Green vs GreenUKWatch.net - 30 Apr 2008Environmentalists are used to fighting battles. But with environmentalism going mainstream ? wind farms, biofuels and nuclear power stations, for example, are fast becoming some of the most controversial issues in British politics today ? environmentalists increasingly find themselves skirmishing with one another as they see-saw between pragmatism and idealism. The Lewis wind farm ? rejected by the Scottish Executive earlier this week ? is merely the latest example. The Scotsman reported that ?environmental agencies welcomed the news? of the massive wind power project?s demise, thanks to concerns about impacts on rare peat bog and birdlife habitat. Yet according to the developers Lewis Wind Power ? a coalition of AMEC and British Energy ? the wind farm would have made a substantial contribution to reducing Britain?s greenhouse gas emissions, wiping out a quarter of a million tonnes of carbon dioxide emissions every year. With climate change at the top of the list of political priorities, most now agree that Britain desperately needs to expand its renewables sector. How this can be done without major negative impacts on wildlife and landscape remains one of today?s toughest challenges. Wildlife groups such as the RSPB have a particularly difficult task in deciding where they stand. The Lewis wind farm?s impact on the landscape would have been substantial ? with 181 turbines each standing 140 metres tall, erected on massive concrete bases drilled into the fragile peat surface and connected by dozens of miles of new stone roads, this was unavoidable. And while the developers insisted that strenuous efforts would be made to mitigate the effect on birds, including not putting turbines in areas important to rare species such as merlins and golden eagles, the RSPB objected strongly to the proposal. Yet the real-world result of defeating the wind farm is that the electricity that would have been generated cleanly from the wind will now be generated using conventional means ? a mixture of coal and gas. This in turn will worsen climate change, which will in the long run have a far more serious effect on fragile habitats such as Lewis? peat moors than any number of wind turbines, as temperatures rise and rainfall patterns shift. Indeed, global warming is now thought by many biodiversity experts to be the greatest extinction threat facing the planet today. Up to a half of all species could be consigned to oblivion with just two or three degrees of further warming. But with wind farms consistently opposed by a powerful coalition of conservationists and locals concerned about the landscape impact of turbines, it is difficult to see how the planned emissions cuts ? or indeed the new renewables target of 15% of UK energy by 2020 ? can even be approached. The Lewis project, although supported by the Western Isles Council, received 11,000 objections from members of the public, with only 100 comments in favour. Lewis Wind Power responded to the news of its project?s refusal by saying that it was ?bitterly disappointed?. Similarly, the British Wind Energy Association ? environmentalists all ? is furious that 5m has been wasted on a failed scheme, and warns that this will damage investor confidence in new wind projects. Conservation bodies such as the RSPB are, of course, well aware of the global warming threat ? the RSPB was a founding member of the environment and development agency coalition Stop Climate Chaos, and has also launched its own green electricity tariff, RSPB Energy, in partnership with electricity company Scottish and Southern, to supply consumers with renewable electricity, much of it generated from wind. Some contradiction perhaps? RSPB doesn?t think so. ?We are committed to tackling climate change,? it says. But ?we cannot support any renewable generation proposal which would have a significant and adverse impact on wildlife and habitats, particularly sites which are protected by law specifically for their wildlife value.? It denies that there is a conflict between meeting renewables targets and protecting wildlife. But this conflict keeps on happening. The biggest single source of renewable power in the UK would be the tidal barrage that is proposed across the Severn estuary ? it could potentially generate 5% of the country?s entire supply. But building it would have severe ecological consequences on the tidal mudflats, which host a panoply of aquatic life and wading birds ? and once again, the RSPB, this time supported by Friends of the Earth (FoE), is strongly in the anti camp. FoE has proposed an alternative system of tidal lagoons, but these would generate less power and might not be economically feasible. Jonathon Porritt?s Sustainable Development Commission (SDC) last year proposed building the barrage but ensuring