Pacific Gas & Electric Co. for decades has generated power for its customers by splitting atoms, burning natural gas and capturing the force of falling water. More recently, the San Francisco utility began turning to the sun, wind, boiling geysers and even fermented cow manure to produce electricity.
Now, PG&E wants to turn to outer space.
A Manhattan Beach start-up called Solaren Corp. seeks to launch an array of giant solar power collectors into orbit 23,000 miles above Fresno and beam the energy to Earth. PG&E has signed a contract to buy the power -- if Solaren can make the technology work.
The proposal is a potential energy game-changer, supporters say. But, critics dismiss it as pie in the sky.
The scheme highlights a growing dispute as utilities struggle to meet ambitious requirements for energy from renewable sources: Should electricity come from big, bold projects such as huge desert fields of sunlight-reflecting mirrors or should it come from smaller, close-to-the-user efforts such as rooftop solar panels? Should big power companies handle electron delivery or do-it-yourselfers?
Solaren won't discuss the details or costs of its plan, other than to give a ballpark price tag at more than $2 billion, to generate enough electricity for 150,000 homes across much of Northern and Central California. It has asked utility regulators to keep the information confidential, for now.
But executives say that by 2016 they can put together the technology to harness energy that constantly bathes Earth from 93 million miles away.
"If our numbers are anywhere near where we think they will be, we will be able to provide power at a cost that's comparable with anything on Earth, that is much cleaner and all from space," says Gary Spirnak, Solaren's chief executive.
Spirnak points to a 2007 study by the National Security Space Office as evidence that a such a space-based power system is feasible:
"There is enormous potential for energy security, economic development, improved environmental stewardship, advancement of general space faring and overall national security for those nations who construct and possess a space-based solar power capability."
He acknowledges that raising more than $2 billion during a recession won't be easy, but says having a guaranteed power purchase agreement with PG&E should carry some weight with potential investors.
The Public Utilities Commission is reviewing Solaren's contract with PG&E, a unit of PG&E Corp. Regulators are charged with ensuring that the deal helps the utility meet a requirement to get one-fifth of its power from renewable sources by 2012. PG&E has asked for a ruling before Oct. 29.
Consumer advocates and more Earth-bound proponents of renewable energy are extremely skeptical.
California will be unable to meet its looming 20% renewable energy requirement, let alone a more ambitious 30% goal by 2030, if utilities and regulators continually embrace expensive, flashy and unproven technologies, they say. Policymakers, instead, should stick with reliable alternative sources -- such as geothermal, wind and centralized solar, sunlight concentrated by mirrors -- that have been operating commercially for decades.
"There are a lot of speculative plays," says V. John White, director of the Center for Energy Efficiency and Renewable Technology in Sacramento. "We have a lot of PowerPoints floating around that I don't think will turn into power plants."
The concept behind space-based solar power is simple, Solaren says.
Four or five rocket launches would be needed to put enough solar collectors into a stationary orbit to produce 200 megawatts of power, about half the output of a modern natural-gas-fired plant. The solar energy would be converted radio waves and beamed to a receiving station in Fresno, leaving unscathed any birds or airplanes that get in the way of the highly diffused beam. There, it would be converted to either alternating or direct electric current and dispatched to customers via high-voltage transmission lines.
Spirnak acknowledges that nothing on this scale has been attempted, but the basic technology is proven. Commercial communications satellites have been powered by solar energy for more than four decades. The satellites use the sun's power, available 24 hours a day in space, to make electricity. The electricity is turned into radio waves to bounce television, telephone and other signals around the globe.
Experience with larger scale, experimental radio transmissions converted to electrical power is limited, PG&E wrote in the regulatory filing. In 1975, NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory transmitted 34 kilowatts of energy about a mile. Last year, a former JPL scientist, John Mankins, transmitted a small amount of power generated by ground-based solar cells 92 miles between two Hawaiian islands.
"The challenge," PG&E spokesman Jonathan Marshal says, is "putting enough hardware up in space and doing it economically."
Solaren and PG&E emphasize that ratepayers won't pay a penny of Solaren's costs until the company starts streaming power into their homes and businesses. PG&E isn't investing in the project up front, agreeing only to buy power once it's flowing, common practice in the utility business.
"There's no risk to our customers. They'll pay only for the power that's delivered," Marshal says. "We're not investing in the project or paying advance fees."
Consumer advocates say they're heartened that PG&E isn't asking customers to pay up front for what might turn out to be little more than a science fiction fantasy.
"We think the chance of this company ever getting this solar farm -- literally and figuratively -- off the ground is quite remote," says Mark Toney, executive director of The Utility Reform Network, a San Francisco-based group that monitors investor-owned utilities.
PG&E, which gets 12% of its power from renewable sources, is grandstanding when it touts contracts to buy space power, Toney says. It should be putting "more focus into local renewables closer to home," such as placing solar panels on the roofs of homes and businesses, he says.
Solaren's plan is a "very serious" effort to put an admittedly "trial size" power plant in space, says Frederick H. Pickel, an energy consultant and engineering economist in Los Angeles.
"If this works, it changes the whole game," he says. "If they manage to reduce the cost sufficiently for space-based solar generation, the electric game changes, the natural gas game changes and, perhaps, even the oil game changes."
Sunday, May 17, 2009
Fiancee identifies man killed by Inglewood police
man killed by Inglewood police this morning as they broke up a party has been identified as Marcus Smith, 31, of Compton, by a woman who said she was the man’s fiancee.
The Los Angeles County coroner’s office confirmed Smith’s identity.
Kalonna LaCount, 30, a secretary at Kaiser Permanente, said she and Smith were at a birthday party in the 800 block of South Osage Avenue when police officers showed up and told guests to disperse. LaCount said she and Smith were walking down a stairway together when Smith slipped. LaCount said she then saw Smith’s body jerk as police fired their weapons.
She said she did not see Smith brandishing a weapon, although she was not certain whether Smith was armed or owned a gun.
"He had his hands in the air," LaCount said. "The more he stumbled, the more they shot."
LaCount spoke hours after Inglewood police released a statement that there had been an officer-involved shooting on Osage Avenue. The statement said the suspect was killed and an officer injured.
A police spokesman later said that the suspect had a loaded semi-automatic handgun.
LaCount, wearing a green dress splattered with her fiancé’s blood, sat on the steps of the apartment building where the shooting occurred and wept as she recounted the moments before Smith’s death. LaCount said she and Smith had been together for 17 years and have three girls, all under age 12.
As she spoke, she turned to her brother, Taqwa LaCount, 25, and said: "He’s dead. Can you believe it? What am I going to do?"
Another witness account of the shooting came from Inglewood resident Charisma Bailey, 28, who lives at the apartment where the party was held. Bailey said party-goers were wearing masks and beads for the event’s Mardi Gras theme.
Bailey said she was standing next to the window of her second-story apartment, looking down the stairs when officers approached the property, holding flashlights and guns. "The next thing you know they’re shooting and he’s falling down the steps," she said of Smith.
The Los Angeles County coroner’s office confirmed Smith’s identity.
Kalonna LaCount, 30, a secretary at Kaiser Permanente, said she and Smith were at a birthday party in the 800 block of South Osage Avenue when police officers showed up and told guests to disperse. LaCount said she and Smith were walking down a stairway together when Smith slipped. LaCount said she then saw Smith’s body jerk as police fired their weapons.
She said she did not see Smith brandishing a weapon, although she was not certain whether Smith was armed or owned a gun.
"He had his hands in the air," LaCount said. "The more he stumbled, the more they shot."
LaCount spoke hours after Inglewood police released a statement that there had been an officer-involved shooting on Osage Avenue. The statement said the suspect was killed and an officer injured.
A police spokesman later said that the suspect had a loaded semi-automatic handgun.
LaCount, wearing a green dress splattered with her fiancé’s blood, sat on the steps of the apartment building where the shooting occurred and wept as she recounted the moments before Smith’s death. LaCount said she and Smith had been together for 17 years and have three girls, all under age 12.
As she spoke, she turned to her brother, Taqwa LaCount, 25, and said: "He’s dead. Can you believe it? What am I going to do?"
Another witness account of the shooting came from Inglewood resident Charisma Bailey, 28, who lives at the apartment where the party was held. Bailey said party-goers were wearing masks and beads for the event’s Mardi Gras theme.
Bailey said she was standing next to the window of her second-story apartment, looking down the stairs when officers approached the property, holding flashlights and guns. "The next thing you know they’re shooting and he’s falling down the steps," she said of Smith.
This Mom Didn’t Have to Die
On this trip through West Africa with my “win-a-trip” contest winner, I was reminded of one of the grimmest risks to human life here. Despite threats from warlords and exotic disease, it’s something even deadlier: motherhood.
One of the most dangerous things an African woman can do is become pregnant. So, along with the winner of my contest for college students, Paul Bowers, I have been visiting the forlorn hospitals here in West Africa. According to the World Health Organization, Sierra Leone has the highest maternal mortality in the world, and in several African countries, 1 woman in 10 ends up dying in childbirth.
It’s pretty clear that if men were dying at these rates, the United Nations Security Council would be holding urgent consultations, and a country such as this would appoint a minister of paternal mortality. Yet half-a-million women die annually from complications related to pregnancy or childbirth without attracting much interest because the victims are typically among the most voiceless people in the world: impoverished, rural, uneducated and female.
Take Mariama, a 21-year-old pregnant woman with a 3-year-old child living in a village here in southern Sierra Leone. Mariama started bleeding one afternoon before we arrived, but her family had no money and was reluctant to seek medical care. When she was already half-dead, she was finally taken into the government hospital in Bo.
She was off-the-charts anemic, but there was no blood available for a transfusion. In that situation, the woman’s relatives are checked to see if they are of the same type and can give, but Mariama was accompanied only by her mother, who was too fragile to donate blood.
The only obstetrician, serving an area with two million people, was away, so nurses suggested that in the absence of a transfusion, Mariama receive a plasma expander for her blood. But that would have cost $4, and Mariama and her mother had no money at all.
So Mariama continued to hemorrhage right there in the maternity ward. At 1 a.m. the next morning, she died.
“We did our best to save her,” said Regina Horton, a nurse-midwife at the hospital. “But we had no blood.”
I’ve seen women dying like this in many countries — on the first win-a-trip journey in 2006, a student and I watched a mother of three dying in front of us in Cameroon — and it’s not only shattering but also infuriating. It’s no mystery how to save the lives of pregnant women; what’s lacking is the will and resources.
Indeed, Sierra Leone is now making progress with the help of the United Nations Population Fund, which is renovating hospital wards, providing free medicines and trying to ensure that poor women don’t die because they can’t pay $100 for a Caesarian section. The Bush administration cut off all American funds for the U.N. Population Fund, hobbling it, but this year President Obama has moved to restore the money. Other organizations that are focused on this issue include the White Ribbon Alliance for Safe Motherhood, CARE and Averting Maternal Death and Disability.
A bill introduced in Congress in March — the Newborn, Child, and Mother Survival Act — would establish American leadership in this area. But it has attracted pathetically little attention.
