「国産エネルギーのない国はどうする」，と考えさせられるのは，最近の原油の高騰で
ある。石炭も値上がりしているが，石炭を主体のエンジンを持つ中国とインドの経済
は，そんなに焦っていないのではないか。日本も余り焦っていない，国産エネルギーが
ほとんどないのに。日本の電力は，早くから石油を捨て，原子力発電の割合を増大させ
てきたから，それほどの焦りはないのであろう。
付近で常に目につく国で，真剣に困っているのは，フィリッピンとカンボジア，それに
よく分からないが，スリランカではなかろうか。勿論，インドネシアなどは国産エネル
ギーとは言え，国際価格の影響を強く受けている，しかし未だに国際資源にも多くの補
助金を出して，前三者ほどには深刻には考えていないのではないか。
アジア諸国は，フィリッピンが自動車のガソリンの中に１％のココバイオの混入を法律
化したことに，冷ややかな視線を向けながら，果たしてうまく行くかどうか，人ごとの
ように見守っている。農民が既に畑地をココナツ林に変換して問題になっていること
を，それ見たことか，と言わんばかりの表情である。しかしフィリッピン国会は，その
様な視線にもめげず，今日も，１０年間で２５０万ＫＷ再生可能エネルギー開発の法案
を成立させた。原油価格の高騰に，もうじっとしておれない状況なのだろう。
インドの記事の中で，燃料の高騰が，この先１０年，電力セクターに大きな変革を呼ぶ
だろう，と予測している。インドは石炭の炭酸ガス封じ込めが決め手のように書いてい
る。フィリッピンやカンボジアはそうは行かない，海外石炭の輸入は，彼らにとって大
きな負担である。今日のフィリッピンの決意のように，本当に国産エネルギーの開発
で，１０年間，２５０万ＫＷが可能なのであろうか。
本文
●この先１０年間のインドの電力，大きな変化となるだろう
高名なコンサルタントであるプライスウオーターハウスＰＣＷが，３７カ国の１１８人
の電力事業幹部の調査を行い，その中でインドを担当した研究者の意見をもとに書かれ
た記事で，インドの電力事業体の先行き１０年を占った記事である。記事では詳しいこ
とは書いてないが，大きな変革が予期され，その要因は，エネルギー確保，エネルギー
価格，それに気候変動問題，の３点としている。
この中で変革の主役を務める電源手段は三つを挙げており，一つは，依然として発電の
主役である石炭火力について，炭酸ガス封じ込めの技術の進展，二つが，当然のことな
がら原子力発電の拡大，三つは，再生可能エネルギーで，この中には，多様性のある技
術発展，として，風力，太陽光，地熱，それに可燃性の再生可能手段，などを挙げてい
る。
私から見ると，勿論今後１０年間でのインドの石炭火力脱却は不可能で，ＰＣＷはそこ
に炭酸ガス封じ込め，を持ってきたわけであるが，価格の面ではなはだ不確定であり，
恐らく石炭火力の新鋭化，効率化を主体に行かざるを得ないのであろうが，インドの原
子力は，なかなか主力になりそうにない予感がする，それは核問題と切り離して考えが
たい現状が，インドの原子力先行き不安である。
●フィリッピン国会，再生可能エネルギー法を可決
フィリッピンは，先月に，自動車の中に最低１％のココバイオ，ココナツからとれるバ
イオ燃料，の使用を規定した法律を制定，発効に持ち込んだが，これがアジア各国に批
判的な眼で見られるようになった。農民はココナツの生産のために畑地をココナツ林に
変えたり，森林を伐採してココナツに変えるなどの動きが見られ，果たしてフィリッピ
ンがこの政策で成功するのかどうか，冷ややかな眼で見られている。
今回は，一部の国会議員，エネルギー委員会の委員長パンパンガのミルキアロヨ，など
が中心になって，大々的な再生可能エネルギーのグリッドへの組み込みを規定する法律
を作成，承認された。この１０年間で２５０万ＫＷの国産再生可能エネルギーを導入
し，１２億ドル相当を節減するもので，バイオマス，太陽，風力，水力，波力，地熱，
などを目標としている。
フィリッピンがこれらの再生可能エネルギーへ傾倒して行くのは，基本的に国産エネル
ギーが少なく，このまま海外に依存する原油や石炭が値上がりしたならば，財政も破綻
する，と言う危機感なのであろうが，フィリッピンと同じ実情下にある国，カンボジア
などは余り私のニュースには出てこないが，友人の集めた資料では，カンボジアはバイ
オマス開発の記事で一杯である。
参考資料
２００８年６月１４日分
フィリッピン
●080614A Philippines, Manila Bulletin
フィリッピン国会，再生可能エネルギー法を可決
House approves energy bill
http://www.manilastandardtoday.com/?page=politics1_june13_2008
インド
●080614B India, Economic Times
この先１０年間のインドの電力，大きな変化となるだろう
India to see major changes in power sector: PWC
http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/News/News_By_Industry/Energy/Power/India_to
_see_major_changes_in_power_sector_PWC/articleshow/3124356.cms
2008年6月14日土曜日
国内の太陽電池８社、２０１０年に生産能力４ギガワット超に
国内の太陽電池８社、２０１０年に生産能力４ギガワット超に
国内太陽電池主要８社の生産能力が、２０１０年に年４ギガワット（１ギガは１０００メガワット）を超える見通しになった。０７年の生産実績９２０メガワットの４倍強に相当する。長く生産量世界一を死守してきた日本だが、０７年は原料のシリコン不足などが影響し欧州に抜かれた。各社は薄膜型などシリコン使用量が少ない製品の生産を増やす。一方、薄膜型などの新技術は製造装置への依存度が高く、参入障壁が低くなる傾向にある。先進国のドイツをはじめ、中国やインドでは新興メーカーが台頭、今後はグローバル競争が一段と激しくなる。
最大手シャープの既存能力は年７１０メガワット。このうち薄膜型は現在１５メガワットにとどまるが、これを２０１０年春に６０倍超の１ギガワットに大幅増強する。大阪府堺市の新工場で４８０メガワット、葛城工場（奈良県）で１６０メガワット、残りは海外。結晶型を含め全社の能力は２ギガワットに達しそう。
国内太陽電池主要８社の生産能力が、２０１０年に年４ギガワット（１ギガは１０００メガワット）を超える見通しになった。０７年の生産実績９２０メガワットの４倍強に相当する。長く生産量世界一を死守してきた日本だが、０７年は原料のシリコン不足などが影響し欧州に抜かれた。各社は薄膜型などシリコン使用量が少ない製品の生産を増やす。一方、薄膜型などの新技術は製造装置への依存度が高く、参入障壁が低くなる傾向にある。先進国のドイツをはじめ、中国やインドでは新興メーカーが台頭、今後はグローバル競争が一段と激しくなる。
最大手シャープの既存能力は年７１０メガワット。このうち薄膜型は現在１５メガワットにとどまるが、これを２０１０年春に６０倍超の１ギガワットに大幅増強する。大阪府堺市の新工場で４８０メガワット、葛城工場（奈良県）で１６０メガワット、残りは海外。結晶型を含め全社の能力は２ギガワットに達しそう。
2008年6月13日金曜日
The end of Japan's nuclear taboo
The end of Japan's nuclear taboo
By Elizabeth D. Bakanic | 9 June 2008
Article Highlights
* Once forbidden, both the Japanese public and government have begun discussing nuclear weapons more openly.
* Despite this talk, it's highly unlikely that Tokyo will develop nuclear weapons any time soon--if ever.
* Still, as a fervent supporter of the nonproliferation regime, Japan's nuclear attitude change could harm the already teetering Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.
* It could also stimulate a regional arms race, as Japan and its neighbors share a complicated relationship.
Ever since the August 1945 atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, the Japanese people have possessed a strong aversion to the idea of nuclear weapons. Public discussion of developing nuclear weapons has been practically nonexistent, and politicians have been chastised for mentioning the topic: As recently as 1999, Japan's vice defense minister resigned after receiving overwhelming criticism for suggesting that Japan should arm itself with nuclear weapons. And despite mastering the complete nuclear fuel cycle--thus, possessing the necessary nuclear technology and expertise to develop nuclear weapons--and maintaining complicated relationships with growing and unstable neighbors such as China, Tokyo has rejected even considering nuclear weapons. More largely, this "nuclear allergy" has existed alongside a rather pacifist society that has highly constrained itself militarily and politically following World War II.
Yet, in recent years, Japan has sought to become a more "normal" country--especially involving matters of defense and diplomacy, where Tokyo is transitioning from pacifism to assertiveness. In many ways, the nation is attempting to come out from the shadow of World War II. Growing nationalism has led Japan to take less apologetic stances in regards to its history and neighbors--evidenced by former Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi's visits to the Yasukuni shrine honoring the country's war dead, Japanese strikes on North Korean spy vessels, and continued controversies over distorted portrayals of World War II in Japanese history textbooks. Further, Japan has shown more interest in becoming a regional leader and global player--even expanding its military capability, often with encouragement from the United States. And most surprisingly, the attitude toward nuclear weapons has begun to change.
The attitude shift is evident in the growing prevalence and acceptance of the subject in public discourse. High-level Japanese officials such as current Prime Minister Yasuo Fukuda and his predecessor Shinzo Abe have made several open statements in recent years regarding the possibility of developing nuclear weapons, the need for deterrence in the region, and the nuclear threat presented by Japan's neighbors. As cabinet secretary for the Koizumi administration, Fukuda stated, "In the face of calls to amend the Constitution, amendment of the [three non-nuclear] principles is also possible." During his administration, Abe commented that it wouldn't violate Japan's pacifist constitution to acquire nuclear weapons for defensive purposes. In addition, the policy chief of the Liberal Democratic party has called for "active discussions" of possible nuclear weapons development. Just a few years ago, breaching these subjects openly would have been unpopular and near political suicide, but the Japanese public is now less condemning. Not surprisingly then, nationalist parties that advocate for a nuclear weapons capability are gaining popularity and traction in Japanese politics.
While these developments mostly encompass asserting the rights to debate nuclear options rather than debating the options themselves, they represent a major shift. Actual consideration of nuclear weapons is still a remote and unpopular idea, but mentioning nuclear options is no longer off limits.
In addition to increased public and political references, a generational attitude shift seems to be occurring. In interviews I conducted last fall in Tokyo, several Japanese officials, academics, and nuclear experts thought that younger generations have less of a nuclear allergy than previous generations--especially as memories of Hiroshima and Nagasaki become more distant. While many still felt that strong opposition remains, they believe that younger cohorts cannot remember or directly see the effects of the bombings since they gather that history secondhand, which makes it less personal and emotive. Because of this, they're less afraid of the topic and potential consequences. Overall, the population continues to exhibit strong negative attitudes toward nuclear weapons, and younger generations are still much more adverse to nuclear weapons than populations in most other countries. But the degree of negativity seems to be waning. This isn't unreasonable or unexpected, but it's a gradual shift that's affecting the country's overall nuclear stance.
