HOME – YouTube

Not sure why I can’t recall having seen this earlier…

Via HOME – YouTube

We are living in exceptional times. Scientists tell us that we have 10 years to change the way we live, avert the depletion of natural resources and the catastrophic evolution of the Earth’s climate.

The stakes are high for us and our children. Everyone should take part in the effort, and HOME has been conceived to take a message of mobilization out to every human being.

For this purpose, HOME needs to be free. A patron, the PPR Group, made this possible. EuropaCorp, the distributor, also pledged not to make any profit because Home is a non-profit film.

HOME has been made for you : share it! And act for the planet.

Yann Arthus-Bertrand

HOME official website
http://www.home-2009.com

Coverup of Gitmo Deaths

Andrew Sullivan highlights reporting that seems otherwise ignored in the US media at the moment: The Deaths At “Camp No”

As usual, the foreign press cover the new and powerful evidence that the Bush administration was using torture methods so severe they killed prisoners in Gitmo as late as 2006 – and then covered it up with claims of a triple-simultaneous-suicide. Here’s the Guardian. And the Telegraph. And theIndependent. Here’s the Irish Times. And the Canadian Press. But the US papers?

The ongoing decline of refugee rights

A brief but interesting piece online at Human Rights Watch (originally published in The International Herald Tribune) by Bill Frelick: Refugees Are Not Bargaining Chips

A virus is sweeping Asia. The symptoms are heightened xenophobia and amnesia about fundamental refugee rights. Australia and Indonesia succumbed first, in October, when they stopped boats carrying Sri Lankans. Neither country would allow the Sri Lankans to disembark even though they came from a country experiencing massive violence and displacement.

The willingness to flout international refugee law and to ignore the entreaties of refugees not to be sent back to their home countries has become the mark of chummy bilateral relations between Asian states. Thailand sends back Hmong refugees – a group with a history of persecution at the hands of the Lao government dating back to the 1960s – citing a secret bilateral agreement and the Lao government’s assurances of their safe treatment. Cambodia forcibly repatriates Uighurs just as the Chinese vice president, Xi Jinping, arrives on a visit to Phnom Penh to announce a $1.2 billion aid package to Cambodia.

What keeps us from coming to terms with the climate crisis

An interesting perspective from psychologist George Marshall (who can also be found at Carbon Detox and Climate Change Denial) in Yes magazine: Why We Find It So Hard to Act Against Climate Change

So why has so little happened? Why do people who claim to be very concerned about climate change continue their high-carbon lifestyles? And why, as the warnings become ever louder, do increasing numbers of people reject the arguments of scientists and the evidence of their own eyes?

According to Norgaard, most people have tacitly agreed that it is socially inappropriate to pay attention to climate change. It does not come up in conversations, or as an issue in voting, consumption, or career choices. We are like a committee that has decided to avoid a thorny problem by conspiring to make sure that it never makes it onto the agenda of any meeting.

In opinion poll research the majority of people will define it as far away (“it’s a global problem, not a local problem”) or far in the future (“it’s a huge problem for future generations”). They embrace the tiny cluster of skeptics as evidence that “it’s only a theory,” and that “there is still a debate.” And they strategically shift the causes as far away as possible: “I’m not the problem—it’s the Chinese/rich people/corporations.” Here in Europe we routinely blame the Americans.

In all of these examples, people have selected, isolated, and then exaggerated the aspects of climate change that best enable their detachment. And, ironically, focus-group research suggests that people are able to create the most distance when climate change is categorized as an “environmental” problem.

How can we energize people and prevent them from passively standing by?

We must remember that people will only accept a challenging message if it speaks to their own language and values and comes from a trusted communicator.

We must recognize that the most trusted conveyors of new ideas are not experts or celebrities but the people we already know.

And finally we need to recognize that people are best motivated to start a journey by a positive vision of their destination—in this case by understanding the real and personal benefits that could come from a low-carbon world.

Google to reconsider role in China

Google to reconsider their role in China, starting with a move to remove censorship from search results on google.cn, whilst contemplating the possibility of complete cessation of Google operations in China. Per the Official Google Blog: A new approach to China

Second, we have evidence to suggest that a primary goal of the attackers was accessing the Gmail accounts of Chinese human rights activists.

Third, as part of this investigation but independent of the attack on Google, we have discovered that the accounts of dozens of U.S.-, China- and Europe-based Gmail users who are advocates of human rights in China appear to have been routinely accessed by third parties.

We have taken the unusual step of sharing information about these attacks with a broad audience not just because of the security and human rights implications of what we have unearthed, but also because this information goes to the heart of a much bigger global debate about freedom of speech. In the last two decades, China’s economic reform programs and its citizens’ entrepreneurial flair have lifted hundreds of millions of Chinese people out of poverty. Indeed, this great nation is at the heart of much economic progress and development in the world today.

