Israel’s discriminatory water policies leave West Bank dryElectronic Intifada - 1 Jul 2008rr r r r rr r rr r rr r rr rr rrr rThe chronic water shortage in the West Bank, resulting from an unfair distribution of water resources shared by the Palestinians and Israel, will be much graver this summer because of this year’s drought. In the northern West Bank, water consumption has fallen to one-third of the minimal amount needed. The 2008 drought, the most serious drought in the area in the past decade, aggravates the built-in, constant shortage of water in the West Bank.
Keep Tyne and Wear Metro Public, says RMTUKWatch.net - 1 Jul 2008The Tyne and Wear Metro is a public-sector success story and should be kept that way, delegates at the annual conference of Britain’s biggest rail union insisted today. As RMT’s AGM called on the government to implement Labour policy on public ownership, RMT general secretary Bob Crow and Northern TUC secretary Kevin Rowan issued a joint plea for an end to the threat to fragment and privatise the northeast’s Metro network. Letters sent today to Transport Secretary Ruth Kelly and Tyne and Wear Passenger Transport Executive (Nexus) director-general Bernard Garner point out that the Metro is already achieving record levels of punctuality and ridership. The letters express the concern that funding for a welcome upgrade of the network has been made conditional on splitting up and privatising the Metro’s operations and infrastructure. Nexus bulletins indicate that the government has insisted on the break-up, overruling the PTE’s preferred option of maintaining Metro as a ‘vertically integrated’ railway. “The model now being proposed for the Metro is in danger of repeating the mistakes of railway privatisation,” Bob Crow and Kevin Rowan say. “Safety will be threatened as the Metro will be fragmented into different sectors, meaning less effective control and private companies cutting corners to save money. “Fragmentation will lead to a less efficient, more expensive railway which is why Nexus were originally opposed to the break up of the Metro and why we remain opposed to it. “Large amounts of fare revenue and public subsidy will be used to pay dividends to shareholders instead of being used to improve the Metro for the benefit of passengers and the wider community in the North East. “And of course Metro workers’ pensions, jobs and conditions will be under threat as the private sector tries to maximise profits at the expense of Metro workers,” the letters say.
Support and strengthUKWatch.net - 1 Jul 2008Unite general secretary Derek Simpson hit the nail on the head in arguing: “If people feel that they can get the kind of support and strength that they need from a union, I don’t think they mind what you call it.” Trade unions exist to do a basic job – to defend workers’ pay and conditions. They can and do take on other responsibilities and fringe benefits – everything from credit cards to concessionary insurance rates; but securing the best price for members’ labour power and safeguarding their health, safety and workplace respect is always the priority. If Unite members are convinced that merging with the large north American union USW will assist them in that task, they will jump at the opportunity. And, certainly, at a time when a relatively small number of transnational corporations are dominating global production, anything that minimises the prospect of national trade unions accepting the “reality” of a race to the bottom to price members into a job is welcome. These corporations must be laughing all the way to the bank to see unions in one country after another agreeing to cut corporate costs; basic pay, fringe benefits, overtime rates etc – in a bid to persuade them not to relocate overseas. If international union mergers can ensure a co-ordinated principled approach, they can only be positive. However, there are two major phenomena that will work to undermine the principles of internationalism and working class solidarity. One is the existence of stultifying anti-trade union legislation, especially in Britain and the US, and the other is trade unions’ poverty of ambition. Solidarity action is specifically outlawed in the US and Britain, forcing workers in struggle to fight employers with one hand behind their backs. Employers can ship in scabs from elsewhere in the country or from overseas. They can act in concert to undermine industrial action. But woe betide any set of workers who act out of natural decency to try to tilt the balance of power in favour of members of their own union who are out on strike. Think back to the efforts by workers at Heathrow airport who showed solidarity with the Gate Gourmet strikers and the storm of rage generated by employers, the media and the Labour government. New Labour is now on the bones of its backside, abandoned by increasing numbers of its once generous boardroom donors and sinking into debt-laden oblivion. Unions are ready and willing to bail Labour out, but they still seem to accept that Labour is only electable if it pursues Tory-style policies and gives up on any demands for real justice. And previous union leaders who have copped the ermine, such as Baroness Prosser, are the most strident in rejecting the case for trade union freedom and for close Labour-union links. The ability of a merged Unite-USW international union to punch its weight and to affect salaries, conditions and investment policies on a global basis will be enhanced by the capacity of its constituent parts to operate freely and effectively on their home turf. A trade union freedom Bill in Britain is not only a prerequisite for effective international trade union solidarity but for domestic social justice too.
