RSS FeedUS EPA issues endangerment finding for GHGs
Yesterday, the US EPA finally issued administrative findings with respect to greenhouse gases (GHGs) such as carbon dioxide. While coinciding with the commencement of the climate conference in Copenhagen, this finding has been anticipated since the 2007 U.S. Supreme Court decision in Massachusetts v EPA – in which the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the EPA did in fact have the authority to regulate GHGs under the U.S. Clean Air Act.
Read more
Do CRU emails show FOIA wrong-doing?
There’s been a lot of hype in the past few days about a batch of emails that were either hacked or leaked from the University of East Anglia’s Climate Research Unit (CRU). In the view of some opponents to climate change legislation, these emails depict collusion and conspiracy among leading climate change scientists. Other contrarians accuse at least one scientist of outright illegal conduct: violations of UK’s Freedom of Information Act (FOIA).
Hundreds of emails spanning well over a decade were released, but the ones important for allegations of illegal conduct are those where some of the scientists discuss the implications of the newly (in the UK) enacted FOIA, those that discuss how to deal with FOIA requests, and one that directs the deletion of certain emails.
I’ve learned a little bit about the US’s version of FOIA, so I thought that it would be interesting to examine this accusation of illegal conduct – at least, to the extent that a Canadian studying law at an American law school can explore British information and privacy law. Read more
A Legal Obligation to Assist Iran
Earlier today Iran began large-scale war games to simulate a response to attacks on its nuclear sites. But these games are hardly for fun, as the country intends to showcase its capability of defending against a strike from Israel.
Although in Canada we normally think of countries like Iran as the aggressor, the country is not without fear of Israel initiating military action against them. Israeli officials have not ruled out the possibility, and there is a history of attacking Iraq in 1981 and more recently, Syria in 2007.
In response to the strikes against Iraq, the United Nations Security Council issued Resolution 487, stating,
Considering that, under the terms of Article 2, paragraph 4, of the Charter of the United Nations: “All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any State, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations”,
1. Strongly condemns the military attack by Israel in clear violation of the Charter of the United Nations and the norms of international conduct;
2. Calls upon Israel to refrain in the future from any such acts or threats thereof;
3. Further considers that the said attack constitutes a serious threat to the entire IAEA safeguards regime which is the foundation of the non-proliferation Treaty;
4. Fully recognises the inalienable sovereign right of Iraq, and all other States, especially the developing countries, to establish programmes of technological and nuclear development to develop their economy and industry for peaceful purposes in accordance with their present and future needs and consistent with the internationally accepted objectives of preventing nuclear-weapons proliferation;
5. Calls upon Israel urgently to place its nuclear facilities under IAEA safeguards;
6. Considers that Iraq is entitled to appropriate redress for the destruction it has suffered, responsibility for which has been acknowledged by Israel;
7. Requests the Secretary-General to keep the Security Council regularly informed of the implementation of this resolution.
Iraq’s new government is seeking reparations from the 1981 attack. Sadr MP, Nasser al-Rubaie, recently stated,
According to the international law Iraq has the right to receive compensation from Israel. We have called for a legislation to be passed in the parliament to oblige the Iraqi government to follow up the issue.
But it’s the attack against Syria that really raised the interest of the international law community. The reason is that both attacks were justified by Israel as necessary measures of self-defence, which although questionable by international law, were given limited credence by the Bush doctrine.
The 2002 National Security Strategy of the United States of America (NSS) states,
A. Summary of National Security Strategy 2002
… the first duty of the United States Government remains
what it always has been: to protect the American people and American interests … this duty obligates the government to anticipate and counter threats, using all elements of national power, before the threats can do grave damage. The greater the threat, the greater is the risk of inaction – and the more compelling the case for taking anticipatory action to defend ourselves, even if uncertainty remains as to the time and place of the enemy’s attack. There are few greater threats than a terrorist attack with WMD.To forestall or prevent such hostile acts by our adversaries, the United States will, if necessary, act preemptively in exercising our inherent right of self-defense. The United States will not resort to force in all cases to preempt emerging threats. Our preference is that nonmilitary actions succeed. And no country should ever use preemption as a pretext for aggression.
The 2006 revision retains the ability to act preemptively. But there is one important distinction between the U.S. and Israel that differentiates these policies. The NSS is based on Article 51 of the U.N. Charter,
Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defence if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations, until the Security Council has taken measures necessary to maintain international peace and security. Measures taken by Members in the exercise of this right of self-defence shall be immediately reported to the Security Council and shall not in any way affect the authority and responsibility of the Security Council under the present Charter to take at any time such action as it deems necessary in order to maintain or restore international peace and security.