that compensatory habitats were established elsewhere for displaced wildlife ? especially if these new habitats could help birds and other species adapt to rising sea levels and other impacts of climate change. What is clear is that all energy-generation technologies have an impact on the environment ? and environmentalists are going to have to think more deeply about what their hierarchy of priorities is. For example, nuclear and hydro power were both anathema to environmentalists for decades but are slowly and reluctantly being accepted back into the fold due to their perceived potential for producing low-carbon energy. The nuclear option was recently considered by the SDC ? and although it was still ruled out on cost and proliferation grounds, its report did have to concede that ?nuclear is a low carbon technology?, which ?could generate large quantities of electricity, contribute to stabilising CO2 emissions and add to the diversity of the UK?s energy supply?. This is a world away from Greenpeace?s flat refusal to even consider moving away from its outright and long-standing rejection of nuclear power. Similarly on biofuels, even as environmental campaign groups lobby against the new government-sponsored biofuels mandate (a reversal from their favourable position a few years ago), the Royal Society still insists that biofuels ?have a potentially useful role in tackling the issues of climate change and energy supply?. All this suggests that environmental concerns of a generation ago ? which were conservation-based, principally ? are increasingly being trumped by the climate-change concerns of today. Indeed, if climate change does come top of the list, given its potential to devastate both biodiversity and the British landscape, then it certainly needs to be given more weight in planning decisions. As Sir Martin Doughty, chairman of Natural England, said in response to the SDC?s Severn Barrage proposals: ?We have some difficult choices to make if we are going to get serious about reducing the impact of climate change on the natural environment.? And making these difficult choices means knowing what we value most, and how to protect it.
Is War With Iran Imminent? This time, it’s more than a rumour?UKWatch.net - 30 Apr 2008The shooting has already started in the Persian Gulf ? and chances are we’ll be at war with Iran before President Bush’s term is up. An American ship under contract with the U.S. Navy ? the Western Venture ? claims it was in international waters when Iranian speedboats approached and failed to answer radio calls. Shots were fired on the American side. Iran denies the whole thing. Yet you’ll recall that in the last incident, involving the capture of British sailors, the story about being in international waters was the same ? except, it turns out, they weren’t in international waters, but in disputed waters, just as we speculated in this space. There’s no reason to expect anything different this time. Clearly, the U.S. and Britain are trying to trigger a new conflict with the most brazen provocations, and they don’t really care how it happens ? only that it does. The indications of an imminent attack ? the latest incident, the steady stream of accusations coming from the U.S. regarding Iranian influence in Iraq, the nuclear charade, etc. ? have suddenly taken a more ominous turn with the recent statement of America’s top military officer that the U.S. is weighing military action against Iran. The Washington Post reports: “The nation’s top military officer said yesterday that the Pentagon is planning for ‘potential military courses of action’ as one of several options against Iran, criticizing what he called the Tehran government’s ‘increasingly lethal and malign influence’ in Iraq. Admiral Michael Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said a conflict with Iran would be ‘extremely stressing’ but not impossible for U.S. forces, pointing to reserve capabilities in the Navy and Air Force.” Speaking of malign influences: since when does an American military officer make foreign policy pronouncements, as if he were the president? It’s an indication of the advances militarism has made in what used to be a republic that no one has so much as blinked at the brazenness of such blatant Caesarism. The reasons for the uptick in the rhetorical and physical assault on Iran by the Americans are entirely due to domestic politics, not anything occurring on the ground in the region. Hillary Clinton’s demagogic threat to “obliterate” Iran, uttered on national television just before the Pennsylvania primary, was meant to buttress her newfound image as a shot-swilling macho up against the effete, Adlai Stevenson-esque Barack “Arugula” Obama. It’s the Old Politics, trying to revive the red state-blue state dichotomy, and it’s driving us down the road to