, which are long-time rivals: the PLRA and the Colorado Party.

“What we hope now is that Franco will be sensible enough to understand that he is an acting president,” he said.

* With additional reporting by Estrella Gutiérrez.

All rights reserved, IPS – Inter Press Service, 2012.

This article may not be republished, broadcast, framed, or redistributed without the written permission of IPS – Inter Press Service. Republication of this material without permission from IPS, the copyright holder, constitutes a violation of United States and international copyright laws and may result in legal action.


Filed Under: Latin America, Politics, Report Tagged With: , , ,

A New Essay on the Neoliberal Order

June 12, 2012 by

Neoliberalism and the Neoliberal Order – Regressive Economics on a Global Scale

An essay on real economics by Alan F. Fogelquist

Real Political Economy

By Alan F. Fogelquist

This essay discusses some of the main characteristics of today’s neoliberal political and economic order. Other terms exist to describe the same general set of institutions and policy prescriptions, but neoliberalism is a convenient expression for designating them in one word that is now widely used and understood.

Neoliberalism is now used as a generic term to characterize an economic ideology that favors unrestricted “free” markets, “free trade”, macro-economic stability, and a set of related economic policies. Neoliberal ideology favors unrestricted freedom of private corporations to pursue profit, the privatization of public enterprises and services, and the elimination or reduction of public or government control, regulation, and guidance of economic activity.

Read the full essay on the Real Political Economy Site


Filed Under: Economic Crisis, Economic Policy, Economy, Noteworthy, Trade Tagged With: , ,

Agriculture Key to Liberia’s Youth Unemployment Challenge

June 11, 2012 by

Global Geopolitics & Political Economy / IPS

By Travis Lupick

MONROVIA, Jun 11, 2012 (IPS) – With his gold chain, baseball cap, and baggy denim shorts, Junior Toe wears the uniform of Liberia’s urban youth. Spend just a few minutes with the young man and it is evident that he possesses the street smarts to match the look.

However, Toe’s area of expertise lies outside the city and on the farm.

"Look at the pepper seed there," he says while touring a community farm not far from downtown Monrovia. "Put it in the ground, water it a few times, and you will make some money."

Toe is the founder and executive director of the Community Youth Network Program (CYNP), which trains young people in agriculture and livestock farming.

"Over there, we have a nursery for cabbages," he continues. "If you try and grow cabbage in the ground now, the rains will give it a hard time. This is the kind of knowledge we share."

Food security and meaningful employment for Liberia’s youth have long been major challenges for this West African nation. Now, a number of community-based programmes and government initiatives are working to address both. Officials say they are hopeful that this is the start of a major shift in how young Liberians participate in the agricultural sector.

According to a 2010 report by the United Nations Development Programme, 30 percent of Liberia’s land is arable and close to 90 percent of crop areas receive adequate rain. Yet according to the Liberia Food Security Outlook report for 2012, 60 percent of the population is classified as "food insecure".

Liberia’s agricultural sector was devastated by decades of mismanagement and war. In 1980, Master Sergeant Samuel Doe seized power in a coup and his rule, which ended 10 years later, was characterised by incompetent policies that hindered development.

In 1989, the country broke out in a civil war that continued sporadically until 2003. Those years saw warlord – and later, president – Charles Taylor plunder the country’s resources and fuel violence that killed 250,000 people. Even greater numbers fled Liberia or were repeatedly displaced.

According to a 2009 assessment by the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO), between 1987 and 2005 the production of the country’s staple food, rice, fell by 76 percent.

"Agricultural production has increased in recent years as the sector slowly recovers, but yields are still well below the regional average and food insecurity is high," the document states, adding that Liberia still only produces roughly 40 percent of the rice it needs to feed its almost four million people.

Also affected by the conflict were Liberia’s youth, tens of thousands of whom were coerced into joining rebel factions when they were just boys and girls. Rehabilitation projects run by the U.N. attempted to reintegrate ex-combatants and victims of the war, but those programmes are now widely criticised as failures.

"I went through the disarmament process, through the one week of training," Toe says, chuckling.

"But many people really never took advantage of that….The men were traumatised; they were used to the gun, used to money, and used to getting what they wanted fast."

Toe says that after seeing the shortcomings of the rehabilitation programmes, he set out to launch his own, one that would be better suited to Liberia. He reasoned that with fertile soil and a warm and wet climate, agriculture was the way to go. So he founded the CYNP in 2007.

The organisation now has a training centre in Bensonville, Montserrado County (roughly an hour’s drive northeast of Monrovia). In the county, land is divided into eight farms where former trainees and partners manage plots on either their own property or on community land. The Young Farmers Forum keeps participants connected and works to create awareness and attract new recruits.

Crucial to CYNP’s success, and what sets it apart from the U.N.’s past work with ex-combatants, is an emphasis on ownership. "We work with you to develop your own project in your community where you manage it," Toe says.

According to Toe, there are currently around 100 youths enrolled in six-month long programmes at the Bensonville facility, and as many as 500 graduates are now farming in communities around Montserrado.

A number of those graduates can be found working a plot of unused government land in the Fiamah neighbourhood of Monrovia. Alfred Kapehe says that CYNP helped him progress from subsistence agriculture to smallholder commercial farming. Likewise, James Paylay says the small farm he keeps brings in enough money for him to rent a home, feed his family, and pay his children’s school fees.

"Everything comes from the garden," Paylay says.

Liberian Deputy Minister for Youth Development Sam Hare acknowledged an often-cited USAID (the U.S. government agency providing economic and humanitarian assistance) statistic indicating that just three percent of Liberian youths are interested in farming. But, in an interview with IPS, he maintains that the situation is changing.

"Agriculture has been identified as the key to breaking the youth unemployment challenge," he says.

"We have been working with the Ministry of Agriculture and other stakeholders to make people see that agriculture, viewed in the right perspective, is a tool for wealth."

Hare says that the challenge is to convince young people that they can take farming beyond a subsistence level and make a commercial enterprise of it.

