Planetary Ruin

Hollywood is of one mind politically — at least, that’s the long-standing myth. Well, at this moment (a rare moment) the myth may have become reality. The anti-war sentiment in the entertainment community is as pervasive as it was during Vietnam. Yet there are many other cross-currents as well — and they are strengthening as the ’08 campaign looms.
One obvious area of disagreement, of course, involves personalities. Barack Obama’s cameo appearances in town have created a fervent constituency, and Hollywood likes instant stars. Still, the Hillary backers have power and money and are diligently trying to disconnect her from the debacle in Iraq.

The political star system has its built-in tensions, to be sure. Adam Venit, a honcho at Endeavor, hosted a reception for John Edwards at his agency the other day. Not present was Venit’s partner, Ari Emanuel, who threw a hot Obama bash not long ago and whose brother, Rahm, may (or may not) remain in the Hillary camp.

At the same time, Hollywood loves box office, and Al Gore’s documentary, “An Inconvenient Truth,” has become Paramount’s single most profitable release. Suddenly Gore is a star again.

There are other emerging fissures, as well. The aggressively photogenic John Edwards was cruising along, detailing his litany of liberal causes last week until, during question time, he invoked the “I” word — Israel. Perhaps the greatest short-term threat to world peace, Edwards remarked, was the possibility that Israel would bomb Iran’s nuclear facilities. As a chill descended on the gathering, the Edwards event was brought to a polite close.

Support for Israel in the U.S. has lately become bafflingly multi-cultural, representing an alliance between diaspora Jews, traditional Zionists and evangelicals. Support from Christian zealots, who now represent about one third of Israel’s tourist business, is welcomed even though, according to evangelical doctrine, Judgment Day will bring the ultimate destruction of Israel and death to most of its residents.

The Economist observed this week that “knee jerk defensiveness” of Israel ultimately will erode support for that country around the world, even among Jews. Only 17% of American Jews today regard themselves as “pro-Zionist,” the magazine points out, and only 57% say that “caring about Israel is a very important part of being Jewish.” And Jimmy Carter only exacerbates these mixed signals with his recent perorations that Israel must “give back” territories to the Palestinians.

Given that the Christian Right and neo-conservatives in this country seem more obsessed with Israel than the Jewish community, the “I” word is becoming a potentially lethal component of today’s political dialogue.

The Middle East crisis represents just one of the issues that could splinter the formidable anti-Bush sentiment in the entertainment community. Further, as Democratic candidates compete to propose ever bolder ways to bureaucratize health care, this issue, too, could undermine the seemingly liberal consensus.

Liberals also have to figure a way to catch up with The Governator on environmental issues. Clearly, Schwarzenegger is finding consensus positions that cross party lines — something the liberals have been unable to fashion.

All this provides both an opportunity and a trap for Obama as he mounts his presidential campaign. His platform has the purity of a fresh screenplay that’s about to be submitted to the Hollywood studios. And Hollywood has mastered the process of messing things up with its interminable “notes.”

Obama must at once enter the fray and stand above it. And his mentors, whoever they turn out to be, must remember that while Vietnam knocked the bad guys out of power, it delivered the nation to Richard Nixon.

That didn’t help much.

Read more >>Hollywood is of one mind politically — at least, that’s the long-standing myth. Well, at this moment (a rare moment) the myth may have become reality. The anti-war sentiment in the entertainment community is as pervasive as it was during Vietnam. Yet there are many other cross-currents as well — and they are strengthening as the ’08 campaign looms.
One obvious area of disagreement, of course, involves personalities. Barack Obama’s cameo appearances in town have created a fervent constituency, and Hollywood likes instant stars. Still, the Hillary backers have power and money and are diligently trying to disconnect her from the debacle in Iraq.

The political star system has its built-in tensions, to be sure. Adam Venit, a honcho at Endeavor, hosted a reception for John Edwards at his agency the other day. Not present was Venit’s partner, Ari Emanuel, who threw a hot Obama bash not long ago and whose brother, Rahm, may (or may not) remain in the Hillary camp.

At the same time, Hollywood loves box office, and Al Gore’s documentary, “An Inconvenient Truth,” has become Paramount’s single most profitable release. Suddenly Gore is a star again.