If the lives of women like Mariama were a priority, there would be many simple ways to keep them alive. For example, they could routinely be given anti-malarials and deworming medicine during pregnancy to flush out parasites. They should also receive daily iron tablets to overcome anemia, and a bed net. All this would cost just a few dollars and would leave pregnant women far less likely to die of hemorrhages.
Caesarian sections are necessary for perhaps 1 in 10 births worldwide, but village women put their trust in traditional birth attendants (partly because the attendants also perform genital cutting on girls, creating a bond). Doctors and nurses often are harsh and contemptuous toward uneducated women so that patients stay away until it is too late. If doctors and nurses had as good a bedside manner as the birth attendants, hospitals would be better used and lives saved.
Still, one sees the — limited — progress in Mabinti Kamara, who is 25 and went into labor in her village. When an arm came out, it was apparent that the fetus was sideways, so the birth attendant pushed hard on Mabinti’s abdomen to complete the process.
On Mabinti’s fourth day of labor, she was finally taken to a hospital in the city of Makeni, where a surgeon found that she had a ruptured uterus. The surgeon removed the dead fetus and repaired the uterus. Mabinti then lay on her bed in pain, disconsolate at losing her child. Still, the maternity ward was filled with women like her. Just a few years ago, they all would have died. They are reminders that women can be saved in childbirth — but only if their lives become a prioriority
nytimes.com
One of the most dangerous things an African woman can do is become pregnant. So, along with the winner of my contest for college students, Paul Bowers, I have been visiting the forlorn hospitals here in West Africa. According to the World Health Organization, Sierra Leone has the highest maternal mortality in the world, and in several African countries, 1 woman in 10 ends up dying in childbirth.
It’s pretty clear that if men were dying at these rates, the United Nations Security Council would be holding urgent consultations, and a country such as this would appoint a minister of paternal mortality. Yet half-a-million women die annually from complications related to pregnancy or childbirth without attracting much interest because the victims are typically among the most voiceless people in the world: impoverished, rural, uneducated and female.
Take Mariama, a 21-year-old pregnant woman with a 3-year-old child living in a village here in southern Sierra Leone. Mariama started bleeding one afternoon before we arrived, but her family had no money and was reluctant to seek medical care. When she was already half-dead, she was finally taken into the government hospital in Bo.
She was off-the-charts anemic, but there was no blood available for a transfusion. In that situation, the woman’s relatives are checked to see if they are of the same type and can give, but Mariama was accompanied only by her mother, who was too fragile to donate blood.
The only obstetrician, serving an area with two million people, was away, so nurses suggested that in the absence of a transfusion, Mariama receive a plasma expander for her blood. But that would have cost $4, and Mariama and her mother had no money at all.
So Mariama continued to hemorrhage right there in the maternity ward. At 1 a.m. the next morning, she died.
“We did our best to save her,” said Regina Horton, a nurse-midwife at the hospital. “But we had no blood.”
I’ve seen women dying like this in many countries — on the first win-a-trip journey in 2006, a student and I watched a mother of three dying in front of us in Cameroon — and it’s not only shattering but also infuriating. It’s no mystery how to save the lives of pregnant women; what’s lacking is the will and resources.
Indeed, Sierra Leone is now making progress with the help of the United Nations Population Fund, which is renovating hospital wards, providing free medicines and trying to ensure that poor women don’t die because they can’t pay $100 for a Caesarian section. The Bush administration cut off all American funds for the U.N. Population Fund, hobbling it, but this year President Obama has moved to restore the money. Other organizations that are focused on this issue include the White Ribbon Alliance for Safe Motherhood, CARE and Averting Maternal Death and Disability.
A bill introduced in Congress in March — the Newborn, Child, and Mother Survival Act — would establish American leadership in this area. But it has attracted pathetically little attention.
If the lives of women like Mariama were a priority, there would be many simple ways to keep them alive. For example, they could routinely be given anti-malarials and deworming medicine during pregnancy to flush out parasites. They should also receive daily iron tablets to overcome anemia, and a bed net. All this would cost just a few dollars and would leave pregnant women far less likely to die of hemorrhages.
Caesarian sections are necessary for perhaps 1 in 10 births worldwide, but village women put their trust in traditional birth attendants (partly because the attendants also perform genital cutting on girls, creating a bond). Doctors and nurses often are harsh and contemptuous toward uneducated women so that patients stay away until it is too late. If doctors and nurses had as good a bedside manner as the birth attendants, hospitals would be better used and lives saved.
Still, one sees the — limited — progress in Mabinti Kamara, who is 25 and went into labor in her village. When an arm came out, it was apparent that the fetus was sideways, so the birth attendant pushed hard on Mabinti’s abdomen to complete the process.
On Mabinti’s fourth day of labor, she was finally taken to a hospital in the city of Makeni, where a surgeon found that she had a ruptured uterus. The surgeon removed the dead fetus and repaired the uterus. Mabinti then lay on her bed in pain, disconsolate at losing her child. Still, the maternity ward was filled with women like her. Just a few years ago, they all would have died. They are reminders that women can be saved in childbirth — but only if their lives become a prioriority
nytimes.com
New Mood in Antitrust May Target Google
For decades, the nation’s biggest antitrust cases have centered on technology companies. And they have all been efforts by the government to deal with powerful companies with far-reaching influence, like AT&T, the telephone monopoly; I.B.M., the mainframe computer giant; and Microsoft, the powerhouse of personal computer software.
Last week, the Obama administration declared a sharp break with the Bush years, vowing to toughen antitrust enforcement, especially for dominant companies. The approach is closer to that of the European Union, where regulators last week fined Intel $1.45 billion for abusing its power in the chip market.
In this new climate, the stakes appear to be highest for Google, the rising power of the Internet economy.
The new antitrust leadership, legal experts say, is likely to scrutinize networks — technology platforms that become so dominant that everyone feels the need to plug into them. The advantages to the companies that control such networks snowball as they attract more users, advertisers or software developers.
Internet search and search advertising, like personal computer operating software, is one example, said Herbert Hovenkamp, an antitrust expert at the University of Iowa law school. “Google is a dominant network, as is Microsoft,” Mr. Hovenkamp said. “Networks become competitive only if everyone has the same chance.”
Google’s corporate behavior is already being closely monitored. Last year, Google abandoned a planned search advertising partnership with Yahoo, after the Justice Department said it intended to file suit to block the agreement on antitrust grounds. Google has 64 percent of the Web search market in America, while Yahoo has 21 percent and Microsoft 8 percent, according to comScore, a research firm.
In recent weeks, antitrust officials have opened two inquiries. The Justice Department is looking into Google’s settlement with authors and publishers for its book-search service to see if it violates antitrust laws. And the Federal Trade Commission is examining whether Google’s sharing two board members with Apple reduces competition, since both companies offer Web browsers and phone operating systems.
Eric E. Schmidt, Google’s chief executive, said earlier this month that the close scrutiny was not surprising. “Information is incredibly important, and we should expect governments around the world to pay attention to what we do,” he said.
Google’s power is a cause of worry in many industries — media, advertising, telecommunications and software. Yet being large, successful and ambitious is not an antitrust violation. “You’ve got to be big, and you have to be bad,” observed Andrew I. Gavil, a law professor at Howard University. “You have to be both.”
In the Microsoft case, the software giant’s monopoly in personal computer operating systems was not an antitrust problem. It was its corporate actions, including using contracts and bullying tactics to stifle competition, that broke the law, the federal courts ruled. Such strong-arm practices, legal experts say, have not been part of the Google story.
Unless Google is shown to engage in a pattern of anticompetitive conduct, the company is likely to face constant scrutiny, but not a major federal suit, antitrust experts say. Even with misconduct, they say, complex antitrust cases like the one against Microsoft take years to come to fruition. “There will be a lot of agonizing about Google, and it will raise concerns, but I don’t see a big Google case in the offing,” said Michael Katz, an economist at New York University’s Stern School of Business.
Instead, Google is likely to be watched step by step. One area to watch, antitrust experts say, is whether Google uses its search engine to give it a leg up in new businesses.
Last month, the company announced that Google Profiles, a service that gives people a page to publish their name, photo and other personal information, would be featured below Google’s search results when someone typed in a name. That could give Google Profiles an edge over profiles from Facebook and other social networks, which have to earn their search result rankings.
Google, according to Randal C. Picker, an antitrust expert at the University of Chicago law school, is using its search engine to “leverage” another Google service. Such tactics, he said, echo Microsoft’s linking of its Windows operating system to its Web browser. “It is the kind of thing that is likely to get antitrust attention,” Mr. Picker said.
The company says Google Profiles is an effort to improve Web search, and comes in response to users’ requests for greater control over their online identities. Google also says its software scans other social networks, and those results typically appear near the top of a search for a person’s name. “We designed Profiles to encourage user choice, not limit it,” said Adam Kovacevich, a Google spokesman.
In her speech last week, Christine A. Varney, head of the Justice Department’s antitrust division, said the touchstone of antitrust policy should be “the protection of consumer welfare.”
By that standard, Google seems an elusive target for antitrust enforcers, since most of its services are free. And in the new markets it is entering, including cellphone software and online alternatives to desktop programs, Google is an insurgent going up against large, well-heeled rivals, notably Microsoft.
“If what Google really has is an enormous scale advantage in Internet search and advertising — and it is not engaged in exclusionary or other bad behavior — I would be very reluctant to step in,” said Mr. Hovenkamp of the University of Iowa.
Last week, the Obama administration declared a sharp break with the Bush years, vowing to toughen antitrust enforcement, especially for dominant companies. The approach is closer to that of the European Union, where regulators last week fined Intel $1.45 billion for abusing its power in the chip market.
In this new climate, the stakes appear to be highest for Google, the rising power of the Internet economy.
The new antitrust leadership, legal experts say, is likely to scrutinize networks — technology platforms that become so dominant that everyone feels the need to plug into them. The advantages to the companies that control such networks snowball as they attract more users, advertisers or software developers.
Internet search and search advertising, like personal computer operating software, is one example, said Herbert Hovenkamp, an antitrust expert at the University of Iowa law school. “Google is a dominant network, as is Microsoft,” Mr. Hovenkamp said. “Networks become competitive only if everyone has the same chance.”
Google’s corporate behavior is already being closely monitored. Last year, Google abandoned a planned search advertising partnership with Yahoo, after the Justice Department said it intended to file suit to block the agreement on antitrust grounds. Google has 64 percent of the Web search market in America, while Yahoo has 21 percent and Microsoft 8 percent, according to comScore, a research firm.
In recent weeks, antitrust officials have opened two inquiries. The Justice Department is looking into Google’s settlement with authors and publishers for its book-search service to see if it violates antitrust laws. And the Federal Trade Commission is examining whether Google’s sharing two board members with Apple reduces competition, since both companies offer Web browsers and phone operating systems.
Eric E. Schmidt, Google’s chief executive, said earlier this month that the close scrutiny was not surprising. “Information is incredibly important, and we should expect governments around the world to pay attention to what we do,” he said.