"Our vocational training priorities now need to be redefined and restructured to meet the real needs of Liberia. And youth and agriculture should be the focus," he adds.

Joseph Boiwu, a FAO programme officer for Liberia, says that another impediment slowing youths’ entry into agriculture is the labour-intensive nature of the work. To address this problem the FAO and partners distributed 24 power tillers to small groups of farmers in Bong, Lofa, and Nimba counties in 2010.

"We’re going to now reassess the interest of the youth," Boiwu says. If the initiative is deemed a success, it could grow to include heavy machinery such as tractors.

Prince Sampson, head of Youth for Development and Progressive Action in Bong County in north- central Liberia, describes a programme his organisation runs that is similar to the CYNP’s. Like Toe, he says that he learned from the mistakes of post-war workshops that failed to make long-term investments in people.

"The ex-combatants had training in carpentry, masonry, and other skills," Sampson says.

"And then after that, there wasn’t anything substantial for them to do. You had them trained, and then they didn’t have a source of income. So they went back to square one."

Sampson, who has worked with war-affected youth since 1992, maintains that agriculture is different because there is an element of immediate responsibility.

"The guys…They eat the very rice they grow. The vegetables are sold, the proceeds are divided among them, and they have some cash for their pockets."

Sampson describes the importance of involving the country’s former combatants in agriculture as a matter of food security.

"We make them understand the usefulness of the years still ahead, in spite of the years that were wasted during the war," he says.

"We let them understand that the strength they had – their youthful exuberance – can still be harnessed."

*Additional reporting from Al-Varney Rogers in Monrovia.

All rights reserved, IPS – Inter Press Service, 2012.

This article may not be republished, broadcast, framed, or redistributed without the written permission of IPS – Inter Press Service. Republication of this material without permission from IPS, the copyright holder, constitutes a violation of United States and international copyright laws and may result in legal action.


Filed Under: Africa, Agriculture, Development, Featured, Poverty Tagged With: ,

Biggest Economies Still Lagging on Renewables

June 11, 2012 by

Global Geopolitics & Political Economy / IPS

By Coralie Tripier

UNITED NATIONS, Jun 11, 2012 (IPS) – On the eve of the Rio+20 Summit in Brazil, the U.S.-based Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) released a report Monday ranking the world’s biggest countries on their use of renewable energy.

It shows the European Union’s clear leadership in the field, but also the significant progress made by developing countries.

The last time that world leaders met to discuss sustainable development was at the Rio+10 Earth Summit in Johannesburg a decade ago. Since then, significant changes have been made in terms of renewable energy.

"We decided to look at the progress made since 2002 and check how countries were doing," said Jake Schmidt, international climate programme director for NRDC, a nonprofit environmental organisation.

The report shows that the world’s biggest countries have taken some steps towards a more sustainable world.

"Since 2004, new clean-energy investment in the G20 countries has grown by almost 600 percent," the report says, but there is still much work to be done, as renewable energy only accounts for 2.6 percent of the overall energy for the G20 as a whole.

European countries get more of their electricity from wind, solar, geothermal, tidal and wave power than any other region in the world. Germany is leading the way in green energy, followed by the EU as a group and Italy, according to the NRDC.

The NRDC scorecard also shows clear gaps in terms of renewable energy among the countries of the G20. Indeed, while a substantial 10.7 percent of Germany’s energy comes from clean sources, only 2.7 percent of the United States’ energy does, and some of the world’s biggest countries such as Russia are still investing very little in renewable energy.

Some developing countries, while still playing a minor role in green energy, are increasingly investing in clean sources. China, Brazil and Turkey are leading the way for developing nations, with China showing a staggering 7,605 percent increase in clean energy investments since 2002, according to the report.

"You see a diverse list of countries with South Africa, India, China, Indonesia and a lot of others playing key roles as well as the traditional G20," said Dan Kammen, a professor in the Energy and Resources Group at the University of California, Berkeley.

Although the results show some significant progress coming from a range of countries, it is far from enough. Under current trends, the amount of energy produced from renewable sources throughout the world should increase from about two to seven percent by 2020, a number that has to be doubled, according to the report.

"That’s what the world needs," Schmidt said.

As countries are focusing on Rio, they are working on long-term targets, which are critical but not essential, according to Schmidt.

"What we really need at Rio is a set of targeted short-term commitments from individual countries, companies, cities, to really scale up renewable energy," he said.

"It is more important that key actors come to Rio+20 with individual country commitments to increase the amount of renewable energy to 15 percent of total electricity by 2020," he added.

Urgent actions are also needed to elimiate Environmentally Harmful Subsidies (EHS), through which polluting energies are funded, according to Kammen.

"While the overall investment in renewables, estimated to have been around 160 billion dollars last year, is very impressive, we must also keep in mind that the the global subsidies are estimated to be around 400 to 500 billion dollars… and that’s just for fossil fuels," he said. "The landscape is truly far from level."

"That’s not just a threat to the thousands of new jobs being created by the renewable energy industry, but also a threat to our health, our environment and our planet," Schmidt added.

In order to achieve these short-term goals, the cooperation between countries must increase, according to NRDC’s experts.

"There’s always a lot of collaboration around renewable electricity, in terms of helping countries overcome technology barriers, or cost barriers, and we need to take that to the next level. We need to step up the efforts to work together," Schmidt said.

The benefits would be substantial. "There is a very diverse set of benefits, some local benefits ranging from improvement in the local air quality, local water quality, to diversifying the energy mix and of course global benefits as well," Kammen said.

But for these benefits to become a reality, the progress made needs to be tracked overtime and regulary published in scorecards.

"We need to make sure that commitments are followed through. We need to hold them (governments) accountable for the progress, or lack of progress," Schmidt warned.

The Jun. 20-22 summit in Rio is widely viewed as a once-in-a-lifetime chance to gather world leaders, participants from governments, the private sector, NGOs and other groups to discuss renewable energy, one of the top priorities of the conference.