There are other emerging fissures, as well. The aggressively photogenic John Edwards was cruising along, detailing his litany of liberal causes last week until, during question time, he invoked the “I” word — Israel. Perhaps the greatest short-term threat to world peace, Edwards remarked, was the possibility that Israel would bomb Iran’s nuclear facilities. As a chill descended on the gathering, the Edwards event was brought to a polite close.

Support for Israel in the U.S. has lately become bafflingly multi-cultural, representing an alliance between diaspora Jews, traditional Zionists and evangelicals. Support from Christian zealots, who now represent about one third of Israel’s tourist business, is welcomed even though, according to evangelical doctrine, Judgment Day will bring the ultimate destruction of Israel and death to most of its residents.

The Economist observed this week that “knee jerk defensiveness” of Israel ultimately will erode support for that country around the world, even among Jews. Only 17% of American Jews today regard themselves as “pro-Zionist,” the magazine points out, and only 57% say that “caring about Israel is a very important part of being Jewish.” And Jimmy Carter only exacerbates these mixed signals with his recent perorations that Israel must “give back” territories to the Palestinians.

Given that the Christian Right and neo-conservatives in this country seem more obsessed with Israel than the Jewish community, the “I” word is becoming a potentially lethal component of today’s political dialogue.

The Middle East crisis represents just one of the issues that could splinter the formidable anti-Bush sentiment in the entertainment community. Further, as Democratic candidates compete to propose ever bolder ways to bureaucratize health care, this issue, too, could undermine the seemingly liberal consensus.

Liberals also have to figure a way to catch up with The Governator on environmental issues. Clearly, Schwarzenegger is finding consensus positions that cross party lines — something the liberals have been unable to fashion.

All this provides both an opportunity and a trap for Obama as he mounts his presidential campaign. His platform has the purity of a fresh screenplay that’s about to be submitted to the Hollywood studios. And Hollywood has mastered the process of messing things up with its interminable “notes.”

Obama must at once enter the fray and stand above it. And his mentors, whoever they turn out to be, must remember that while Vietnam knocked the bad guys out of power, it delivered the nation to Richard Nixon.

That didn’t help much.

Read more >>

Sunday marks the start of the Chinese New Year and it’s a lucky one for those starting out in life. But the rest of us are in for a rough ride. Expect epidemics, disasters and violence in much of the world.

“The Year of the Pig will not be very peaceful,” said Hong Kong feng shui master Raymond Lo.

Feng shui is the ancient Chinese practice of trying to achieve health, harmony and prosperity by using specific dates, numbers, building design and the placement of objects.

The pig is one of 12 animals (or mythical animals in the case of the dragon) on the 12-year cycle of the Chinese zodiac, which follows the lunar calendar. According to Chinese astrology, people born in pig years are polite, honest, hardworking and loyal. They are also lucky, which is why many Chinese like to have babies in a pig year.

“Any children born in The Year of Pig will receive help from others throughout their lives,” Lo said.

Ronald Reagan was a pig. So are Arnold Schwarzenegger, Woody Allen and Elton John. Not to mention Hillary Rodham Clinton.

But a word of caution to the presidential candidate.  The pig finished last in the race that determined the zodiac’s order, behind the dog.

Other animals in the zodiac are the rat, ox, tiger, rabbit, dragon, snake, horse, sheep, monkey and rooster. The zodiac runs on a 12-year cycle, and each year is associated with the five elements that Chinese mystics make up the universe: metal, water, wood, fire and earth.

Pig years can be turbulent because they are dominated by fire and water, conflicting elements that tend to cause havoc, Lo said.

“Fire sitting on water is a symbol of conflict and skirmish,” he said. “We’ll also see more fire disasters and bombings.”

He noted that the Russian AK-47 rifle, a weapon of choice among insurgents around the world, was invented during a pig year.

“So it will not be surprising to see more gunbattles, murder with guns and bombing attacks in 2007,” he said.

Malaysian feng shui master Lillian Too agreed. “I wish I could say that there won’t be natural disasters, but I am afraid it could be as bad as last year,” she said.

“There could be epidemics,” she said. “I am very worried about bird flu. Eat healthy foods and take care of your health.”

Few Chinese seemed to be worried about the warnings, though, as they prepared for their biggest bash of the year — Saturday’s Lunar New Year’s Eve — celebrated by one-fifth of the world’s population.

It’s an occasion to have family feasts, buy new clothes and exchange red envelopes stuffed with gift money.