Google’s power is a cause of worry in many industries — media, advertising, telecommunications and software. Yet being large, successful and ambitious is not an antitrust violation. “You’ve got to be big, and you have to be bad,” observed Andrew I. Gavil, a law professor at Howard University. “You have to be both.”
In the Microsoft case, the software giant’s monopoly in personal computer operating systems was not an antitrust problem. It was its corporate actions, including using contracts and bullying tactics to stifle competition, that broke the law, the federal courts ruled. Such strong-arm practices, legal experts say, have not been part of the Google story.
Unless Google is shown to engage in a pattern of anticompetitive conduct, the company is likely to face constant scrutiny, but not a major federal suit, antitrust experts say. Even with misconduct, they say, complex antitrust cases like the one against Microsoft take years to come to fruition. “There will be a lot of agonizing about Google, and it will raise concerns, but I don’t see a big Google case in the offing,” said Michael Katz, an economist at New York University’s Stern School of Business.
Instead, Google is likely to be watched step by step. One area to watch, antitrust experts say, is whether Google uses its search engine to give it a leg up in new businesses.
Last month, the company announced that Google Profiles, a service that gives people a page to publish their name, photo and other personal information, would be featured below Google’s search results when someone typed in a name. That could give Google Profiles an edge over profiles from Facebook and other social networks, which have to earn their search result rankings.
Google, according to Randal C. Picker, an antitrust expert at the University of Chicago law school, is using its search engine to “leverage” another Google service. Such tactics, he said, echo Microsoft’s linking of its Windows operating system to its Web browser. “It is the kind of thing that is likely to get antitrust attention,” Mr. Picker said.
The company says Google Profiles is an effort to improve Web search, and comes in response to users’ requests for greater control over their online identities. Google also says its software scans other social networks, and those results typically appear near the top of a search for a person’s name. “We designed Profiles to encourage user choice, not limit it,” said Adam Kovacevich, a Google spokesman.
In her speech last week, Christine A. Varney, head of the Justice Department’s antitrust division, said the touchstone of antitrust policy should be “the protection of consumer welfare.”
By that standard, Google seems an elusive target for antitrust enforcers, since most of its services are free. And in the new markets it is entering, including cellphone software and online alternatives to desktop programs, Google is an insurgent going up against large, well-heeled rivals, notably Microsoft.
“If what Google really has is an enormous scale advantage in Internet search and advertising — and it is not engaged in exclusionary or other bad behavior — I would be very reluctant to step in,” said Mr. Hovenkamp of the University of Iowa.
Republicans in Senate Lower Expectations of a Court Fight
While there is growing anticipation that the summer will bring the spectacle of a pitched Supreme Court confirmation battle, some Senate Republicans are lowering expectations that they are planning any major political fight.
President Obama has not yet named his choice to succeed Justice David H. Souter, but several Republicans acknowledge that it is unlikely they will be able to derail the nomination absent some startling revelation about the candidate.
Those Republicans, including senior staff aides and some senators, suggested in interviews that they believed Mr. Obama’s first nominee for the court would be confirmed without great difficulty no matter how they framed the issues during the confirmation process.
Senator Jeff Sessions of Alabama, the ranking Republican on the Judiciary Committee, has said he would not necessarily be opposed to a nominee who is gay or an abortion rights advocate. In a recent interview, Mr. Sessions made it clear that whatever his preferences for resistance on the nominee, he could count the numbers.
“Well, the Democrats have a strong majority on the committee,” he said, referring to the fact that with Senator Arlen Specter’s switch to the Democratic Party, the majority increased to 12 to 7, from 11 to 8.
Mr. Sessions said he expected that Mr. Obama would take care to avoid selecting a nominee with any personal problems involving issues like ethics or taxes.
“Assuming no serious problems, we should have a good discussion about the role of a judge,” Mr. Sessions said. Asked what kind of candidate could be rejected, he replied that the Senate should not confirm anyone who would take personal views to the bench or who wanted “to promote a political agenda.”
Mr. Obama’s candidate is certain to declaim, as do all judicial nominees, that he or she will interpret the law and not promote any personal agendas.
A senior Republican Senate official not connected to Mr. Sessions said, “Everyone up here can see the political pieces on the board.” The official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity in order to discuss the situation candidly, added, “No one is talking about the possibility of defeating any nominee, barring something coming out of left field.”
The official said that not only did Democrats have command of the committee and a strong majority in the Senate, but that any nomination would also come at a time when the president’s public standing was high.
A second top Republican Senate aide, also not connected to Mr. Sessions, said, referring to Mr. Obama, “Elections have consequences; he won.”
“Obviously, we’re going to stand up for our principles,” the aide continued, “but the other side has won this right to choose someone this time.”
Some other aides and one senator other than Mr. Sessions who asked not to be quoted all referred in interviews to the coming confirmation process as an “educational opportunity,” a description that suggests a more modest political goal than attacking or defeating a nominee.
But all of those interviewed said they understood that Senate Republicans would have to be sensitive to the concerns of outside conservative advocacy groups that will take a sharply adversarial position on the nominee. Some networks of conservatives have already been mapping outlines of strategy to oppose potential nominees, compiling and distributing brief dossiers on what they believe are the weak points of candidates on speculative lists.
The difference in the fervor of the conservative advocacy groups (the outsiders) and the Senate Republicans (the insiders) mirrors in some ways the situation Democrats faced for many years. Liberal advocacy groups mounted several campaigns against the nominees of President George W. Bush and his Republican predecessors that were not taken up in a full-throated way by Senate Democrats.
A result was chronic friction between the two groups, with senators complaining that the liberal groups were unrealistic and the advocates describing the senators as timid and even supine in the face of efforts to tilt the courts in a conservative direction.
Some of the senior Republican Senate officials said there was a widespread understanding that the conservative groups would use the occasion of a Supreme Court nominee by a Democratic president as an issue both to rally supporters and to raise political donations, much as liberal groups did with Republican court nominees.
“We’re not lowering expectations as much as setting them realistically,” one aide said. “They have their own agendas as well,” the aide added, referring to the use by outside groups of a Supreme Court nomination to fire up supporters. Republican officials all said that they expected Mr. Obama’s nominee to be a supporter of abortion rights and that that fact by itself would not be an obstacle to confirmation.
Mr. Sessions said anticipation over the confirmation process was inevitable because the issues were inherently important.
“We’re choosing someone with the power to redefine the Constitution,” he said. “That’s a big deal.”
And while that has always been so, the modern Supreme Court confirmation process first took on the drama of a special political moment with the 1987 battle over President Ronald Reagan’s nomination of Judge Robert H. Bork. The nomination, which was defeated, featured an all-out fight with both sides deploying modern political tactics.
The scene was repeated four years later when the confirmation battle over Clarence Thomas riveted the nation and resulted in his confirmation.
President Obama has not yet named his choice to succeed Justice David H. Souter, but several Republicans acknowledge that it is unlikely they will be able to derail the nomination absent some startling revelation about the candidate.
Those Republicans, including senior staff aides and some senators, suggested in interviews that they believed Mr. Obama’s first nominee for the court would be confirmed without great difficulty no matter how they framed the issues during the confirmation process.
Senator Jeff Sessions of Alabama, the ranking Republican on the Judiciary Committee, has said he would not necessarily be opposed to a nominee who is gay or an abortion rights advocate. In a recent interview, Mr. Sessions made it clear that whatever his preferences for resistance on the nominee, he could count the numbers.
“Well, the Democrats have a strong majority on the committee,” he said, referring to the fact that with Senator Arlen Specter’s switch to the Democratic Party, the majority increased to 12 to 7, from 11 to 8.
Mr. Sessions said he expected that Mr. Obama would take care to avoid selecting a nominee with any personal problems involving issues like ethics or taxes.
“Assuming no serious problems, we should have a good discussion about the role of a judge,” Mr. Sessions said. Asked what kind of candidate could be rejected, he replied that the Senate should not confirm anyone who would take personal views to the bench or who wanted “to promote a political agenda.”
Mr. Obama’s candidate is certain to declaim, as do all judicial nominees, that he or she will interpret the law and not promote any personal agendas.
A senior Republican Senate official not connected to Mr. Sessions said, “Everyone up here can see the political pieces on the board.” The official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity in order to discuss the situation candidly, added, “No one is talking about the possibility of defeating any nominee, barring something coming out of left field.”
The official said that not only did Democrats have command of the committee and a strong majority in the Senate, but that any nomination would also come at a time when the president’s public standing was high.
A second top Republican Senate aide, also not connected to Mr. Sessions, said, referring to Mr. Obama, “Elections have consequences; he won.”
“Obviously, we’re going to stand up for our principles,” the aide continued, “but the other side has won this right to choose someone this time.”
Some other aides and one senator other than Mr. Sessions who asked not to be quoted all referred in interviews to the coming confirmation process as an “educational opportunity,” a description that suggests a more modest political goal than attacking or defeating a nominee.
But all of those interviewed said they understood that Senate Republicans would have to be sensitive to the concerns of outside conservative advocacy groups that will take a sharply adversarial position on the nominee. Some networks of conservatives have already been mapping outlines of strategy to oppose potential nominees, compiling and distributing brief dossiers on what they believe are the weak points of candidates on speculative lists.
The difference in the fervor of the conservative advocacy groups (the outsiders) and the Senate Republicans (the insiders) mirrors in some ways the situation Democrats faced for many years. Liberal advocacy groups mounted several campaigns against the nominees of President George W. Bush and his Republican predecessors that were not taken up in a full-throated way by Senate Democrats.
A result was chronic friction between the two groups, with senators complaining that the liberal groups were unrealistic and the advocates describing the senators as timid and even supine in the face of efforts to tilt the courts in a conservative direction.
Some of the senior Republican Senate officials said there was a widespread understanding that the conservative groups would use the occasion of a Supreme Court nominee by a Democratic president as an issue both to rally supporters and to raise political donations, much as liberal groups did with Republican court nominees.
“We’re not lowering expectations as much as setting them realistically,” one aide said. “They have their own agendas as well,” the aide added, referring to the use by outside groups of a Supreme Court nomination to fire up supporters. Republican officials all said that they expected Mr. Obama’s nominee to be a supporter of abortion rights and that that fact by itself would not be an obstacle to confirmation.
Mr. Sessions said anticipation over the confirmation process was inevitable because the issues were inherently important.
“We’re choosing someone with the power to redefine the Constitution,” he said. “That’s a big deal.”
And while that has always been so, the modern Supreme Court confirmation process first took on the drama of a special political moment with the 1987 battle over President Ronald Reagan’s nomination of Judge Robert H. Bork. The nomination, which was defeated, featured an all-out fight with both sides deploying modern political tactics.
The scene was repeated four years later when the confirmation battle over Clarence Thomas riveted the nation and resulted in his confirmation.
Which ministry is least green? The one that runs climate change
One in three government buildings has the lowest possible rating for energy efficiency, according to official figures seen by the Observer, which show the Department for Energy and Climate Change is one of the worst offenders.