The Guardian divided on response to David DavisUKWatch.net - 1 Jul 2008The decision by David Davis to resign and force a by-election based on opposition to the Labour government?s erosion of civil liberties has produced divisions within what passes for Britain?s liberal milieu. A conflict over whether or not to support Davis, based on his campaign against the extension of detention without trial to 42 days, is being fought out in the pages of the Guardian and the Observer. The issue for some goes beyond simply deciding whether or not to register a protest against 42 days detention and other measures undermining democratic rights. What is being fought out is whether to remain loyal to Labour while nodding occasionally towards the Liberal Democrats, or to transfer political allegiance to the Conservatives. The Guardian?s Sunday sister paper, the Observer, was initially cautiously supportive of Davis, describing his resignation in its June 15 edition as ?A wild move but the principles are correct.? ?Opinion polls show broad public support for the government?s position on 42 days,? the Observer claimed, before adding, ?Mr. Davis hopes, and it is a decent aspiration, that a by-election campaign will change minds more effectively than parliamentary debate. But, meanwhile, the business of passing or rejecting this bad law falls to the Lords. They must heed the principled arguments that should have defeated the government in the Commons last week.? The belief that the public backed the government was quickly proved to be wrong. It soon became clear that Davis had more correctly judged the national temper. Pro-Davis, Pro-Tory? A number of Observer and Guardian feature writers were far less cautious and began openly speculating about whether Davis and even the Tory Party itself could be supported against Labour. Chief political commentator Andrew Rawnsley wrote in the same edition of the Observer, ?David Davis is vainglorious, mad and really rather terrific.? ?It tells you quite a lot about David Davis that his nose has been broken five times,? Rawnsley declared. ?David Davis is no saint. There?s truth in some of the accusations that are being hurled at him by furious Tories…. In tabloid clich, he is usually described as a bruiser. I see a man who is actually a romantic, not least about himself…. So, yes, there is ego here … But there is also an extremely strong element of fiercely held belief.? Finishing his eulogy to Davis, the man of action and principle, Rawnsley opined, ?In the background, there is a serious and significant philosophical and political divide in the Conservative party which will matter hugely if and when they return to power. It is a tension about whether the Conservatives are essentially a libertarian or an authoritarian party.? Others commissioned by the Guardian?s ?Comment is Free? seemed to have lost their heads and even their hearts to Davis. Jan Morris wrote breathlessly on June 25 how, ?In defending 800 years of hard-won political rights, this rebel is also standing up for a crucial part of the national spirit…. It is not just a matter of those 42 days, of habeas corpus or even of human rights in the political sense of the phrase: it is an elemental struggle that is dividing the British again into two nations, as Benjamin Disraeli saw them long ago.? Morris accused half of the British people of having been ?Brainwashed by a tabloid press of brilliantly insidious techniques, then, numbed by the relentless mediocrity of television,? ?willingly forfeited the right to make up their own minds, and mutely accept[ed] indoctrination.? In contrast, Davis is hailed for defending ?not just political liberty but liberty of the mind, of the identity, of the spirit?even, patriots might sententiously say, of the national soul…. So perhaps Davis is a prophet as well as a politician. When he talks of habeas corpus he is echoing ideas far older and more profound, reaching back to the earliest yearnings of antiquity, the first glimmerings of human individuality, when our ancestors began to break from tribal disciplines and devise preferences of their own.? The coverage in the Observer and the Guardian never again reaches these levels of hero worship, but on occasion its own writers have come close. On June 27, the Guardian?s G2 supplement ran several pages on Davis by Nicholas Watt under the heading, ?Maverick or freedom fighter?? Watt begins by describing how, ?Narrowing his gaze with the poise of a former SAS officer, David Davis shifts slowly in his armchair and points through his sitting room window to a line of trees in the distance. ?The key to security is the line of sight? ... Davis will take no lectures about failing to appreciate the threat of terrorism. ?I was on an IRA death list,? he says. ?We?ll have none of that nonsense about being soft on terror.? ? Like a passage from a 1950?s Boys? Own comic, Watt describes Davis as ?A Tory bruiser,? known to some as ?the Knuckleduster.? We learn yet again of how Davis frequently succeeded in breaking his nose, while playing Rugby, swimming and intervening ?to save a friend who was being mugged on Clapham Common.? In addition, ?The Davis clan have all been taught to be toughies, thanks to an imposing climbing wall in an outhouse.? The most explicit political exposition regarding the significance of supporting Davis is made by Henry Porter, who writes regularly on civil liberties. He insists in the June 29 Observer, ?We can?t leave David Davis to carry the fight on his own.? It is when he explains who he means by ?we? that Porter asks, ?So who is to answer those questions?? Answering his own question, he replies, ?Certainly not