Not everything about the future looks bleak.  Most soothsayers said the world economy will continue to boom, though they advise people to be cautious about their investments.

“Because of the water element in the Year of the Pig, the economy will continue to grow, which also paves the way for another round of interest rate hikes,” said Peter So, a celebrity fortuneteller in Hong Kong.

Hong Kong soothsayer Alion Yeo is predicting North Korea will undergo a power struggle that will bring leadership changes around May. Last year, the Year of the Dog, Yeo warned that the North Korean nuclear crisis would worsen.

The North conducted a nuclear test in October. Singapore fortuneteller John Lok predicted the situation in Iraq will not settle and President Bush will have a bad year.

He also said the next president of France may be a woman — no surprise there since one of the main candidates is a woman, Segolene Royal of the Socialist party.

While the pig is beloved by the Chinese, the animal is offensive to Muslims, who consider it unclean. For that reason, Chinese New Year celebrations have to be handled with care in Malaysia and Indonesia, mainly Muslim countries with large ethnic Chinese minorities.

For the first time in its history, Indonesia introduced a special set of postal stamps to mark the Lunar New Year. But concerns over Muslim sensitivities led the postal service to drop plans to put a large pig on the stamps. It chose a Chinese temple instead.

“We took the middle path,” said Hana Suryana, director of the Indonesian postal service.

Still, that was progress for a country where ethnic Chinese, who make up 5 percent of the population and have long faced discrimination, once were not allowed to celebrate the Lunar New Year.

“That has changed now, but we still feel uncomfortable celebrating the day in a large way because there are some people who cannot accept that Chinese culture is a part of Indonesian culture,” said Jhony Tan, a trader in Jakarta’s bustling Chinatown.

Yusri Mohammad, president of the Muslim Youth Movement of Malaysia, said he had no problem with the Chinese celebrating the pig year in his country. He said decorative pictures of pigs in shopping malls are fine — as long as Chinese don’t start using live pigs or eat pork in public.

Read more >>

President of Czech Republic Calls Man-Made Global Warming a ‘Myth’ – Questions Gore’s Sanity
Mon Feb 12 2007 09:10:09 ET

Czech president Vaclav Klaus has criticized the UN panel on global warming, claiming that it was a political authority without any scientific basis.

In an interview with “Hospodárské noviny”, a Czech economics daily, Klaus answered a few questions:

Q: IPCC has released its report and you say that the global warming is a false myth. How did you get this idea, Mr President?•

A: It’s not my idea. Global warming is a false myth and every serious person and scientist says so. It is not fair to refer to the U.N. panel. IPCC is not a scientific institution: it’s a political body, a sort of non-government organization of green flavor. It’s neither a forum of neutral scientists nor a balanced group of scientists. These people are politicized scientists who arrive there with a one-sided opinion and a one-sided assignment. Also, it’s an undignified slapstick that people don’t wait for the full report in May 2007 but instead respond, in such a serious way, to the summary for policymakers where all the “but’s” are scratched, removed, and replaced by oversimplified theses.• This is clearly such an incredible failure of so many people, from journalists to politicians. If the European Commission is instantly going to buy such a trick, we have another very good reason to think that the countries themselves, not the Commission, should be deciding about similar issues.•

Q: How do you explain that there is no other comparably senior statesman in Europe who would advocate this viewpoint? No one else has such strong opinionsɉۢ

A: My opinions about this issue simply are strong. Other top-level politicians do not express their global warming doubts because a whip of political correctness strangles their voice.

• Q: But you’re not a climate scientist. Do you have a sufficient knowledge and enough information?•

A: Environmentalism as a metaphysical ideology and as a worldview has absolutely nothing to do with natural sciences or with the climate. Sadly, it has nothing to do with social sciences either. Still, it is becoming fashionable and this fact scares me. The second part of the sentence should be: we also have lots of reports, studies, and books of climatologists whose conclusions are diametrally opposite.• Indeed, I never measure the thickness of ice in Antarctica. I really don’t know how to do it and don’t plan to learn it. However, as a scientifically oriented person, I know how to read science reports about these questions, for example about ice in Antarctica. I don’t have to be a climate scientist myself to read them. And inside the papers I have read, the conclusions we may see in the media simply don’t appear. But let me promise you something: this topic troubles me which is why I started to write an article about it last Christmas. The article expanded and became a book. In a couple of months, it will be published. One chapter out of seven will organize my opinions about the climate change.• Environmentalism and green ideology is something very different from climate science. Various findings and screams of scientists are abused by this ideology.•