The dire state of the public estate, which includes government offices, laboratories and museums, will make uncomfortable reading for the department's secretary of state Ed Miliband. He recently announced ambitious plans to cut the energy use of UK buildings as part of the overall targets to cut the country's carbon footprint by 80% by 2050.
The DECC, which is responsible for promoting energy efficiency in the country and is housed in Whitehall Place in London, scored a G, the lowest on a seven-point energy performance scale for its buildings. The Home Office, which moved into a new office building only a few years ago, and the Department of Health were also given the bottom rating, while, on average, government buildings scored an F.
The ratings for 267 government buildings come from the government's own energy efficiency assessments and were published in response to parliamentary questions from Greg Clark, Miliband's Tory shadow.
Overall, 98 buildings were rated G and a further 34 scored F. In total, more than 70% were rated E or below, which means that they are less energy-efficient than normal buildings of their type. None scored A.
"The fact that DECC is a G is pretty bad," said Clark. "I'm sure that they've gone into a less-than-functional building, but part of the role of DECC is to fly the flag and show how things could be done, and surely in the whole of central London they could have sourced an up-to-date office block that they could be proud of?"
A spokesman for the DECC pointed out that it had only moved into its building in Whitehall Place in October, but was determined to make it more energy-efficient: "This is not easy as our new home is a Grade II-listed heritage building and more than 100 years old - making it difficult to match the energy-efficiency standards of new buildings."
There are already plans in place to improve the way the building uses energy and the electricity comes from renewable sources. "We are also looking into methods of improving the building's energy efficiency, such as introducing additional motion and daylight sensors, upgrading downlighters and fluorescent tubes, and upgrading the fans system and boiler sequencing system," the spokesman added.
Each of the energy assessments included recommendations for cutting a building's energy use. The Treasury's office building, rated at F and responsible for about 4,000 tonnes of CO2 per year, was encouraged to switch to a less carbon intensive fuel, for example. At four of the Department of Health's six offices in Whitehall, energy assessors recommended that "simultaneous operation of heating and cooling systems" should be minimised.
A Home Office spokesman said the department was looking at ways to reduce its energy use through increased staff awareness and new technologies such as LED lights, energy monitors and upgraded lighting and air-conditioning controls.
There were also buildings that performed relatively well. The Foreign Office building, constructed in the 19th century, had a better than typical energy performance, scoring 92 when a performance of 100 means the building is performing normally for its type. This gave it a grade D. The Ministry of Justice and the Wales Office were both rated at C, the highest for any public buildings.
Paul King, of the UK Green Building Council, said the energy performance numbers might be disappointing but he was not surprised. "What it underlines is that government buildings are a sample of our very many buildings in this country that are in a terrible state because of their energy use. For the vast majority of buildings we have no idea how bad they are," he said.
About 45% of the UK's carbon emissions come from energy use in buildings and 18% from public and commercial buildings. In 2006, the government pledged to cut, by 2020, the environmental impact of its buildings by 30% relative to 1999-2000 levels. "Three years on, the reality is that more than a third of government buildings are in the worst possible band for efficiency," said Clark. "Conservative policy would see public buildings in the top quartile for energy performance by driving the highest standards of energy efficiency and carbon emissions reduction."
A spokesman for the Office for Government Commerce, which is responsible for refurbishing the government estate, said it had achieved a 2.5% drop in carbon emissions last year and that plans were now in place to deliver a 12.5% reduction by 2010-11, against 1999-2000 levels.
The most polluting government-owned site is the Department for Environment's Veterinary Laboratories Agency (VLA) complex in Weybridge, with an energy rating of 761, emitting 20,000 tonnes of CO2 per year. The vast majority of buildings score below 200.
A department spokesman said it was "fully committed" to improving energy efficiency in all its sites. "Some of our buildings are listed and older; others, such as the VLA sites, are as much laboratory as office, and so their energy use is higher to account for specialist equipment which needs ventilation and water," he said.
"Many of the activities and processes carried out in the laboratories are energy-intensive and there are limited opportunities for improving efficiencies which do not impact on the health, safety and security requirements within the laboratory environment." The department has also installed "energy perfectors" at many of its sites, which optimise the voltage of the electricity supply to match the appliances being used.
But Clark said the government was not moving quickly enough, particularly with its departmental headquarters buildings, where the average rating is F. "They're not medieval buildings; they're mostly Edwardian, and the technologies are there to improve them. If the government isn't doing it, how can it have a leading role in persuading everyone else to do it?"
King said the government's figures were the tip of the iceberg: "The only thing that sets the government buildings apart is that we actually know how bad they are because of this quirk of European policy that has required these energy certificates for public buildings. What we desperately need is similar information about the rest of the UK's buildings."
How the system works
Energy performance certificates (EPCs) will be familiar to anyone buying, selling or renting a home. By surveying the size and state of a property and the kinds of energy used, the EPC provides a rating on a seven-point scale, from a green-coloured A for most efficient to a red-coloured G for least efficient.
Display energy certificates (DECs) have been mandatory for all public buildings since October and have a crucial difference to EPCs - the rating is based on actual energy use. A rating of 100 means the building is performing as expected and is banded D. The higher the number, the less efficient the building, with the G band representing an energy performance value above 150.
The dire state of the public estate, which includes government offices, laboratories and museums, will make uncomfortable reading for the department's secretary of state Ed Miliband. He recently announced ambitious plans to cut the energy use of UK buildings as part of the overall targets to cut the country's carbon footprint by 80% by 2050.
The DECC, which is responsible for promoting energy efficiency in the country and is housed in Whitehall Place in London, scored a G, the lowest on a seven-point energy performance scale for its buildings. The Home Office, which moved into a new office building only a few years ago, and the Department of Health were also given the bottom rating, while, on average, government buildings scored an F.
The ratings for 267 government buildings come from the government's own energy efficiency assessments and were published in response to parliamentary questions from Greg Clark, Miliband's Tory shadow.
Overall, 98 buildings were rated G and a further 34 scored F. In total, more than 70% were rated E or below, which means that they are less energy-efficient than normal buildings of their type. None scored A.
"The fact that DECC is a G is pretty bad," said Clark. "I'm sure that they've gone into a less-than-functional building, but part of the role of DECC is to fly the flag and show how things could be done, and surely in the whole of central London they could have sourced an up-to-date office block that they could be proud of?"
A spokesman for the DECC pointed out that it had only moved into its building in Whitehall Place in October, but was determined to make it more energy-efficient: "This is not easy as our new home is a Grade II-listed heritage building and more than 100 years old - making it difficult to match the energy-efficiency standards of new buildings."
There are already plans in place to improve the way the building uses energy and the electricity comes from renewable sources. "We are also looking into methods of improving the building's energy efficiency, such as introducing additional motion and daylight sensors, upgrading downlighters and fluorescent tubes, and upgrading the fans system and boiler sequencing system," the spokesman added.
Each of the energy assessments included recommendations for cutting a building's energy use. The Treasury's office building, rated at F and responsible for about 4,000 tonnes of CO2 per year, was encouraged to switch to a less carbon intensive fuel, for example. At four of the Department of Health's six offices in Whitehall, energy assessors recommended that "simultaneous operation of heating and cooling systems" should be minimised.
A Home Office spokesman said the department was looking at ways to reduce its energy use through increased staff awareness and new technologies such as LED lights, energy monitors and upgraded lighting and air-conditioning controls.
There were also buildings that performed relatively well. The Foreign Office building, constructed in the 19th century, had a better than typical energy performance, scoring 92 when a performance of 100 means the building is performing normally for its type. This gave it a grade D. The Ministry of Justice and the Wales Office were both rated at C, the highest for any public buildings.
Paul King, of the UK Green Building Council, said the energy performance numbers might be disappointing but he was not surprised. "What it underlines is that government buildings are a sample of our very many buildings in this country that are in a terrible state because of their energy use. For the vast majority of buildings we have no idea how bad they are," he said.
About 45% of the UK's carbon emissions come from energy use in buildings and 18% from public and commercial buildings. In 2006, the government pledged to cut, by 2020, the environmental impact of its buildings by 30% relative to 1999-2000 levels. "Three years on, the reality is that more than a third of government buildings are in the worst possible band for efficiency," said Clark. "Conservative policy would see public buildings in the top quartile for energy performance by driving the highest standards of energy efficiency and carbon emissions reduction."
A spokesman for the Office for Government Commerce, which is responsible for refurbishing the government estate, said it had achieved a 2.5% drop in carbon emissions last year and that plans were now in place to deliver a 12.5% reduction by 2010-11, against 1999-2000 levels.
The most polluting government-owned site is the Department for Environment's Veterinary Laboratories Agency (VLA) complex in Weybridge, with an energy rating of 761, emitting 20,000 tonnes of CO2 per year. The vast majority of buildings score below 200.
A department spokesman said it was "fully committed" to improving energy efficiency in all its sites. "Some of our buildings are listed and older; others, such as the VLA sites, are as much laboratory as office, and so their energy use is higher to account for specialist equipment which needs ventilation and water," he said.
"Many of the activities and processes carried out in the laboratories are energy-intensive and there are limited opportunities for improving efficiencies which do not impact on the health, safety and security requirements within the laboratory environment." The department has also installed "energy perfectors" at many of its sites, which optimise the voltage of the electricity supply to match the appliances being used.
But Clark said the government was not moving quickly enough, particularly with its departmental headquarters buildings, where the average rating is F. "They're not medieval buildings; they're mostly Edwardian, and the technologies are there to improve them. If the government isn't doing it, how can it have a leading role in persuading everyone else to do it?"
King said the government's figures were the tip of the iceberg: "The only thing that sets the government buildings apart is that we actually know how bad they are because of this quirk of European policy that has required these energy certificates for public buildings. What we desperately need is similar information about the rest of the UK's buildings."
How the system works
Energy performance certificates (EPCs) will be familiar to anyone buying, selling or renting a home. By surveying the size and state of a property and the kinds of energy used, the EPC provides a rating on a seven-point scale, from a green-coloured A for most efficient to a red-coloured G for least efficient.
Display energy certificates (DECs) have been mandatory for all public buildings since October and have a crucial difference to EPCs - the rating is based on actual energy use. A rating of 100 means the building is performing as expected and is banded D. The higher the number, the less efficient the building, with the G band representing an energy performance value above 150.
Unemployment forces Chinese migrants back to the countryside
Until a week ago, Liu Xiao was part of the Pearl river delta's army: one of the thousands of workers streaming along a Shenzhen road, gulping down breakfast, texting, lighting a final cigarette, teasing friends and swapping gossip – rushing rushing rushing to the factory for another shift making bras, computers and plastic toys for the world.
Today she waits patiently at the railway station across town. This region was the motor of China's economic boom, but plummeting exports have forced it to slow and millions of those who kept it running have given up and gone home. Liu Xiao is one of the latest to return to the countryside: in her case to a village of just 200 people a 10-hour ride – and a world away – from Shenzhen.
For a year and a half she worked 11-hour days checking hard drive casings with no music or chat permitted, but found satisfaction in spotting hairline cracks and other errors. Home was a dormitory shared with seven other girls, crowded but renao (lively and chaotic).