We have decided we are no longer willing to continue censoring our results on Google.cn, and so over the next few weeks we will be discussing with the Chinese government the basis on which we could operate an unfiltered search engine within the law, if at all.

Siberian Independence Movement

An interesting piece by Joshua Kucera at Slate: Where Russia Meets China

IRKUTSK, Russia—When you’re the leader of a fringe political group, a cafe called “I’m Waiting for a UFO” may not be the best place to take a visiting journalist. But it’s possible that alien abduction is more likely than what Mikheil Kulekhov is working for: Siberian independence.

Kulekhov claims solidarity with other secessionist movements, which, he says, are everywhere in Russia. But at least for now, Russia is heading in the opposite direction. Regional governors used to be elected by local voters, but in 2004, then-President Vladimir Putin changed the law and decided to appoint the governors directly, greatly increasing the Kremlin’s authority over Russia’s far-flung regions. This would become a running theme throughout my trip: how distant Moscow rules Siberia imperiously, with little regard for the wishes of the people here. The word colony came up again and again in conversation.

Iran

Back in the mainstream western media again. I expect relatively active coverage from Andrew Sullivan, once again. Also, Al Giordano at The Field.

Obama’s statement:

Before I leave, let me also briefly address the events that have taken place over the last few days in the Islamic Republic of Iran. The United States joins with the international community in strongly condemning the violent and unjust suppression of innocent Iranian citizens, which has apparently resulted in detentions, injuries, and even death.

For months, the Iranian people have sought nothing more than to exercise their universal rights. Each time they have done so, they have been met with the iron fist of brutality, even on solemn occasions and holy days. And each time that has happened, the world has watched with deep admiration for the courage and the conviction of the Iranian people who are part of Iran’s great and enduring civilization.

What’s taking place within Iran is not about the United States or any other country. It’s about the Iranian people and their aspirations for justice and a better life for themselves. And the decision of Iran’s leaders to govern through fear and tyranny will not succeed in making those aspirations go away.

As I said in Oslo, it’s telling when governments fear the aspirations of their own people more than the power of any other nation.

Along with all free nations, the United States stands with those who seek their universal rights. We call upon the Iranian government to abide by the international obligations that it has to respect the rights of its own people.

We call for the immediate release of all who have been unjustly detained within Iran. We will continue to bear witness to the extraordinary events that are taking place there. And I’m confident that history will be on the side of those who seek justice.

China’s Role at Copenhagen

An interesting (and if true, rather depressing) perspective on what went on at Copenhagen from Mark Lynas at The Guardian: How do I know China wrecked the Copenhagen deal? I was in the room

Copenhagen was a disaster. That much is agreed. But the truth about what actually happened is in danger of being lost amid the spin and inevitable mutual recriminations. The truth is this: China wrecked the talks, intentionally humiliated Barack Obama, and insisted on an awful “deal” so western leaders would walk away carrying the blame. How do I know this? Because I was in the room and saw it happen.

Copenhagen was much worse than just another bad deal, because it illustrated a profound shift in global geopolitics. This is fast becoming China’s century, yet its leadership has displayed that multilateral environmental governance is not only not a priority, but is viewed as a hindrance to the new superpower’s freedom of action. I left Copenhagen more despondent than I have felt in a long time. After all the hope and all the hype, the mobilisation of thousands, a wave of optimism crashed against the rock of global power politics, fell back, and drained away.

Update: A valuable counterpoint is provided by Alex Pasternack at Treehugger: Why Blaming China for Copenhagen Won’t Help the Climate

China’s role at Copenhagen reminds us of the key issue dividing the developing and developed world: while it hurtles towards a clean tech economy, China, like other high-emitting developing nations, is laser-focused on its “right to develop.” And it expects the developed world to do much more to prevent climate change. Rightly so.

Ultimately, it was President Obama who seemed to keep talks alive. “I don’t want to mess around with this anymore, I want to just talk with Premier Wen,” he reportedly told a member of his staff as talks seemed to be devolving into an Upstairs-Downstairs farce (see also the President’s own account, from an interview with News Hour, at Dot Earth). Obama’s relationships with world leaders and his determination to get them to agree to something not only prevented back-tracking but kept intact some measure of good will. We need as much of that as possible as we continue trying to forge a climate agreement.

So what did Obama bring to Copenhagen? He offered cuts of 3-4% from 1990 levels (part of an average 11-19% overall reduction by other developed nations) by 2020. In fact, entering Copenhagen, no country seemed prepared to do anything near what scientists say is adequate to help combat climate change (cuts of 40% by 2020).

That makes the question of whether China held Copenhagen hostage moot. There was little to hold hostage, and no ransom to be won.