Q: How do you explain that conservative media are skeptical while the left-wing media view the global warming as a done deal?•

A: It is not quite exactly divided to the left-wingers and right-wingers. Nevertheless it’s obvious that environmentalism is a new incarnation of modern leftism.•

Q: If you look at all these things, even if you were right ɉۢ

A: …I am right…•

Q: Isn’t there enough empirical evidence and facts we can see with our eyes that imply that Man is demolishing the planet and himself?•

A: It’s such a nonsense that I have probably not heard a bigger nonsense yet.•

Q: Don’t you believe that we’re ruining our planet?•

A: I will pretend that I haven’t heard you. Perhaps only Mr Al Gore may be saying something along these lines: a sane person can’t. I don’t see any ruining of the planet, I have never seen it, and I don’t think that a reasonable and serious person could say such a thing. Look: you represent the economic media so I expect a certain economical erudition from you. My book will answer these questions. For example, we know that there exists a huge correlation between the care we give to the environment on one side and the wealth and technological prowess on the other side. It’s clear that the poorer the society is, the more brutally it behaves with respect to Nature, and vice versa.• It’s also true that there exist social systems that are damaging Nature – by eliminating private ownership and similar things – much more than the freer societies. These tendencies become important in the long run. They unambiguously imply that today, on February 8th, 2007, Nature is protected uncomparably more than on February 8th ten years ago or fifty years ago or one hundred years ago.• That’s why I ask: how can you pronounce the sentence you said? Perhaps if you’re unconscious? Or did you mean it as a provocation only? And maybe I am just too naive and I allowed you to provoke me to give you all these answers, am I not? It is more likely that you actually believe what you say.

Article found on The Drudge Report

The snow just won’t stop. Intense lake-effect snow squalls that buried communities along eastern Lake Ontario for nine straight days diminished Sunday _ then started up again early Monday.

Unofficially, the squalls have dumped 12 feet, 2 inches of snow at Redfield. If accurate, that would break the state record of 10 feet, 7 inches of snow that fell in nearby Montague over seven days ending Jan. 1, 2002, said Steve McLaughlin, a meteorologist for the National Weather Service in Buffalo.

A weather service representative was being sent to Redfield on Monday to verify the total.

Residents of this hardy upstate New York village seem unfazed. Redfield, whose economy thrives on snowmobilers and cross-country skiers, receives an annual average of 270 inches _ more than 22 feet.

“It’s snow. We get a lot of it. So what?” said Allan Babcock, a lifelong resident who owns Shar’s Country Diner, a popular eatery in this village of 650 people.

However, Gov. Eliot Spitzer has declared a state disaster emergency in Oswego County. The county’s community of Parish had recorded 115 inches by early Sunday. Mexico had 103 inches, North Osceola had 99 and Scriba 94. The city of Oswego had 85 inches.

The persistent snow bands that have wracked the county for a week were expected to finally end later Monday.

“We have a sharp front coming in Monday that’s going to kick all this out. We may get one more burst of snow. But then it’s over. Finally, some mercy,” McLaughlin said.

However, the forecaster noted that a coastal winter storm expected midweek could bring another 6 to 12 inches to areas of upstate New York.

As the bands shifted north into Jefferson County most of Sunday, residents continued recovering from the heavy snow. Roads were mostly cleared as workers turned their attention to removing the snow and trimming down 10- and 12-foot-high snow banks that continued to make driving dangerous.

The snow led to surreal scenes. One house appeared to be in a cocoon. Drifting snow in the front had swallowed the front door and blocked the windows.

“In all my life, I mean my entire life combined, I’ve never seen this much snow at once,” said Jim Bevridge, 47, of Timmonium, Md., who drove up for a long weekend of snowmobiling.

Read more >>

On the day that the latest report on global warming was released, I went out and bought a light bulb. OK, an environmentally friendly, compact fluorescent light bulb.

But it was either buying a light bulb or pulling the covers over my head. And it was too early in the day to reach for that kind of comforter.

By every measure, the U N ‘s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change raises the level of alarm. The fact of global warming is “unequivocal.” The certainty of the human role is now somewhere over 90 percent. Which is about as certain as scientists ever get.

I would like to say we’re at a point where global warming is impossible to deny. Let’s just say that global warming deniers are now on a par with Holocaust deniers, though one denies the past and the other denies the present and future.