The obvious distinction is that while the U.S. is a permanent member of the Security Council, Israel is not. Israel cannot legitimately claim to be acting in self-defence when attacking pre-emptively, especially in light of Article 2(4),
All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations.
Additionally, the effectiveness of either of these strikes are highly disputed by analysts, who are still frustrated by refusals by Israelis to provide information about them. After the Iraq invasion on the premise of WMDs, skepticism about pre-emptive strikes, especially after claims by Israeli military intelligence officer Shlomo Brom and Israeli MPs that Israel deliberately exaggerated reports about Iraqi capabilities in order to encourage an invasion.
The Nuremberg International Military Tribunal addressed the issue of pre-emptive strikes in United States v. Goering, 6 F.R.D. 69, 100-01 (1946). The court rejected the Nazi claim that they had to invade Norway to avoid an Allied invasion, because there was no such threat imminent.
Mark A. Drumbl of the Washington and Lee University – School of Law points out in Self-Defense, Preemption, Fear: Iraq, and Beyond that the military response by Austria-Hungary to the assassination by the Serbian terrorist organization Black Hand of the Crown Prince Ferdinand and his wife was uniformly condemned by the international community. It is also largely acknowledged as the primary cause of WWI.
Nicole Deller and John Burroughs explain in Jus ad Bellum: Law Regulating Resort to Force,
The right to anticipatory self-defense under customary law has never been unlimited. One generally recognized formulation dating from the mid-nineteenth century is that set forth in a letter from U.S. Secretary of State Daniel Webster to British Minister Lord Ashburton, that the necessity for action must be “instant, overwhelming, and leaving no choice of means, and no moment for deliberation.” Since then, and especially since World War II, capabilities to launch devastating attacks with little advance warning have improved dramatically. Nonetheless, scholars have continued to affirm Webster’s restraints on legitimate self-defense, recognizing their value in inhibiting resort to war. A recent edition of a leading treatise states that self-defense may justify use of force under the following conditions: an attack is immediately threatened; there is an urgent necessity for defensive action; there is no practicable alternative, particularly when another state or authority that legally could stop or prevent the infringement does not or cannot do so; and the use of force is limited to what is needed to prevent the infringement. Oppenheim’s International Law, 9th ed., 412.
But it’s a paper by Amin Ghanbari Amirhandeh, an LLM student at the University of Tehran, that gives the greatest pause. He claims in Preemptive Attacks on Iran’s Nuclear Facilities?, that the Security Council would actually be required to assist Iran if attacked by Israel.
As Iran is a non-nuclear state, a military strike on a nuclear facility could still be considered a nuclear attack, given the resulting environmental damage. He states,
In resolution 984, the Security Council “takes note with appreciation of the statements made by each of the nuclear-weapon States (S119951261, S119951262, S119951263, S119951264, S/19951265), in which they give security assurances against the use of nuclear weapons to non-nuclear-weapon States that are Parties to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons”, and further “[w]elcomes the intention expressed by certain States that they will provide or support immediate assistance, in accordance with the Charter, to any nonnuclear- weapon State Party to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons that is a victim of an act of, or an object of a threat of, aggression in which nuclear weapons are used”.
As the ICJ stressed in its historic opinion on legality of nuclear weapons
(1996), the Security Council, in unanimously adopting resolution 984 (1995) of 11 April 1995, cited above, took note of those statements with appreciation. It also recognized “that the nuclear-weapon State permanent members of the Security Council will bring the matter immediately to the attention of the Council and seek Council action to provide, in accordance with the Charter, the necessary assistance to the State victim”; and welcomed the fact that “The intention expressed by certain States that they will provide or support immediate assistance, in accordance with the Charter, to any non-nuclear-weapon State Party to the Treaty on the Non- Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons that is a victim of an act of, or an object of a threat of, aggression in which nuclear weapons are used”.Gesturing the concept of threat is enough for the Security Council in the present case, even if it is obvious that the five nuclear weapon states are
individually responsible for taking appropriate measures in order to assist Iran, to condemn any direct threat from Israel against Iranian nuclear installations.
Now that’s a consequence that would make Sarkozy’s description of an Israeli strike on Iran as an “absolute catastrophe” the understatement of the year.