There is some historical precedent. In both the mid-1960s--when China acquired nuclear weapons--and again in the mid-1990s--following the 1994 North Korean nuclear crisis--the Japanese expressed less aversion to nuclear weapons. The current shift in attitude could simply be a reaction to China's burgeoning role in the region and North Korea's continued reluctance to surrender its nuclear weapons, and public opinion could eventually swing back to a more anti-nuclear stance. But given the generational divide, firsthand aversion is likely to fade for good. Plus, the current change has been building for years and seems more widespread in the population than past reassessments. In addition, just as Japan wants to put its early twentieth-century transgressions behind it, Tokyo may also begin to move beyond its own victimization in the coming years. And it's possible that the regional security situation might become untenable enough that Japan will permanently move away from its pacifist nature. Already, the shift in defensive and diplomatic attitudes is changing in a parallel fashion, making a swing back to full pacifism unlikely.
All that said, by no means is Japan on the road to nuclear weapons development--or even considering it as a serious option. Technically speaking, Japan has several huge constraints to nuclear weapons development--see "Preventing Nuclear Proliferation Chain Reactions: Japan, South Korea, and Egypt" PDF and "Japan's Nuclear Future: Policy Debate, Prospects, and U.S. Interests." PDF
So why should the world be concerned about Japan's fading nuclear allergy? Because Tokyo's attitude toward nuclear weapons is incredibly important to Japan's neighbors and the nonproliferation regime, meaning subtle changes in its attitude could carry serious security consequences for both.
Historically, Japan has maintained complicated relations with many of its neighbors--specifically China, North Korea, and South Korea. While functional relationships do exist, deep mistrust and suspicions persist, creating a paranoid security environment where an innocuous change from an outside perspective sets off alarm bells in the region. So what may seem like a natural shift in Japan's nuclear attitudes may be a destabilizing change for those less trustful and less objective. Therefore, if discussing nuclear weapons becomes more acceptable in Japan, China and the Koreas might perceive this as a dangerous development and use it as an excuse to increase their military capabilities--nuclear or otherwise.
In terms of the teetering nonproliferation regime, a change in Japan's attitude toward nuclear weapons would be a serious blow. To date, Tokyo has been a foremost advocate of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, campaigning against proliferation and rejecting the idea of developing nuclear weapons despite possessing the best nuclear capability of any non-nuclear weapon state and having two nuclear weapon states near its borders. The binding nature of international agreements relies on such attention and support from its signatories. So although Japan may never violate the treaty, if Tokyo is perceived as being less supportive as it opens up domestically on the nuclear issue, the effect on NPT morale could be dire, which speaks directly to the NPT's current vulnerability. Some element of the changing attitude toward nuclear weapons in Japan must be due to discomfort with the status quo and a security need that the NPT or the country's other security partnerships isn't satisfying. Therefore, a disturbing factor of Japan's nuclear normalization is what it may symbolize for the NPT overall.
Now, the difficult question: How should the nonproliferation regime and global community manage this nuclear normalization? Since it's nearly impossible and a bit unfair to stop natural attitude change in a country, containing the negative effects requires subtle but conscious efforts. Some strategies include:
* Maintain strong relations. While U.S. assistance and security guarantees may still be adequate to ensure Japan won't seek nuclear weapons, strong, repeated, and clear assurances of the U.S. security umbrella for Japan and of an unwillingness to tolerate a nuclear-armed North Korea are especially necessary given changing relations with China and the Koreas. Combined with close and respectful relations including continued high-level visits and consultation on regional issues, this should emphasize Japan's continued importance to Washington and slow down the attitude shift, hampering any negative consequences. Change may be inevitable, but gradual change is less noticeable and destabilizing.
* Remain on good terms with Japan's neighbors, too. It's key that a strong relationship with Japan doesn't endanger other U.S. relationships in the region or stoke fears that Washington is assisting Japan's military buildup. For example, if China believes that the United States would tolerate a nuclear Japan or that Washington is attempting to check Beijing's influence by supporting Japanese military programs, it would only encourage China to ramp up its conventional and nuclear arsenal. Consistent nonproliferation policies toward all countries and not introducing U.S. controlled missiles or nuclear weapons into Japan could help such an impression from developing. Maintaining impartiality on historical and territorial issues between the region's countries would also further a diplomatic balance.
* Encourage regional reconciliation and collaboration. Outside parties often have limited ability to push for such things, but some possibilities exist. Helping establish regional organizations for security or trade could lead to greater cooperation among Asian countries and less mistrust and paranoia. The more opportunities for discussion and cooperation that don't exclude a major player would undoubtedly help the region in developing mutual understanding and alleviating some tensions.
* Strengthen the nonproliferation regime. The United States and other countries need to take steps to strengthen the nonproliferation regime so that all of the NPT's members feel confident in it--not just Japan. Bolstering the International Atomic Energy Agency's enforcement capability, applying consistent, prudent policies to countries rather than carving out exceptions, and implementing a safe, reliable way to handle nuclear energy would lead to a stronger regime. If measures are taken to ensure greater adherence and trust in the NPT, then changes in Japan would be less likely to occur and less jarring to others if they do.
Japan is only one nation in the international community, and its nuclear weapons acquisition remains unlikely--despite the internal shift in nuclear attitudes. But nonetheless, how Japanese attitudes evolve is vital for nonproliferation because of the country's history, location, and prior advocacy against nuclear weapons. Recognizing this fact is critical to predicting the potential problems that may arise from such change. The United States and others should not ignore this shift, but do what it can to minimize the consequences.
By Elizabeth D. Bakanic | 9 June 2008
Article Highlights
* Once forbidden, both the Japanese public and government have begun discussing nuclear weapons more openly.
* Despite this talk, it's highly unlikely that Tokyo will develop nuclear weapons any time soon--if ever.
* Still, as a fervent supporter of the nonproliferation regime, Japan's nuclear attitude change could harm the already teetering Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.
* It could also stimulate a regional arms race, as Japan and its neighbors share a complicated relationship.
Ever since the August 1945 atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, the Japanese people have possessed a strong aversion to the idea of nuclear weapons. Public discussion of developing nuclear weapons has been practically nonexistent, and politicians have been chastised for mentioning the topic: As recently as 1999, Japan's vice defense minister resigned after receiving overwhelming criticism for suggesting that Japan should arm itself with nuclear weapons. And despite mastering the complete nuclear fuel cycle--thus, possessing the necessary nuclear technology and expertise to develop nuclear weapons--and maintaining complicated relationships with growing and unstable neighbors such as China, Tokyo has rejected even considering nuclear weapons. More largely, this "nuclear allergy" has existed alongside a rather pacifist society that has highly constrained itself militarily and politically following World War II.
Yet, in recent years, Japan has sought to become a more "normal" country--especially involving matters of defense and diplomacy, where Tokyo is transitioning from pacifism to assertiveness. In many ways, the nation is attempting to come out from the shadow of World War II. Growing nationalism has led Japan to take less apologetic stances in regards to its history and neighbors--evidenced by former Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi's visits to the Yasukuni shrine honoring the country's war dead, Japanese strikes on North Korean spy vessels, and continued controversies over distorted portrayals of World War II in Japanese history textbooks. Further, Japan has shown more interest in becoming a regional leader and global player--even expanding its military capability, often with encouragement from the United States. And most surprisingly, the attitude toward nuclear weapons has begun to change.
The attitude shift is evident in the growing prevalence and acceptance of the subject in public discourse. High-level Japanese officials such as current Prime Minister Yasuo Fukuda and his predecessor Shinzo Abe have made several open statements in recent years regarding the possibility of developing nuclear weapons, the need for deterrence in the region, and the nuclear threat presented by Japan's neighbors. As cabinet secretary for the Koizumi administration, Fukuda stated, "In the face of calls to amend the Constitution, amendment of the [three non-nuclear] principles is also possible." During his administration, Abe commented that it wouldn't violate Japan's pacifist constitution to acquire nuclear weapons for defensive purposes. In addition, the policy chief of the Liberal Democratic party has called for "active discussions" of possible nuclear weapons development. Just a few years ago, breaching these subjects openly would have been unpopular and near political suicide, but the Japanese public is now less condemning. Not surprisingly then, nationalist parties that advocate for a nuclear weapons capability are gaining popularity and traction in Japanese politics.
While these developments mostly encompass asserting the rights to debate nuclear options rather than debating the options themselves, they represent a major shift. Actual consideration of nuclear weapons is still a remote and unpopular idea, but mentioning nuclear options is no longer off limits.
In addition to increased public and political references, a generational attitude shift seems to be occurring. In interviews I conducted last fall in Tokyo, several Japanese officials, academics, and nuclear experts thought that younger generations have less of a nuclear allergy than previous generations--especially as memories of Hiroshima and Nagasaki become more distant. While many still felt that strong opposition remains, they believe that younger cohorts cannot remember or directly see the effects of the bombings since they gather that history secondhand, which makes it less personal and emotive. Because of this, they're less afraid of the topic and potential consequences. Overall, the population continues to exhibit strong negative attitudes toward nuclear weapons, and younger generations are still much more adverse to nuclear weapons than populations in most other countries. But the degree of negativity seems to be waning. This isn't unreasonable or unexpected, but it's a gradual shift that's affecting the country's overall nuclear stance.
There is some historical precedent. In both the mid-1960s--when China acquired nuclear weapons--and again in the mid-1990s--following the 1994 North Korean nuclear crisis--the Japanese expressed less aversion to nuclear weapons. The current shift in attitude could simply be a reaction to China's burgeoning role in the region and North Korea's continued reluctance to surrender its nuclear weapons, and public opinion could eventually swing back to a more anti-nuclear stance. But given the generational divide, firsthand aversion is likely to fade for good. Plus, the current change has been building for years and seems more widespread in the population than past reassessments. In addition, just as Japan wants to put its early twentieth-century transgressions behind it, Tokyo may also begin to move beyond its own victimization in the coming years. And it's possible that the regional security situation might become untenable enough that Japan will permanently move away from its pacifist nature. Already, the shift in defensive and diplomatic attitudes is changing in a parallel fashion, making a swing back to full pacifism unlikely.
All that said, by no means is Japan on the road to nuclear weapons development--or even considering it as a serious option. Technically speaking, Japan has several huge constraints to nuclear weapons development--see "Preventing Nuclear Proliferation Chain Reactions: Japan, South Korea, and Egypt" PDF and "Japan's Nuclear Future: Policy Debate, Prospects, and U.S. Interests." PDF
So why should the world be concerned about Japan's fading nuclear allergy? Because Tokyo's attitude toward nuclear weapons is incredibly important to Japan's neighbors and the nonproliferation regime, meaning subtle changes in its attitude could carry serious security consequences for both.
Historically, Japan has maintained complicated relations with many of its neighbors--specifically China, North Korea, and South Korea. While functional relationships do exist, deep mistrust and suspicions persist, creating a paranoid security environment where an innocuous change from an outside perspective sets off alarm bells in the region. So what may seem like a natural shift in Japan's nuclear attitudes may be a destabilizing change for those less trustful and less objective. Therefore, if discussing nuclear weapons becomes more acceptable in Japan, China and the Koreas might perceive this as a dangerous development and use it as an excuse to increase their military capabilities--nuclear or otherwise.