But light bulbs aside — I now have three and counting — I don’t expect that this report will set off some vast political uprising. The sorry fact is that the rising world thermometer hasn’t translated into political climate change in America.

The folks at the Pew Research Center clocking public attitudes show that global warming remains 20th on the annual list of 23 policy priorities. Below terrorism, of course, but also below tax cuts, crime, morality, and illegal immigration.

One reason is that while poles are melting and polar bears are swimming between ice floes, American politics has remained polarized. There are astonishing gaps between Republican science and Democratic science. Try these numbers: Only 23 percent of college-educated Republicans believe the warming is due to humans, while 75 percent of college-educated Democrats believe it.

This great divide comes from the science-be-damned-and-debunked attitude of the Bush administration and its favorite media outlets. The day of the report, Big Oil Senator James Inhofe of Oklahoma actually described it as “a shining example of the corruption of science for political gain.” Speaking of corruption of science, the American Enterprise Institute, which has gotten $1.6 million over the years from Exxon Mobil, offered $10,000 last summer to scientists who would counter the IPCC report.

But there are psychological as well as political reasons why global warming remains in the cool basement of priorities. It may be, paradoxically, that framing this issue in catastrophic terms ends up paralyzing instead of motivating us. Remember the Time magazine cover story: “Be Worried. Be Very Worried.” The essential environmental narrative is a hair-raising consciousness-raising: This is your Earth. This is your Earth on carbon emissions.

This works for some. But a lot of social science research tells us something else. As Ross Gelbspan, author of “The Heat is On,” says, “when people are confronted with an overwhelming threat and don’t see a solution, it makes them feel impotent. So they shrug it off or go into deliberate denial.”

Michael Shellenberger, co author of “The Death of Environmentalism,” adds, “The dominant narrative of global warming has been that we’re responsible and have to make changes or we’re all going to die. It’s tailor-made to ensure inaction.”

So how many scientists does it take to change a light bulb?

American University’s Matthew Nisbet is among those who see the importance of expanding the story beyond scientists. He is charting the reframing of climate change into a moral and religious issue — see the greening of the evangelicals — and into a corruption-of-science issue — see big oil — and an economic issue — see the newer, greener technologies .

In addition, maybe we can turn denial into planning. “If the weatherman says there’s a 75 percent chance of rain, you take your umbrella,” Shellenberger tells groups. Even people who clutched denial as their last, best hope can prepare, he says, for the next Katrina. Global warming preparation is both his antidote for helplessness and goad to collective action.

The report is grim stuff. Whatever we do today, we face long-range global problems with a short-term local attention span. We’re no happier looking at this global thermostat than we are looking at the nuclear doomsday clock.

Can we change from debating global warming to preparing? Can we define the issue in ways that turn denial into action? In America what matters now isn’t environmental science, but political science.

We are still waiting for the time when an election hinges on a candidate’s plans for a changing climate. That’s when the light bulb goes on.

Read more >>

When politicians and journalists declare that the science of global warming is settled, they show a regrettable ignorance about how science works. We were treated to another dose of it recently when the experts of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change issued the Summary for Policymakers that puts the political spin on an unfinished scientific dossier on climate change due for publication in a few months’ time. They declared that most of the rise in temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to man-made greenhouse gases.

The small print explains “very likely” as meaning that the experts who made the judgment felt 90% sure about it. Older readers may recall a press conference at Harwell in 1958 when Sir John Cockcroft, Britain’s top nuclear physicist, said he was 90% certain that his lads had achieved controlled nuclear fusion. It turned out that he was wrong. More positively, a 10% uncertainty in any theory is a wide open breach for any latterday Galileo or Einstein to storm through with a better idea. That is how science really works.

Twenty years ago, climate research became politicised in favour of one particular hypothesis, which redefined the subject as the study of the effect of greenhouse gases. As a result, the rebellious spirits essential for innovative and trustworthy science are greeted with impediments to their research careers. And while the media usually find mavericks at least entertaining, in this case they often imagine that anyone who doubts the hypothesis of man-made global warming must be in the pay of the oil companies. As a result, some key discoveries in climate research go almost unreported.