Labour, though there are many good people on the backbenches.? The Liberal Democrats are patted on the back for being ?ardently for freedom.? But in reality, Porter insists, ?it must be the Tories, right?? He places caveats on adopting a pro-Conservative stance, but argues for it nevertheless. He goes so far as to compare the democratic and freedom-loving credentials of various prominent Conservatives. Party leader David Cameron is ?said to be more libertarian than his friend, the shadow Chancellor George Osborne. Dominic Grieve, who has succeeded Davis as shadow Home Secretary, is solidly libertarian,? and so on. He then appeals to the Conservatives to ?make the big argument, because there are political opportunities here.? ?The first is that Labour has betrayed its mission to champion the poor and vulnerable…. The Tories could surely demonstrate Labour?s failure in this department. ?The second opportunity concerns the traditional Conservative mission to champion the individual and roll back state power.? To portray the Tories as a party of civil liberties at best expresses an extraordinary level of political disorientation amongst a petty-bourgeois layer who once would have recoiled at such a description. But to some degree it is also a recognition of the direction in which the wind is blowing. Cameron and a future Tory government would, after all, have need of apologists and converts with a vaguely leftist background if they were to have any chance of maintaining a grip on power. The same phenomenon?former social democrats and liberals transferring their allegiance to the new political order?has already been amply demonstrated in France following the coming to power of Gaullist President Nicolas Sarkozy. Pro-Labour, pro-Jill Saward? Even so, to even begin to advance Davis and Cameron as defenders of democratic rights is testimony to how far to the right Labour itself has travelled. Not everyone is quite so prepared to abandon the sinking New Labour ship. But those opposing support for Davis are, if anything, advancing positions more politically grotesque than their journalistic colleagues. On June 20, with Labour refusing to stand against Davis, the Guardian published a comment by Olly Kendal, former adviser to Liberal Democrat leader Charles Kennedy, entitled, ?Wanted: an election challenger.? He appealed for anyone whatsoever to stand ?who will serious challenge the former shadow home secretary.? Kendall insisted that any high-profile public figure that came forward as a ?credible candidate? would do. And he or she certainly need not oppose 42 days, ?as important and fundamental to our society as it is.? Instead he proposed a single-issue campaign on the burning issue of MP?s pay, suggesting as a candidate??Who better than the man who in 2000 took over the helm of the BBC, promising to ?cut the crap? at the corporation??Greg Dyke. Kendall closes by acknowledging a small flaw in his proposal, given that Dyke, ?refused to stand as London Mayor unless he could stand as a unity candidate for both the Lib Dems and Tories.? Nevertheless, the search for a supposedly ?credible candidate? was clearly being pursued in earnest. On June 25, the Guardian?s senior political correspondent Andrew Sparrow wrote in his politics blog, ?David Davis may find himself facing serious by-election candidate after all.? The person in question was Jill Saward. Sparrow designated her as a ?serious candidate? not merely because she supposedly has a ?high-profile? for having ?waived her right to anonymity after being raped at her Ealing Vicarage home in 1986, [and] has made her name as a campaigner on behalf of the victims of sexual violence.? Sparrow is boosting Saward because she intends to use the issue of rape as an emotive argument against Davis and in a way that helps Labour. He quotes at great length from Saward?s web site, in which she defends the use of closed-circuit TV cameras and the amassing of a national DNA database on the basis that this helps the police track down and convict rapists. Sparrow adds, as if presenting a profound insight, ?Interestingly, she also criticises Davis for not accepting the result of the Commons vote on 42-day detention. ?Why would anybody want to stand as a member of parliament if they are not prepared to accept the will of parliament when it makes a decision?? she asks.? On June 26, Sparrow moved to the Guardian?s print edition to again proclaim Saward as ?Davis?s most prominent opponent,? devoting an entire article to presenting her views, before merely listing the names of six of the other candidates standing against Davis. (Chris Talbot, the Socialist Equality Party candidate, was omitted, as is the norm.) Though Saward is standing as an independent, Sparrow makes even clearer that she is being given such preferential treatment in large part because she functions as a proxy candidate for Labour. He writes, ?Saward floated the idea of standing as a candidate in an article on her web site on Tuesday. She said that, at that stage, it was her own idea, but that since the article appeared she had received encouragement from party politicians. ?She would not say who was urging her to stand. But it is known that Labour is very keen for a high-profile candidate to challenge Davis.? The debate being conducted in the Guardian and the Observer could end with them taking opposed positions on the Haltemprice and Howden ballot or not taking a position at all. But the fact that these two publications respond to the growing threat to civil liberties by discussing whether to continue supporting Labour or to back the Tories is a measure of the profound decay of liberal thought in Britain.