In terms of the teetering nonproliferation regime, a change in Japan's attitude toward nuclear weapons would be a serious blow. To date, Tokyo has been a foremost advocate of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, campaigning against proliferation and rejecting the idea of developing nuclear weapons despite possessing the best nuclear capability of any non-nuclear weapon state and having two nuclear weapon states near its borders. The binding nature of international agreements relies on such attention and support from its signatories. So although Japan may never violate the treaty, if Tokyo is perceived as being less supportive as it opens up domestically on the nuclear issue, the effect on NPT morale could be dire, which speaks directly to the NPT's current vulnerability. Some element of the changing attitude toward nuclear weapons in Japan must be due to discomfort with the status quo and a security need that the NPT or the country's other security partnerships isn't satisfying. Therefore, a disturbing factor of Japan's nuclear normalization is what it may symbolize for the NPT overall.
Now, the difficult question: How should the nonproliferation regime and global community manage this nuclear normalization? Since it's nearly impossible and a bit unfair to stop natural attitude change in a country, containing the negative effects requires subtle but conscious efforts. Some strategies include:
* Maintain strong relations. While U.S. assistance and security guarantees may still be adequate to ensure Japan won't seek nuclear weapons, strong, repeated, and clear assurances of the U.S. security umbrella for Japan and of an unwillingness to tolerate a nuclear-armed North Korea are especially necessary given changing relations with China and the Koreas. Combined with close and respectful relations including continued high-level visits and consultation on regional issues, this should emphasize Japan's continued importance to Washington and slow down the attitude shift, hampering any negative consequences. Change may be inevitable, but gradual change is less noticeable and destabilizing.
* Remain on good terms with Japan's neighbors, too. It's key that a strong relationship with Japan doesn't endanger other U.S. relationships in the region or stoke fears that Washington is assisting Japan's military buildup. For example, if China believes that the United States would tolerate a nuclear Japan or that Washington is attempting to check Beijing's influence by supporting Japanese military programs, it would only encourage China to ramp up its conventional and nuclear arsenal. Consistent nonproliferation policies toward all countries and not introducing U.S. controlled missiles or nuclear weapons into Japan could help such an impression from developing. Maintaining impartiality on historical and territorial issues between the region's countries would also further a diplomatic balance.
* Encourage regional reconciliation and collaboration. Outside parties often have limited ability to push for such things, but some possibilities exist. Helping establish regional organizations for security or trade could lead to greater cooperation among Asian countries and less mistrust and paranoia. The more opportunities for discussion and cooperation that don't exclude a major player would undoubtedly help the region in developing mutual understanding and alleviating some tensions.
* Strengthen the nonproliferation regime. The United States and other countries need to take steps to strengthen the nonproliferation regime so that all of the NPT's members feel confident in it--not just Japan. Bolstering the International Atomic Energy Agency's enforcement capability, applying consistent, prudent policies to countries rather than carving out exceptions, and implementing a safe, reliable way to handle nuclear energy would lead to a stronger regime. If measures are taken to ensure greater adherence and trust in the NPT, then changes in Japan would be less likely to occur and less jarring to others if they do.
Japan is only one nation in the international community, and its nuclear weapons acquisition remains unlikely--despite the internal shift in nuclear attitudes. But nonetheless, how Japanese attitudes evolve is vital for nonproliferation because of the country's history, location, and prior advocacy against nuclear weapons. Recognizing this fact is critical to predicting the potential problems that may arise from such change. The United States and others should not ignore this shift, but do what it can to minimize the consequences.
New report shows China’s ecological footprint doubled
http://www.wwfchina.org/english/loca.php?loca=520
New report shows China’s ecological footprint doubled
10 June 2008
Beijing, China – China’s average ecological footprint has doubled since the
1960s and now demands more than two times what the country’s ecosystems can
sustainably supply, a new report released today finds.
The Report on Ecological Footprint in China, jointly commissioned by China
Council for International Cooperation on Environment and Development (CCICED)
and WWF, is the first comprehensive report about China’s footprint. It gives an
overview of the factors that determine the country’s growing ecological deficit,
beginning in mid-1970s, and shows innovative paths for China to achieve its
development goals in a sustainable way that ensures the future generations have
the natural resources they need to prosper.
According to the report, China now uses 15 per cent of the world’s total
biological capacity. The analysis in this report finds that people of China have
an ecological footprint of 1.6 global hectares per person in 2003 (the last year
for which figures are available), which means each individual needs 1.6 hectares
of biologically productive land to support their lifestyle demands. The figure
is still lower than the world average of 2.2 global hectares per person, ranking
China the 69th of the 147 nations measured that year. But it nonetheless
presents challenges, considering China’s large population and the robust
economic development.
“It’s a critical period in coming 20 years for China to realize its sustainable
development, which is determined by important indicators including the balance
between the utilization efficiency of natural resources and the Earth’s
regeneration capacity improvement,” said Zhu Guangyao, Secretary General of
CCICED. “We hope this report will serve its reference accordingly.”
Two general strategies are presented in the report for China to start with, the
“easy” things and “slow” things that respectively refer to simple, cheap and
popular steps like investing in clean technology and changing to
energy-efficient bulbs and decisions that are made today but have future
impacts. The report recommends a CIRCLE approach that highlights Compact urban
development, Individual action, Reducing hidden waste flows, Carbon reduction
strategies, Land management and Efficiency increases for China to achieve its
sustainable goals.
“The report findings have portrayed how much natural resources China is using
for social and economic development. It’s the first-ever effort to gather and
analyze such necessary information to reach that understanding and pioneers an
innovative approach based on China’s factual conditions,” said one of the report
authors Xie Gaodi at the Institute of Geographic Sciences and Nature Resources
Research, Chinese Academy of Sciences.
Meanwhile, the report shows that the large population gives the Asia-Pacific
region the largest ecological footprint compared to any other regions despite a
relatively low level on individual basis.
“The report is an important first step for all of us,” said WWF-China Country
Representative Dermot O’Gorman. “With this report and the partnership with
CCICED and Global Footprint Network, WWF will continue to work with key
stakeholders to explore an innovative and sustainable development path in china.”
For further information, please contact:
Tan Rui, Communications Officer, WWF-China
Tel: +86 10 6522 7100 ext. 3813
E-mail: rtan@wwfchina.org
http://environment.newscientist.com/channel/earth/climate-change/mg19826603.300-is-china-a-climate-criminal.html
Is China a climate criminal?
11 June 2008
From New Scientist Print Edition.
IS CHINA an environmental pariah or not? Now there's more evidence on both sides
of the argument.
China's average ecological footprint has doubled since the 1960s, says a joint
report from the environment group WWF and a Chinese government agency, the China
Council for International Cooperation on Environment and Development. The
average footprint per person, however, is still smaller than the world average,
as well as being only a third that of a European and a sixth that of the average
US citizen.
The ecological footprint is a measure of the amount of global resources a
country uses relative to the land area those resources take to produce. But it
is not a cut-and-dried science, and some of its measurements are controversial.
"Some of the measurements used to calculate ecological footprint are controversial"
For instance, the study says China runs an "ecological deficit" with the rest of
the world, because its footprint is twice its land area. By that assessment, it
is a worse offender than some much richer countries that use more resources per
head but have larger land areas - including the US.
From issue 2660 of New Scientist magazine, 11 June 2008, page 5
_______________________________________________
enviro-vlc Environment in Viet Nam and the Region
Post message to list: enviro-vlc@anu.edu.au
List information page: http://mailman.anu.edu.au/mailman/listinfo/enviro-vlc
enviro-vlc List from the Australia Vietnam Science-Technology Link
contact: Vern Weitzel vern@coombs.anu.edu.au
The accuracy of information from media articles posted on this list
cannot be guaranteed and should be verified before use.
New report shows China’s ecological footprint doubled
10 June 2008
Beijing, China – China’s average ecological footprint has doubled since the
1960s and now demands more than two times what the country’s ecosystems can
sustainably supply, a new report released today finds.
The Report on Ecological Footprint in China, jointly commissioned by China
Council for International Cooperation on Environment and Development (CCICED)
and WWF, is the first comprehensive report about China’s footprint. It gives an
overview of the factors that determine the country’s growing ecological deficit,
beginning in mid-1970s, and shows innovative paths for China to achieve its
development goals in a sustainable way that ensures the future generations have
the natural resources they need to prosper.
According to the report, China now uses 15 per cent of the world’s total
biological capacity. The analysis in this report finds that people of China have
an ecological footprint of 1.6 global hectares per person in 2003 (the last year
for which figures are available), which means each individual needs 1.6 hectares
of biologically productive land to support their lifestyle demands. The figure
is still lower than the world average of 2.2 global hectares per person, ranking
China the 69th of the 147 nations measured that year. But it nonetheless
presents challenges, considering China’s large population and the robust
economic development.
“It’s a critical period in coming 20 years for China to realize its sustainable
development, which is determined by important indicators including the balance
between the utilization efficiency of natural resources and the Earth’s
regeneration capacity improvement,” said Zhu Guangyao, Secretary General of
CCICED. “We hope this report will serve its reference accordingly.”
Two general strategies are presented in the report for China to start with, the
“easy” things and “slow” things that respectively refer to simple, cheap and
popular steps like investing in clean technology and changing to
energy-efficient bulbs and decisions that are made today but have future
impacts. The report recommends a CIRCLE approach that highlights Compact urban
development, Individual action, Reducing hidden waste flows, Carbon reduction
strategies, Land management and Efficiency increases for China to achieve its
sustainable goals.
“The report findings have portrayed how much natural resources China is using
for social and economic development. It’s the first-ever effort to gather and
analyze such necessary information to reach that understanding and pioneers an
innovative approach based on China’s factual conditions,” said one of the report
authors Xie Gaodi at the Institute of Geographic Sciences and Nature Resources
Research, Chinese Academy of Sciences.
Meanwhile, the report shows that the large population gives the Asia-Pacific
region the largest ecological footprint compared to any other regions despite a
relatively low level on individual basis.
“The report is an important first step for all of us,” said WWF-China Country
Representative Dermot O’Gorman. “With this report and the partnership with
CCICED and Global Footprint Network, WWF will continue to work with key
stakeholders to explore an innovative and sustainable development path in china.”
For further information, please contact:
Tan Rui, Communications Officer, WWF-China
Tel: +86 10 6522 7100 ext. 3813
E-mail: rtan@wwfchina.org
http://environment.newscientist.com/channel/earth/climate-change/mg19826603.300-is-china-a-climate-criminal.html
Is China a climate criminal?
11 June 2008
From New Scientist Print Edition.
IS CHINA an environmental pariah or not? Now there's more evidence on both sides
of the argument.
China's average ecological footprint has doubled since the 1960s, says a joint
report from the environment group WWF and a Chinese government agency, the China
Council for International Cooperation on Environment and Development. The
average footprint per person, however, is still smaller than the world average,
as well as being only a third that of a European and a sixth that of the average
US citizen.