Enthusiasm for the global-warming scare also ensures that heatwaves make headlines, while contrary symptoms, such as this winter’s billion-dollar loss of Californian crops to unusual frost, are relegated to the business pages. The early arrival of migrant birds in spring provides colourful evidence for a recent warming of the northern lands. But did anyone tell you that in east Antarctica the Adélie penguins and Cape petrels are turning up at their spring nesting sites around nine days later than they did 50 years ago? While sea-ice has diminished in the Arctic since 1978, it has grown by 8% in the Southern Ocean.

So one awkward question you can ask, when you’re forking out those extra taxes for climate change, is “Why is east Antarctica getting colder?” It makes no sense at all if carbon dioxide is driving global warming. While you’re at it, you might inquire whether Gordon Brown will give you a refund if it’s confirmed that global warming has stopped. The best measurements of global air temperatures come from American weather satellites, and they show wobbles but no overall change since 1999.

That levelling off is just what is expected by the chief rival hypothesis, which says that the sun drives climate changes more emphatically than greenhouse gases do. After becoming much more active during the 20th century, the sun now stands at a high but roughly level state of activity. Solar physicists warn of possible global cooling, should the sun revert to the lazier mood it was in during the Little Ice Age 300 years ago.

Climate history and related archeology give solid support to the solar hypothesis. The 20th-century episode, or Modern Warming, was just the latest in a long string of similar events produced by a hyperactive sun, of which the last was the Medieval Warming.

The Chinese population doubled then, while in Europe the Vikings and cathedral-builders prospered. Fascinating relics of earlier episodes come from the Swiss Alps, with the rediscovery in 2003 of a long-forgotten pass used intermittently whenever the world was warm.

What does the Intergovernmental Panel do with such emphatic evidence for an alternation of warm and cold periods, linked to solar activity and going on long before human industry was a possible factor? Less than nothing. The 2007 Summary for Policymakers boasts of cutting in half a very small contribution by the sun to climate change conceded in a 2001 report.

Disdain for the sun goes with a failure by the self-appointed greenhouse experts to keep up with inconvenient discoveries about how the solar variations control the climate. The sun’s brightness may change too little to account for the big swings in the climate. But more than 10 years have passed since Henrik Svensmark in Copenhagen first pointed out a much more powerful mechanism.

He saw from compilations of weather satellite data that cloudiness varies according to how many atomic particles are coming in from exploded stars. More cosmic rays, more clouds. The sun’s magnetic field bats away many of the cosmic rays, and its intensification during the 20th century meant fewer cosmic rays, fewer clouds, and a warmer world. On the other hand the Little Ice Age was chilly because the lazy sun let in more cosmic rays, leaving the world cloudier and gloomier.

The only trouble with Svensmark’s idea — apart from its being politically incorrect — was that meteorologists denied that cosmic rays could be involved in cloud formation. After long delays in scraping together the funds for an experiment, Svensmark and his small team at the Danish National Space Center hit the jackpot in the summer of 2005.

In a box of air in the basement, they were able to show that electrons set free by cosmic rays coming through the ceiling stitched together droplets of sulphuric acid and water. These are the building blocks for cloud condensation. But journal after journal declined to publish their report; the discovery finally appeared in the Proceedings of the Royal Society late last year.

Thanks to having written The Manic Sun, a book about Svensmark’s initial discovery published in 1997, I have been privileged to be on the inside track for reporting his struggles and successes since then. The outcome is a second book, The Chilling Stars, co-authored by the two of us and published next week by Icon books. We are not exaggerating, we believe, when we subtitle it “A new theory of climate change”.

Where does all that leave the impact of greenhouse gases? Their effects are likely to be a good deal less than advertised, but nobody can really say until the implications of the new theory of climate change are more fully worked out.

The reappraisal starts with Antarctica, where those contradictory temperature trends are directly predicted by Svensmark’s scenario, because the snow there is whiter than the cloud-tops. Meanwhile humility in face of Nature’s marvels seems more appropriate than arrogant assertions that we can forecast and even control a climate ruled by the sun and the stars.

Read more >>

The Queen is growing increasingly ‘concerned’ that the Prince of Wales is embarrassing other members of the royal family in fighting a public eco war.

Senior royal sources said Her Majesty fears his green revolution is leading to tensions within the family.

Both Prince Edward and Prince Andrew have been criticised recently for their use of royal flights. It is felt Prince Charles’s campaigning is putting others under scrutiny to prove their own green credentials.