But the outcome of Rio+20 will mainly depend on the involvement of the participating states, and only six out of the G20 countries have already confirmed that their leaders would attend the meeting.

"The G20 countries are not essential, but they are major economies around the world, so whether or not their head of government comes and makes a commitment would be a marker of the success at Rio," Schmidt explained. "It is a clear signal of the will of these countries to put the world on a more sustainable growth."

"There’s still a lot of work to be done but the progress is quite impressive," Kammen concluded. "The challenge is to move along."

All rights reserved, IPS – Inter Press Service, 2012.

This article may not be republished, broadcast, framed, or redistributed without the written permission of IPS – Inter Press Service. Republication of this material without permission from IPS, the copyright holder, constitutes a violation of United States and international copyright laws and may result in legal action.


Filed Under: Development, Energy, Environment, Featured Tagged With: ,

Transforming Political Platitudes into Economic Realities

June 11, 2012 by

Global Geopolitics & Political Economy / IPS

By Thalif Deen

UNITED NATIONS, Jun 11, 2012 (IPS) – When world leaders endorse the final plan of action, titled "The Future We Want, at the Rio+20 summit in Brazil next week, a lingering question may remain unanswered: how best can the United Nations transform political platitudes into economic realities?

As the 193-member Preparatory Committee (PrepCom) continues its final round of negotiations through Friday in Rio de Janeiro this week – and perhaps beyond, if the current deadlock continues – there are several proposals already on the table for institutional reform or the creation of new bodies.

These proposals include strengthening of the existing U.N. Environment Programme (UNEP) by upgrading it to a full-fledged U.N. agency; establishing a Global Economic Coordination Council; creating a Global Sustainable Development Council and the granddaddy of all, the establishment of a mega World Environment Organisation (WEO).

The WEO, a longstanding proposal which has been kicked around the U.N. system for over two decades, was resurrected last week by French President Francois Hollande.

He said a WEO, "like the World Trade Organisation (WTO) or the International Labour Organisation (ILO)," would contribute to the success of Rio+20.

The President of the General Assembly Nassir Abdulaziz al-Nasser said Rio+20 summit needs to produce "a strong institutional architecture".

"This architecture must promote a better integration of the three dimensions of sustainable development: economic, social and environment protection," he said.

He said it must also address new and emerging issues, review the sustainability of progress achieved, and monitor the implementation of the commitment.

Last week, Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon also reiterated the "need for a new institutional framework to support our shared sustainable development goals (SDGs) – an effective body that can track their progress".

This body, he said, should have both high-level political engagement, and space for civil society, local authorities and the private sector to contribute their knowledge and expertise.

The United Nations has already begun to organise for the post-2015 challenge and opportunity, which that will closely follow the targeted date, 2015, for the achievement of the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) and the beginning of SDGs.

"I have asked the heads of the U.N. Development Group and the Executive Committee on Economic and Social Affairs to mobilise the entire U.N. system behind this effort," he added.

For starters, he announced last week the creation of a new post of assistant secretary general to oversee the post-2015 implementation of SDGs: Amina J. Mohammed of Nigeria will be Ban’s special adviser on post-2015 development planning.

An adjunct professor at Columbia University, New York, she has also served as the senior apecial assistant to the president of Nigeria on the MDGs.

Ban also announced a High-Level Panel of Eminent Persons to advise on a post-2015 way forward: President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono of Indonesia, President Ellen Johnson Sirleaf of Liberia, and British Prime Minister David Cameron, with further appointments to follow.

In his detailed proposals for a sustainable global society, Daisaku Ikeda President of the Tokyo-based Soka Gakkai International, has called for the establishment of a new international organisation through the merger of U.N. agencies in the fields of the environment and development.

A global organisation for sustainable development should be the outcome of a bold, qualitative transformation of the current system along the following lines: the consolidation of relevant sections and agencies, including the U.N. Development Programme (UNDP) and UNEP.

"We need to develop the institutional capacity to implement comprehensive responses that prioritise the actual and expressed needs of people and build the foundation for lives of dignity," he added.

At present, he pointed out, both UNDP and UNEP are structured so that only those states that are members of the respective governing councils can have a final say in decisions.

"In light of the importance of sustainable development and the wide range of issues and sectors involved, we must ensure that all states that wish to may participate in full," Ikeda added.

Chakravarthy Raghavan, a veteran journalist who has covered the U.N. both in New York and Geneva, told IPS the idea of WEO, or UNEP becoming a separate agency, has been around since 1992.

A new agency, of course, means more posts, and if funded like UNDP, means more control from the North, and more money spent.

And once any agency is created, the fundamental law of politics kicks in: governments decide on policies, and create institutions to carry them out, he said.

"Very soon, those in the institutions attempt to change the policies to suit their interests and needs," said Raghavan, who also covered the 1992 Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro.

"But it is not clear what is the value added; the U.N. charter envisaged the Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC) to undertake a supervisory and coordinating role."

That has long fallen into disuse, and its meetings now only enable agency heads to come and deliver long perorations, and "questions" from the floor, that more often than not get no answers, he added.

Raghavan said that Agenda 21, which was adopted at the Earth Summit, also referred to institutional arrangements for a followup.

"The idea of a WEO, with an overarching coordinating and institutional role had come up even then," he noted.

However, at PrepCom meetings during the 1992 summit, the idea met with resistance from the developed countries, and various specialised agencies.

In fact, in terms of the U.N. Charter, the ECOSOC was given this role (ala the Security Council on security issues), but ECOSOC gradually eroded into a talk shop, said Raghavan.

Meanwhile, as a follow-up to the Earth Summit post-1992, there were several institutions, funds and/or commissions and conventions that were set up to deal with environment and development.

These include the Global Environment Facility (GEF) run jointly by the World Bank, UNDP and UNEP; the U.N. Commission on Sustainable Development (CSD); the U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change and the U.N. Convention to Combat Desertification.

All rights reserved, IPS – Inter Press Service, 2012.

This article may not be republished, broadcast, framed, or redistributed without the written permission of IPS – Inter Press Service. Republication of this material without permission from IPS, the copyright holder, constitutes a violation of United States and international copyright laws and may result in legal action.