No “necessity” defence for environmental activist in Utah case
A Utah District Court judge ruled yesterday that environmental activist, Tim DeChristopher, would not be able to present a defence of necessity at the trial where he faces charges for fraud and for violating the Federal Onshore Oil and Gas Leasing Reform Act.
Tim DeChristopherOn December 19, 2008, DeChristopher participated in an oil and gas lease auction, where it is alleged he made bids not only to raise lease prices, but also to win leases he had no intention of paying. In that auction, DeChristopher won fourteen leases covering 22,000 acres, and totaling $1.7 million USD.
His actions were an attempt to prevent what some groups saw as a midnight pass by the outgoing Bush administration for the exploitation hundreds of thousands of acres of pristine land in Utah. When charged, DeChristopher attempted to argue necessity to defend his actions. To head off the media circus that surely would have sprouted had he been able to bring global warming in the courtroom, government attorneys filed a motion to prevent DeChristopher from presenting the defence.
In her ruling yesterday, Judge Dee Benson granted the government’s motion, holding that DeChristopher’s offers of proof did not meet any of the requirements for necessity.
In the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit – of which Utah is a part – the defence of necessity has four elements. The defendant must have:
(1) chosen the lesser of two evils,
(2) acted to prevent imminent harm,
(3) reasonably anticipated a direct causal relationship between his conduct and the harm to be averted, and
(4) had no legal alternatives to violating the law.
Judge Benson found that (1) the “greater harm” DeChristopher feared was too speculative, (2) the harm was not imminent, (3) there was an insufficient causal relationship between DeChristopher’s actions and the harm to be averted, and (4) that a legal alternative did and does in fact exist (the leases in question are also currently the subject of an ongoing lawsuit (Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance v Allred, No. 08-2187, 2009 WL 765882 – for those with Westlaw access).)
This Utah District Court ruling stands in contrast to a UK case last year, where jurors accepted the analogous “lawful excuse” defence asserted by six Greenpeace activists. The activists were cleared of charges stemming from £35,000 worth of damage they caused to a coal-fired power station.
NY Times article
DeChristopher bidding at auction
Judge Benson’s ruling
EPA lawyers who criticize cap-and-trade cautioned by EPA over professional ethics
As the controversy over impeding U.S. climate legislation continues to simmer, one interesting recent development is the spotlight on two California EPA attorneys: Laurie Williams and Allan Zabel.
The N.Y. Times reported that the U.S. EPA has directed the pair to remove or to make changes to a YouTube video they posted which is critical of the cap-and-trade bills currently being tossed around in the legislative houses. (The video, apparently made in September, critiques the U.S. House of Representatives’ Waxman-Markey Bill [H.R. 2454 American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009]. Currently, the U.S. Senate is debating its own version [S.1733 Clean Energy Jobs and American Power Act].)
According to the EPA, Williams and Zabel violated EPA ethical guidelines when they substantiated their views with their “20 years each working as attorneys at the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency” – thereby accenting the credibility of their “personal opinion” with their office.
For some, this issue is censorship thinly veiled in professional ethics. The American Bar Association (ABA) Model Rules of Professional Conduct, for instance, doesn’t prohibit political expression by lawyers. Rule 1.2(b) specifically states that representation doesn’t constitute an endorsement of political views. The ABA Code of Judicial Conduct does restrict a judge’s capacity for political expression under Rule 4.1(A)(2), in order to maintain the impartiality of the position. But should government attorneys shed their capacity for political expression? On the other hand, for government attorneys, the government is their client. You don’t see many lawyers publishing videos where they criticize their client.
In either case, Williams and Zabel’s criticisms of cap-and-trade will no doubt be capitalized on by opponents of climate legislation. This is unfortunate, because their criticisms – which are just the media’s latest recognition of the carbon tax vs cap-and-trade debate (“carbon fees with rebates”… does anyone still fondly remember the Liberal Green Shift Plan?) – do voice very legitimate concerns.
I take Williams and Zabel’s criticisms to be essentially: 1) carbon offsets provide a run-around hard cap-targets; 2) carbon offsets often have unintended consequences; 3) the price instability associated with implementing a cap-and-trade scheme prevents the promotion of the desired innovation. Obviously, where the goal of the legislation is to curb carbon emissions and to shift to alternative energy, these are bad.
But, are their criticisms of the Waxman-Markey cap-and-trade scheme, say… equally applicable to that of Kerry-Boxer? With respect to at least one point – offsets – yes, they are a potential problem. But are they an intractable one? Both bills provide mechanisms that attempt to limit the potential unintended consequences of offsets. (i.e. – regulatory bodies to administer, and the ability to reverse offsets). This may or may not completely obviate the point, but it does address it. With respect to price instability and innovation – that’s an economic argument that’s beyond my purview.