The ecological footprint is a measure of the amount of global resources a
country uses relative to the land area those resources take to produce. But it
is not a cut-and-dried science, and some of its measurements are controversial.
"Some of the measurements used to calculate ecological footprint are controversial"
For instance, the study says China runs an "ecological deficit" with the rest of
the world, because its footprint is twice its land area. By that assessment, it
is a worse offender than some much richer countries that use more resources per
head but have larger land areas - including the US.
From issue 2660 of New Scientist magazine, 11 June 2008, page 5
_______________________________________________
enviro-vlc Environment in Viet Nam and the Region
Post message to list: enviro-vlc@anu.edu.au
List information page: http://mailman.anu.edu.au/mailman/listinfo/enviro-vlc
enviro-vlc List from the Australia Vietnam Science-Technology Link
contact: Vern Weitzel vern@coombs.anu.edu.au
The accuracy of information from media articles posted on this list
cannot be guaranteed and should be verified before use.
2008年6月11日水曜日
東京大学AGSサステイナビリティ戦略セミナー
今年度第３回（６月）の東京大学AGSサステイナビリティ戦略セミナーは下記のように、
農学生命科学研究科附属農場の森田茂紀先生のバイオ燃料についての話です。
是非ご参加いただきますよう、よろしくお願いいたします。
記
講師： 森田 茂紀先生
東京大学大学院農学生命科学研究科附属農場・教授
先生の自己紹介を添付いたしました。ご覧ください。
題目：「バイオエタノールを巡る世界の状況と日本の選択」
地球温暖化対策や代替エネルギーとしてバイオエタノールが注目されていますが、
食料とエネルギーの競合があり、原料となる穀物の不足や、それに伴う食料品の
値上がりが問題となっています。また、原料作物を栽培するための森林伐採により
環境負荷が高まる問題も指摘されています。このようなバイオエタノールに関する
問題の背景や世界の現状について解説するとともに、イネを中心とした日本の
選択についてご提案したいと思います。
日時：２００８年６月２７日（金）１６時－１７時３０分
場所：東京大学本郷キャンパス
図書館会議室 （添付ファイルの地図をご覧ください）
セミナー終了後山上会館にて懇親会を行います。懇親会にも是非ご参加ください。
セミナーにご参加いただける場合は、６月１９日（木）までに、
下記のフォーマットで 荒川 areyoume712@gmail.com まで連絡くださいますようお願いいたします。
件名：第３回 東京大学AGSサステイナビリティ戦略セミナー出席
------------------------------ --
名前：
所属：
連絡先：
懇親会への参加：○ or ×
--------------------------------
農学生命科学研究科附属農場の森田茂紀先生のバイオ燃料についての話です。
是非ご参加いただきますよう、よろしくお願いいたします。
記
講師： 森田 茂紀先生
東京大学大学院農学生命科学研究科附属農場・教授
先生の自己紹介を添付いたしました。ご覧ください。
題目：「バイオエタノールを巡る世界の状況と日本の選択」
地球温暖化対策や代替エネルギーとしてバイオエタノールが注目されていますが、
食料とエネルギーの競合があり、原料となる穀物の不足や、それに伴う食料品の
値上がりが問題となっています。また、原料作物を栽培するための森林伐採により
環境負荷が高まる問題も指摘されています。このようなバイオエタノールに関する
問題の背景や世界の現状について解説するとともに、イネを中心とした日本の
選択についてご提案したいと思います。
日時：２００８年６月２７日（金）１６時－１７時３０分
場所：東京大学本郷キャンパス
図書館会議室 （添付ファイルの地図をご覧ください）
セミナー終了後山上会館にて懇親会を行います。懇親会にも是非ご参加ください。
セミナーにご参加いただける場合は、６月１９日（木）までに、
下記のフォーマットで 荒川 areyoume712@gmail.com まで連絡くださいますようお願いいたします。
件名：第３回 東京大学AGSサステイナビリティ戦略セミナー出席
------------------------------ --
名前：
所属：
連絡先：
懇親会への参加：○ or ×
--------------------------------
The Ca Mau power plant II officially generated electricity for the national grid on June 7
The Vietnam News Agency: Ca Mau power plant II joins national grid
Vietnam News Agency, The - June 9, 2008
Ca Mau, June 8 (VNA) The Ca Mau power plant II officially generated
electricity for the national grid on June 7.
The plant, part of the Ca Mau gas-power-fertiliser complex in Khanh An
commune, southern most Ca Mau province, has a capacity of 750 MW per hour,
according to head of the management board of the Ca Mau complex Pham Van
Dinh.
The operation of the plant is expected to help ease the power shortage not
only in Ca Mau but also in the whole country.
The Ca Mau gas-power-fertiliser complex was invested 900 million USD by
the National Oil and Gas Group.
(THROUGH ASIA PULSE)
Provided By: Financial Times Information Limited - Asia Africa
Intelligence Wire
Vietnam News Agency, The - June 9, 2008
Ca Mau, June 8 (VNA) The Ca Mau power plant II officially generated
electricity for the national grid on June 7.
The plant, part of the Ca Mau gas-power-fertiliser complex in Khanh An
commune, southern most Ca Mau province, has a capacity of 750 MW per hour,
according to head of the management board of the Ca Mau complex Pham Van
Dinh.
The operation of the plant is expected to help ease the power shortage not
only in Ca Mau but also in the whole country.
The Ca Mau gas-power-fertiliser complex was invested 900 million USD by
the National Oil and Gas Group.
(THROUGH ASIA PULSE)
Provided By: Financial Times Information Limited - Asia Africa
Intelligence Wire
NEDO第二回「新環境エネルギー講座」
東京大学 NEDO新環境エネルギー科学創成特別部門
第二回「新環境エネルギー講座」講演会 のご案内
若葉の候、皆様におかれましては益々ご健勝のこととお慶び申し上げます。
東京大学NEDO新環境エネルギー科学創成特別部門は、
平成19年度より東京大学駒場キャンパスの三部局
(先端科学技術研究センター、生産技術研究所、教養学部附属
教養教育開発機構)に設置された部局横断型特別部門です。
これは、独立行政法人「新エネルギー・産業技術総合開発機構」
(NEDO)のプロジェクトである「循環社会構築型光触媒産業創成
プロジェクト」の一環として採択された「新環境科学創成のための
人材育成・異分野融合拠点化事業」により実施されているものです。
当部門では、エネルギー環境に関わる学際的・総合的な視野を持つ
人材育成を目指し活動を行っています。
詳細はURL(http://park.itc.u-tokyo.ac.jp/nedo/index.htm )をご覧ください。
活動の中で、年数回 関連講演会などを開催しており、
その一つとして今回ご案内する「新環境エネルギー講座」講演会があります。
今回は、その第二回目として、経済産業省 資源エネルギー庁 黒田氏をお迎えして
「新エネルギーの導入拡大に向けて(仮称)」について
御講演いただくことになりました。全ての分野を通じて言われることですが、
特に環境エネルギーにおいては、今こそ、産官学の垣根を越えた情報交流、
意見交換が重要であると考えております。
ご興味のある多くの皆様にご参会いただきますよう宜しくお願い申し上げます。
日時 平成20年6月16日(月) 15:00-17:00(質疑応答含む)
場所 東京大学 駒場キャンパス 105号館 ２階 213号室
http://www.u-tokyo.ac.jp/campusmap/cam02_01_20_j.html
講演タイトル：「新エネルギーの導入拡大に向けて(仮称)」
講師：資源エネルギー庁新エネルギー対策課 課長補佐
黒田 嘉彰 氏
概要：
現在、地球温暖化問題解決に向けて、風力、太陽光やバイオマスなど
新エネルギーの導入拡大に関する取り組みが、国内外で活発になされています。
本講演では、環境エネルギー政策や官からみた昨今の新エネルギー事情、
日本としての取り組み、目標について御講演いただきます。
連絡先：
東京大学教養学部附属教養教育開発機構
NEDO新環境エネルギー科学創成特別部門
飯田 誠(info@komed.c.u-tokyo.ac.jp)
第二回「新環境エネルギー講座」講演会 のご案内
若葉の候、皆様におかれましては益々ご健勝のこととお慶び申し上げます。
東京大学NEDO新環境エネルギー科学創成特別部門は、
平成19年度より東京大学駒場キャンパスの三部局
(先端科学技術研究センター、生産技術研究所、教養学部附属
教養教育開発機構)に設置された部局横断型特別部門です。
これは、独立行政法人「新エネルギー・産業技術総合開発機構」
(NEDO)のプロジェクトである「循環社会構築型光触媒産業創成
プロジェクト」の一環として採択された「新環境科学創成のための
人材育成・異分野融合拠点化事業」により実施されているものです。
当部門では、エネルギー環境に関わる学際的・総合的な視野を持つ
人材育成を目指し活動を行っています。
詳細はURL(http://park.itc.u-tokyo.ac.jp/nedo/index.htm )をご覧ください。
活動の中で、年数回 関連講演会などを開催しており、
その一つとして今回ご案内する「新環境エネルギー講座」講演会があります。
今回は、その第二回目として、経済産業省 資源エネルギー庁 黒田氏をお迎えして
「新エネルギーの導入拡大に向けて(仮称)」について
御講演いただくことになりました。全ての分野を通じて言われることですが、
特に環境エネルギーにおいては、今こそ、産官学の垣根を越えた情報交流、
意見交換が重要であると考えております。
ご興味のある多くの皆様にご参会いただきますよう宜しくお願い申し上げます。
日時 平成20年6月16日(月) 15:00-17:00(質疑応答含む)
場所 東京大学 駒場キャンパス 105号館 ２階 213号室
http://www.u-tokyo.ac.jp/campusmap/cam02_01_20_j.html
講演タイトル：「新エネルギーの導入拡大に向けて(仮称)」
講師：資源エネルギー庁新エネルギー対策課 課長補佐
黒田 嘉彰 氏
概要：
現在、地球温暖化問題解決に向けて、風力、太陽光やバイオマスなど
新エネルギーの導入拡大に関する取り組みが、国内外で活発になされています。
本講演では、環境エネルギー政策や官からみた昨今の新エネルギー事情、
日本としての取り組み、目標について御講演いただきます。
連絡先：
東京大学教養学部附属教養教育開発機構
NEDO新環境エネルギー科学創成特別部門
飯田 誠(info@komed.c.u-tokyo.ac.jp)
2008年6月10日火曜日
Job Losses and Oil Surge Spread Economic Gloom
Job Losses and Oil Surge Spread Economic Gloom
By PETER S. GOODMAN
The unemployment rate surged to 5.5 percent in May from 5 percent — the sharpest monthly spike in 22 years — as the economy lost 49,000 jobs, registering a fifth consecutive month of decline, the Labor Department reported Friday.
The weak jobs report, coupled with a staggering rise in the price of oil — up a record $10.75 a barrel to more than $138 — unleashed a feverish sell-off on Wall Street, sending the Dow Jones industrial average down nearly 400 points. The dollar plunged against several major currencies.