Pakistan Military Offensive in Khyber Region Enters Fourth DayDemocracy Now - 1 Jul 2008Pakistani paramilitary forces have begun a fourth day of assaults on suspected Taliban sites in the northwest region of the country. The offensive marks the first major Pakistani offensive against Taliban fighters in the Khyber region and the first major military operation since Pakistan’s new government came to power in March. We speak with journalist and author, David Barsamian.
Oil and Gas Drilling on Public Lands Reaches New HighDemocracy Now - 1 Jul 2008While offshore drilling has drawn national attention, less has been made of oil and gas drilling on public land within the continental United States. This despite figures showing the amount of oil and gas drilling on public land has reached a new high. The Wilderness Society recently reported more than forty-four million acres of public lands are leased for oil and gas development.
Dozens of Minutemen Confront Day-Laborers Gathered For Work in Aurora, CODemocracy Now - 1 Jul 2008The city council of Aurora, Colorado is considering two ordinances that would regulate how day laborers seek out work. The city is proposing to restrict the locations of offices set up to help the day laborers, and limit how they gather to meet prospective employers. Last week, local tensions escalated when members of the anti-immigrant group the Minuteman Project held a day-long protest directly in front of a busy intersection where day-laborers often gather.
Colombian Senator Piedad Crdoba on Negotiating with FARC, Her Criticism of Uribe and Why She Was Detained at JFKDemocracy Now - 1 Jul 2008Senator John McCain heads to Colombia today where he is expected to receive a lavish welcome from Colombian President Alvaro Uribe. We speak with Colombia Senator, Piedad Crdoba, who received a far different reception when she came to the United States – she was detained and questioned by immigration authorities at JFK airport. Crdoba has played a leading role in mediation efforts with the Colombian rebel group FARC and has been an outspoken critic of the Uribe government as well as a leading voice in Colombia’s Afro-Colombian community.
Headlines for July 1, 2008Democracy Now - 1 Jul 2008UN Official: Gitmo Tribunals Flawed and Unfair, Bush Signs $162 Billion War Funding Bill, Pentagon to Keep 140,000 Troops in Iraq Until 2009, U.S. Raid Kills Cousin of Iraqi PM Maliki, Iraq Opens Oil Fields to Foreign Firms, Four Iraqis Sue U.S. Contractors Over Torture, Federal Court Dismisses Maher Arar Lawsuit, Ex-CIA Operative Accuses Agency of Suppressing Intel on Iran, June Death Toll For Int’l Troops in Afghanistan Tops Iraq, Report: McCain Tax Cuts to Save Corporations $175 Billion/Year, Protesters At DNC In Denver To Be Fenced In, 13 Arrested At Coal Plant Protest in Virginia, Commission: California’s Death Penalty is Dysfunctional, Maryland Prisoner Strangled to Death in County Jail
Not only Palestinians sufferElectronic Intifada - 1 Jul 2008rr r r rr r rr r rr r rr r rr rrr rThere are roughly 5,000 Russian women in Gaza. Many, like Jamila, have been living in Gaza for many years. For Jamila, having two children and running a married life has proven difficult with the situation in Gaza, where conditions are totally different from those of her own homeland or maybe any other country in the world. “Prior to the outbreak of the intifada, I used to feel more comfortable. But since 2000 and particularly the last year, things have become much worse. There is no gas, there is no fuel, there is nothing,” she explained. Rami Almeghari writes from Gaza.