A senior source said: “There is growing concern in the royal household and in the family itself that the Prince of Wales’s worthy determination to leave a green legacy may have a detrimental impact on other members of the royal family.

“Some of the more junior members of the family have been embarrassed by it. Perhaps one should remember that, while Her Majesty remains Head of State of this country, all the royal family must be seen to be working hard under her stewardship and, of course, in harmony.

“This sort of division causes unnecessary tension and may be seen as unhelpful.”

It is feared the knock-on effects of the criticism may restrict the royals’ ability to act as ambassadors abroad. Some senior sources fear the situation may lead to splits in the royal family itself.

The revelation comes after Charles declared in a speech in New York that the fight against climate change was a ‘war’ that must be won.

He said it was imperative that everybody take personal responsibility. His strong language-surprised some senior figures in the royal household.

Charles took a 20-strong entourage to New York – taking over the first-class cabin of a BA scheduled flight as well as some club class seats at a cost to the taxpayer of more than £150,000.

According to one former royal aide when the Princess Royal travels on Olympic business she flies scheduled too, but is only accompanied by one Scotland Yard personal protection officer.

When the Duke of Edinburgh flies abroad on royal business without the Queen he has just one aide and his taxpayer-funded SO14 personal protection officer.

Charles has revealed he plans to curb his use of royal helicopters and private jets on official engagements when possible. He also revealed he intends to make more use of the royal train.

Read more >>

The chief executive of the world’s biggest retailer yesterday stepped up the pace in the race to be green with a series of initiatives to cut its own giant carbon footprint – and those of its suppliers, customers and staff.
Lee Scott of Wal-Mart, which operates some 7,000 stores in 14 countries, employs 1.8 million staff and owns Asda in the UK, said the current generation had a “responsibility” to live more sustainable lives to “leave a healthier humanity and a healthier planet to future generations”.

He outlined a “six path” strategy that he insisted could be delivered without compromising growth or profits.
Mr Scott outlined his “Sustainability 360″ campaign in London last night at a lecture to UK business leaders hosted by the Prince of Wales. He said the vast retailer, which is the world’s second biggest company after Exxon Mobil, was determined to make its merchandise “affordable and sustainable” so that customers could “do the right thing … for this planet”.

Speaking to The Guardian before last night’s lecture Mr Scott insisted the new initiative was not part of a “greenwash” PR campaign to improve the image of Wal-Mart, which is regularly accused of crushing smaller rivals, squeezing suppliers and paying poverty wages to thousands of workers.

“This is not an advertising campaign,” he said. “This is not a publicity campaign. We are not sophisticated enough to greenwash. I mean, we have a hard enough time getting our true story out. This is about being a better company.”

He said the group’s actions would prove it was sincere about sustainability.

It was Mr Scott who kickstarted the big grocers’ current focus on the environment in 2005, when he first set out a green agenda. Since then, in the UK, Tesco and Marks & Spencer have both weighed in with their own plans.

Wal-Mart’s six path strategy focuses on its own environmental footprint and that of its 60,000 suppliers. It has big ambitions to cut the waste sent to landfill, build more energy efficient stores and take “a hard look at what is on our shelves”.

Work with just one toy supplier to reduce packaging, Mr Scott said, had meant it required 497 fewer containers to ship the same number of items, saving 3,800 trees, 1,000 barrels of oil and $2.4m (£1.6m) a year in shipping costs. “That’s just one supplier, just one product line and just 255 items,” he said.

Suppliers are being asked to cut their packaging by 5% by 2013, which Wal-Mart says will cut the number of truck journeys and save 67m gallons of diesel a year.

Mr Scott said he wanted Wal-Mart to have a positive impact on communities, make sustainable products cheaper and more accessible, encourage its employees to adopt more sustainable lifestyles and create new markets for sustainable products such as organic cotton.

He insisted Wal-Mart was not shifting the burden of sustainability to suppliers: “No, this is a cooperative effort of encouragement and support and combining our energies.”

Yesterday Mr Scott said the moment Wal-Mart decided to get serious about sustainability was when Hurricane Katrina devastated New Orleans. The “desperate images” of the chaos, he said, “pushed us from a learning process into taking more aggressive action.”

It also provided a welcome boost to the store’s reputation when Wal-Mart staff opened stores to hand out food and drugs and the retailer’s relief trucks arrived in the flooded city before the US army. “Hurricane Katrina changed Wal-Mart forever,” Mr Scott told last night’s lecture.