But I do know this: any hope of success at Copenhagen rests largely on the ability of the U.S. to pass strong climate legislation, and to thereby commit to hard targets. Most signs seem to indicate Kerry-Boxer will pass. Even if cap-and-trade wouldn’t achieve everything some think it needs to, at the very least it seems to be the first viable step.
Belief in global warming protected from discrimination in UK labour law
Image From National Post via WattUpWithThat?
In the public policy debates over climate change, critics of strong action to mitigate global warming have often described proponents as “religious zealots”, and vice-versa. Moreover, since the concern over global warming has entered the mainstream consciousness, religious groups have been increasingly drawn to the discussion. Now, in the UK, a recent decision by an employment tribunal has actually equivocated belief in global warming with religious belief, for the purposes of workplace discrimination.
The case centers around Tim Nicholson, whose position as Head of Sustainability at Grainger, plc was terminated over what he claims was “contempt” for his beliefs about anthropogenic global warming. Nicholson alleged that his termination was due to his beliefs – which he argued should be protected from discrimination by the UK’s Employment Equality (Religion or Belief) Regulations of 2003.
In its decision this week, the employment tribunal ruled Nicholson would be allowed to bring his discrimination claim because Nicholson’s beliefs in global warming passed the tests formulated for “philosophical belief” for the purposes of the regulations:
From the tribunal’s ruling:
Grainger Plc & Ors v. Nicholson [2009] UKEAT 0219_09_0311 (3 November 2009)
In no way could this ever be taken out of context by anybody on either side of the larger debate…
Google Offers Free Ambulance Chasing Devices
Just like Google’s Street View feature, which followed a Canadian launch after being tested in the American market, Google introduced this month traffic levels for major Canadian cities after almost three years of use in the U.S. In the past week the service was extended from mobile devices to web browsing as well.
Toronto.com has offered much more limited traffic features for several years, but nothing even close to the level of detail or interactivity provided by Google.
Late this summer Google had expanded the service to include arterial roads, which was a major complaint among American users. They also rolled-out a crowdsourcing feature that would track the speed of vehicles using Google Maps on mobile devices to help determine best alternative routes during congestion times.
One bulletin-board user asks,
If I am walking down the street with Google Maps open on my BB, I wonder if this skews the data?
The response he gets from another user appears at first quite simple,
They average out the data… so unless you have a marathon of people all having google maps on for some reason, one or two people walking down a major street most likely won’t affect the traffic readings.
That assumes, like financial markets often do, that people always behave rationally. People do not always behave in rational ways.
Interruption of Question Period this week to raise the issue of climate change is just one of a growing phenomenon of flash mobs that could easily affect crowdsourcing data in the aggregate. Just look at the many flash mobs in tribute to Michael Jackson alone in past months.
Google also launched a mobile service providing GPS with features like 3D views, turn-by-turn voice guidance and automatic rerouting. The last feature would be especially useful in light of traffic conditions, and alternate destinations can be plotted by voice to comply with hands-free legislation in Ontario and similar laws in Saskatchewan, Alberta, and B.C. Users can also search by voice for services and landmarks along the way. Devices will be able to use the service in the U.S. starting Nov. 6.
In one of those more common moments of more predictable behaviour, the shares for GPS navigation systems fell by 9.5% for Tom Tom and 18% for Garmin on Tuesday alone, dropping further during the rest of the week. Still, many analysts point out that the mobile services available from Google aren’t comparable to GSP systems. Signals often cut out, and don’t reliably provide directions when they are needed. But Google can address this by caching information on devices instead of streaming, and in the long-term this will likely replace the GPS systems entirely.
Given the association between car accidents and traffic jams, litigators may be able to replace their police radio scanners with Google Maps and arrive on the scene before first-responders to offer their services.
They can find alternative routes to the scene through hands-free instruction and use Street View to get an idea of the physical layout before they arrive. They can even do it walking down the street if the traffic is really backed up. And barring a re-enactment of “Beat It!” en route to the accident, it doesn’t seem like anything can stop them.
Defence counsel, be forewarned.
Impact of a Global Temperature Rise of 4ºC
The UK government has published an interactive map to help illustrate the potential effects of climate change.
Act on Copenhagen is the official website in preparation for the successor to the Kyoto Protocol, where governments will meet in December 2009 during the United Nations Climate Change Conference.