Filed Under: Development, Diplomacy, Environment, Report Tagged With:

Climate Change: Brand or Be Branded

June 11, 2012 by

Global Geopolitics & Political Economy / IDN

By Jen Alic of Oilprice.com*

IDN-InDepth NewsViewpoint

http://www.indepthnews.net/

SERAJEVO (IDN) – It is very difficult to understand the climate change denial platform on a purely philosophical and scientific level. Climate change is a rather obvious aspect of the history of the Earth and clearly man interacts with climate in an increasingly dynamic manner. That this is even debated appears on the surface to be not a little ridiculous – somewhere on the level of discussing whether the Earth is round or flat.

It is the semantics of it all, which, when combined with politics and the necessary religio-political elements, muddies the waters. For partisan policy camps, it is probably beneficial that the average reader doesn’t really have a clue what anyone means when they say "climate change", and throwing "global warming" into the mix only adds to the general confusion.

But here, scientists, climate change activist elite and environmental officials reading this will say that this is simplifying matters and that the real debate is not whether the climate is changing but the scale of that change as a result of our own actions. The debate, on this level, is about numbers, and it is sufficiently vague to render it a convenient instrument of politics. To this climate change elite, both "deniers" and "believers", there is only one thing to say: You have not brought the debate to the masses in a coherent way.

Acceptance camp and deniers

On both sides of the divide, the public relations campaign has been a complete fiasco, and this is clearly illustrated by asking the average person what they think about climate change or global warming – an answer that invariably depends on the weather at the particular moment the question is asked.

From the media-duping "Climategate scandal" in 2009 to the "Unabomber Believes in Global Warming" campaign that bestowed its intelligence on us this year, we are led to understand only that our elite are not up to the challenge of rational arbitration.

Those pushing for recognition that climate change is something that should be a major concern, and even a national security threat, have painfully mismanaged their efforts. Politicians do not understand scientists, and scientists clearly have no acumen for talking to the media, whose pull-quote analysis seeks maximum damage and entertainment.

The way "climate change" has been handled by the "acceptance" camp in terms of public awareness has accomplished nothing other than to brand the idea as something only "hippies" believe in, something "alarmist" and not grounded in reality.

On the other side of the divide, the "deniers" camp has been equally adept at failure, leading to the branding of those who do not "believe" in climate change, or even those who have unanswered questions, as enemies of the Earth, right-wing Conservatives with no respect for the environment and on the payroll of corporations. Both cry conspiracy. Anyone who falls in between these two groups, and invariably this is the larger percentage, is entirely sidelined and branded at will by the other two.

Unfair to the average citizen

These brandings are terribly unfair to the average citizen. To assume that people who fancy themselves Republicans have no respect for environmentally friendly activities is beyond wide of the mark. Likewise, to assume that those who fancy themselves Democrats are concerned with nothing short of destroying big business to further their naturalistic aims is also far from the truth.

The truth is that the average American, across political divides, is genuinely concerned about the environment and would naturally be concerned about the implications of climate change had it not been hijacked by politics.

With this in mind, it will be interesting to watch the drama unfold over the latest campaign fiasco undertaken by the incentivized "deniers". In late May, the Heartland Institute, the driver of climate change denial whose aim is not educating the masses but supporting insurance companies and big business, launched a billboard campaign featuring Unabomber Ted Kacynzki as a true believer in global warming. The bizarre logic underpinning this campaign was apparently that murderers, tyrants, terrorists and the like are the sort of people who believe in things like global warming (no longer, apparently, the sole purview of hippies).

The result of this hard-hitting campaign was not exactly what the Heartland Institute expected. Even its staunchest supporters recognized that it had crossed the line of no return. The institution split, with a sizable chunk of its members forming a new faction in an effort at damage control. Corporations not wishing to be taken to task for their alignment with Heartland withdrew a total of $825,000 in funding. Republican government supporters threatened to sideline the organization entirely if it failed to remove the offensive billboard campaign directly.

It was not a very cleverly calculated move on Heartland’s part, however amusing the campaign may seem to the cynical (and let’s admit it, it was mildly amusing, but in an unconstructive and unintelligent sort of way). The question topmost on everyone’s mind now is whether Heartland’s bad taste and its reputational dive will translate into any sort of victory for the climate change "believers" camp. If it does, it will be a hollow victory at best and as long as the “believers” insist on what can only be described as inaccessible advocacy and a penchant for delegitimizing anyone who asks questions.

Hostage to political and corporate whims

The public’s choice on climate change is based entirely on a lack of information and disinformation. As long as the subject remains hostage to political and corporate whims, we can only expect more along the lines of the Unabomber.

The best thing to happen to climate change recently is the Obama administration’s very public push to reduce America’s dependence on foreign oil – an endeavour that can only be achieved through renewable energy efforts. This is effectively reframing the climate change debate in terms that the intellectually vulnerable masses can understand. That said, as far as those masses are concerned, this will only happen if it can be monetized to their satisfaction.

Any climate change debate will necessarily have to be brought to the masses in a way that is translated in the only terms that have any sway: How it will affect their pocketbook in the immediate and near future. Ask anyone on the street. They will tell you they are happy to support any environmental efforts as long as it’s cheaper to do so than not.

*Jen Alic is a geopolitical analyst and the former editor-in-chief of ISN Security Watch in Zurich. This article is being republished by arrangement with OILPRICE.COM which carried it on June 6, 2012. The opinions expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily represent the views of, and should not be attributed to, IDN or its editorial board. [IDN-InDepthNews – June 11, 2012]

2012 IDN-InDepthNews | Analysis That Matters

This article should not be republished or redistributed without the permission of the original author or copyright holder.