Investors’ recent hopes that the United States might yet skirt a recession sank swiftly in the face of gloomy indications that the economy is gripped by a slowdown and pressured by record fuel prices.
For tens of millions of Americans struggling to pay bills, the jobs report added an official stamp of authority to a dispiriting reality they already know: A deteriorating labor market is eliminating paychecks just as they are needed to compensate for the soaring cost of food and fuel, and as the fall in house prices hacks away at household wealth and access to credit.
“It’s unambiguously ugly,” said Robert Barbera, chief economist at the research and trading firm ITG. “The average American already knows that gas prices are up a ton and it’s really hard to find a job. Sally and Sam on Main Street are already well aware of this, and that’s why sentiment surveys are lower than they were in each of the last two recessions.”
President Bush acknowledged the jump in unemployment as an indication of “slow economic growth,” but he held out hope that $100 billion in tax rebates now being distributed to American households would spur spending and generate jobs.
"We’re beginning to see the signs that the stimulus may be working," Mr. Bush said during a swearing-in ceremony for the housing secretary, Steven C. Preston.
In a presidential election year in which the economy has emerged as a crucial issue, both major candidates used the employment data as an opportunity to criticize their opponent’s governing philosophy.
“The wrong change for our country would be an economic agenda based upon the policies of the past that advocate higher taxes,” said Senator John McCain, Republican of Arizona, in a written statement. “To help families at this critical time, we cannot afford to go backward as Senator Obama advocates."
Senator Barack Obama, Democrat of Illinois, called the labor report “a reminder that working families continue to bear the brunt of the failed Bush economic policies that John McCain wants to continue,” in a statement. “We can’t afford John McCain’s plan to spend billions of dollars on tax breaks for big corporations and wealthy C.E.O.’s.”
Democrats on Capitol Hill and advocates for the unemployed pointed to the spike in joblessness in arguing for the swift extension of federal unemployment insurance.
Among the 8.55 million people who were unemployed in May, 1.55 million had been unemployed for 27 weeks or longer. Unemployment benefits now expire after 26 weeks. An Iraq war financing bill approved by the Senate includes a provision that would extend cash benefits for an additional 13 weeks.
“It would show a new level of callousness by Congress, a new level of disconnect between Washington and the rest of the country, not to pass an extension now,” said Andrew Stettner, executive director of the National Employment Law Project, an advocacy group.
The White House has said it would veto the bill for imposing deadlines on the withdrawal of troops from Iraq. The administration also argues that jobless benefits should not be extended, with the unemployment rate still low by historical measures. Tony Fratto, a White House spokesman, said Friday’s report did not change that position.
The spike in joblessness significantly cooled talk that the Federal Reserve could stop worrying about recession and might soon begin to raise interest rates to choke off rising prices for crucial goods like gasoline and food.
Since last fall, as fears of recession have grown along with the financial turmoil resulting from falling home prices, the Fed has cut interest rates to encourage investment and spur economic activity. A chorus of economists has warned that the Fed has unleashed too much easy money, feeding inflation and driving down the dollar. Some have suggested the Fed might have to reverse course and raise rates. Not anymore, as the labor market continues to offer up evidence of enduring trouble.
“There’s a greater chance of peace breaking out in the Middle East,” said Mr. Barbera, the ITG economist.
The report fleshed out how economic troubles that began with falling home prices have rippled out to other areas of the economy — to shopping malls, grocery stores and home improvement outlets. As merchants cut payrolls in response to declining business, that takes purchasing power out of the economy, reinforcing a downward spiral of retrenchment.
Professional and business services — which include lawyers, accountants, architects and management consultants — led the way down in May, shedding 39,000 jobs, according to the report. Construction declined by 34,000.
Manufacturing lost 26,000 jobs. Retail payrolls shrank by 27,000 and transportation and warehousing by 10,500. Finance and insurance lost 3,700 jobs, amid continuing worries that more red ink lies in wait for banks.
Sallie Mae, the giant provider of student loans, last month shut an office in Mount Laurel, N.J., eliminating jobs for 160 people, the company said. Among those joining the ranks of the unemployed was Brenda Davis, who earned $17 an hour there, and whose husband is disabled, making her the sole breadwinner.
Given that she worked in the collections department, Ms. Davis figures she carries skills that are always in demand, even in a shrinking market.
“As long as people are going to be in debt, there’s going to be a need for collectors,” she said.
But Ms. Davis’s realm of potential jobs has effectively been shrunk by the price of gasoline. She commuted to New Jersey from her home in Philadelphia, a roughly 40-minute drive that took $60 a week in gas and tolls. As she looks for the next job, she must stay closer to home.
“With gasoline being $4 a gallon,” she said, “I want to stay in the city.”
The jobs picture has become particularly punishing for more vulnerable communities, with unemployment among African-Americans leaping to 9.7 percent in May from 8.6 percent in April . Over the same period, joblessness among those ages 16 to 19 climbed to 18.7 percent from 15.4 percent.
Health care remained a bright spot, adding 33,900 jobs in May, while restaurants and bars added 11,400 jobs.
Even those with jobs have been losing ground. Average hourly wages for rank-and-file American workers — roughly 80 percent of the American work force — nudged up to $17.94 in May, an increase of about 3.5 percent compared to a year earlier. But over the same period, rising food and gas prices contributed to inflation of roughly 4 percent, more than canceling out the buying power of the extra wages.
The White House and some economists questioned the validity of the spike in unemployment, noting a surge in people counted as entering the labor force. Some suggested the Labor Department might have botched the statistical adjustments it uses to cancel out seasonal fluctuations in employment, perhaps inflating the effect of graduating college students looking for their first jobs.
“I think this move is exaggerated,” said Michael T. Darda, chief economist at the trading and research firm MKM Partners. New unemployment claims, while recently rising above 370,000 a week, are still not consistent with such a dramatic surge in joblessness, he said.
Others saw the report as catching up with other indicators that have spelled weakness, such as plunging consumer confidence.
The unemployment rate does not count people who have given up looking for work. Over all, the percentage of working age Americans employed dropped to 62.6 percent in May from 63 percent a year earlier.
In recent months, many companies have been cutting working hours for those on their payrolls, eschewing layoffs while hoping the economy improves.
“Companies didn’t have so many people on their payrolls to shrink in the first place,” said Ed McKelvey, an economist at Goldman Sachs, adding that American businesses have been hiring tepidly for years.
In May, those working part time because they could not find full-time work or because of slack business nudged up to 5.23 million, from 5.22 million. But that was a much smaller increase than in the previous month, a possible sign that businesses are running out of hours to cut: next, they may have to resort to layoffs on a larger scale.
“This is what happens when an economy grows solidly below trend for six months,” said Jared Bernstein, senior economist at the labor-oriented Economic Policy Institute in Washington. “Employers cut back first on hours, then on jobs.”
By PETER S. GOODMAN
The unemployment rate surged to 5.5 percent in May from 5 percent — the sharpest monthly spike in 22 years — as the economy lost 49,000 jobs, registering a fifth consecutive month of decline, the Labor Department reported Friday.
The weak jobs report, coupled with a staggering rise in the price of oil — up a record $10.75 a barrel to more than $138 — unleashed a feverish sell-off on Wall Street, sending the Dow Jones industrial average down nearly 400 points. The dollar plunged against several major currencies.
Investors’ recent hopes that the United States might yet skirt a recession sank swiftly in the face of gloomy indications that the economy is gripped by a slowdown and pressured by record fuel prices.
For tens of millions of Americans struggling to pay bills, the jobs report added an official stamp of authority to a dispiriting reality they already know: A deteriorating labor market is eliminating paychecks just as they are needed to compensate for the soaring cost of food and fuel, and as the fall in house prices hacks away at household wealth and access to credit.
“It’s unambiguously ugly,” said Robert Barbera, chief economist at the research and trading firm ITG. “The average American already knows that gas prices are up a ton and it’s really hard to find a job. Sally and Sam on Main Street are already well aware of this, and that’s why sentiment surveys are lower than they were in each of the last two recessions.”
President Bush acknowledged the jump in unemployment as an indication of “slow economic growth,” but he held out hope that $100 billion in tax rebates now being distributed to American households would spur spending and generate jobs.
"We’re beginning to see the signs that the stimulus may be working," Mr. Bush said during a swearing-in ceremony for the housing secretary, Steven C. Preston.
In a presidential election year in which the economy has emerged as a crucial issue, both major candidates used the employment data as an opportunity to criticize their opponent’s governing philosophy.
“The wrong change for our country would be an economic agenda based upon the policies of the past that advocate higher taxes,” said Senator John McCain, Republican of Arizona, in a written statement. “To help families at this critical time, we cannot afford to go backward as Senator Obama advocates."
Senator Barack Obama, Democrat of Illinois, called the labor report “a reminder that working families continue to bear the brunt of the failed Bush economic policies that John McCain wants to continue,” in a statement. “We can’t afford John McCain’s plan to spend billions of dollars on tax breaks for big corporations and wealthy C.E.O.’s.”
Democrats on Capitol Hill and advocates for the unemployed pointed to the spike in joblessness in arguing for the swift extension of federal unemployment insurance.
Among the 8.55 million people who were unemployed in May, 1.55 million had been unemployed for 27 weeks or longer. Unemployment benefits now expire after 26 weeks. An Iraq war financing bill approved by the Senate includes a provision that would extend cash benefits for an additional 13 weeks.
“It would show a new level of callousness by Congress, a new level of disconnect between Washington and the rest of the country, not to pass an extension now,” said Andrew Stettner, executive director of the National Employment Law Project, an advocacy group.
The White House has said it would veto the bill for imposing deadlines on the withdrawal of troops from Iraq. The administration also argues that jobless benefits should not be extended, with the unemployment rate still low by historical measures. Tony Fratto, a White House spokesman, said Friday’s report did not change that position.
The spike in joblessness significantly cooled talk that the Federal Reserve could stop worrying about recession and might soon begin to raise interest rates to choke off rising prices for crucial goods like gasoline and food.
Since last fall, as fears of recession have grown along with the financial turmoil resulting from falling home prices, the Fed has cut interest rates to encourage investment and spur economic activity. A chorus of economists has warned that the Fed has unleashed too much easy money, feeding inflation and driving down the dollar. Some have suggested the Fed might have to reverse course and raise rates. Not anymore, as the labor market continues to offer up evidence of enduring trouble.
“There’s a greater chance of peace breaking out in the Middle East,” said Mr. Barbera, the ITG economist.
The report fleshed out how economic troubles that began with falling home prices have rippled out to other areas of the economy — to shopping malls, grocery stores and home improvement outlets. As merchants cut payrolls in response to declining business, that takes purchasing power out of the economy, reinforcing a downward spiral of retrenchment.
Professional and business services — which include lawyers, accountants, architects and management consultants — led the way down in May, shedding 39,000 jobs, according to the report. Construction declined by 34,000.