Meanwhile, developing nations have walked out on Canada’s position on Kyoto in Thailand earlier this month.
Indefeasibility of title? Not that indefeasible in Kenya?
First posted on Commercial Law International on Oct 15, 2009.
By Charles Wanguhu
The caveat emptor rule dictates that an individual seeking to purchase land should ensure that he is dealing with the rightful owner. Therefore upon inspection of the register kept at the ministry of lands, an individual seeking to ensure the ownership of land would request the registrar for an official confirmation of search, the advantage of the official search is that it is given priority registration over all other transactions for a period of 14 days from the issue of the search.
However in the Mau forest in Kenya the government aims to evict thousands of families who are said to be on forest land. This is despite the fact that some of the settlers have valid title for the property which was a result of excision of forest land by the previous administration. A similar operation in 2005 resulted in thousands of people being displaced and claims of human rights violations by the evicting forces.
The new administration however views the issuance of the titles as void as in their view they were illegally obtained from the former administration. However, under the Principle of Indefeasibility the title of an innocent Purchaser cannot be set aside, even by the claims of a previous rightful owner. This is so, because the Register of Titles is conclusive evidence of the Purchaser’s rightful ownership of the land.
In the case of Maathai & 2 others v City Council of Nairobi & 2 other 1994 a case in which the Nobela laureate Waangari Maathai sought to stop the sale of a piece of land by the city council the court in its deliberations held that:
Registration of Titles Act Cap 201 of the laws of Kenya which provides inter alia, that the certificate of Title issued by the Registrar to a purchaser of land upon a transfer shall be taken by all courts as conclusive evidence that the person named therein as proprietor of the land is the indefeasible owner thereof …. and the title to that proprietor shall not be subject to challenge.”
The Kenyan government while well intentioned in conservation of forests has opened a pandoras box and thereby creating uncertainty in dealings in land. By ignoring the indefeasibility of first registration land transactions have become a gamble. A commission of inquiry into illegal/irregular allocation of public land revealed that a number of foreign embassy and consulates are actually built on former public land. It would be interesting to see whether the government would take similar measures against these missions as they are attempting to do with the families in the Mau forest.
An AFRICOG report available here looks at some of the recommendations of the Commission of inquiry and looks at the possibility or impossibility in implementing the recommendations.
Bill C-300
A single gold ring leaves in its wake, on average, 20 tons of mine waste.
Bill C-300
Purpose
| 3. The purpose of this Act is to ensure that corporations engaged in mining, oil or gas activities and receiving support from the Government of Canada act in a manner consistent with international environmental best practices and with Canada’s commitments to international human rights standards.
Barrick Gold Corporation, the largest Gold Mining Corporation in the world, and Canada’s largest publicly traded company put a lot of heat on the Canadian Government in the last year when Norway’s Ministry of Finance back in January of this year, sold shares of Barrick Gold from Norway’s pension fund for ethical reasons. Norway is the best place to live. They must be doing something right. Norway’s Council on Ethics conducted a fairly comprehensive investigation spanning four years regarding the use of a natural river system to transport and dispose of mine waste in Papua New Guinea. The council established “the mining operation at Porgera entail[ed] considerable pollution.” The 2008 report went on to condemn the heavy metals contamination, particularly mercury, produced by the tailings. It concluded that severe and long-term environmental damage is likely to continue, and that it represents a serious health hazard for residents of the mining area and for the indigenous peoples living downstream from the mine. As Marie-Claude Poirier of CCODP writes, in 2008 Canada was a base for 75% of the world’s exploration and mining companies. And Canadian mining companies accounted for 43% of all global exploration spending. And at most, the Canadian government promotes mining companies to voluntarily conduct their activities in a socially and environmentally responsible manner that companies have failed to undertake. The Canadian government does nothing more than endorse current CSR standards and create administrative mechanisms, rather than legal ones, within the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade and at Canadian offices abroad. This is where Bill C-300 comes in. On April 22, 2009 Bill C-300, sponsored by Hon. John McKay PC, MP, passed second reading in the House of Commons with a vote sending it to the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Development for further study. C-300 passed by a close margin – Yeas: 137; Nays: 133. http://www.johnmckaymp.on.ca/newsshow.asp?int_id=80507 Marie-Claude Poirier, notes that Bill C-300 doesn’t include provisions for an ombudsperson and independent investigation into complaints from overseas, since private member’s bills cannot require the support of a budget. However, what the Bill does do is directly forward complaints to the Minister of International Trade and Foreign Affairs. Investigation ensues as to the alleged violations of the CSR standards. If any evidence of violations is found, then the stick of bad PR for those that are caught. The companies would be required to submit annual reports, which would fall under scrutiny of the House of Commons and Senate for review. Bill C-300 has baby teeth, but it’s better than no teeth. Even baby teeth are sharp. |
The Disparity Between our Perceptions and our Actions
Chris Hedges is the author of Empire of Illusion: The End of Literacy and the Triumph of Spectacle, released this summer. He wrote the book before the economic meltdown, but foreshadowed some of the challenges Western society faces in its permanent economic decline and our attachment to materialism.