"There were lots of rules, like no cooking and not being loud, but you get used to it," she says. "It was harmonious, not like other dormitories where everyone quarrels."
Production began to slow late last year and workers drifted away. Without overtime Liu Xiao's wages slipped from 2,500 yuan (£240) a month to 800 yuan, barely covering living costs, and leaving nothing for visits to internet cafes or for the shopping trips she had learned to enjoy.
Millions abandoned the city at Chinese new year in late January and a steady trickle continues. When rumours spread that Liu Xiao's factory would soon go bankrupt, as thousands across the manufacturing region have done, she handed in her notice.
Now she is killing time with a colleague, waiting for the night train. "I'm not too happy," she says. "There aren't many factories near my village. It's too boring; there's not much entertainment and it's difficult to get out."
Her boyfriend is waiting for her, but she has no plans to settle down. "I want to be single a while longer – I'm a girl who likes to have fun," she adds boldly, with a giggle.
Thirty years ago, Shenzhen was not so different to home: a small fishing village marked out only by its proximity to Hong Kong. That was enough to make Deng Xiaoping pick it as the first special economic zone.
Now it is a restless, dense city of strangers, drawn from every part of China. It has five-star hotels, a Gucci store, endless blocks of shops and flashy restaurants, but also acres of factories and cramped dormitory blocks, sprawling into the next industrial town. Its population has increased more than 30-fold. Even according to official figures, which most consider a wild underestimate, it has 10 million residents.
Three decades after Deng's economic reforms began, China can seem like two nations. There are the sky-scraping neon-lit cities such as Shenzhen and then there is the countryside, still home to most of the population and richer by far than it was, but falling ever further behind the urban world. Average incomes in cities are now more than three times those of the countryside.
This gulf has produced 140 million migrant workers, and without them the gap would be far wider. For many, their years of toil are a painful, enforced exile from families, undertaken to ensure healthcare for ageing parents, an education for their children and a home for the family.
Increasingly, for younger people, the journey from farm to factory is also a voyage of self-discovery. China as a nation is increasingly urban, wealthy and demanding – and so are many of its citizens.
With her immaculate white trainers, fashionable haircut and intermittently flirty manner, Liu Xiao is the creation of 18 months in Shenzhen as much as her 18 years in rural Jiangxi province.
She was "a bit frightened" when she arrived alone, and like many migrants she can still feel vulnerable in the big city. She finds a policeman to check my press card and passport before allowing me to travel with her. "My mum said there have been more murders here recently," she explains confidingly.
She's always found Guangdong's urbanites cold and unenthusiastic in comparison with the villagers she grew up with. But now she worries that she will miss the friends she made at the factory, as they scatter home to Hubei and Hunan. It will probably be too expensive to meet again.
She's splashed out 156 yuan for a hard seat on a train, instead of a bus, so she can travel home with one of her pals. As the night wears on, exhaustion overcomes their discomfort. Handfuls of men play cards and chat laconically, but most travellers sprawl across the tiny tables, against windows or over each other, arms thrown up to cover their eyes from the harsh lights. Sunflower seeds are spilt across the floor and empty plastic bottles roll as the train rattles through the darkness. The two young women fall asleep in a little heap.
Liu Xiao stirs as dawn approaches. "So tired," she sighs. Outside, charmless apartment blocks and dirty factories are giving way to fields thick with fog. A man wanders down a path, buckets dangling from the yoke across his shoulders.
She climbs off the train and finds a car. It's a bumpy ride to her village, even along the concrete road that arrived here a few years ago. A short walk takes her up a rutted mud track, past fat chickens and scrawny yellow-haired dogs to the home where her parents are waiting.
Miaoquan – "beautiful spring" – is evidence of the changes that have taken place in the countryside. Motorbikes and trucks hurtle along the roads. Two-storey homes covered with white tiles have replaced many of the old, crude brick buildings. Some of the children are going to university; Liu Xiao's younger brother hopes to follow them.
"The central government's policies are good, but the problem is the local government. Money for agriculture doesn't get all the way down," says her father, Liu Jieteng.
The family used to be farmers, but living off a small plot of land proved too hard. They still grow their own rice there, but Mr Liu turned to mining. When the government closed small mines in a safety drive, he found work shovelling quartz from the nearby mountain into trucks. It is dusty and dangerous work – an estimated 24,000 Chinese people die of the occupational lung disease silicosis each year – but he will not be doing it much longer in any case, because the supply is almost exhausted. The family are not sure what they will do then.
"There have been huge improvements here since I was a child," said Mr Liu, 44. "But this year, because of the economic crisis, the village has been affected. Many people have no work at all. We basically depend on two things: mining and quartz. But the small mines have been closed down and the quartz is almost finished. There was a shoe factory, but it had no orders and went bankrupt.
"Last year young people were working out, but now many are coming back – like my daughter."
Recent official statistics suggest that as many as 23 million of China's migrant workers are jobless, and that about 14 million of those who returned home for the new year have remained there.
Those figures emphasise the impact of industry's current problems and the vulnerability of migrants, who are not entitled to the same unemployment, medical and educational benefits as those born in cities. But they are also testament to the country's progress.
Many now have the safety net of savings and can spend a few months figuring out their next move or waiting to hear of an opening. Families have enough spare to welcome them home. The government is introducing limited but greater support for rural households – a welcome change after the reforms of the 80s were followed by a decade in which officials seemed to care only for cities.
L ike other young workers, Liu Xiao does not plan to spend long here. She responds with amazement to the idea that she might farm. "Impossible. That's the thing I would like to do least. I hate it," she exclaims.
Farmwork is too hard, say other returnees, the expectations of village life too stifling. One man chafes at his parents' rules and complains that his father grumbles if he comes home late. Others love the endless choices of life in big cities – not just the cafes and karaoke bars, but the neat parks and well-stocked libraries.
Many, like Liu Xiao, want to find work or set up a business in a rural town. She plans to spend a few days at home, then head to Pingxiang, the nearest city, where her boyfriend works as a hairdresser.
With 400,000 inhabitants – equivalent to the population of Bristol – it's a one-horse town by Chinese standards, but she hopes to find a job in the service sector. If not, her father thinks she should head south again.
"Getting more experience and going out to try the outside world are good things, but also, there's nothing for her to do here and if she goes out it reduces the family burden. She doesn't need to support us, just earn enough for herself," he explained.
Liu Xiao smiles. She's more confident these days – city life has changed her. It's not just her smart clothes and pink mobile phone. Working with others has knocked the edges off her temper, made her smoother, she thinks.
But Miaoquan hasn't changed at all, she says with a note of disbelief. There's still nothing much to do here, just watch TV or help with chores.
On the wall, beside a huge, brightly coloured poster of Mao Zedong and other communist leaders, an old-fashioned clock ticks away the seconds as Liu Xiao fidgets in the front room.
A sharp expulsion of breath. She wanders to the doorway and gazes out, across the empty fields. "I've been here half an hour. I'm already bored."
Today she waits patiently at the railway station across town. This region was the motor of China's economic boom, but plummeting exports have forced it to slow and millions of those who kept it running have given up and gone home. Liu Xiao is one of the latest to return to the countryside: in her case to a village of just 200 people a 10-hour ride – and a world away – from Shenzhen.
For a year and a half she worked 11-hour days checking hard drive casings with no music or chat permitted, but found satisfaction in spotting hairline cracks and other errors. Home was a dormitory shared with seven other girls, crowded but renao (lively and chaotic).
"There were lots of rules, like no cooking and not being loud, but you get used to it," she says. "It was harmonious, not like other dormitories where everyone quarrels."
Production began to slow late last year and workers drifted away. Without overtime Liu Xiao's wages slipped from 2,500 yuan (£240) a month to 800 yuan, barely covering living costs, and leaving nothing for visits to internet cafes or for the shopping trips she had learned to enjoy.
Millions abandoned the city at Chinese new year in late January and a steady trickle continues. When rumours spread that Liu Xiao's factory would soon go bankrupt, as thousands across the manufacturing region have done, she handed in her notice.
Now she is killing time with a colleague, waiting for the night train. "I'm not too happy," she says. "There aren't many factories near my village. It's too boring; there's not much entertainment and it's difficult to get out."
Her boyfriend is waiting for her, but she has no plans to settle down. "I want to be single a while longer – I'm a girl who likes to have fun," she adds boldly, with a giggle.
Thirty years ago, Shenzhen was not so different to home: a small fishing village marked out only by its proximity to Hong Kong. That was enough to make Deng Xiaoping pick it as the first special economic zone.
Now it is a restless, dense city of strangers, drawn from every part of China. It has five-star hotels, a Gucci store, endless blocks of shops and flashy restaurants, but also acres of factories and cramped dormitory blocks, sprawling into the next industrial town. Its population has increased more than 30-fold. Even according to official figures, which most consider a wild underestimate, it has 10 million residents.
Three decades after Deng's economic reforms began, China can seem like two nations. There are the sky-scraping neon-lit cities such as Shenzhen and then there is the countryside, still home to most of the population and richer by far than it was, but falling ever further behind the urban world. Average incomes in cities are now more than three times those of the countryside.
This gulf has produced 140 million migrant workers, and without them the gap would be far wider. For many, their years of toil are a painful, enforced exile from families, undertaken to ensure healthcare for ageing parents, an education for their children and a home for the family.
Increasingly, for younger people, the journey from farm to factory is also a voyage of self-discovery. China as a nation is increasingly urban, wealthy and demanding – and so are many of its citizens.
With her immaculate white trainers, fashionable haircut and intermittently flirty manner, Liu Xiao is the creation of 18 months in Shenzhen as much as her 18 years in rural Jiangxi province.
She was "a bit frightened" when she arrived alone, and like many migrants she can still feel vulnerable in the big city. She finds a policeman to check my press card and passport before allowing me to travel with her. "My mum said there have been more murders here recently," she explains confidingly.
She's always found Guangdong's urbanites cold and unenthusiastic in comparison with the villagers she grew up with. But now she worries that she will miss the friends she made at the factory, as they scatter home to Hubei and Hunan. It will probably be too expensive to meet again.
She's splashed out 156 yuan for a hard seat on a train, instead of a bus, so she can travel home with one of her pals. As the night wears on, exhaustion overcomes their discomfort. Handfuls of men play cards and chat laconically, but most travellers sprawl across the tiny tables, against windows or over each other, arms thrown up to cover their eyes from the harsh lights. Sunflower seeds are spilt across the floor and empty plastic bottles roll as the train rattles through the darkness. The two young women fall asleep in a little heap.
Liu Xiao stirs as dawn approaches. "So tired," she sighs. Outside, charmless apartment blocks and dirty factories are giving way to fields thick with fog. A man wanders down a path, buckets dangling from the yoke across his shoulders.
She climbs off the train and finds a car. It's a bumpy ride to her village, even along the concrete road that arrived here a few years ago. A short walk takes her up a rutted mud track, past fat chickens and scrawny yellow-haired dogs to the home where her parents are waiting.