Manufacturing lost 26,000 jobs. Retail payrolls shrank by 27,000 and transportation and warehousing by 10,500. Finance and insurance lost 3,700 jobs, amid continuing worries that more red ink lies in wait for banks.
Sallie Mae, the giant provider of student loans, last month shut an office in Mount Laurel, N.J., eliminating jobs for 160 people, the company said. Among those joining the ranks of the unemployed was Brenda Davis, who earned $17 an hour there, and whose husband is disabled, making her the sole breadwinner.
Given that she worked in the collections department, Ms. Davis figures she carries skills that are always in demand, even in a shrinking market.
“As long as people are going to be in debt, there’s going to be a need for collectors,” she said.
But Ms. Davis’s realm of potential jobs has effectively been shrunk by the price of gasoline. She commuted to New Jersey from her home in Philadelphia, a roughly 40-minute drive that took $60 a week in gas and tolls. As she looks for the next job, she must stay closer to home.
“With gasoline being $4 a gallon,” she said, “I want to stay in the city.”
The jobs picture has become particularly punishing for more vulnerable communities, with unemployment among African-Americans leaping to 9.7 percent in May from 8.6 percent in April . Over the same period, joblessness among those ages 16 to 19 climbed to 18.7 percent from 15.4 percent.
Health care remained a bright spot, adding 33,900 jobs in May, while restaurants and bars added 11,400 jobs.
Even those with jobs have been losing ground. Average hourly wages for rank-and-file American workers — roughly 80 percent of the American work force — nudged up to $17.94 in May, an increase of about 3.5 percent compared to a year earlier. But over the same period, rising food and gas prices contributed to inflation of roughly 4 percent, more than canceling out the buying power of the extra wages.
The White House and some economists questioned the validity of the spike in unemployment, noting a surge in people counted as entering the labor force. Some suggested the Labor Department might have botched the statistical adjustments it uses to cancel out seasonal fluctuations in employment, perhaps inflating the effect of graduating college students looking for their first jobs.
“I think this move is exaggerated,” said Michael T. Darda, chief economist at the trading and research firm MKM Partners. New unemployment claims, while recently rising above 370,000 a week, are still not consistent with such a dramatic surge in joblessness, he said.
Others saw the report as catching up with other indicators that have spelled weakness, such as plunging consumer confidence.
The unemployment rate does not count people who have given up looking for work. Over all, the percentage of working age Americans employed dropped to 62.6 percent in May from 63 percent a year earlier.
In recent months, many companies have been cutting working hours for those on their payrolls, eschewing layoffs while hoping the economy improves.
“Companies didn’t have so many people on their payrolls to shrink in the first place,” said Ed McKelvey, an economist at Goldman Sachs, adding that American businesses have been hiring tepidly for years.
In May, those working part time because they could not find full-time work or because of slack business nudged up to 5.23 million, from 5.22 million. But that was a much smaller increase than in the previous month, a possible sign that businesses are running out of hours to cut: next, they may have to resort to layoffs on a larger scale.
“This is what happens when an economy grows solidly below trend for six months,” said Jared Bernstein, senior economist at the labor-oriented Economic Policy Institute in Washington. “Employers cut back first on hours, then on jobs.”
Work on Kishanganga project will be expedited : Ramesh
SRINAGAR: Work on the 300 mega watt Kishanganga power project in Jammu and Kashmir near line of control will be expedited as Pakistan is also constructing a power project on the same river in Pakistan-Occupied Kashmir, Union Minister of State for Power Jairam Ramesh said here today.
"The work on the 300 Mega Watt Kishanganga power project is in advanced stage. We need to speed up the work on the project as Pakistan is also constructing a power project on the river with Chinese assistance," Ramesh told reporters here.
He said the power project was based on 'run of the water' and did not involve storage of water at any stage.
Asked about the rationale behind constructing two projects on the same river when one of the two will not be viable, Ramesh said the project had great strategic and foreign policy implications.
"I am sure Prime Minister Manmohan Singh must have given a thought to it."
He said only the Prime Minister or the External Affairs Minister would be able to comment on the issue.
"However, we are determined to implement the project which was approved by the Union Cabinet in 2007," he added.
On the Baglihar power project, Ramesh said the first phase of the project will be commission by March next year.
"150 MW will be in the stream by August this year, 150 MW in October and another 150 MW in December, but in power sector, what is on paper is not necessarily what happens," he said.
Asked about the funds crunch faced by the project, the Minister said the Centre was very keen that the project is not held up for want of funds.
"The work on the 300 Mega Watt Kishanganga power project is in advanced stage. We need to speed up the work on the project as Pakistan is also constructing a power project on the river with Chinese assistance," Ramesh told reporters here.
He said the power project was based on 'run of the water' and did not involve storage of water at any stage.
Asked about the rationale behind constructing two projects on the same river when one of the two will not be viable, Ramesh said the project had great strategic and foreign policy implications.
"I am sure Prime Minister Manmohan Singh must have given a thought to it."
He said only the Prime Minister or the External Affairs Minister would be able to comment on the issue.
"However, we are determined to implement the project which was approved by the Union Cabinet in 2007," he added.
On the Baglihar power project, Ramesh said the first phase of the project will be commission by March next year.
"150 MW will be in the stream by August this year, 150 MW in October and another 150 MW in December, but in power sector, what is on paper is not necessarily what happens," he said.
Asked about the funds crunch faced by the project, the Minister said the Centre was very keen that the project is not held up for want of funds.
国際省エネルギーパートナーシップ（ＩＰＥＥＣ）
国際省エネルギーパートナーシップ（ＩＰＥＥＣ）
（宣言文）（仮訳）
省エネルギーに関するグローバルな協力の必要性を強調したグレンイーグルス、サンクトペテルブルク及びハイリンゲンダムサミットの声明を考慮し、
1. 省エネルギーとエネルギー効率の向上は、エネルギー安全保障、気候変動及び経済成長に取り組む上で、最も迅速かつクリーンで費用対効果の高い手法の一つであること
2. ＣＯＰ１５において合意に達し、採択されることを目的として、現在、２０１２年まで及びそれ以降の長期的協力を通じたＵＮＦＣＣＣの完全な、効果的な、持続的な実施を可能とする包括的なプロセスが始まったこと
3. 全ての国は先進国も発展途上国も、エネルギー効率の向上に向けた共通の利害を有していること、各国間の国際協力の余地が十分に存在すること、そして先進国は、途上国に対するベストプラクティスや省エネルギー技術の普及促進、技術移転、発展途上国におけるキャパビルの促進において重要な役割を果たす必要があり、これがグローバルなエネルギー効率改善に貢献すること
4. エネルギー効率を向上させる手法は、環境汚染の減少等、他の目的の達成に資すること。これらのコベネフィットは省エネルギー対策の魅力を著しく向上させる
5. 多くの国が、技術や経済的発展を踏まえ、国毎の省エネ目標や行動計画を通じ省エネ推進を図っていること
6. エネルギー効率を向上させるためには、エネルギー市場を完全に理解し、主要エネルギー消費セクターを特定し、これらのセクターにおける省エネポテンシャルを分析し、そのポテンシャルを実現する上で必要な施策をとることが必要であること
7. 利用可能な最適省エネルギー技術の市場導入の加速化は、インセンティブ、規制、市場、自主的手法を通じて支援されるべきであり、費用対効果的な省エネルギー技術の研究開発は官民パーナーシップや国際協力の拡大を通じて促進されるべきであること
8. グリーンでエネルギー効率的な公共調達は省エネルギー技術の採用に重要な便益をもたらし、それによって、とりわけ、全購入物に占める公共調達の比率が比較的高い分野においては、企業間の競争を刺激すること
9. 国際的な諸機関や合意に沿って行われている活動を踏まえ、省エネを促進する上で最も効果的な方法で情報交換、経験及びベストプラクティスの交換を
行うことは重要であること
10. 全ての国において、省エネのノウハウと省エネルギー技術の普及支援に関する協力を行うことが、グローバルなエネルギー効率改善に大きく貢献すること
11. 信頼性が高く質の高いエネルギー使用データ、統計及び情報システムは、効果的な目標/目的の策定、各国の行動計画の実施及び政策・手法の評価のために欠くことのできないものであること
12. 個人及び利害関係者に対し、省エネに関する情報提供、教育、普及の努力を強化すべきであること
13. 主要なエネルギー消費セクターにおける官民パートナーシップはエネルギー効率向上のために有効であること
14. エネルギー効率の向上は、投資の流入、資本へのアクセス、エネルギーサービス市場の強化、市場に立脚したエネルギー価格といった条件を必要とすること、
を認識し、
カナダ、中国、フランス、ドイツ、インド、イタリア、日本、韓国、ロシア、英国、米国、と、欧州委員会によって代表される欧州共同体は、エネルギー効率と省エネルギーの向上を促進するという共通の関心の下に結束し、国際省エネルギーパートナーシップの設立を決定し、その目的達成に必要な以下の措置をとることとする。
