A high-powered group of senior Republicans and Democrats led two missions to China in the final months of the Bush administration for secret backchannel negotiations aimed at securing a deal on joint US-Chinese action on climate change, the Guardian has learned.
The initiative, involving John Holdren, now the White House science adviser, and others who went on to positions in Barack Obama's administration, produced a draft agreement in March, barely two months after the Democrat assumed the presidency.
The memorandum of understanding was not signed, but those involved in opening up the channel of communications believe it could provide the foundation for a US-Chinese accord to battle climate change, which could be reached as early as this autumn.
"My sense is that we are now working towards something in the fall," said Bill Chandler, director of the energy and climate programme at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, and the driving force behind the talks. "It will be serious. It will be substantive, and it will happen."
The secret missions suggest that advisers to Obama came to power firmly focused on getting a US-China understanding in the run-up to the crucial UN meeting in Copenhagen this December, which is aimed at sealing a global deal to slash greenhouse gas emissions. In her first policy address the secretary of state, Hillary Clinton, said she wanted to recast the broad US-China relationship around the central issue of climate change. She also stopped in Beijing on her first foreign tour.
The dialogue also challenges the conventional wisdom that George Bush's decision to pull America out of the Kyoto climate change treaty had led to paralysis in the administration on global warming, and that China was unwilling to contemplate emissions cuts at a time of rapid economic growth.
"There are these two countries that the world blames for doing nothing, and they have a better story to tell," said Terry Tamminen, who took part in the talks and is an environmental adviser to the governor of California, Arnold Schwarzenegger. The nations are the top two polluters on Earth.
The first communications, in the autumn of 2007, were initiated by the Chinese. Xie Zhenhua, the vice-chairman of the National Development and Reform Commission, the country's central economic planning body, made the first move by expressing interest in a co-operative effort on carbon capture and storage and other technologies with the US.
The first face-to-face meeting, held over two days at a luxury hotel at the Great Wall of China in July 2008, got off to a tentative start with Xie falling back on China's stated policy positions. "It was sort of like pushing a tape recorder," said Chandler, "[but after a short while] he just cut it off and said we need to get beyond this."
The two sides began discussing ways to break through the impasse, including the possibility that China would agree to voluntary – but verifiable – reductions of greenhouse gas emissions. China has rejected the possibility of cuts as it sees that as a risk to its continued economic growth, deemed essential to lift millions out of poverty and advance national status.
Taiya Smith, an adviser on China to Bush's treasury secretary, Hank Paulson, who was at the first of the two sessions, said: "The thing that came out of it that was priceless was the recognition on both sides that what China was doing to [reduce] the effects of climate change were not very well known," she said. "After these discussions was a real public campaign by the Chinese government to try to make people aware of what they were doing. We started to see the Chinese take a different tone which was that 'we are active and engaged in trying to solve the problem'."
During the second trip to China by the Americans, Xie suggested a memorandum of understanding between the two countries on joint action on climate change.
Chandler said he and Holdren drew up a three-point memo which envisaged:
•Using existing technologies to produce a 20% cut in carbon emissions by 2010.
• Co-operating on new technology including carbon capture and storage and fuel efficiency for cars.
• The US and China signing up to a global climate change deal in Copenhagen.
"We sent it to Xie and he said he agreed," said Chandler.
The ties were further cemented when Gao Guangsheng, the leading climate official, attended Schwarzenegger's global meeting on climate in November last year. Obama, who had been elected president two weeks earlier, addressed the gathering by video.
By the time Xie visited the US in March, the state department's new climate change envoy, Todd Stern, and his deputy, Jonathan Pershing, were also involved in the dialogue. But the trip by Xie did not produce the hoped-for agreement. Both Stern and Holdren declined to comment when asked by the Guardian.
Those involved agree it was premature to expect the Obama administration to enter into a formal agreement so soon in its tenure. Additional members of the US team included Terry Tamminen; Jim Green, adviser to Joe Biden, now the vice-president who then headed the Senate foreign relations committee; Mark Helmke, adviser to Richard Lugar, the ranking Republican on the committee; and Frank Loy, a former state department negotiator on climate. Both Green and Loy have been nominated to jobs in the Obama administration.