Hedges has a Masters of Divinity from Harvard, and currently contributes to Truthdig.com. In a recent article there, Celebrating Slaughter: War and Collective Amnesia, he says,
A war memorial that attempted to depict the reality of war would be too subversive. It would condemn us and our capacity for evil. It would show that the line between the victim and the victimizer is razor-thin, that human beings, when the restraints are cut, are intoxicated by mass killing, and that war, rather than being noble, heroic and glorious, obliterates all that is tender, decent and kind. It would tell us that the celebration of national greatness is the celebration of our technological capacity to kill. It would warn us that war is always morally depraved, that even in “good” wars such as World War II all can become war criminals. We dropped the atomic bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. The Nazis ran the death camps.
A prolific writer, he provides some interesting commentary on society and culture in an interview with C-Span, and how it affects our approach to international law:
We are the most deeply illusioned society on the planet…
Here we were, a country that not only under international law waging… a doctrine of pre-emptive war, which under post-Nuremberg laws are defined as illegal wars of aggression, we were running offshore penal colonies where we openly tortured people detained without any rights, we had a Banana Republic seizure of the electoral process in 2000, and yet we talked about our virtues. “The greatest country on earth,” “the greatest democracy on earth.”
The disparity between what we were doing, and the perception of who we are.
This is just written large throughout the culture, and it plays to a very pernicious fantasy: we as Americans can have everything we want, if we just dig deep enough within ourselves, if we tap our hidden potential, if we grasp that we are truly exceptional.
Reality will never be an impediment to what we desire.
…new humility is needed for what is coming.
He describes his vision for enlightened leadership,
Half of all discretionary spending since WWII has gone into defence, and much of our deficit, which are the largest recorded deficits in history, are caused because we are maintaining a defense establishment we can no longer afford.
Meanwhile, we are crumbling from the inside. Read the reports about American infrastructure, whether it’s sewage disposal or anything else…
This is how empires usually implode. They expand outwards to such an extent that the very heart of the empire collapses, internally. And that’s the danger we face.
So if we can recognize that this period of our history is over, and I don’t think this is a negative – living with a new kind of simplicity, not producing 25% of the world’s greenhouse gasses, learning to speak to the rest of the world in a language other than the language of force – these actually many not improve our lives in terms of consumption or power, but they would certain improve the quality of life in terms of moral integrity and meaning.
GreenTech War: Japan, China, Lithium, Batteries and Bolivia
First Posted on Commercial Law International on July 6, 2009
Bolivia: The Saudi Arabia of Lithium
A potential GreenTech war is brewing between Japan and China, location Bolivia.
The salt flats of Bolivia´s Salar De Uyuni, where most recent James Bond movie was shot (Quantum of Solace) seems like the most unlikely place for a green technology war, much less one between Japan and China. However, it very much is. Both countries through official diplomatic overtures and through its multi-nationals have sought to secure stable supplies of lithium.
Why lithium?
Well, given current technology, lithium is the key to battery power. And while batteries power all kinds of devices, it is the key to the electric car – I think you are seeing where I am going with this. Whoever control´s the lithium, controls the electric car.
Currently Chile is the world largest producer of the metal; however Bolivia has half the world´s proven reserves. According to the Times, ¨Bolivia is to lithium what Saudi Arabia is to oil.¨
It looks like the Salar De Uyuni could soon become much more than just a 007 film location, to being a linchpin in the world´s effort to curve carbon emissions. Let´s hope along with this the people of Bolivia see some true developmental benefits and the reduction of poverty from this greentech war.
Podcast Feeds
Awards
Partners
- Advertise Here
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
The Whiners - The Elusive Fish Creative Services
- Mesothelioma Lawyer
- no win no fee solicitors
- Compensation Claims
- personal injury lawyer toronto
- no win no fee
- Pardons Canada Accident Claim Medical Negligence Whiplash Claim
- No win No fee Claims
- Venue
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