目的
国際省エネルギーパートナーシップの目的は、高いエネルギー効率改善を生むために必要な行動を促進することである。このパートナーシップの参加国は関心を有する分野において、原則自主的に行動をとることを選択する。
活動範囲
国際省エネルギーパートナーシップは以下の分野の活動を含みうる。
ａ．各国毎のエネルギー効率指標の開発、ベストプラクティスの収集、データ収集に関する取り組み強化を含め、参加国が推進中の作業を支援すること
ｂ．セクター別またはセクター横断的に、省エネルギーを著しく改善しうる手法について情報交換を行うこと。以下に限定されるものではないが、例えば
－個々の参加国の状況を考慮しつつ、ベストプラクティス水準の市場導入を加速することを目的とした建築物、エネルギー消費製品及びサービスのための標準/基準/規範及びラベル
－建築物や工業プロセス、関連製品、機器及び設備の耐用年数における最適エネルギー効率を達成するためのエネルギー計測、監査、検証手順、認証プロトコル及びその他のツールに関する方法論
－省エネルギー対策に関する資金調達を可能にするための環境やツールの整備、そして省エネルギー分野への投資を促進するための原則の策定
－省エネルギー製品、サービス、技術の採用を促進するための公共調達政策
－公共機関が、建築物や、車両、製品、サービスの購入、運用をより効率的に行えるよう支援するプログラム
－十分な情報を得た状態での意志決定を可能とすべく、明確で信用でき、アクセス可能な省エネルギー情報の普及を通じて、消費者や利害関係者の認識を向上させるための活動
－省エネルギー政策と手法の効果を評価するための、ベストプラクティスガイドライン
－省エネルギー技術の普及や移転を加速させるための省エネルギー技術の研究、開発、商業化、普及に関する官民協力
－発展途上国におけるベストプラクティスと省エネルギー技術の普及・移転及びキャパシティビルディングの促進に向けた行動
ｃ．関連するイニシアティブを強化しつつ、主要エネルギー消費セクターにおける省エネルギーを向上させるための官民パートナーシップの展開
ｄ．特に発展途上国を対象に、主要な省エネルギー技術に関する共同研究開発
の実現
ｅ. 省エネルギーの向上に資するエネルギー関係製品とサービスの普及の促進
ｆ．その他、参加国相互により決定される取組み
本パートナーシップは、議論、協議及び情報交換のためのフォーラムを提供する。参加国の省エネ基準、省エネ目標の策定や採択は行わない。
この声明文は参加国に対し、いかなる法的な責任も生じさせないし、国際的な条約も意味しない。参加国は各国の国内手続きに従い、パートナーシップに参加する。
パートナーシップの組織編成
パートナーシップは、原則公平及び自主的な参加によるものとし、今年末までには、最初の会合を開催しその組織に関する条件を決定する。
パートナーシップの重要性、最大限の国際支援及び協力を確保し、他の国際協力枠組みと補完的である必要性を考慮すると、パートナーシップに関する会合はハイレベルになるのが自然と考えられ、開催は参加国により決定されるが、原則少なくとも年１回開催されるものとする。パートナーシップは、ＩＥＡ実施協定として設立される。
パートナーシップは少なくとも年に１回、その活動内容や計画の概要レポートを公表する。
（宣言文）（仮訳）
省エネルギーに関するグローバルな協力の必要性を強調したグレンイーグルス、サンクトペテルブルク及びハイリンゲンダムサミットの声明を考慮し、
1. 省エネルギーとエネルギー効率の向上は、エネルギー安全保障、気候変動及び経済成長に取り組む上で、最も迅速かつクリーンで費用対効果の高い手法の一つであること
2. ＣＯＰ１５において合意に達し、採択されることを目的として、現在、２０１２年まで及びそれ以降の長期的協力を通じたＵＮＦＣＣＣの完全な、効果的な、持続的な実施を可能とする包括的なプロセスが始まったこと
3. 全ての国は先進国も発展途上国も、エネルギー効率の向上に向けた共通の利害を有していること、各国間の国際協力の余地が十分に存在すること、そして先進国は、途上国に対するベストプラクティスや省エネルギー技術の普及促進、技術移転、発展途上国におけるキャパビルの促進において重要な役割を果たす必要があり、これがグローバルなエネルギー効率改善に貢献すること
4. エネルギー効率を向上させる手法は、環境汚染の減少等、他の目的の達成に資すること。これらのコベネフィットは省エネルギー対策の魅力を著しく向上させる
5. 多くの国が、技術や経済的発展を踏まえ、国毎の省エネ目標や行動計画を通じ省エネ推進を図っていること
6. エネルギー効率を向上させるためには、エネルギー市場を完全に理解し、主要エネルギー消費セクターを特定し、これらのセクターにおける省エネポテンシャルを分析し、そのポテンシャルを実現する上で必要な施策をとることが必要であること
7. 利用可能な最適省エネルギー技術の市場導入の加速化は、インセンティブ、規制、市場、自主的手法を通じて支援されるべきであり、費用対効果的な省エネルギー技術の研究開発は官民パーナーシップや国際協力の拡大を通じて促進されるべきであること
8. グリーンでエネルギー効率的な公共調達は省エネルギー技術の採用に重要な便益をもたらし、それによって、とりわけ、全購入物に占める公共調達の比率が比較的高い分野においては、企業間の競争を刺激すること
9. 国際的な諸機関や合意に沿って行われている活動を踏まえ、省エネを促進する上で最も効果的な方法で情報交換、経験及びベストプラクティスの交換を
行うことは重要であること
10. 全ての国において、省エネのノウハウと省エネルギー技術の普及支援に関する協力を行うことが、グローバルなエネルギー効率改善に大きく貢献すること
11. 信頼性が高く質の高いエネルギー使用データ、統計及び情報システムは、効果的な目標/目的の策定、各国の行動計画の実施及び政策・手法の評価のために欠くことのできないものであること
12. 個人及び利害関係者に対し、省エネに関する情報提供、教育、普及の努力を強化すべきであること
13. 主要なエネルギー消費セクターにおける官民パートナーシップはエネルギー効率向上のために有効であること
14. エネルギー効率の向上は、投資の流入、資本へのアクセス、エネルギーサービス市場の強化、市場に立脚したエネルギー価格といった条件を必要とすること、
を認識し、
カナダ、中国、フランス、ドイツ、インド、イタリア、日本、韓国、ロシア、英国、米国、と、欧州委員会によって代表される欧州共同体は、エネルギー効率と省エネルギーの向上を促進するという共通の関心の下に結束し、国際省エネルギーパートナーシップの設立を決定し、その目的達成に必要な以下の措置をとることとする。
目的
国際省エネルギーパートナーシップの目的は、高いエネルギー効率改善を生むために必要な行動を促進することである。このパートナーシップの参加国は関心を有する分野において、原則自主的に行動をとることを選択する。
活動範囲
国際省エネルギーパートナーシップは以下の分野の活動を含みうる。
ａ．各国毎のエネルギー効率指標の開発、ベストプラクティスの収集、データ収集に関する取り組み強化を含め、参加国が推進中の作業を支援すること
ｂ．セクター別またはセクター横断的に、省エネルギーを著しく改善しうる手法について情報交換を行うこと。以下に限定されるものではないが、例えば
－個々の参加国の状況を考慮しつつ、ベストプラクティス水準の市場導入を加速することを目的とした建築物、エネルギー消費製品及びサービスのための標準/基準/規範及びラベル
－建築物や工業プロセス、関連製品、機器及び設備の耐用年数における最適エネルギー効率を達成するためのエネルギー計測、監査、検証手順、認証プロトコル及びその他のツールに関する方法論
－省エネルギー対策に関する資金調達を可能にするための環境やツールの整備、そして省エネルギー分野への投資を促進するための原則の策定
－省エネルギー製品、サービス、技術の採用を促進するための公共調達政策
－公共機関が、建築物や、車両、製品、サービスの購入、運用をより効率的に行えるよう支援するプログラム
－十分な情報を得た状態での意志決定を可能とすべく、明確で信用でき、アクセス可能な省エネルギー情報の普及を通じて、消費者や利害関係者の認識を向上させるための活動
－省エネルギー政策と手法の効果を評価するための、ベストプラクティスガイドライン
－省エネルギー技術の普及や移転を加速させるための省エネルギー技術の研究、開発、商業化、普及に関する官民協力
－発展途上国におけるベストプラクティスと省エネルギー技術の普及・移転及びキャパシティビルディングの促進に向けた行動
ｃ．関連するイニシアティブを強化しつつ、主要エネルギー消費セクターにおける省エネルギーを向上させるための官民パートナーシップの展開
ｄ．特に発展途上国を対象に、主要な省エネルギー技術に関する共同研究開発
の実現
ｅ. 省エネルギーの向上に資するエネルギー関係製品とサービスの普及の促進
ｆ．その他、参加国相互により決定される取組み
本パートナーシップは、議論、協議及び情報交換のためのフォーラムを提供する。参加国の省エネ基準、省エネ目標の策定や採択は行わない。
この声明文は参加国に対し、いかなる法的な責任も生じさせないし、国際的な条約も意味しない。参加国は各国の国内手続きに従い、パートナーシップに参加する。
パートナーシップの組織編成
パートナーシップは、原則公平及び自主的な参加によるものとし、今年末までには、最初の会合を開催しその組織に関する条件を決定する。
パートナーシップの重要性、最大限の国際支援及び協力を確保し、他の国際協力枠組みと補完的である必要性を考慮すると、パートナーシップに関する会合はハイレベルになるのが自然と考えられ、開催は参加国により決定されるが、原則少なくとも年１回開催されるものとする。パートナーシップは、ＩＥＡ実施協定として設立される。
パートナーシップは少なくとも年に１回、その活動内容や計画の概要レポートを公表する。
In Cambodia, a case for localizing climate-change research
In Cambodia, a case for localizing climate-change research
Researchers know global temperatures are rising. Now scientists from as far away
as Finland are studying what that means for the 1 million floating residents of
the Tonle Sap Lake.
By David Montero | Correspondent of The Christian Science Monitor / June 6, 2008
edition
E-mail a friend Print this Letter to the Editor Permissions ShareThis Get e-mail
alerts RSS
Reporter David Montero discusses the idea of studying climate change on a local
level.
Nam Lai, a carpenter in this remote corner of Cambodia, remembers when it was
easy to park his movable houseboat on the Tonle Sap Lake where he lives. But
now, it’s getting harder to find a suitable spot for his small barge. “I have to
move the house farther and farther from the shore,” he says.
For years, the 1 million inhabitants of the lake – Southeast Asia’s largest
freshwater body – have lived a mobile existence to keep step with the seasonal
ebbs and flows brought on by monsoons and melting Himalayan snows that expand
the lake to five times its normal size. But many villagers say the deeper waters
needed to park their houseboats are harder to find as the summers get hotter and
the lake’s water level drops.
Lai’s observations, together with evidence of climate change’s impact on other
fisheries around the world, has scientists deeply concerned that Tonle Sap Lake
– one of the world’s most fragile ecosystems and one of its most productive
fisheries – is also under threat. The lake is essential to Cambodia’s food
supply, its fish providing 60 percent of the country’s protein, while supporting
the livelihoods of about 12 percent of its people.
The problem is, nobody knows the impact of climate change for sure – even the
teams that have come to find out from as far away as Finland – since scientific
inquiry has only just begun. Observers say that the uncertainty underscores that
better understanding of local scenarios, not just global modeling that looks at
steady increases in world-wide temperatures, is needed to pinpoint climate
change’s impact on people and livelihoods.
“There’s a whole area of science that needs to relate climate and physical
change to people and social changes – to identify relationships between physical
changes and social consequences,” says Eric Baran, research scientist at the
Phnom Penh office of the World Fish Center, a research organization
headquartered in Malaysia.
The Cambodian government has begun looking at the problem, creating a
climate-change office in 2003 and undertaking a climate-change vulnerability
assessment in 2001. But neither of those measures has focused specifically on
the Tonle Sap Lake. Some pioneering studies, including one at Africa’s Lake
Tanganyika, have linked some of the same problems the Tonle Sap is exhibiting –
such as reduced fish yield – to climate change. But it’s not yet clear whether
climate change or other factors are responsible here.
Whatever the cause, floating gas-station owner Sinan San has seen the effects
firsthand. Her main customers – fishermen – are no longer able to make good
catches, and her earnings have dried up since 2004.
“The number of fishermen has decreased because there are less fish, and they
move to upland for their livelihood. They say fish are getting smaller and
smaller,” she says. Scientists agree, saying overfishing, poor management, and
unfair laws have led to a sharp decrease in the number and size of the lake’s fish.
“Small fish are more susceptible to climate fluctuations,” says Mr. Baran. “If
the year is good, you have many [small fish]. If the year is bad, you have
nothing. This will make the system more and more shaky.”
The declining fish are just one variable in a host of factors that threaten to
affect the lake’s hydrology, further exposing it to the risks of climate change.