Miaoquan – "beautiful spring" – is evidence of the changes that have taken place in the countryside. Motorbikes and trucks hurtle along the roads. Two-storey homes covered with white tiles have replaced many of the old, crude brick buildings. Some of the children are going to university; Liu Xiao's younger brother hopes to follow them.
"The central government's policies are good, but the problem is the local government. Money for agriculture doesn't get all the way down," says her father, Liu Jieteng.
The family used to be farmers, but living off a small plot of land proved too hard. They still grow their own rice there, but Mr Liu turned to mining. When the government closed small mines in a safety drive, he found work shovelling quartz from the nearby mountain into trucks. It is dusty and dangerous work – an estimated 24,000 Chinese people die of the occupational lung disease silicosis each year – but he will not be doing it much longer in any case, because the supply is almost exhausted. The family are not sure what they will do then.
"There have been huge improvements here since I was a child," said Mr Liu, 44. "But this year, because of the economic crisis, the village has been affected. Many people have no work at all. We basically depend on two things: mining and quartz. But the small mines have been closed down and the quartz is almost finished. There was a shoe factory, but it had no orders and went bankrupt.
"Last year young people were working out, but now many are coming back – like my daughter."
Recent official statistics suggest that as many as 23 million of China's migrant workers are jobless, and that about 14 million of those who returned home for the new year have remained there.
Those figures emphasise the impact of industry's current problems and the vulnerability of migrants, who are not entitled to the same unemployment, medical and educational benefits as those born in cities. But they are also testament to the country's progress.
Many now have the safety net of savings and can spend a few months figuring out their next move or waiting to hear of an opening. Families have enough spare to welcome them home. The government is introducing limited but greater support for rural households – a welcome change after the reforms of the 80s were followed by a decade in which officials seemed to care only for cities.
L ike other young workers, Liu Xiao does not plan to spend long here. She responds with amazement to the idea that she might farm. "Impossible. That's the thing I would like to do least. I hate it," she exclaims.
Farmwork is too hard, say other returnees, the expectations of village life too stifling. One man chafes at his parents' rules and complains that his father grumbles if he comes home late. Others love the endless choices of life in big cities – not just the cafes and karaoke bars, but the neat parks and well-stocked libraries.
Many, like Liu Xiao, want to find work or set up a business in a rural town. She plans to spend a few days at home, then head to Pingxiang, the nearest city, where her boyfriend works as a hairdresser.
With 400,000 inhabitants – equivalent to the population of Bristol – it's a one-horse town by Chinese standards, but she hopes to find a job in the service sector. If not, her father thinks she should head south again.
"Getting more experience and going out to try the outside world are good things, but also, there's nothing for her to do here and if she goes out it reduces the family burden. She doesn't need to support us, just earn enough for herself," he explained.
Liu Xiao smiles. She's more confident these days – city life has changed her. It's not just her smart clothes and pink mobile phone. Working with others has knocked the edges off her temper, made her smoother, she thinks.
But Miaoquan hasn't changed at all, she says with a note of disbelief. There's still nothing much to do here, just watch TV or help with chores.
On the wall, beside a huge, brightly coloured poster of Mao Zedong and other communist leaders, an old-fashioned clock ticks away the seconds as Liu Xiao fidgets in the front room.
A sharp expulsion of breath. She wanders to the doorway and gazes out, across the empty fields. "I've been here half an hour. I'm already bored."
Michael Martin: growing crisis as Speaker defies calls to force him out
The Speaker of the House of Commons, Michael Martin, will tomorrow make a last-ditch bid to save his job when he tells MPs he intends to lead a drive to reform parliament's corrupted expenses system, and so defy a gathering campaign supported by senior figures in all three main parties to oust him from office immediately.
Martin saw his support erode alarmingly today when Nick Clegg, the Liberal Democrat leader; Charles Clarke, the former home secretary; and David Davis, the former shadow home secretary, called on him to resign immediately.
The Speaker, who has been criticised for missing the public mood of anger over the disclosures about MPs' expenses, and for attempting to block them becoming public, is due to make a statement to the Commons on Monday. His allies, including the senior Labour MP Stuart Bell, indicated today that Martin might try to protect himself from humiliation by saying he will stand down at the next election, but not before, defying calls to go immediately.
But he chances of Martin surviving were hit when it was alleged that the parliamentary fees office for which he is responsible encouraged MPs, certainly until 2004, to inflate claims for mortgage interest relief. It was alleged that the Labour MP Ben Chapman was advised by the fees office to claim for a mortgage in full, even though he had paid much of it off, so increasing his expenses by £15,000 in one year,
In what is rapidly escalating into a constitutional crisis, Gordon Brown did little to shore up Martin's personal authority when he issued a statement in support of the office of Speaker that did not support Martin personally.
The former home secretary Clarke became the most senior Labour figure to call on Martin to stand aside, telling the Guardiantoday: "Michael Martin is not the right man to oversee the necessary reform of the members' allowance system. It would be best if he stood down so a new Speaker could take on that responsibility immediately."
A motion of no confidence will be tabled on Monday by the Tory backbencher Douglas Carswell that will have the support of Davis and some Labour MPs, including Kate Hoey.
Clegg also broke with precedent to become the first party leader to call for Martin to quit, telling the BBC's Andrew Marr show: "I don't think he is now the right man for the job in leading the renewal of Westminster. We need a fresh start. He's been far too willing to drag his feet on issues like transparency."
The Speaker's office said the main focus of Martin's statement to MPs would be on how to reform the allowance system, adding that he had a fruitful meeting last week with the chairman of the committee on standards in public life, Sir Christopher Kelly. The committee is due to report later this year on how to reform MPs' expenses, but Kelly's committee last night played down the significance of the meeting.
After a day of private consultations, No 10 issued a statement of neutrality, saying: "The Speaker is not appointed by the prime minister. It is right … that the prime minister should support the individual elected to be Speaker by the House."
The statement did not repeat previous personal praise of Martin.
The foreign secretary, David Miliband, speaking on the Politics Show, also refused to back Martin, saying politics was in a "profound crisis" and "a battle for honour". He said the Speaker was wrong to criticise backbench MPs last week.
Martin saw his support erode alarmingly today when Nick Clegg, the Liberal Democrat leader; Charles Clarke, the former home secretary; and David Davis, the former shadow home secretary, called on him to resign immediately.
The Speaker, who has been criticised for missing the public mood of anger over the disclosures about MPs' expenses, and for attempting to block them becoming public, is due to make a statement to the Commons on Monday. His allies, including the senior Labour MP Stuart Bell, indicated today that Martin might try to protect himself from humiliation by saying he will stand down at the next election, but not before, defying calls to go immediately.
But he chances of Martin surviving were hit when it was alleged that the parliamentary fees office for which he is responsible encouraged MPs, certainly until 2004, to inflate claims for mortgage interest relief. It was alleged that the Labour MP Ben Chapman was advised by the fees office to claim for a mortgage in full, even though he had paid much of it off, so increasing his expenses by £15,000 in one year,
In what is rapidly escalating into a constitutional crisis, Gordon Brown did little to shore up Martin's personal authority when he issued a statement in support of the office of Speaker that did not support Martin personally.
The former home secretary Clarke became the most senior Labour figure to call on Martin to stand aside, telling the Guardiantoday: "Michael Martin is not the right man to oversee the necessary reform of the members' allowance system. It would be best if he stood down so a new Speaker could take on that responsibility immediately."
A motion of no confidence will be tabled on Monday by the Tory backbencher Douglas Carswell that will have the support of Davis and some Labour MPs, including Kate Hoey.
Clegg also broke with precedent to become the first party leader to call for Martin to quit, telling the BBC's Andrew Marr show: "I don't think he is now the right man for the job in leading the renewal of Westminster. We need a fresh start. He's been far too willing to drag his feet on issues like transparency."
The Speaker's office said the main focus of Martin's statement to MPs would be on how to reform the allowance system, adding that he had a fruitful meeting last week with the chairman of the committee on standards in public life, Sir Christopher Kelly. The committee is due to report later this year on how to reform MPs' expenses, but Kelly's committee last night played down the significance of the meeting.
After a day of private consultations, No 10 issued a statement of neutrality, saying: "The Speaker is not appointed by the prime minister. It is right … that the prime minister should support the individual elected to be Speaker by the House."
The statement did not repeat previous personal praise of Martin.
The foreign secretary, David Miliband, speaking on the Politics Show, also refused to back Martin, saying politics was in a "profound crisis" and "a battle for honour". He said the Speaker was wrong to criticise backbench MPs last week.
Keep working 'to avoid dementia'
Keeping the brain active by working later in life may be an effective way to ward off Alzheimer's disease, research suggests.
Researchers analysed data from 1,320 dementia patients, including 382 men.
They found that for the men, continuing to work late in life helped keep the brain sharp enough to delay dementia taking hold.
The study was carried out by the Institute of Psychiatry at King's College London.
It features in the International Journal of Geriatric Psychiatry.
Around 700,000 people in the UK currently have dementia and experts have estimated that by 2051, the number could stand at 1.7m.
It is estimated that the condition already costs the UK economy £17bn a year.
Brain connections
Dementia is caused by the mass loss of cells in the brain, and experts believe one way to guard against it is to build up as many connections between cells as possible by being mentally active throughout life. This is known as a "cognitive reserve".
There is evidence to suggest a good education is associated with a reduced dementia risk.
And the latest study suggests there can also be a positive effect of mental stimulation continued into our later years.
Those people who retired late developed Alzheimer's at a later stage than those who opted not to work on.
Each additional year of employment was associated with around a six week later age of onset.
Researcher Dr John Powell said: "The possibility that a person's cognitive reserve could still be modified later in life adds weight to the "use it or lose it" concept where keeping active later in life has important health benefits, including reducing dementia risk."
The researchers also admit that the nature of retirement is changing, and that for some people it may now be as intellectually stimulating as work.
Key threshold
Researcher Professor Simon Lovestone said: "The intellectual stimulation that older people gain from the workplace may prevent a decline in mental abilities, thus keeping people above the threshold for dementia for longer."
However, he added: "Much more research is needed if we are to understand how to effectively delay, or even prevent, dementia."
Rebecca Wood, chief executive of the Alzheimer's Research Trust, which funded the study, said: "More people than ever retire later in life to avert financial hardship, but there may be a silver lining - lower dementia risk."
However, Dr Susanne Sorensen, head of research at the Alzheimer's Society, said the small sample size of the study made it difficult to draw firm conclusions.
She said: "There could be a number of reasons why later retirement in men is linked with later onset of dementia.
"Men who retire early often do so because of health conditions, such as hypertension or diabetes, which increase your risk of dementia.
"It could also be that working helps keep your mind and body active, which we know reduces risk of dementia."
A spokesperson for the Department for Work and Pensions said it had carried out work showing that working beyond pension age had many positive effects.
"Not only can it mean more income, but also social networking and increased activity.
"We also find that many of today's older workers are choosing rejecting the cliff edge between work and retirement in favour of a gradual step down. And employers should help them to do this."
Researchers analysed data from 1,320 dementia patients, including 382 men.