war with Tehran. McCain, too, is helped by the ratcheting up of tensions in the Persian Gulf: think what the outbreak of war with Iran would do for his underdog candidacy. Standing behind this developing pro-war Popular Front, the central factor in turning the U.S. toward a policy of confrontation rather than constructive engagement with Iran has been the Israel lobby. Since 1993, the Lobby has been demanding that the U.S. take a more aggressive approach to the mullahs of Tehran, and, with few exceptions, has been largely successful. The policy of “dual containment,” conceived by the Clinton administration during the early 1990s, meant that the U.S. was committed to hostile relations with both Iraq and Iran. The policy, as John J. Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt point out, “was essentially a copy of an Israeli proposal.” It meant stationing troops in Saudi Arabia and Kuwait to offset an alleged threat to American interests. Yet there was no reason to assume Tehran had hostile intentions toward the U.S. At the time, Iranian President Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani was eager to establish friendly relations with the U.S. As pressure built to abandon “dual containment” and initiate a more workable policy that would give the U.S. more flexibility, the Lobby went on the offensive with a relentless campaign to impose economic sanctions on Iran. The Iranians, determined to signal their willingness to be reasonable, chose an American oil company, Conoco, to develop the Sirri oil fields. As Trita Parsi points out in Treacherous Alliance: The Secret Dealings of Israel, Iran, and the United States: “For AIPAC, the Conoco deal ‘was a coincidence and a convenient target.’ The organization went into high gear to use the Iranian offer not only to scuttle the Conoco deal, but also to put an end to all U.S.-Iran trade. In a report that it released on April 2, 1995, titled ‘Comprehensive U.S. Sanctions Against Iran: A Plan for Action,’ AIPAC argued that Iran must be punished for its actions against Israel. ‘Iran’s leaders reject the existence of Israel. Moreover, Iran views the peace process as an American attempt to legalize Israel’s occupation of Palestinian, Muslim lands,’ it said. Pressured by Congress, AIPAC, and the Israelis, President Clinton swiftly scrapped the deal by issuing two executive orders that effectively prohibited all trade with Iran. The decision was announced on April 30 by Clinton in a speech before the World Jewish Congress.” This wasn’t enough for the Lobby, which brought pressure on Sen. Alphonse D’Amato to introduce a bill that imposed sanctions on any countries doing business with either Libya or Iran. The Iran-Libya Sanctions Act passed the House with not a single dissenting vote, and the same scenario went down in the Senate. The Lobby made sure the Iranian peace offering was rudely rebuffed ? and the president reminded of just who was in charge of U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East. The White House meekly went along with the Lobby’s wishes: after all, the presidential election was but three months away. The Conoco affair should dispel any myths about the supposedly supreme power of the “oil lobby” as the decisive factor in shaping U.S. policy in the region: the Israel lobby beat them hands down. As James Schlesinger put it, “It is scarcely possible to overstate the influence of Israel’s supporters on our politics in the Middle East.” The harder the Iranians tried to approach the Americans, the more rudely they were repulsed. The election of the even more pro-American Mohammad Khatami as Iran’s president in 1997 did not break the back of “dual containment” ? dubbed “a nutty idea” by Brent Scowcroft, albeit one with plenty of domestic political traction. The U.S. had every reason to pursue a policy of engagement, while that was possible, giving Iranian moderates the political breathing space they needed to ensure the growth of pro-American forces in the country. The benefits of opening up Iran to American investment are similarly obvious, yet our leaders chose to do otherwise due solely to the power of the Lobby. As Ephraim Sneh, a prominent figure on the Israeli Right, acknowledged: “We were against it ? because the interest of the U.S. did not coincide with ours.” In short: Washington policymakers weighed the interests of both the U.S. and Israel, and made their decision accordingly? From dual containment to regional transformation and “regime change” was not a long road to travel. After 9/11, Washington embarked on a campaign to topple the governments of both Iraq and Iran, as well as Syria, and rid Lebanon of Hezbollah while they were at it. As soon as “mission accomplished” was declared in Iraq, the Israelis and their American amen corner began demanding action against Iran. In