No Salute to Israel, 60 Years of Apartheid is Nothing to CelebrateIndymedia UK - 1 Jul 2008Today, a series of non-violent protest actions disrupted the ‘Salute to Israel’ parade. The parade celebrated 60 years since the establishment of the state of Israel in 1948. Activists wished to remind the public that since its inception, Israel has been maintained through the constant oppression of the Palestinian people, in particular through ethnic cleansing.The ‘Salute to Israel’ parade was a shameful show of support to a government engaged in war crimes. Sponsors included the Jewish National Fund, an organisation deeply involved in the colonisation of Palestinian land as well in anti-Palestinian discrimination within Israel. Activists wish to stress that the British government’s authorisation, protection and support of this event is entirely unacceptable.En route, the parade was greeted by activists with red dye on their hands to symbolise the blood of Palestinians killed by the Israeli government. In Tafalgar Square, both fountains turned red and a Palestinian flag was unfurled at the entrance of the National Gallery. An activist climbed up a big screen which had to be turned off for most of the event. Also, another group attempted to get onto the roof of the National Gallery in order to unfurl a banner but were arrested in the process. Newswire Posts Action Reports and photos of fountains and screen Climber | Report and Photos| Press Releases Autonomous Actions For Palestine Disrupt Zionist Parade| Links Israel at 60 Protest Site| Palestine Solidarity Campaign | Boycott Israeli Goods Campaign | Jews for Justice for Palestinians | Action Palestine| Jews for Boycotting Israeli Goods | Friends of Al Aqsa | Palestine-UK Twinning Network | Corporate Media Coverage of the Protests Al Jazeera Report | Video Buses and Critical Mass | Woman assaulted by police for Singing|
Green LifelineUKWatch.net - 1 Jul 2008Almost everyone seems to agree: governments now face a choice between saving the planet and saving the economy. As recession looms, the political pressure to abandon green policies intensifies. A report published yesterday by Ernst and Young suggests that the EU?s puny carbon target will raise energy bills by 20% over the next 12 years(1). Last week the prime minister?s advisers admitted to the Guardian that his renewable energy plans were ?on the margins? of what people will tolerate(2). But these fears are based on a false assumption: that there is a cheap alternative to a green economy. Last week New Scientist reported a survey of oil industry experts, which found that most of them believe global oil supplies will peak by 2010(3). If they are right, the game is up. A report published by the US Department of Energy in 2005 argued that unless the world begins a crash programme of replacements 10 or 20 years before oil peaks, a crisis ?unlike any yet faced by modern industrial society? is unavoidable(4). If the world is sliding into recession, it?s partly because governments believed that they could choose between economy and ecology. The price of oil is so high and it hurts so much because there has been no serious effort to reduce our dependency. Yesterday in the Guardian, Rajendra Pachauri suggested that an impending recession could force us to confront the flaws in the global economy(5). Sadly it seems so far to have had the opposite effect: a recent Ipsos Mori poll suggests that people are losing interest in climate change(6). Opportunities for energy populism abound: it cannot be long before one of the major parties abandons the pale green consensus and starts invoking an oil cornucopia it cannot possibly deliver. The British government maintains both positions at once. In his speech last week, Gordon Brown said he wanted ?to facilitate a reduction in short term global oil prices? while seeking ?to reduce progressively our dependence on oil?(7). He knows that the first objective makes the second one harder to achieve. The government?s policy is to build more of everything ? more coal plants, more nuclear power, more oil rigs, more renewables, more roads, more airports ? and hope no one spots the contradictions. Is there a way out? Could we abandon the fossil fuel economy without provoking a blistering backlash? Two things are obvious. We need a global system, and the current one, the Kyoto Protocol, is bust. It sets no cap on global carbon pollution, its targets bear no relation to current science and are unenforceable anyway, it contains loopholes and get-out clauses wide enough to sail an oil tanker through. Until recently I supported an alternative system called contraction and convergence. Every country, this system proposes, should end up with the same quota of carbon dioxide per person. The richest countries must produce much less than they do today; the poorest ones could pollute more. Another proposal flows logically from this one: carbon rationing. Having been assigned its carbon quota, each nation would divide up part of it equally among its citizens, who could use it to buy energy or trade it among themselves. These proposals have the merit of capping global pollution, of being