Filed Under: Commentary, Environment Tagged With:

Warhead Elimination: A Roadmap

June 11, 2012 by

Global Geopolitics & Political Economy / IDN

By Frederick N. Mattis*

IDN-InDepth NewsViewpoint

ANNAPOLIS, USA (IDN) – A nuclear ban (abolition) treaty, often called a Nuclear Weapons Convention, will need to include a timetable for phased reductions of warheads until a final day when states simultaneously reach zero. The following is a plan for warhead elimination, with the aim of acceptability to today’s nuclear weapon states – and framed on the reality that the USA and Russia have far more nuclear warheads than the other possessors (Britain, France, China, Israel, India, Pakistan, North Korea).

Duration of the nuclear ban warhead elimination period is proposed to be either three or four years, depending on the higher number of either Russian or U.S. nuclear warheads remaining when the worldwide, unanimously joined nuclear ban treaty enters into force. If that quantity is less than 5,000, the elimination period would be 3 years, and 4 years if over 5,000. (The USA, reportedly, is approximately at 5,000 already.)

"Warheads" in this discussion includes strategic and sub-strategic or "tactical," deployed and those in reserve, and those already slated for dismantling. Assuming for illustration that Russia has 4,500 total warheads and the USA 4,000 when a nuclear ban enters into force, meaning a three-year elimination period (because neither has more than 5,000), Russia would have to decrease to the USA level of 4,000 before the USA begins reducing – or vice versa if quantities were reversed.

From the date Russia (in this example) has decreased to the USA level and the USA then joins with Russia in parallel further reductions, the other nuclear weapon states commence a 90-day period of dismantling 25 percent of their warheads; but thereafter the latter states can "wait" until Russia and the USA, reducing in tandem and following the elimination timetable, reduce to the other states’ varying [25 percent-reduced] levels, at which successive points those states join the USA and Russia in the final phases, on a month-by-month and then week-by-week basis, of the progress to zero.

It may be noted – and objected – that in anticipation of the 25 percent required decrease, pertinent states could counteract this by increasing their arsenals, i.e., before (impending) nuclear ban entry into force. However, even if some states did so, which would be liable to world criticism with a nuclear ban on the immediate horizon, under the enacted ban such a state must promptly and transparently eliminate 25 percent of its arsenal – which in any case would be much smaller than those of Russia and the USA. It would not be fair, though, to the USA and Russia to instead exempt, until U.S./Russian warhead levels are all the way down to those of the other nuclear weapon states, the latter states from the transparency, cooperation, and good-faith demonstrations attendant upon prompt (90-day) and internationally-monitored dismantling of a significant percentage (such as 25) of a state’s nuclear arsenal.

Russia and the USA, for their part, would be dismantling from their starting points many more warheads than the other nuclear weapon states; but due to arsenal size the USA and Russia would still, as today, be possessors of a large (though diminishing) majority of the world’s nuclear weapons through most of the weapons elimination period. Nearing the end, however, such as final six or nine months, the USA and Russia together would reach the varying levels of the other nuclear weapons states, and as noted be (re)joined by them in further reductions as the elimination timetable fixes ever-lower permissible ceilings on warhead possession.

To summarize: proposed duration of the weapons elimination period is 3 or 4 years, depending on whether the USA or Russia has over 5,000 total warheads (including inactive and those already slated for dismantling). Of the two countries, the greater-possessor undertakes reductions in accordance with the 3-4 year nuclear ban timetable, and is joined by the other when initial reductions by the former bring the two countries even. From that day also, the other nuclear weapon states must within 90 days eliminate 25 percent of their warheads. Thereafter, though, those states are not required to reduce further until Russia and the USA, following the treaty’s timetable, reduce to the other states’ varying but much lower levels, whereupon the latter states join the final phases of warhead elimination – on month-by-month and then week-by-week basis – leading to day of total elimination.

The above schema would please the USA and Russia, on the one hand, because of the 25 percent, transparent warhead reduction over just 90 days by the other nuclear weapon states (whose arsenals in any case are much smaller than U.S.-Russian). On the other hand, it would please the other (currently seven) nuclear weapon states because ultimately, over the final and thus most-important six or nine months of weapons elimination, the USA and Russia would reduce to the other states’ varying lower levels before the latter states must rejoin the warhead elimination process in final reductions to zero.

"Mass-De-Alerted" Warheads During Elimination Period?

On a critical issue of warhead elimination, it is here recommended that today’s nuclear weapon states not be prohibited by the treaty from maintaining their remaining, diminishing warheads as "active" during the elimination period – with the alternative being to require their overall, mass inactivation or extreme de-alerting at some early or middle phase of the elimination period (here posited as 3-4 years). The reason is because today’s nuclear weapon states probably would prefer, and may insist upon, having a "ready arsenal" (although shrinking) as a hedge against a conceived nuclear ban "break-out" – until all weapons are eliminated and the nuclear weapons-free world is a reality, underlain by the unprecedented geopolitical and other force of a unanimously joined treaty that regards states equally and relieves all of today’s nuclear threats. (With that said, countries such as the USA and Russia or others could certainly choose to negotiate and establish de-alerting measures beyond present ones – but outside of nuclear ban auspices.)

Report on Warhead Movement?

After nuclear ban baseline accountancy and recordation of nuclear warheads, conducted by the nuclear ban Technical Secretariat (inspectorate), states also – on the viewpoint here – would not be required to maintain remaining [diminishing] warheads in the "same place(s)," nor to report movement of warheads – until each state’s necessary consolidation of its final several or so warheads in the final few days or day of weapons elimination. Why? Because a state with a relatively small nuclear arsenal, if instead required by treaty to keep its weapons in a "declared" location or locations during the period of warhead elimination, could be afraid of being an easy target for liquidation of its (small) nuclear arsenal by another state’s military resources.

Of course, all dismantling of warheads under the nuclear ban timetable would be conducted under full monitoring of the nuclear ban regime, resulting in ongoing and public accountancy of exact quantities and respective owners of the world’s shrinking number of nuclear warheads. To emphasize, though: as incentive for today’s nuclear weapon states to actually join the nuclear ban, it is here recommended as not having a requirement for states to reveal location(s) of still-extant warheads during the progress to zero of the warhead elimination period.