Ultimately, I left Copenhagen without bitterness or blame, but a head-numbing sense of confusion and conundrum. From the pile of debris left behind, I took these lessons:
- The world treated COP15 like a trade treaty, not a peace treaty.
- However powerful China may now be — or however powerful people wish to perceive it –the most powerful actor on the climate stage is the United States, led by President Obama.
- The fragile sense of trust exposed in the aftermath of Copenhagen cuts both ways.
- The leaders of the developing world have a lot to do. The developed world has to do more.

Post Copenhagen Wrap

There is so much around the interwebs in response to the end of the Copenhagen Summit (COP15) that it is a bit overwhelming to blog about. Those things of interest that I can still recall/find follow…

Yarra Climate Action Now Copenhagen Analysis

Crikey – Copenhagen coming to a close: the end’s a scary place to start

Mostly it’s too hard to find the words to describe how I feel about climate change. This is even more so here in Copenhagen. Yesterday at a talk by George Monbiot he pointed out that climate change is too benign to describe what’s happening to the world … it’s like describing an invasion as “unexpected visitors”. To be young and alive today is to witness our earth breaking and see our “leaders” demonstrate a spectacular failure of leadership. As Alex Steffen wrote, “to be young and aware today is to see your elders as cannibals with golf clubs”.

CPD – The Road from Copenhagen | Thinking Points

Larvatus Prodeo – After Copenhagen

Climate Action Centre – A Climate Con – Analysis of the “Copenhagen Accord”

John Quiggin – Glass Half Full Department

Crikey – Copenhagen’s nasty negotiations (Clive Hamilton)

One of the lessons we Australians learned was that the American supremacism that underpinned the foreign policy approach of the neo-cons was not a Bush thing. Nor was it a Republican thing. It is an American thing, and the Democrats are just as likely to treat the rest of the world as a bunch of pissants as their GOP rivals. Stern proved this as Copenhagen. With the election of Barack Obama, no new era dawned in America.

But if all of this is too bleak, there was one spark of light. At a business fair in Copenhagen last week, Steven Chu, the US Energy Secretary, gave a Powerpoint presentation, one he had obviously given many times before.

He talked solely about technological possibilities, detailing the opportunities now opening up and the torrents of federal money being poured into the new energy industries. At the most senior levels, especially in the department of energy, the techno-geeks have taken over from the friends of the fossil fuel industry, and it is plain that, whatever happens to climate legislation in the US Congress or international treaties at Copenhagen, Obama appointees are going to use whatever levers they can to bring about a technological transformation in the eight years they have at the helm.

Crikey – Copenhagen: one, big, brutal reality check (Matthew Knott)

Copenhagen has offered the world a brutal reality check on the difficult road ahead in stopping runaway climate change. Perhaps, more than hope, that’s what we really needed anyway.

The Limits of Character

An interesting post by Patrick Appel at The Daily Dish on the limits of character w.r.t. perspectives on US Presidents.

Profiles of managed personalities –actors, athletes, politicians – are often of little worth because that Person Of Note is actively crafting a branded identity. They are working against the intent of the profile. No persona is more managed than that of the President.

There are symbolic moments where Obama can act unilaterally, but major actions rely on the consultation of experts, the collection of information, and weeks of debate at lower levels of the executive. This system has been constructed by Obama, his advisers, previous occupants of the White House, and Congress. It’s not as sexy or as emotionally charged as defending or attacking the character of the President. But thinking of the executive as a bundle of conflicting personalities and incentives funneled through the authority of one man is truer to reality than pretending the President is sitting in a room with a red phone and barking out orders based solely upon the swinging needle of his internal compass.

$8 Billion for High Speed Rail in the USA

The White House puts High Speed Rail into the spotlight in the US. About time.

“My high-speed rail proposal will lead to innovations that change the way we travel in America. We must start developing clean, energy-efficient transportation that will define our regions for centuries to come,” said President Obama. “A major new high-speed rail line will generate many thousands of construction jobs over several years, as well as permanent jobs for rail employees and increased economic activity in the destinations these trains serve. High-speed rail is long-overdue, and this plan lets American travelers know that they are not doomed to a future of long lines at the airports or jammed cars on the highways.”

Should be a good thing for the well and truly in-progress plans for a HSR network in California (more at CalHSR blog).

The corridors designated are as follows.

rail_map_d3

Whitehouse blog

Federal Railroad Administration

Habeas Corpus and State Secrets Privilege

Neither looking good on the ‘change’ front

More on Habeas Corpus a la Obama…

An intro from Rafe at rc3

Lots of detail from Glenn Greenwald at Salon

And some more here

A brief post at Crooks and Liars also

More here too

More on State Secrets Privilege

Rafe also raises this one

Roth at TPM catches contradictions

An article from Washington Post

More at whorunsgov

Sigh…