fair, progressive and easy to understand and of encouraging us to think about our use of energy. But, after reading the proofs of a book by the independent thinker Oliver Tickell, to be published this month, I have changed my view. In Kyoto2: how to manage the global greenhouse, Tickell slaughters my favourite ideas(8). He shows that there is no logical basis for dividing up the right to pollute among nation states. It gives them too much power over this commodity, and there is no guarantee that they would pass the pollution rights on to their citizens, or use the money they raised to green the economy. Carbon rationing, he argues, requires a level of economic literacy that?s far from universal in the most advanced economies, let alone in countries where most people don?t have bank accounts. Instead Tickell proposes setting a global limit for carbon pollution then selling permits to pollute to companies extracting or refining fossil fuels. This has the advantage of regulating a few thousand corporations – running oil refineries, coal washeries, gas pipelines and cement and fertiliser works for example – rather than a few billion citizens. These firms would buy their permits in a global auction, run by a coalition of the world?s central banks. There?s a reserve price, to ensure that the cost of carbon doesn?t fall too low, and a ceiling price, at which the banks promise to sell permits, to ensure that the cost doesn?t cripple the global economy. In this case companies would be borrowing permits from the future. But because the money raised would be invested in renewables, the demand for fossil fuels would fall, so fewer permits would need to be issued in later years. Tickell calculates that if the cap were set low enough to ensure that the world became carbon neutral by 2050, the total cost of permits would be about $1 trillion a year, or roughly 1.5% of the global economy. The money would be spent on helping the poor to adapt to climate change, paying countries to protect forests and other ecosystems, developing low-carbon farming, promoting energy efficiency and building renewable power plants. But his figure seems too low. Like many of the world?s climate scientists, Oliver Tickell proposes that the concentration of greenhouse gases should eventually be stabilised at 350 parts per million (carbon dioxide equivalent) in the atmosphere, and his calculations are based on this target. Last week Lord Stern suggested that meeting a less stringent target (500 parts per million) would cost 2% of world gross domestic product(9). If the price of the carbon permits sold at auction were much higher than Tickell suggests, the extra money could be used for massive tax rebates and social spending, aimed especially at the poor. But could the world afford it? This money doesn?t disappear, it gets spent. Tickell?s proposal could represent a classic Keynesian solution to economic crisis. The $1, $2 or even $5 trillion the system would cost is used to kick-start a green industrial revolution, a new New Deal not that different from the original one (whose most successful component was Roosevelt?s Civilian Conservation Corps, which protected forests and farmland(10)). This would not be the first time that business was rescued by the measures it most stoutly resists: there?s a long history of corporate lobbying against the kind of government spending that eventually saves the corporate economy. Do we want to save it, even if we can? It is hard to see how the current global growth rate of 3.7% a year (which means the global economy doubles every 19 years) could be sustained(11), even if the whole thing were powered by the wind and the sun. But that is a question for another column and perhaps another time, when the current economic panic has abated. For now we have to find a means of saving us from ourselves. George Monbiot has received an honorary doctorate from the University of St Andrews. References: 1. BBC Online, 30th June 2008. Green target ?to hike fuel bills?. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/7480204.stm 2. Juliette Jowit and Patrick Wintour, 26th June 2008. Cost of tackling global climate change has doubled, warns Stern. The Guardian. 3. Ian Sample, 25th June 2008. Oil: The final warning. New Scientist. 4. Robert L. Hirsch, Roger Bezdek and Robert Wendling, February 2005. Peaking Of World Oil Production: Impacts, Mitigation, & Risk Management. US Department of Energy. This was originally leaked and found its way onto this site: http://www.hilltoplancers.org/stories/hirsch0502.pdf 5. Rajendra Pachauri, 30th June 2008. The world?s will to tackle climate change is irresistible. The Guardian. 6. Juliette Jowit, 22nd June 2008. Poll: most Britons doubt cause of climate change. The Observer. 7. Gordon Brown, 26th June 2008. Creating a low carbon economy. http://www.number-10.gov.uk/output/Page15846.asp 8. Oliver Tickell, forthcoming. Kyoto2: how to manage the global greenhouse. Zed Books, London. 9. Juliette Jowit and Patrick Wintour, ibid. 10. Neil M Maher, 2008. Nature?s New Deal. Oxford University Press. 11. http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/survey/so/2008/res040908a.htm