In the wake of the hurricane he set three groundbreaking goals: to switch the entire group to using renewable energy; to achieve zero waste and to sell sustainable products. His new plan takes that further.

Scott acknowledged yesterday that environmental groups had at first treated the group, based in Bentonville, Arkansas, with some suspicion. “When we first approached NGOs to come into Wal-Mart they almost wanted to come in masks. The first thing they wanted to know was were we sincere. Now they really do trust us.”

Not all of them, however. Mr Scott admitted there were still some environmental groups that did not want their names linked with the so-called “Beast of Bentonville”. The groups “have asked that we do not highlight them”, he said.

The Wal-Mart chief said sustainability was now “mainstream” and Wal-Mart could use its scale to generate big changes without increasing prices. The retailer would not have to choose between cost-cutting – its corporate mantra for more than 40 years – and strategies that help save the planet.

“I don’t see that you have to have a trade-off,” he said. “I see them as the same thing. By eliminating waste, you are driving out cost and by eliminating waste you are making a more sustainable planet. It’s nice that you don’t have to make a choice.”

He admitted Wal-Mart was demanding changes from others before its own house was in order but said critics should weigh up whether it was better to have one perfect company or one company “helping thousands of suppliers, millions of associates and tens of millions of customers make billions of decisions that sustain themselves, their communities and, in turn, the earth”.

Mr Scott himself walks the talk, to an extent. His family car is a hybrid Lexus SUV but he crossed the Atlantic in a private Wal-Mart jet, one of a fleet of more than 20, with just four passengers on board.

Wal-Mart, he says, needs its planes to move staff around its stores: “Quite honestly I am not oversensitive to the issue about whether or not our people fly about and whether we should have planes.”

Neither was he embarrassed by the sky-high US levels of carbon emissions.”Is it important to be embarrassed, or is it important that you look and say, ‘this is where we are and we can do better’?”

Read more >>

Former Vice President Al Gore has accepted an invitation to testify next month in a congressional hearing on the highly controversial issue of climate change.

Gore’s film, “An Inconvenient Truth,” which focused on global warming, received two Oscar nominations this week, one for best documentary feature.  For people who make a parlor game of guessing Gore’s intentions for 2008, the appearance will surely stoke speculation that he may yet be a late entrant into the Democratic presidential derby.

Gore will appear at a joint hearing on Wednesday, March 21. He will be the only witness to appear before the Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Energy and Air Quality and the Science and Technology Subcommittee on Energy and Environment. Gore served on both committees during his House tenure representing a Tennessee district.

House Energy and Commerce Chairman John D. Dingell, D-Mich., and Science Committee Chairman Bart Gordon, D-Tenn., will jointly chair the hearing. Climate change has proved a politically thorny issue for newly empowered House Democrats. Dingell, whose district includes many auto industry workers, has been locked in a political battle with Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., over panel jurisdiction on climate change issues.

Read more >>

Jane Goodall, the British scientist renowned for her work on African primates, woke up an environmental conference at the French presidential palace by imitating the wild call of a tropical chimpanzee.   “As usual, I find myself in the position of representing the animal kingdom in a gathering like this,” the 72-year-old Goodall told the conference Friday, which coincided with the release of the UN’s latest review of climate change.

“To do that most effectively, I propose to bring into this room the voice of the animals I’ve been learning about for the past 45 years.

“So here is the greeting of the chimpanzee of Tanzania,” Goodall said, before launching into a long, modulated cry. “That says hello,” she quipped, to loud applause from the assembly.

“We all enjoyed the chimp cry very much,” French President Jacques Chirac, who was hosting the event at the Elysee Palace in Paris, told her afterwards.

The British primatologist is considered one of the 20th centuries leading scientists for her work with chimpanzees in the Gombe reserve in Tanzania, and the discoveries she made observing them and their social behaviour.

One of a panel of international scientists and experts gathered for the Paris conference, Goodall pleaded for a concerted global effort to preserve biodiversity and combat the effects of climate change.

“We must stop stealing from our children and we must stop now,” she said.

The Paris conference aims to build support for the creation of a United Nations environment agency, with more far-reaching powers and greater means than the existing United Nations Environment Programme.

The assessment released on Friday by the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) said global warming was almost certainly caused by humans, and carbon pollution disgorged this century would disrupt the climate system for a thousand years to come.

Read more >>