Chandler and Smith believe the effort will pay off in a more comprehensive deal between the two governments. "Xie came to visit the US when the administration was still trying to figure out its standing on climate issues and it was without very much staff," said Smith. "I don't see this as a dead issue at all. I think it's something you would consider still in process."
Monday, May 18, 2009
Peace hopes grip Sri Lankans
The national flags are out. They are decking the streets, sold in clusters on street corners, fluttering from the auto rickshaws, waved by men in a pick-up truck.
On the streets of Colombo there is jubilation and smiling faces as the firecrackers are lit.
"I'm very very happy. After 30 years we've won… victory, I suppose!" says a young woman in Pettah, an old market area near the city centre, almost in surprise.
She says she is proud of the president and intends to go home and put out flags.
Not only Sinhalese but also Tamil, Muslim and other people tell the BBC they are relieved.
For decades they had feared boarding buses or visiting temples, some said, for fear of bombs. Now they hope there will be peace.
'Pride'
There is patriotic satisfaction, too, in website postings by Sri Lankans.
Sri Lanka Rockz," says one.
Some take pride in the military. "Every time we all are with you, our great warriors... One nation - One flag - Sri Lanka."
The army says its operations are ended, that rebel leader Velupillai Prabhakaran is dead and troops now hold all of the island's territory for the first time since 1983.
Such news will have been greeted almost with disbelief by Sri Lankans, many of whom were born into war or barely remember the time before it.
"We're part of history!" says another posting. "Today is the first day of my life I'm living in a Sri Lanka where there is no war."
A taxi driver expresses the view that, with the top Tamil Tiger leaders out of the picture, bomb blasts really will become a thing of the past.
But will they?
End of the road
Some commentators have predicted that, after their military defeat, the Tigers will concentrate more on their hallmark bombing tactics - saying this will be made possible by the cells they maintain.
But one expert tells the BBC he does not accept that argument.
Maybe there will be stray cases, he says, but with so many of the top LTTE [Tamil Tigers] leaders reportedly killed by the army, he does not see what Tamils would want to kill themselves for.
After all, according to Prabhakaran's biographer MR Narayan Swamy, for the Tigers he was "their brain… their heart… their god… their soul".
Indeed, asked whether they would continue the guerrilla war, the LTTE's foreign-based international relations head, S Padmanathan, told Britain's Channel 4 television on Sunday he believed in a peaceful solution for the Tamil people.
The war started by the LTTE has left humanitarian suffering on a huge scale - including in its final stages.
Dealing with the suffering of the refugees, the wounded and the bereaved will loom high on Sri Lanka's agenda in the immediate future.
Almost a month ago, the United Nations said it feared 6,500 civilians had been killed and twice the number wounded in the war zone since January - civilians who, it alleged, were forcibly held there by the LTTE (although the rebels always denied that) and were caught in heavy crossfire.
It described more recent violence in the small rebel-controlled zone in the north-east of the country as a "bloodbath".
Doctors working in the area described hundreds of deaths and injuries at their makeshift clinics, having to abandon the facilities in the last days.
The government said it doubted their information, as they might have been speaking under LTTE pressure - but the UN trusted them as an impartial source.
Even on Monday the UN refugee agency's head in Sri Lanka, Amin Awad, said he was worried civilians might have been killed within the past 48 hours.
Ongoing grievances
Hundreds of thousands of traumatised, emaciated people have poured out of the combat zone in the past few weeks and now stay in difficult conditions in government-run camps.
The UN and humanitarian agencies will be hoping for better access to them now that the war is over.
The UN has also said it is concerned about the welfare of the doctors who are believed to have escaped the fighting but have not been heard from since.
The government says political reforms will also be on its agenda, reforms that will perhaps aim to tackle some of the grievances of Tamil citizens who, as an ethnic minority, feel discriminated against or marginalised by the state.
There have also been calls, both from within and outside the country, for a process of reconciliation and healing, and for the government to be magnanimous in victory.