They found that for the men, continuing to work late in life helped keep the brain sharp enough to delay dementia taking hold.
The study was carried out by the Institute of Psychiatry at King's College London.
It features in the International Journal of Geriatric Psychiatry.
Around 700,000 people in the UK currently have dementia and experts have estimated that by 2051, the number could stand at 1.7m.
It is estimated that the condition already costs the UK economy £17bn a year.
Brain connections
Dementia is caused by the mass loss of cells in the brain, and experts believe one way to guard against it is to build up as many connections between cells as possible by being mentally active throughout life. This is known as a "cognitive reserve".
There is evidence to suggest a good education is associated with a reduced dementia risk.
And the latest study suggests there can also be a positive effect of mental stimulation continued into our later years.
Those people who retired late developed Alzheimer's at a later stage than those who opted not to work on.
Each additional year of employment was associated with around a six week later age of onset.
Researcher Dr John Powell said: "The possibility that a person's cognitive reserve could still be modified later in life adds weight to the "use it or lose it" concept where keeping active later in life has important health benefits, including reducing dementia risk."
The researchers also admit that the nature of retirement is changing, and that for some people it may now be as intellectually stimulating as work.
Key threshold
Researcher Professor Simon Lovestone said: "The intellectual stimulation that older people gain from the workplace may prevent a decline in mental abilities, thus keeping people above the threshold for dementia for longer."
However, he added: "Much more research is needed if we are to understand how to effectively delay, or even prevent, dementia."
Rebecca Wood, chief executive of the Alzheimer's Research Trust, which funded the study, said: "More people than ever retire later in life to avert financial hardship, but there may be a silver lining - lower dementia risk."
However, Dr Susanne Sorensen, head of research at the Alzheimer's Society, said the small sample size of the study made it difficult to draw firm conclusions.
She said: "There could be a number of reasons why later retirement in men is linked with later onset of dementia.
"Men who retire early often do so because of health conditions, such as hypertension or diabetes, which increase your risk of dementia.
"It could also be that working helps keep your mind and body active, which we know reduces risk of dementia."
A spokesperson for the Department for Work and Pensions said it had carried out work showing that working beyond pension age had many positive effects.
"Not only can it mean more income, but also social networking and increased activity.
"We also find that many of today's older workers are choosing rejecting the cliff edge between work and retirement in favour of a gradual step down. And employers should help them to do this."
Obama faces down abortion heckles
President Barack Obama has been briefly heckled as he addressed students at the largest US Catholic university, amid a row over abortion rights.
Anti-abortion activists have protested against the president's visit to Notre Dame, in Indiana.
Protests and vigils have been held on and around campus, with several people arrested before Mr Obama's speech.
Mr Obama, who received an honorary degree, defended the right to abortion but said the procedure should be rare.
After entering the White House in January the president also quickly moved to reverse a Bush-era ban on embryonic stem-cell research, angering many social conservatives.
There are approximately 60 million Roman Catholics in the US, with almost half of them supporting abortion rights, research suggests. Some 42% believe abortion should be illegal.
'Inappropriate'
Wearing the blue robes of Notre Dame, Mr Obama was welcomed onto the stage with a lengthy ovation from students and staff.
Support for the president's visit was strong among those in the audience, who watched him receive an honorary degree before delivering the commencement, or graduation, address
He was interrupted soon after beginning his speech, prompting a majority of those in the audience to cheer the president, who asked for calm and told listening graduates: "We don't do things the easy way."
The AFP news agency said four men heckled the president, shouting "abortion is murder" and "stop killing babies" before being escorted from the auditorium.
Mr Obama laid out his views on abortion in clear terms, describing it as "a heart-wrenching decision for any woman".
To sustained applause, he outlined steps he supported
Let's work together to reduce the number of women seeking abortions by reducing unintended pregnancies, and making adoption more available, and providing care and support for women who do carry their child to term," he said.
The decision to invite Mr Obama to Notre Dame, the largest Catholic university in the US, has been fiercely criticised.
Many activists and Church leaders have directed their ire at university authorities they accuse of betraying Catholic principles.
"It is clear that Notre Dame didn't understand what it means to be Catholic when they issued this invitation," said Cardinal Francis George, president of the US Conference of Catholic Bishops.
Bishop John D'Arcy, of the diocese where Notre Dame is located, said he would boycott the graduation for the first time in his 24 years as bishop, the Chicago Tribune reported.
And conservative critics have described the awarding of an honorary degree as "inappropriate".
Avoiding caricatures
Addressing his critics indirectly, Mr Obama told academics and graduates at Notre Dame that he did not want the debate around abortion to go away.
Conceding that the views of opposing advocates were "irreconcilable", he said each side would continue to make its case with conviction.
"Surely we can do so without reducing those with differing views to caricature?" he asked.
A strong majority of students were reported to be in favour of the president's visit, but a petition containing some 360,000 names was delivered to the university as a mark of protest.
Overnight, students opposed to abortion rights attended an all-night prayer vigil to protest against Mr Obama's visit, and an estimated 200 people attended a prayer session at Alumni Hall Chapel.
More than 100 protesters gathered and 23 marched onto the campus on Saturday, the Associated Press reported. Police arrested 19 for trespassing, with four also charged with resisting police.
A university spokesman said none of those arrested were students, AP added.
Anti-abortion activists have protested against the president's visit to Notre Dame, in Indiana.
Protests and vigils have been held on and around campus, with several people arrested before Mr Obama's speech.
Mr Obama, who received an honorary degree, defended the right to abortion but said the procedure should be rare.
After entering the White House in January the president also quickly moved to reverse a Bush-era ban on embryonic stem-cell research, angering many social conservatives.
There are approximately 60 million Roman Catholics in the US, with almost half of them supporting abortion rights, research suggests. Some 42% believe abortion should be illegal.
'Inappropriate'
Wearing the blue robes of Notre Dame, Mr Obama was welcomed onto the stage with a lengthy ovation from students and staff.
Support for the president's visit was strong among those in the audience, who watched him receive an honorary degree before delivering the commencement, or graduation, address
He was interrupted soon after beginning his speech, prompting a majority of those in the audience to cheer the president, who asked for calm and told listening graduates: "We don't do things the easy way."
The AFP news agency said four men heckled the president, shouting "abortion is murder" and "stop killing babies" before being escorted from the auditorium.
Mr Obama laid out his views on abortion in clear terms, describing it as "a heart-wrenching decision for any woman".
To sustained applause, he outlined steps he supported
Let's work together to reduce the number of women seeking abortions by reducing unintended pregnancies, and making adoption more available, and providing care and support for women who do carry their child to term," he said.
The decision to invite Mr Obama to Notre Dame, the largest Catholic university in the US, has been fiercely criticised.
Many activists and Church leaders have directed their ire at university authorities they accuse of betraying Catholic principles.
"It is clear that Notre Dame didn't understand what it means to be Catholic when they issued this invitation," said Cardinal Francis George, president of the US Conference of Catholic Bishops.
Bishop John D'Arcy, of the diocese where Notre Dame is located, said he would boycott the graduation for the first time in his 24 years as bishop, the Chicago Tribune reported.
And conservative critics have described the awarding of an honorary degree as "inappropriate".
Avoiding caricatures
Addressing his critics indirectly, Mr Obama told academics and graduates at Notre Dame that he did not want the debate around abortion to go away.
Conceding that the views of opposing advocates were "irreconcilable", he said each side would continue to make its case with conviction.
"Surely we can do so without reducing those with differing views to caricature?" he asked.
A strong majority of students were reported to be in favour of the president's visit, but a petition containing some 360,000 names was delivered to the university as a mark of protest.
Overnight, students opposed to abortion rights attended an all-night prayer vigil to protest against Mr Obama's visit, and an estimated 200 people attended a prayer session at Alumni Hall Chapel.
More than 100 protesters gathered and 23 marched onto the campus on Saturday, the Associated Press reported. Police arrested 19 for trespassing, with four also charged with resisting police.
A university spokesman said none of those arrested were students, AP added.
Sri Lanka battles Tiger remnants
International concern is growing over the fate of civilians in northern Sri Lanka as fighting continues despite reports of a Tamil Tiger ceasefire.
Sri Lanka's government said troops were engaged in "final brushing up" hours after a website linked to the rebels said the Tigers were laying down arms.
EU ministers are expected to call on Monday for an independent inquiry into claims civilians have been targeted.
Both sides say the other has killed civilians in the closed off war zone.
The inquiry calls come as the final act appears to be being played out in a long and bitter 26-year civil war which has left some 70,000 people dead.
See a map of the conflict region
Sri Lanka's army says the last LTTE (Tamil Tiger) fighters have been penned in a 1.5 square kilometre patch of jungle.
On Sunday the Tigers chief of international relations, Selvarasa Pathmanathan, said in a statement on the Tamilnet website: "This battle has reached its bitter end."
A later statement appeared to modify the rebel position, saying the LTTE was "prepared to silence its guns if that is what needed by the international community to save the life and dignity of the Tamil people".
The country's President Mahinda Rajapaksa has already claimed victory, declaring on Saturday that Sri Lanka had been made free from "barbaric acts".
Europe 'appalled'
In Brussels the EU issued a draft statement ahead of a meeting of foreign ministers on Monday, expressing a sense of outrage at the reports of civilian casualties on both sides.
The statement said the EU was appalled both at the high numbers of casualties and at the use of heavy weapons in the conflict
The EU is pushing for the UN Human Rights Council to convene a special session on Sri Lanka, just as it has in the past done for Burma, Darfur and the Palestinian territories, reports the BBC's Oana Lungescu, in Brussels.
A pledge of aid came from the UK, which offered £5m ($7.5m) to help avoid a "humanitarian catastrophe".
"It is essential that we get food, medicines and shelter in as soon as possible to save lives, and thereafter that we help people to return to their homes as soon as they safely can," said Hillary Benn, the UK's international development secretary.
Diplomats say the EU has limited leverage, our correspondent notes, although it could remove preferential trade access worth $150m (£100m) if the country is found to be in breach of international human rights obligations.
Reports differ on the numbers of civilians caught up in the last battles, with the government saying that all those who had been trapped in Sri Lanka's northern war zone had escaped.
The rebel spokesman, though, said more than 25,000 were injured and in need of attention.
The government said it did not respond to statements released on Tamilnet, and asserted that 50,000 Tamil civilians had left the war zone in recent days.
The UN has told the BBC the army figures reinforced its view that Sri Lanka's authorities were ill-prepared for the huge influx of internally displaced people.
Refugee camps inland are already badly strained accommodating the huge numbers of those who have fled the conflict.
Leader at large?
The fighting is drawing to a close without any official word on the fate of the Tamil Tigers' leader, Velupillai Prabhakaran.
Some reports have suggested he has died, but - as with all information from the war zone - there has been no confirmation.
The army had suspected that Prabhakaran, who formed the Tigers in 1976, would fulfil his long-held pledge to take his own life rather than face capture.
Reports suggested some of the last remaining Tigers launched themselves in suicide attacks at government troops, but there was no word on whether Prabhakaran was among them.