Deterrents to Treaty Violation

What, then, would prevent a state from attempting to hide some warheads and not initially declare and then eliminate them as required by treaty elimination timetable – or, for that matter, to attempt secret development of nuclear weapons after their worldwide elimination under a fully enacted nuclear ban treaty?

Response: the unprecedented geopolitical, legal, psychological, and moral force of unanimous accession by states to the treaty (Nuclear Weapons Convention) before it takes effect; the absence of assured or easy success in cheating due to the worldwide verification regime, plus presumable workings of "societal verification" with a worldwide treaty; the treaty’s equal applicability and thus fairness to states (removing any putative, psychological "justification" for treaty violation); the treaty’s main benefit to states (removal of current nuclear weapons-related threats, including possible terrorist acquisition from a state’s arsenal); and the certitude of worldwide opposition to a pernicious violator of the worldwide treaty.

*Frederick N. Mattis is author of “Banning Weapons of Mass Destruction,” pub. ABC-CLIO/Praeger Security International [ISBN: 978-0-313-36538-6].

2012 IDN-InDepthNews | Analysis That Matters

This article should not be republished or redistributed without the permission of the original author or copyright holder.


Filed Under: Diplomacy, Geopolitics, Nuclear Weapons, Opinion, United States Tagged With:

Why Natural Gas Could Displace Gasoline – An Interview with Raymond Learsy

June 11, 2012 by

Republished on Global Geopolitics & Political Economy

By. Daniel Graeber of Oilprice.com

Massive natural gas discoveries along with new extraction techniques have led many to claim nat gas as the fuel of the future – which could ensure U.S. energy independence, reduce geopolitical risks, and help meet U.S. electricity demands for the next 575 years.

Yet why have we seen so many negative publications and reports? Does natural gas really have a place in our future and is it the golden chalice we have been led to believe?

To help us investigate these issues and others Oilprice.com was fortunate enough to have a chat with the well known author and energy trader Raymond Learsy who has recently released his latest book which takes a look at corruption within the oil sector: Oil and Finance: The Epic Corruption Continues.

In the Interview Raymond talks about the following:

  • Why Natural gas could displace gasoline
  • The top 3 forms of energy for national security
  • The New York Times Vendetta Against Natural Gas
  • Nuclear Energy’s place in America’s energy future
  • The future of Fracking
  • Why we can’t rely on coal for future power generation

Oilprice.com: What do you think is the link between say the New York Times and some of the concerns in the commodity market?

Raymond Learsy: Well, some of the reporting of the New York Times I feel is weighted too heavily on the fiction that surrounds the pricing of oil. I’ve written a number of posts, some of which are in my new book, some of which are in my previous book, that deal with the way the New York Times repeats without any serious, in-depth questioning the sort of general handouts of the oil industry and OPEC. For example, if Saudi Arabia says, "Oh, we’re having difficulty meeting current demands," there’s no insightful discussion of what their potential is, how long they’ve been sitting on the fence before they expanded their production capability, etc., etc. It’s always taken at face value. And then, of course, you have this extraordinary series of articles that came forward earlier in 2011 about natural gas.

Oilprice.com: Yeah, I saw that at Huffington Post. I actually used that in one of my media classes.

Raymond Learsy: Did you?

Oilprice.com: Yes.

Raymond Learsy: Well, thank you. I’m flattered. This was unbelievable for a leading newspaper to really take on the mantle of yellow journalism and to attempt to defame a whole new vista and direction of energy and the potential of what natural gas holds to place it into question and, thereby make people less focused on it, taking it less seriously, when it is really the golden chalice that has been given to us to make the U.S. energy independent.

Oilprice.com: Okay.

Raymond Learsy: I’m just amazed at the kind of language they use and the way that they try to undermine the whole focus on the development of natural gas in this country and elsewhere. And that much of what had been written that placed the whole natural gas enterprise into doubt was based on exchanges of emails that were unattributed. In other words, we didn’t know who sent the emails.

Oilprice.com: Right.

Raymond Learsy: We had nothing but hearsay, and a very editorialized hearsay, supporting a particular pre-program point of view.

Oilprice.com: Well.

Raymond Learsy: I mean it was shocking.

Oilprice.com: Well, why do you feel that’s the case? I guess we could look at the New York Times as some kind of the benchmark for U.S. journalism. What is the motive? Or is it lazy journalism? Or something else? Why do you feel the media, the New York Times specifically, is offering a mischaracterization of the energy markets?

Raymond Learsy: Let me show you this. It is from a study that MIT made shortly after the New York Times articles and I don’t think it was specifically meant as a rebut to the New York Times, but it goes into a great deal of detail that natural gas will result in demand reduction and displacement of coal-fired power by a gas-fired generation. And because of its more limited CO2 emissions further de-carbonization of the energy sector will be required and natural gas provides a cost effective bridge to such a low carbon future. In other words, natural gas, the way it’s structured, it’s enormous availability (we are finding more and more of it since these articles have been written), and it’s extraordinary low cost, present a very real danger to other forms of hydrocarbons. And I don’t know quite what the New York Times’ love affair is with the oil industry, but their articles were something that placed the whole idea of natural gas as a substitute, not simply for coal, but eventually for transportation fuel replacing gasoline, into jeopardy.

It just bedazzles me because you have at the current price of natural gas, which is about two and a half dollars an MMBtu, right? We have crude oil selling today at $95 a barrel. A week ago it was $100 a barrel.

Oilprice.com: Yes.

Raymond Learsy: At $2.50 an MMBtu, the amount of energy that is delivered by that quotient of natural gas, the price of oil would have to be around fifteen dollars a barrel.

Oilprice.com: Okay.

Raymond Learsy: And so if we were able to convert our transportation fleet for the use of natural gas, which we have in plentiful supply in this country, we would no longer have to import crude oil, etc., and we would be in a position to displace gasoline. Instead the New York Times undermines and places into question the one solution and salvation that we have for true energy independence.