One Sri Lankan exile, also posting on the web, says he is concerned that a "hunt for Tigers and traitors will continue" - reflecting on the hard line the government has often taken towards dissenting voices and those it accuses of giving comfort to the rebels.
"We shouldn't be triumphalist," a Sinhala woman, who largely supported the government's campaign against the LTTE, told the BBC.
On the streets of Colombo there is jubilation and smiling faces as the firecrackers are lit.
"I'm very very happy. After 30 years we've won… victory, I suppose!" says a young woman in Pettah, an old market area near the city centre, almost in surprise.
She says she is proud of the president and intends to go home and put out flags.
Not only Sinhalese but also Tamil, Muslim and other people tell the BBC they are relieved.
For decades they had feared boarding buses or visiting temples, some said, for fear of bombs. Now they hope there will be peace.
'Pride'
There is patriotic satisfaction, too, in website postings by Sri Lankans.
Sri Lanka Rockz," says one.
Some take pride in the military. "Every time we all are with you, our great warriors... One nation - One flag - Sri Lanka."
The army says its operations are ended, that rebel leader Velupillai Prabhakaran is dead and troops now hold all of the island's territory for the first time since 1983.
Such news will have been greeted almost with disbelief by Sri Lankans, many of whom were born into war or barely remember the time before it.
"We're part of history!" says another posting. "Today is the first day of my life I'm living in a Sri Lanka where there is no war."
A taxi driver expresses the view that, with the top Tamil Tiger leaders out of the picture, bomb blasts really will become a thing of the past.
But will they?
End of the road
Some commentators have predicted that, after their military defeat, the Tigers will concentrate more on their hallmark bombing tactics - saying this will be made possible by the cells they maintain.
But one expert tells the BBC he does not accept that argument.
Maybe there will be stray cases, he says, but with so many of the top LTTE [Tamil Tigers] leaders reportedly killed by the army, he does not see what Tamils would want to kill themselves for.
After all, according to Prabhakaran's biographer MR Narayan Swamy, for the Tigers he was "their brain… their heart… their god… their soul".
Indeed, asked whether they would continue the guerrilla war, the LTTE's foreign-based international relations head, S Padmanathan, told Britain's Channel 4 television on Sunday he believed in a peaceful solution for the Tamil people.
The war started by the LTTE has left humanitarian suffering on a huge scale - including in its final stages.
Dealing with the suffering of the refugees, the wounded and the bereaved will loom high on Sri Lanka's agenda in the immediate future.
Almost a month ago, the United Nations said it feared 6,500 civilians had been killed and twice the number wounded in the war zone since January - civilians who, it alleged, were forcibly held there by the LTTE (although the rebels always denied that) and were caught in heavy crossfire.
It described more recent violence in the small rebel-controlled zone in the north-east of the country as a "bloodbath".
Doctors working in the area described hundreds of deaths and injuries at their makeshift clinics, having to abandon the facilities in the last days.
The government said it doubted their information, as they might have been speaking under LTTE pressure - but the UN trusted them as an impartial source.
Even on Monday the UN refugee agency's head in Sri Lanka, Amin Awad, said he was worried civilians might have been killed within the past 48 hours.
Ongoing grievances
Hundreds of thousands of traumatised, emaciated people have poured out of the combat zone in the past few weeks and now stay in difficult conditions in government-run camps.
The UN and humanitarian agencies will be hoping for better access to them now that the war is over.
The UN has also said it is concerned about the welfare of the doctors who are believed to have escaped the fighting but have not been heard from since.
The government says political reforms will also be on its agenda, reforms that will perhaps aim to tackle some of the grievances of Tamil citizens who, as an ethnic minority, feel discriminated against or marginalised by the state.
There have also been calls, both from within and outside the country, for a process of reconciliation and healing, and for the government to be magnanimous in victory.
One Sri Lankan exile, also posting on the web, says he is concerned that a "hunt for Tigers and traitors will continue" - reflecting on the hard line the government has often taken towards dissenting voices and those it accuses of giving comfort to the rebels.