an interview with the Times of London, Ariel Sharon declared that Washington had better start threatening to march on Tehran “the day after” Baghdad was secured. By late April 2003, the Israeli ambassador to Washington was complaining that the demise of Saddam’s regime was “not enough.” Those indolent Americans must be made to “follow through” by taking action against “great threats of that magnitude coming from Syria, coming from Iran.” Shimon Peres rallied the faithful with an op-ed in the War Street Journal titled “We Must Unite to Prevent an Ayatollah Nuke.” The neoconservatives convened a special all-day conference devoted to inciting war hysteria aimed at Tehran, with all the usual suspects ? Michael Ledeen, Bernard Lewis, Reuel Marc Gerecht ? in attendance. The cry went up: “Regime change!” The only question was which exile faction we were going to support: the royalists, or the cult-like neo-Marxist Mujahideen-e-Khalq (MEK) and its numerous well-connected front groups in the U.S. and Europe. The leaders of the latter have energetically vied for the role of the Iranian Chalabi, coming up with reams of “intelligence” detailing Iran’s alleged nuclear weapons program. Their “revelations,” however, have been definitively debunked by the latest national intelligence estimate, which says Tehran abandoned its nuclear program some time ago. All those diagrams and documents coming from MEK by the truckload were evidence of a nuclear program that no longer existed. If any of this sounds familiar, then it should. The efforts of the Lobby aren’t limited to war propaganda. The AIPAC spy trial ? in which two top officials of the powerful pro-Israel lobbying organization have been indicted for passing top-secret classified information to Israeli embassy officials ? is all about Israel’s attempt to penetrate U.S. governmental discussions about what stance to take regarding Iran, with the goal of exerting maximum influence on American policymaking circles. Israel considers a nuclear-armed Iran an “existential threat” to the Jewish state, a contention that amounts to little more than absolute nonsense. Their argument goes something like this: Iran is not a normal state, it is run by ideologues who are profoundly invested in apocalyptic religious visions that can only end in war. Deterrence means nothing to them. They want to be incinerated in a nuclear exchange involving Israel, themselves, and quite possibly the U.S., because it fulfills the ancient prophecies and means the return of the Mahdi, or something along those lines. This makes no more sense than the inverse version of the religion-determines-all theory, which would have the “born again” George W. Bush intent on provoking a nuclear war in the Middle East in order to bring about the Second Coming and the Kingdom of God on Earth ? as the Christian dispensationalists who make up so much of the GOP’s base fervently believe is entirely possible and certainly desirable. These latter, of course, are the foot-soldiers of the Israel Lobby in America, a group that GOP presidential candidate John McCain has actively courted in the person of the Rev. John Hagee. Rev. Hagee is a vicious Catholic-hater and all-around nut-job who looks forward to a nuclear war in the Middle East as the fulfillment of Biblical prophecy. Hagee has lately taken up with AIPAC, appearing at their last national confab in a starring role. This administration, which has been in thrall to the Israel lobby more than any other, has been increasing the volume in its war of words with Tehran since January of this year, and, as Bush’s reign comes to an inglorious end, there apparently remains one last act of perfidy the neocons will leave as their legacy. Bush’s going away gift to the American people looks more than likely to be another war ? one that truly does make the Iraq war seem like a “cakewalk” in comparison. It took a few years for the impact of the war in Iraq to be felt by the American people, and its full impact has yet to hit. Not so with the next war. The firing of a few shots at those speedboats sent the price of oil up three bucks. Think of what a full-scale all-out war would do to the price of nearly everything. And for what? Iran, a signatory to the Nonproliferation Treaty, says it is not seeking to build nuclear weapons, and that the production of nuclear energy for peaceful uses is the one and only goal of its activities on this front. This is more than Israel can say, far more. Everyone knows the Israelis have nukes ? the technology for which they probably stole from us ? and they are one of the few civilized countries who haven’t signed the NPT and refuse to even discuss doing so. If ever there was a nuclear rogue nation, then surely it is Israel. As Henry Kissinger said of them in a 1969 memo to Richard Nixon: “The Israelis, who