Oilprice.com: Okay. So, what about other renewable forms? I’ve had some

discussions with some folks at Rand recently about converting from a highly carbon intensive economy to a low carbon economy and the conversation always winds up on things like infrastructure, on things like converting everything from petroleum to natural gas to wind. Where does that conversation factor into this conversation?

Raymond Learsy: Well, I mean, you have other alternatives. You have nuclear energy, but on the other hand you do have a situation where we have not built a nuclear facility since the 1970s and China is going to be building 25 nuclear facilities in the next 15 years. Now, the question needs to be asked seriously and analyzed seriously, who is going to be better off at the end of 15 years? We, without having built any, or the Chinese with having built 25?

Oilprice.com: Right.

Raymond Learsy: And can we build them safely? And can we solve the problems of waste disposal? Now the Russians have done that. The Russians are very extensive in their nuclear facilities and they moved all of their waste disposal up into the edge of the Arctic somewhere in one of the peninsulas bordering on the Arctic Sea. And it’s not only that, they’ve taken in waste disposal not only from their own plants but from other European plants such as France. Look at France, 80% of its electrical energy is generated, by nuclear power.

Oilprice.com: Right.

Raymond Learsy: So we are trailing the rest of the world in something at least, in a focus on nuclear energy. And then in terms of coal we have enormous reservoirs of coal, but on the other hand the carbon footprint of coal is far greater than that of natural gas.

Oilprice.com: Right.

Raymond Learsy: Basically on all these issues there are three items of focus; economy, national security and the environment. Natural gas gets top marks on all three. Coal gets top marks on two of three. Crude oil gets top marks on maybe one of three. And nuclear energy is still, we’re still debating how safe it is and how comfortable we are with it.

Oilprice.com: Right.

Raymond Learsy: And then of course we have alternatives; ethanol, bio fuels, hybrid cars, etc., etc., all of which could substantially reduce our consumption of fossil fuels. The carbon footprint of natural gas is far less than that of gasoline, significantly reducing the carbon footprint of our energy consumption.

Oilprice.com: Well, then what about the fracking debate? I know a couple weeks ago Sierra Club had filed a few suits with the Department of Energy, I believe, protesting liquefied natural gas export facilities planned for Louisiana ports on the premise that it’s going to lead to more fracking, which is the hot issue of today in terms of the new energy debate.

Raymond Learsy: Fracking is something that has to be studied and has to be mastered and I think the oil companies are not irresponsible, they’re not irresponsible entities. They fully understand their civic responsibilities and also their commercial and their legal responsibilities. They are beginning to take this problem and really work it through to the point where it is going to be as safe as it reasonably can be and then we have to consider is it safe enough?

I mean, with all of these problems the environmental groups look at them from one point of view only and what we need is leadership where all these things are taken into consideration; the economy, national security and the environment, and where the judgment is made based on the pros and cons of each of these energy sources. I don’t think that is really done, nor is it discussed in a lucid, candid way and with regard to natural gas. I mean, we are the beneficiaries of something we didn’t even know existed four or five years ago.

And the potential in terms of our economic development, in terms of our national security is enormous. The question is how much of a problem is it environmentally and can the oil companies really deal with it in such a way that it is minimal.

Oilprice.com: So, let’s take it a step further and kind of work our way back to the media argument because I think that there isn’t one; you can’t really have a motivating campaign on energy based on pragmatism. You need some level of excitability, and if you’re calling for elimination of this myopic debate on fracking, it doesn’t make for a sexy headline. It’s not as motivating as the doom and gloom of the Keystone/Nextel pipeline or ethylene glycol in your drinking water and people lighting their taps in their kitchen on fire because of the natural gas concerns. How does the public mentality figure into the conversation on natural gas?

Raymond Learsy: Well, I think the people have got to be made aware what the benefits are. You have something like the New York Times articles that I’m referring to which make virtually no reference to fracking. What they make reference to is loaded estimations of how much natural gas there is, inferring that they have been spiked by the oil companies and by the investors. It’s unbelievable some of the language that went into this and a year and a half later it’s been proven total consummate nonsense.

The amount of natural gas that is extant in this country has already been proven to be enough to last us a hundred years and we’ve just begun to scratch the surface on searching for it and on developing it. And it’s amazing, not only this country but China is becoming a major producer of shale gas, Europe and Poland have also had major finds of shale gas. All around the world shale gas seems to be the answer to energy dependency. What everybody should do is read the MIT study. Let me give you the details of it.

Oilprice.com: Right.

Raymond Learsy: You know, if they don’t want to order my book, they can order the MIT study which, If I had my druthers between ordering my book, which is called "Oil and Finance: The Epic Corruption Continues," and this study, I would order the study. The future of natural gas which is an interdisciplinary MIT study and I’m sure it can be gotten from MIT. It’s called The Future of Natural Gas and it was published in June of ’11.

Oilprice.com: Okay.

Raymond Learsy: What it tells you is the dramatic potential of natural gas in terms of our energy consumption and usage. And it is done in great detail by a whole bevy of authorities who really spent time, effort and enormous amount of research in coming up with this, not like the New York Times.

Oilprice.com: Okay. So, just to wrap it up, I remember, and as I said at the beginning of our conversation, I had referenced your Huffington Post article from last year when we were debating, the responsibility of the news media. Now I remember shortly after that article came out, I think about two weeks later, the ombudsman, the public editor at the New York Times, refuted the original article. I’m sure very few people read that because it probably didn’t run as high profile as the previous story and I also…go ahead.

Raymond Learsy: The gas article in the New York Times was a front-page article and the public editor had his article on the second page of the Weekly Review section on Sunday.

Oilprice.com: Right.

Raymond Learsy: So, you’re right, I mean the perception of the public editor’s comments were, I’m sure, barely read by a handful of people.

Oilprice.com: Right. Then if I’m not mistaken, roughly a month later the New York State Legislature voted on fracking.

Raymond Learsy: Mm-hmm.

Oilprice.com: Is that correct to your knowledge?

Raymond Learsy: I don’t know if it was a month later or so.