"We shouldn't be triumphalist," a Sinhala woman, who largely supported the government's campaign against the LTTE, told the BBC.
Angry MPs turn on Commons Speaker
The Speaker of the House of Commons has been challenged by MPs to stand down in unprecedented scenes in the chamber.
Michael Martin did not mention his future in a statement on the expenses furore - instead he set out proposed action to reform the system.
He said he was "profoundly sorry" for his role and said all MPs must accept blame for the "terrible damage" done.
But a succession of MPs challenged him openly, saying they wanted a debate and a vote of no confidence in him.
It follows a week of damaging media revelations about MPs' expenses and criticism of the way Mr Martin has handled the row.
Claims stopped
In a statement to a packed Commons on Monday, Mr Martin apologised for the expenses scandal and outlined steps he would be taking ahead of the findings of an independent inquiry into the allowances system, expected in the autumn.
This included asking party leaders to meet him and members of the House of Commons Commission within 48 hours to look at what proposals for reform for second homes expenses could be agreed upon and put to MPs for approval.
In the meantime the Glasgow North East MP urged members not to submit expenses claims for approval.
"We all bear a heavy responsibility for the terrible damage to the reputation of this House. We must do everything we possibly can to regain the trust and confidence of the people," he said.
Labour's Gordon Prentice was the first to stand up to ask about the no confidence motion, only to be told it was not a "point of order" - to shouts of "oh yes it is".
Douglas Carswell, the Conservative backbencher who is putting forward the motion, got up to ask when it would be debated and when MPs would be able to choose a new Speaker with "moral authority to clean up Westminster and the legitimacy to lead this House out of the mire".
Norway debate
But he was told it was not a "substantive motion, it's an early day motion", which led to MPs shouting and Mr Martin having to seek clarification from a clerk.
Veteran Labour MP David Winnick asked him "with some reluctance" to give "some indication" as to when he would retire, saying "your early retirement sir, would help the reputation of the House".
Mr Martin replied that was "not a subject for today".
Veteran Conservative MP Sir Patrick Cormack likened the mood in the Commons to the mood in the nation for the Norway debate in 1940 - said to be the moment Conservative MPs realised that Neville Chamberlain had to be replaced as prime minister.
And another Conservative MP, Richard Shepherd, said the public would not believe MPs were serious about reform as long as Mr Martin remained as Speaker.
Senior Labour MP Sir Stuart Bell was one of the few to stick up for Mr Martin, saying there had "never been in the history of our land such an attack on the Speaker".
He added: "This House should calm itself down, should have a period of reflection."
The former Tory, now independent, MP Bob Spink also spoke in favour of the Speaker, saying he did not want to see him "become a scapegoat for the action of these members".
Senior Lib Dem MP David Heath said the statement would have been welcomed a few weeks ago but he now had "very grave doubts" as to whether they would restore trust.
'Political death warrant'
Others sought advice on how a debate on the Speaker's future could be tabled.
Former shadow home secretary David Davis asked: "Is it within the power of a backbencher to put down a substantive motion and if so, how?"
There were shouts when Mr Martin said that was a matter for the government.
Mr Martin also had to tell the Conservative MP Mark Field to watch his words when he suggested that some MPs had made fraudulent expenses claims.
Later Liberal Democrat MP Norman Baker, who was attacked by the Speaker last week for giving interviews about greater transparency on MPs' expenses, said Mr Martin "blew it".
"The effect of the statement is for the Speaker to have signed his own political death warrant... I give him less than a week," he told BBC News.
BBC political editor Nick Robinson said that while Mr Martin's statement may have bought him some breathing space, his fate still hung in the balance.
And, at a later meeting of Labour MPs, Mr Robinson said former Cabinet minister Peter Hain urged the prime minister not to try to prevent a debate on the Speaker's future.
The Speaker's critics blame him for various attempts to block requests in recent years to have expenses details released under Freedom of Information laws.
And he angered many by attacking MPs who had pressed for more transparency or criticised his decision to ask the police to investigate the leaking of expenses details to the Daily Telegraph.
Under parliamentary rules, the Speaker can either ignore the motion or ask for it to be debated in government time.