President Rajapaksa is expected to give a nationally televised news conference in parliament on Tuesday, when reports suggest he may officially declare the war over.
More than 70,000 people have died in the bitter war for a Tamil homeland.
Sri Lanka's government said troops were engaged in "final brushing up" hours after a website linked to the rebels said the Tigers were laying down arms.
EU ministers are expected to call on Monday for an independent inquiry into claims civilians have been targeted.
Both sides say the other has killed civilians in the closed off war zone.
The inquiry calls come as the final act appears to be being played out in a long and bitter 26-year civil war which has left some 70,000 people dead.
See a map of the conflict region
Sri Lanka's army says the last LTTE (Tamil Tiger) fighters have been penned in a 1.5 square kilometre patch of jungle.
On Sunday the Tigers chief of international relations, Selvarasa Pathmanathan, said in a statement on the Tamilnet website: "This battle has reached its bitter end."
A later statement appeared to modify the rebel position, saying the LTTE was "prepared to silence its guns if that is what needed by the international community to save the life and dignity of the Tamil people".
The country's President Mahinda Rajapaksa has already claimed victory, declaring on Saturday that Sri Lanka had been made free from "barbaric acts".
Europe 'appalled'
In Brussels the EU issued a draft statement ahead of a meeting of foreign ministers on Monday, expressing a sense of outrage at the reports of civilian casualties on both sides.
The statement said the EU was appalled both at the high numbers of casualties and at the use of heavy weapons in the conflict
The EU is pushing for the UN Human Rights Council to convene a special session on Sri Lanka, just as it has in the past done for Burma, Darfur and the Palestinian territories, reports the BBC's Oana Lungescu, in Brussels.
A pledge of aid came from the UK, which offered £5m ($7.5m) to help avoid a "humanitarian catastrophe".
"It is essential that we get food, medicines and shelter in as soon as possible to save lives, and thereafter that we help people to return to their homes as soon as they safely can," said Hillary Benn, the UK's international development secretary.
Diplomats say the EU has limited leverage, our correspondent notes, although it could remove preferential trade access worth $150m (£100m) if the country is found to be in breach of international human rights obligations.
Reports differ on the numbers of civilians caught up in the last battles, with the government saying that all those who had been trapped in Sri Lanka's northern war zone had escaped.
The rebel spokesman, though, said more than 25,000 were injured and in need of attention.
The government said it did not respond to statements released on Tamilnet, and asserted that 50,000 Tamil civilians had left the war zone in recent days.
The UN has told the BBC the army figures reinforced its view that Sri Lanka's authorities were ill-prepared for the huge influx of internally displaced people.
Refugee camps inland are already badly strained accommodating the huge numbers of those who have fled the conflict.
Leader at large?
The fighting is drawing to a close without any official word on the fate of the Tamil Tigers' leader, Velupillai Prabhakaran.
Some reports have suggested he has died, but - as with all information from the war zone - there has been no confirmation.
The army had suspected that Prabhakaran, who formed the Tigers in 1976, would fulfil his long-held pledge to take his own life rather than face capture.
Reports suggested some of the last remaining Tigers launched themselves in suicide attacks at government troops, but there was no word on whether Prabhakaran was among them.
President Rajapaksa is expected to give a nationally televised news conference in parliament on Tuesday, when reports suggest he may officially declare the war over.
More than 70,000 people have died in the bitter war for a Tamil homeland.
Rahul Gandhi speaks after landslide victory in Lok Sabha elections 2009
Q What is the message being sent out by the electorate? Is this the rejection of caste, religion and regional politics? What does this mean?
RG: As I have stated in my press conference, India is progressing very quickly and the Congress party believes that this progress belongs to everybody. It does not belong to a small group of people. It belongs to the large mass of people of this country. I think the policies we had made in the last five years, particularly programmes like NREGS & loan waiver, have sent a message that we are not going to let this country develop with a huge portion of it lagging behind. If this country progress, everybody will benefit. A person who has given us everything, who works everyday of their life in extremely hard conditions will also benefit. Congress party is going to stand by that person...
Q Priyankaji, will you be part of this government or will you work for the party?
PG: I will do exactly what I am doing!
Q Do you now need Mulayam Singh Yadav? Do you, at all, need SP to be part of this government?
RG: These are decisions taken by senior members of the Congress party, the Prime Minister and Congress President. I personally feel that the people of UP feel they need a government that works and have rejected politics of religion and caste. They have voted for politics of development in UP and that is what the Congress party will try to deliver over the next three years and certainly beyond that.
Q On L K Advani
RG: I would like to say one more thing. I think that our opposition fought a hard election, and Advaniji in particular fought a strong election. I have fundamental differences with Mr Advani in terms of secular politics. But as a senior person who is 80 plus, I think he fought this election with a lot of grit.
Q Manmohan Singh has said that he wishes you become part of his cabinet. What will you say?
RG: I have answered this in English. I think that the mandate is in favour of youth and the poor people of this country. I want the youth of this country to participate in politics with ease. Whatever we are doing in Youth Congress, we want to organize it in the coming days. As I said in a press conference, we need an organization of young people and that is going to be built over the next 2, 3 or 5 years
Q Priyanka has worked a lot for your and Soniaji’s campaign. How much credit will you give her for the results in UP?
RG: (smiling) just ask her! (Priyanka intervenes)
PG: All the credit goes to him, he has all the credit.
RG: I’ll tell you. Nobody can lay sole claim on this achievement as it is complete teamwork. If you ask me how much credit I give Priyanka, I’ll say that 100% credit goes to our team.
Q Then when is Rahul bringing in Priyanka?
RG: She will answer that question better. But the credit doesn’t go to one person. And this credit don’t belong to us either, this credit goes to the people of UP. The people of UP told us that they are tired of the way politics is being done currently. They asked us to bring about a change in UP. In fact our challenge has started from today. You can view it from the election point of view, but I don’t view it like that. For many years UP is lagging behind and being the largest state of this country it has to be number one in term of development. So just by winning 20 or more seats is just a beginning for us. This is really a small beginning. We have to work for the people of UP wholeheartedly. And that work will not be done by Rahul Gandhi alone. It would be completed by Rahul Gandhi along with the youth of this state.
I think that the people of UP are tired of the way politics has been done in last 20 years. Now we have to provide a new kind of politics to UP. And we will try our best that in the next 3 years we can give a new Congress to UP which can bring about change in the state. We will try to provide you such an organization.
Q What will be the agenda now, for reviving Congress all across India, UP being the focus area?
RG: I will not revive Congress. I will involve the youth of this country in politics. Our country has 70 % youngsters and we need some youngsters in politics. There are not enough of them in politics (Smiling) and I think we are on a lookout for them, and I know that lots of youngsters are listening to me. Come and join us.
Q How many youngsters will be there in the cabinet?
RG: (Smiling) You will get some youngsters in the ministry.
I have said again and again that I don’t view my job as winning or losing elections. I view my job as a duty I have. And I don’t view it in short term, I view it in a relatively long term. My job, as I see it right now, is to try to change the politics in this country using youngsters and unleashing the energy of these youngsters in this country. Seriously, my job would be no different, had I lost these elections. I would have been the same. My job has not changed in the least. My job is to try and empower youngsters in this country and I will continue to do my job whether I lose or win. Thank you very much. Have a nice evening.
excerpts from pressbdrief.in
RG: As I have stated in my press conference, India is progressing very quickly and the Congress party believes that this progress belongs to everybody. It does not belong to a small group of people. It belongs to the large mass of people of this country. I think the policies we had made in the last five years, particularly programmes like NREGS & loan waiver, have sent a message that we are not going to let this country develop with a huge portion of it lagging behind. If this country progress, everybody will benefit. A person who has given us everything, who works everyday of their life in extremely hard conditions will also benefit. Congress party is going to stand by that person...
Q Priyankaji, will you be part of this government or will you work for the party?
PG: I will do exactly what I am doing!
Q Do you now need Mulayam Singh Yadav? Do you, at all, need SP to be part of this government?
RG: These are decisions taken by senior members of the Congress party, the Prime Minister and Congress President. I personally feel that the people of UP feel they need a government that works and have rejected politics of religion and caste. They have voted for politics of development in UP and that is what the Congress party will try to deliver over the next three years and certainly beyond that.
Q On L K Advani
RG: I would like to say one more thing. I think that our opposition fought a hard election, and Advaniji in particular fought a strong election. I have fundamental differences with Mr Advani in terms of secular politics. But as a senior person who is 80 plus, I think he fought this election with a lot of grit.
Q Manmohan Singh has said that he wishes you become part of his cabinet. What will you say?
RG: I have answered this in English. I think that the mandate is in favour of youth and the poor people of this country. I want the youth of this country to participate in politics with ease. Whatever we are doing in Youth Congress, we want to organize it in the coming days. As I said in a press conference, we need an organization of young people and that is going to be built over the next 2, 3 or 5 years
Q Priyanka has worked a lot for your and Soniaji’s campaign. How much credit will you give her for the results in UP?
RG: (smiling) just ask her! (Priyanka intervenes)
PG: All the credit goes to him, he has all the credit.
RG: I’ll tell you. Nobody can lay sole claim on this achievement as it is complete teamwork. If you ask me how much credit I give Priyanka, I’ll say that 100% credit goes to our team.
Q Then when is Rahul bringing in Priyanka?
RG: She will answer that question better. But the credit doesn’t go to one person. And this credit don’t belong to us either, this credit goes to the people of UP. The people of UP told us that they are tired of the way politics is being done currently. They asked us to bring about a change in UP. In fact our challenge has started from today. You can view it from the election point of view, but I don’t view it like that. For many years UP is lagging behind and being the largest state of this country it has to be number one in term of development. So just by winning 20 or more seats is just a beginning for us. This is really a small beginning. We have to work for the people of UP wholeheartedly. And that work will not be done by Rahul Gandhi alone. It would be completed by Rahul Gandhi along with the youth of this state.
I think that the people of UP are tired of the way politics has been done in last 20 years. Now we have to provide a new kind of politics to UP. And we will try our best that in the next 3 years we can give a new Congress to UP which can bring about change in the state. We will try to provide you such an organization.
Q What will be the agenda now, for reviving Congress all across India, UP being the focus area?
RG: I will not revive Congress. I will involve the youth of this country in politics. Our country has 70 % youngsters and we need some youngsters in politics. There are not enough of them in politics (Smiling) and I think we are on a lookout for them, and I know that lots of youngsters are listening to me. Come and join us.
Q How many youngsters will be there in the cabinet?
RG: (Smiling) You will get some youngsters in the ministry.
I have said again and again that I don’t view my job as winning or losing elections. I view my job as a duty I have. And I don’t view it in short term, I view it in a relatively long term. My job, as I see it right now, is to try to change the politics in this country using youngsters and unleashing the energy of these youngsters in this country. Seriously, my job would be no different, had I lost these elections. I would have been the same. My job has not changed in the least. My job is to try and empower youngsters in this country and I will continue to do my job whether I lose or win. Thank you very much. Have a nice evening.
excerpts from pressbdrief.in
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)