Oilprice.com: Shortly after.

Raymond Learsy: They put it all on hold.

Oilprice.com: Now do you think that that had anything to do with the New York Times article?

Raymond Learsy: Well, I think, yeah, the New York Times article gave natural gas, shale natural gas, a very bad taste. I mean, it gave it the illusion of being in the hands of shysters and people who were simply, I mean there were comments with words like "it’s all about the money." I mean the kind of language that was used was incredible and without very much substantiation.

And I’m sure people don’t follow these issues day to day and I’m sure it made it very easy rather than seeing natural gas as a source of economic energy for New York State. Not only energy but economic advancement, especially at a very difficult time in the economy. It was very easy to dismiss after the holy of holies, the New York Times, wrote about it in the manner that they did.

Oilprice.com: Good. So I mean what’s the final word on natural gas? We understand the perception that public reactions rise and fall with the sun, and it’s an excitable issue as it becomes a new issue as time goes on, you know, level heads sort of prevail. Where do you see the natural gas debate in say 2020?

Raymond Learsy: Well. I think people will be, in 2020, will be saying aren’t we fortunate to be the Saudi Arabia of natural gas and that we have been able to develop this natural resource, this American resource, safely, responsibly and it has enhanced the lives of almost every American. Natural gas is a feedstock for much of our chemical production. Natural gas has been an absolute shot in the arm to our steel industry; the piping and the new drilling equipment that is being used and produced. It has created, in places like North Dakota where you also have shale oil as well as shale gas, a boom.

There is massive employment, not unemployment, but employment to the point they can’t fill jobs in North Dakota and they can’t find a place to live, they can’t find apartments and they can’t find a place to stay. I mean, the boom there is staggering and that boom is going to spread around the United States, if it’s permitted to do so, if we have a coherent, intelligent and sensible discussion on this issue. And I think that the potential is so enormous that by 2020 the whole idea of energy independence will have been dissipated because of our resources in natural gas.

Raymond thank you for taking the time to speak with us.

Source: http://oilprice.com/Interviews/The-Future-of-Natural-Gas-An-Interview-with-Raymond-Learsy.html

This article should not be republished or redistributed without the permission of the original author or copyright holder.


Filed Under: Economy, Energy, Geopolitics, Interview, United States Tagged With: ,

More Austerity Won’t Solve European Crisis, U.N. Says

June 11, 2012 by

Global Geopolitics & Political Economy / IPS

By Carlota Cortes

UNITED NATIONS, Jun 11, 2012 (IPS) – The increasingly precarious financial situation in Europe remains the biggest threat to the world economy, warns a U.N. report released here.

The "World Economic Situation and Prospects 2012" (WESP 2012) released Friday focuses on the need to avoid austerity measures and promote growth and job creation.

Rob Vos, director of Development Policy and Analysis Division of the U.N. Department of Economic and Social Affairs, told IPS, "The debt problems and financial sector fragility in Europe, but also in the United States, continue to be a source of ‘de-leveraging’ whereby businesses, households and banks are trying to restore their balance sheets, but this is holding back consumption and investment demand as well as normal credit flows."

Vos told reporters last week that Europe is struggling with a "vicious circle" based on high unemployment, banks’ exposure to sovereign debts and fiscal austerity.

"The situation is very fragile and we could fairly easily fall into a trap," he said.

On Jun. 9, Spain accepted a 125-billion-dollar bailout from the European Union to rescue the failed banking system.

It is the fourth country in Europe to accept emergency assistance, after Portugal, Greece and Ireland. In March, Spain’s unemployment rate was a whopping 24.1 percent.

However, Europe is not the only region facing these challenges.

Although there has been some economic improvement in the U.S., the world’s biggest economy, the unemployment rate remains over eight percent, according to the report.

"Developing countries are already being affected through slower trade and more volatile capital and commodity markets," Vos told IPS.

The 48 least developed countries (LDCs) grew almost two percent less than originally projected in the WESP report of January 2012, making the growth rate 4.1 percent.

Emerging nations are affected by the weakening of the international trade not only from developed countries but also among developing countries.

"World trade growth already started slowing in 2011 and this slowdown has continued this year. Manufacturing production in China is already showing signs of stagnation over the past few months and this is also bringing trade among developing countries to a halt," Vos said.

To all of this is added uncertainty in markets and political instability in areas such as the Middle East, which creates a risky world economic situation.

The report concludes that the current policies chosen by the developed countries, especially Europe, are heading in the "wrong direction". The fiscal austerity programmes implemented in several European countries are ineffective to help the economy emerge from crisis, it said.

Jomo Kwama Sundaram, U.N. assistant secretary-general of the Department of Economic and Social Affairs, told reporters Thursday, "There is a strong recognition all over the world that fiscal austerity pursued by many governments has been the main cause for the protracted economic downturn."

The updated report recommends avoiding fiscal austerity measures and encourages policies that help to create direct jobs and promote green growth.

The debate over green growth and sustainable development goals has gained new momentum with the major Rio+20 Summit on Sustainable Development later this month.

According to Vos, official development aid fell for the first time in many years, but it is unclear to what extent this will affect the funding of proposals in Rio, such as the Global Environmental Facility (GEF.)

However, is it clear that "the economic problems in developed countries may affect willingness to agree on costly adjustments for cleaner energy, sustainable agriculture and other costly adjustments to their economies," he added.

This should not tarnish the event. On the contrary, Vos told IPS, green growth may be the solution to the crisis and "investing in sustainable development has a great potential for job creation and poverty reduction."

"Rio+20 provides a great opportunity for the world to come together to find a solution for both crises," Vos said.

All rights reserved, IPS – Inter Press Service, 2012.

This article may not be republished, broadcast, framed, or redistributed without the written permission of IPS – Inter Press Service. Republication of this material without permission from IPS, the copyright holder, constitutes a violation of United States and international copyright laws and may result in legal action.


Filed Under: Commentary, Economic Crisis, Economic Policy, Europe Tagged With: ,