Not right
For MPs to openly criticise the Speaker breaks a long-standing Commons convention, while the last time a Speaker was forced from office was in 1695 - when Sir John Trevor was found guilty by the House of "a high crime and misdemeanour".
Mr Martin has been urged to stand down by Lib Dem leader Nick Clegg.
Prime Minister Gordon Brown declined to give Mr Martin his backing, saying that "the decision about who is Speaker is a matter for the House of Commons - it could never be a matter for the government".
The BBC understands Mr Brown spoke to the Speaker on Sunday about the situation.
Any move to unseat the Speaker would have to be supported by the Conservatives.
But Conservative leader David Cameron said: "The leader of the main opposition party, a government in waiting, and his party cannot, I think, act unilaterally to remove the Speaker in the House of Commons - I don't think that would be right."
Michael Martin did not mention his future in a statement on the expenses furore - instead he set out proposed action to reform the system.
He said he was "profoundly sorry" for his role and said all MPs must accept blame for the "terrible damage" done.
But a succession of MPs challenged him openly, saying they wanted a debate and a vote of no confidence in him.
It follows a week of damaging media revelations about MPs' expenses and criticism of the way Mr Martin has handled the row.
Claims stopped
In a statement to a packed Commons on Monday, Mr Martin apologised for the expenses scandal and outlined steps he would be taking ahead of the findings of an independent inquiry into the allowances system, expected in the autumn.
This included asking party leaders to meet him and members of the House of Commons Commission within 48 hours to look at what proposals for reform for second homes expenses could be agreed upon and put to MPs for approval.
In the meantime the Glasgow North East MP urged members not to submit expenses claims for approval.
"We all bear a heavy responsibility for the terrible damage to the reputation of this House. We must do everything we possibly can to regain the trust and confidence of the people," he said.
Labour's Gordon Prentice was the first to stand up to ask about the no confidence motion, only to be told it was not a "point of order" - to shouts of "oh yes it is".
Douglas Carswell, the Conservative backbencher who is putting forward the motion, got up to ask when it would be debated and when MPs would be able to choose a new Speaker with "moral authority to clean up Westminster and the legitimacy to lead this House out of the mire".
Norway debate
But he was told it was not a "substantive motion, it's an early day motion", which led to MPs shouting and Mr Martin having to seek clarification from a clerk.
Veteran Labour MP David Winnick asked him "with some reluctance" to give "some indication" as to when he would retire, saying "your early retirement sir, would help the reputation of the House".
Mr Martin replied that was "not a subject for today".
Veteran Conservative MP Sir Patrick Cormack likened the mood in the Commons to the mood in the nation for the Norway debate in 1940 - said to be the moment Conservative MPs realised that Neville Chamberlain had to be replaced as prime minister.
And another Conservative MP, Richard Shepherd, said the public would not believe MPs were serious about reform as long as Mr Martin remained as Speaker.
Senior Labour MP Sir Stuart Bell was one of the few to stick up for Mr Martin, saying there had "never been in the history of our land such an attack on the Speaker".
He added: "This House should calm itself down, should have a period of reflection."
The former Tory, now independent, MP Bob Spink also spoke in favour of the Speaker, saying he did not want to see him "become a scapegoat for the action of these members".
Senior Lib Dem MP David Heath said the statement would have been welcomed a few weeks ago but he now had "very grave doubts" as to whether they would restore trust.
'Political death warrant'
Others sought advice on how a debate on the Speaker's future could be tabled.
Former shadow home secretary David Davis asked: "Is it within the power of a backbencher to put down a substantive motion and if so, how?"
There were shouts when Mr Martin said that was a matter for the government.
Mr Martin also had to tell the Conservative MP Mark Field to watch his words when he suggested that some MPs had made fraudulent expenses claims.
Later Liberal Democrat MP Norman Baker, who was attacked by the Speaker last week for giving interviews about greater transparency on MPs' expenses, said Mr Martin "blew it".
"The effect of the statement is for the Speaker to have signed his own political death warrant... I give him less than a week," he told BBC News.