are one of the few peoples whose survival is genuinely threatened, are probably more likely than almost any other country to actually use their nuclear weapons.” Although the Iranians claim their nuclear program is geared exclusively toward peaceful purposes, that they have the option to act otherwise, should the need arise, is a challenge to Israel’s nuclear hegemony. The Iranians, by American and Israeli lights, have no right to a deterrent. In a world where “benevolent global hegemony” is the goal of U.S. foreign policy, there is no right to self-defense; that, along with national sovereignty, has been abolished. Defiance is met with an implacable campaign for regime-change in the offending nation. By all indications, Iran is the next victim to be made an example of, sometime in mid-summer, or so the rumor goes. We know where the presidential candidates stand on this issue. Hillary looks forward to the “obliteration” of Iran and takes up Charles Krauthammer’s demand that we extend our nuclear shield over Tel Aviv just as we would do the same for, say, Toledo. Indeed, there are not a few who would argue that we would be fully justified in sacrificing the latter in order to save the former, and not all of them are to be found among Rev. Hagee’s deluded flock. In any case, we know what the McCain-Hagee position is without even having to ask. We also know where Obama stands on all or most of this: he advocates a policy of engagement with the Iranians, just as he has endorsed talking with South American caudillo Hugo Chavez, and for the same very sound reasons: because it’s talk or fight. He clearly realizes waging perpetual war is hardly in our interests, even if we had the financial and military capacity to carry out such a crazed policy. Yet, if he’s speaking out about this, at this crucial moment ? when the chairman of the Joint Chiefs is practically declaring war on the Iranians ? then I just can’t hear him: he must not be speaking very loudly, or perhaps this gets lost amid all the soaring rhetoric about Change and Hope and A Better Tomorrow. Hillary voted for the Kyl-Lieberman resolution, which designated the Iranian Revolutionary Guards ? an official part of the Iranian armed forces ? as a “terrorist organization,” and now Gen. Petraeus is telling us Tehran is funding, arming, and succoring those who are killing American soldiers and bombing the Green Zone. The main threat against us in Iraq is no longer the Sunni “dead-enders,” as Don Rumsfeld liked to call them, it’s the Mahdi Army ? Iraqi Shi’ites ? and the Iranians, who have very close ties to the government our troops are dying to defend. If Bush seeks to obliterate Iranian hopes for regional preeminence by launching an attack before he leaves office, one can hardly see how the Clintons could possibly object: perhaps they’ll declare that, this time, we have to send enough troops to “do the job.” This, you’ll recall, was Hillary’s McCain-like critique of the Iraq invasion long before being antiwar was required of all Democratic presidential aspirants. No doubt she’ll revert to that when the time comes, but what about Obama? He could skewer Hillary the hawk with one well-placed arrow, aimed straight at her vulnerability on the Iran issue. With the first shots of a new war already fired, apparently, and rumors of an imminent American strike at Iran flying thick and fast, Obama could denounce her as a warmonger, a McCain in drag, whose short-term political opportunism is helping to embroil us in a quagmire far worse than the one in Iraq, where she played a similar role in 2003. Yet I hear nothing like this coming from Obama’s camp. Maureen Dowd nails it, with her typically acerbic take: “Despite all his incandescent gifts, Obama has missed several opportunities to smash the ball over the net and end the game. Again and again, he has seemed stuck at deuce. He complains about the politics of scoring points, but to win, you’ve got to score points.” The American people oppose war with Iran, perhaps more than they want out of Iraq: the economic consequences alone will infuriate them far more than any other foreign policy decision of this administration. What the War Party is hoping is that their fury will be directed overseas, at our alleged “enemies” in Tehran, and not at home, in the direction of Washington, where proper blame belongs. Americans await the advent of a real leader, the sort who could and would focus that anger on the right target. Whether Obama has the gumption ? and the strategic sense ? to make this fight about policy, not personalities, race, and gender, remains to be seen. He’s promised us a new politics, but that doesn’t have to mean blandness and an inability to fight. It can and must mean sharp attacks on wrong ideas ? and one looks in vain for an idea as wrongheaded as war with Iran.