BBC political editor Nick Robinson said that while Mr Martin's statement may have bought him some breathing space, his fate still hung in the balance.
And, at a later meeting of Labour MPs, Mr Robinson said former Cabinet minister Peter Hain urged the prime minister not to try to prevent a debate on the Speaker's future.
The Speaker's critics blame him for various attempts to block requests in recent years to have expenses details released under Freedom of Information laws.
And he angered many by attacking MPs who had pressed for more transparency or criticised his decision to ask the police to investigate the leaking of expenses details to the Daily Telegraph.
Under parliamentary rules, the Speaker can either ignore the motion or ask for it to be debated in government time.
Not right
For MPs to openly criticise the Speaker breaks a long-standing Commons convention, while the last time a Speaker was forced from office was in 1695 - when Sir John Trevor was found guilty by the House of "a high crime and misdemeanour".
Mr Martin has been urged to stand down by Lib Dem leader Nick Clegg.
Prime Minister Gordon Brown declined to give Mr Martin his backing, saying that "the decision about who is Speaker is a matter for the House of Commons - it could never be a matter for the government".
The BBC understands Mr Brown spoke to the Speaker on Sunday about the situation.
Any move to unseat the Speaker would have to be supported by the Conservatives.
But Conservative leader David Cameron said: "The leader of the main opposition party, a government in waiting, and his party cannot, I think, act unilaterally to remove the Speaker in the House of Commons - I don't think that would be right."
Obama presses Netanyahu over two-state plan
US President Barack Obama has urged visiting Israeli PM Benjamin Netanyahu to accept a Palestinian state.
After their first talks since both took office, Mr Obama restated his support for a two-state plan and said the US would be "engaged in the process".
He also said Israel had an obligation under the 2003 "roadmap" to stop Jewish settlement in the West Bank.
Mr Netanyahu said he was ready to start peace talks "immediately" but refrained from endorsing a Palestinian state.
After their meeting in Washington, Mr Obama said he had suggested the Israeli prime minister had a "historic opportunity to get a serious movement" on Palestinian statehood.
I firmly believe it is not in Iran's interest to develop nuclear weapons
Mr Netanyahu said Israel was ready to live "side by side" with Palestinians and he could resume talks immediately, but any agreement depended on Palestinian acceptance of Israel's right to exist "as a Jewish state", he added.
Palestinian negotiator Saeb Erekat reacted with derision to Mr Netanyahu's remarks.
"How can I govern myself by myself as a Palestinian with his occupation going on on my neck on the hour every hour? With his roadblocks segregating our towns and villages and refugee camps?" he said.
A Hamas official, Musher al-Masri, said the Americans still were not treating Israel and the Palestinians even-handedly.
In Israel itself, right-wingers said they were worried the Americans were moving away from their commitment to Israel's security, while opposition Kadima politicians said Mr Netanyahu had missed the chance to forge real trust with President Obama.
Nuclear Iran
The BBC's Kim Ghattas in Washington says Mr Obama was clearly putting the onus on Mr Netanyahu to accept a Palestinian state
The differences between the two men are still there, she says, adding that the meeting has given Mr Obama an opportunity to assess how big the gap is, and how he can move forward ahead of meetings with Egyptian and Palestinian leaders next week.
Our correspondent says Mr Netanyahu came to Washington with his own list of priorities, topped by Iran's nuclear programme.
"There's never been a time when Arabs and Israelis see a common threat the way we see it today," the Israeli prime minister said.
Mr Obama said "it is not in Iran's interest" to develop nuclear arms, and that the US would keep options open.
He stressed that "we should have some sense by the end of the year" on whether talks with Iran were bearing fruit.
Amid reports from Israel that the authorities were moving ahead with plans to expand a Jewish settlement in the occupied West Bank, Mr Obama said Israel had an obligation to stop Jewish settlement activity.
Tenders have been issued to build 20 housing units in Maskiot, a former Israeli military base that has been designated for housing settlers removed from Gaza in 2005.
Israeli campaign group Peace Now says this is a clear message to Washington that the Israeli government intends to expand settlements, which are considered illegal under international law.
After their first talks since both took office, Mr Obama restated his support for a two-state plan and said the US would be "engaged in the process".
He also said Israel had an obligation under the 2003 "roadmap" to stop Jewish settlement in the West Bank.
Mr Netanyahu said he was ready to start peace talks "immediately" but refrained from endorsing a Palestinian state.
After their meeting in Washington, Mr Obama said he had suggested the Israeli prime minister had a "historic opportunity to get a serious movement" on Palestinian statehood.
I firmly believe it is not in Iran's interest to develop nuclear weapons
Mr Netanyahu said Israel was ready to live "side by side" with Palestinians and he could resume talks immediately, but any agreement depended on Palestinian acceptance of Israel's right to exist "as a Jewish state", he added.
Palestinian negotiator Saeb Erekat reacted with derision to Mr Netanyahu's remarks.
"How can I govern myself by myself as a Palestinian with his occupation going on on my neck on the hour every hour? With his roadblocks segregating our towns and villages and refugee camps?" he said.
A Hamas official, Musher al-Masri, said the Americans still were not treating Israel and the Palestinians even-handedly.
In Israel itself, right-wingers said they were worried the Americans were moving away from their commitment to Israel's security, while opposition Kadima politicians said Mr Netanyahu had missed the chance to forge real trust with President Obama.
Nuclear Iran
The BBC's Kim Ghattas in Washington says Mr Obama was clearly putting the onus on Mr Netanyahu to accept a Palestinian state
The differences between the two men are still there, she says, adding that the meeting has given Mr Obama an opportunity to assess how big the gap is, and how he can move forward ahead of meetings with Egyptian and Palestinian leaders next week.
Our correspondent says Mr Netanyahu came to Washington with his own list of priorities, topped by Iran's nuclear programme.
"There's never been a time when Arabs and Israelis see a common threat the way we see it today," the Israeli prime minister said.
Mr Obama said "it is not in Iran's interest" to develop nuclear arms, and that the US would keep options open.
He stressed that "we should have some sense by the end of the year" on whether talks with Iran were bearing fruit.
Amid reports from Israel that the authorities were moving ahead with plans to expand a Jewish settlement in the occupied West Bank, Mr Obama said Israel had an obligation to stop Jewish settlement activity.
Tenders have been issued to build 20 housing units in Maskiot, a former Israeli military base that has been designated for housing settlers removed from Gaza in 2005.
Israeli campaign group Peace Now says this is a clear message to Washington that the Israeli government intends to expand settlements, which are considered illegal under international law.
'Clever' bra lifts boobs on arousal!
The next time you want a man to know that you desire him - just let your "smart memory bra" do the talking!
A brassiere that lifts the bust when a woman is aroused has been unveiled at a lingerie exhibition in Paris.
The "smart memory bras" have heat-sensitive foam which pushes up boobs as sexual attraction causes body temperature to rise, reports The Sun.
As the body cools down, the foam relaxes and the bust appears normal again. Inventors at the Slovenia-based Lisca lingerie firm stumbled on the concept when developing bras that adapt to changing weather conditions.
Designer Suzana Gorisek said: "As the body changes, so does the bra." The revolutionary lingerie will hit British stores in summer for around 25-pound each.
A spokesman for Lisca said: "It's healthier than an ordinary bra because it will always provide the perfect fit."
A brassiere that lifts the bust when a woman is aroused has been unveiled at a lingerie exhibition in Paris.
The "smart memory bras" have heat-sensitive foam which pushes up boobs as sexual attraction causes body temperature to rise, reports The Sun.
As the body cools down, the foam relaxes and the bust appears normal again. Inventors at the Slovenia-based Lisca lingerie firm stumbled on the concept when developing bras that adapt to changing weather conditions.
Designer Suzana Gorisek said: "As the body changes, so does the bra." The revolutionary lingerie will hit British stores in summer for around 25-pound each.
A spokesman for Lisca said: "It's healthier than an ordinary bra because it will always provide the perfect fit."
Sunday, May 17, 2009
A giant leap toward space-based solar power
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."
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."
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)