“Many factors will have impacts on the hydrological regime of the Mekong Basin
and on the Tonle Sap Lake’s ecosystem,” Timo Menniken, an adviser to the Mekong
River Commission Secretariat in Vientiane, Laos, writes in an e-mail. “These
include general rapid economic development, the ongoing development of
hydropower schemes along the upper reaches of the Lancang-Mekong, the proposed
development of hydropower schemes on tributaries and the mainstream in the lower
basin, the indications of groundwater depletion and water pollution caused … by
the tourism industry, and plans for oil exploration in the Tonle Sap Basin.”
Another factor is accelerated glacier runoff. “The hydrology can be affected by
the melting away of mountain snows in Tibet. You may see water levels rise,
which would cause salinity levels to rise,” says Neou Bonheur, the project
director of the Ministry of Environment’s Tonle Sap Environment Management
Project. “We just don’t know. There are a wide range of areas that we need to
set up and observe.”
Researchers know global temperatures are rising. Now scientists from as far away
as Finland are studying what that means for the 1 million floating residents of
the Tonle Sap Lake.
By David Montero | Correspondent of The Christian Science Monitor / June 6, 2008
edition
E-mail a friend Print this Letter to the Editor Permissions ShareThis Get e-mail
alerts RSS
Reporter David Montero discusses the idea of studying climate change on a local
level.
Nam Lai, a carpenter in this remote corner of Cambodia, remembers when it was
easy to park his movable houseboat on the Tonle Sap Lake where he lives. But
now, it’s getting harder to find a suitable spot for his small barge. “I have to
move the house farther and farther from the shore,” he says.
For years, the 1 million inhabitants of the lake – Southeast Asia’s largest
freshwater body – have lived a mobile existence to keep step with the seasonal
ebbs and flows brought on by monsoons and melting Himalayan snows that expand
the lake to five times its normal size. But many villagers say the deeper waters
needed to park their houseboats are harder to find as the summers get hotter and
the lake’s water level drops.
Lai’s observations, together with evidence of climate change’s impact on other
fisheries around the world, has scientists deeply concerned that Tonle Sap Lake
– one of the world’s most fragile ecosystems and one of its most productive
fisheries – is also under threat. The lake is essential to Cambodia’s food
supply, its fish providing 60 percent of the country’s protein, while supporting
the livelihoods of about 12 percent of its people.
The problem is, nobody knows the impact of climate change for sure – even the
teams that have come to find out from as far away as Finland – since scientific
inquiry has only just begun. Observers say that the uncertainty underscores that
better understanding of local scenarios, not just global modeling that looks at
steady increases in world-wide temperatures, is needed to pinpoint climate
change’s impact on people and livelihoods.
“There’s a whole area of science that needs to relate climate and physical
change to people and social changes – to identify relationships between physical
changes and social consequences,” says Eric Baran, research scientist at the
Phnom Penh office of the World Fish Center, a research organization
headquartered in Malaysia.
The Cambodian government has begun looking at the problem, creating a
climate-change office in 2003 and undertaking a climate-change vulnerability
assessment in 2001. But neither of those measures has focused specifically on
the Tonle Sap Lake. Some pioneering studies, including one at Africa’s Lake
Tanganyika, have linked some of the same problems the Tonle Sap is exhibiting –
such as reduced fish yield – to climate change. But it’s not yet clear whether
climate change or other factors are responsible here.
Whatever the cause, floating gas-station owner Sinan San has seen the effects
firsthand. Her main customers – fishermen – are no longer able to make good
catches, and her earnings have dried up since 2004.
“The number of fishermen has decreased because there are less fish, and they
move to upland for their livelihood. They say fish are getting smaller and
smaller,” she says. Scientists agree, saying overfishing, poor management, and
unfair laws have led to a sharp decrease in the number and size of the lake’s fish.
“Small fish are more susceptible to climate fluctuations,” says Mr. Baran. “If
the year is good, you have many [small fish]. If the year is bad, you have
nothing. This will make the system more and more shaky.”
The declining fish are just one variable in a host of factors that threaten to
affect the lake’s hydrology, further exposing it to the risks of climate change.
“Many factors will have impacts on the hydrological regime of the Mekong Basin
and on the Tonle Sap Lake’s ecosystem,” Timo Menniken, an adviser to the Mekong
River Commission Secretariat in Vientiane, Laos, writes in an e-mail. “These
include general rapid economic development, the ongoing development of
hydropower schemes along the upper reaches of the Lancang-Mekong, the proposed
development of hydropower schemes on tributaries and the mainstream in the lower
basin, the indications of groundwater depletion and water pollution caused … by
the tourism industry, and plans for oil exploration in the Tonle Sap Basin.”
Another factor is accelerated glacier runoff. “The hydrology can be affected by
the melting away of mountain snows in Tibet. You may see water levels rise,
which would cause salinity levels to rise,” says Neou Bonheur, the project
director of the Ministry of Environment’s Tonle Sap Environment Management
Project. “We just don’t know. There are a wide range of areas that we need to
set up and observe.”
In Energy Policy, McCain, Obama Differ on Role of Government
Wall Street Journal
In Energy Policy, McCain, Obama Differ on Role of Government
By STEPHEN POWER
June 9, 2008
Arizona Republican John McCain and Illinois Democrat Barack Obama say a lot
of the same things about energy and environmental policy: Both want to
reduce U.S. reliance on foreign oil and fight global warming. Both want
binding caps on greenhouse-gas emissions. Both see a stepped-up role for
nuclear power.
So does that mean that America will get the same energy strategy no matter
which candidate wins? Not by a long shot.
Sen. McCain's and Sen. Obama's goals may sound similar, but the candidates
would pursue drastically different paths to achieve them. Those differences
are coming into sharper focus, with the end of the contentious Democratic
nomination battle and the surge in oil prices, which on Friday shot up
nearly $11 a barrel.
Sen. Obama is pushing a bigger government role in fostering the development
of technologies to reduce emissions and alternatives to fossil fuels. Sen.
McCain, meanwhile, argues for a more hands-off approach, saying "unintended
consequences" can result from wrongheaded interference in the marketplace.
[The Outlook]
For example, while Sen. McCain says he favors an effort to reduce U.S.
dependence on foreign oil, his voting record shows a reluctance to support
mandates, tax credits and other policies often touted by other politicians,
including Sen. Obama, as ways to spur greater use of alternative energies
and energy efficiency.
Sen. McCain argues that many of the steps are little more than subsidies
that enrich special interests. He has long called for scrapping the federal
ethanol tax credit, saying America's corn-ethanol industry can and should
stand on its own. He has also voted against requiring electric utilities to
boost their use of renewable energy sources, preferring to let cities and
states set their own targets for renewable energy.
At a roundtable with business leaders in Washington state last month, Sen.
McCain expressed reluctance to support government incentives such as tax
credits for wind and solar energy. He compared his stance on the matter to
his position on corn ethanol. "I'm a little wary -- I have to give you
straight talk -- about government subsidies," he said. "When government
jumps in and distorts the market, then there's unintended consequences as
well as intended."
Sen. Obama has no such compunction about using the government's means to
achieve his ends on energy and climate change. He says the U.S. doesn't do
enough to move promising but risky clean-energy technologies from the
research lab to the marketplace.
He's promising to invest $150 billion over the next decade in alternative
fuels such as cellulosic ethanol that can be made from materials such as
switchgrass and wood chips. He'd push a requirement that the U.S. by 2025
get at least 25% of its electricity from renewable sources like the wind,
the sun and geothermal energy (which together currently account for less
than 1% of U.S. electricity supply).
Sen. Obama is also framing the climate-change debate in more explicit
language than Sen. McCain. "We can't drive our SUVs and eat as much as we
want and keep our homes on, you know, 72 degrees [Fahrenheit] at all times
and then just expect that every other country's going to say OK. That's not
-- that's not leadership," he told a crowd in Portland, Oregon, last month.
Both candidates' positions have their share of inconsistencies and hedges.
Last year, Sen. Obama, whose home state of Illinois is a big coal producer,
co-sponsored legislation that would subsidize facilities that make liquid
fuel from coal, even though the Environmental Protection Agency has found
liquid coal contains twice the global-warming pollution of conventional
gasoline, when all of its emissions -- from production through development
and consumption -- are measured. After environmentalists protested, Sen.
Obama said he'd support subsidies for the technology only if the resulting
fuel emitted 20% less carbon dioxide than conventional fuels.
On nuclear power, Sen. Obama says he's open to expanding nuclear energy,
which now provides 20% of the nation's electricity, as part of an effort to
increase power sources that emit little or no carbon dioxide. But he also
has said there is no future for expanded nuclear energy until the U.S. comes
up with a safe, long-term solution for disposing of nuclear waste. He
opposes the Bush administration's plan for storing waste at Yucca Mountain
in Nevada.
Sen. McCain has expressed support for the Yucca Mountain proposal. And while
he opposes subsidies for many alternative-energy technologies, he wants
bigger incentives for nuclear energy, arguing that the U.S. "will not
succeed in achieving independence [from] foreign oil nor...in addressing
seriously the issue of greenhouse-gas emissions" without expanding its use
of nuclear power. Many environmentalists see his stance as inconsistent with
his free-market rhetoric.
Sen. McCain's goals in reducing emissions are more modest than Sen. Obama's.
He seeks a 60% reduction from 1990 levels by the middle of the century,
compared with Sen. Obama's more aggressive 80% reduction, which is backed by
many scientists. Sen. McCain also supports a temporary suspension of the
federal gasoline tax, a move that Sen. Obama opposes and that even some
conservative supporters say would encourage motorists to drive more and use
more fuel.
With prices at the pump rising, Congress is under pressure to take action.
This week, the Senate takes up legislation that would allow the Justice
Department to sue members of the Organization of Petroleum Exporting
Countries under U.S. antitrust laws. A spokesman for Sen. Obama says he
supports the measure, while Sen. McCain's spokesman says the senator hasn't
taken a position.
In Energy Policy, McCain, Obama Differ on Role of Government
By STEPHEN POWER
June 9, 2008
Arizona Republican John McCain and Illinois Democrat Barack Obama say a lot
of the same things about energy and environmental policy: Both want to
reduce U.S. reliance on foreign oil and fight global warming. Both want
binding caps on greenhouse-gas emissions. Both see a stepped-up role for
nuclear power.
So does that mean that America will get the same energy strategy no matter
which candidate wins? Not by a long shot.
Sen. McCain's and Sen. Obama's goals may sound similar, but the candidates
would pursue drastically different paths to achieve them. Those differences
are coming into sharper focus, with the end of the contentious Democratic
nomination battle and the surge in oil prices, which on Friday shot up
nearly $11 a barrel.
Sen. Obama is pushing a bigger government role in fostering the development
of technologies to reduce emissions and alternatives to fossil fuels. Sen.
McCain, meanwhile, argues for a more hands-off approach, saying "unintended
consequences" can result from wrongheaded interference in the marketplace.
[The Outlook]
For example, while Sen. McCain says he favors an effort to reduce U.S.
dependence on foreign oil, his voting record shows a reluctance to support
mandates, tax credits and other policies often touted by other politicians,
including Sen. Obama, as ways to spur greater use of alternative energies
and energy efficiency.
Sen. McCain argues that many of the steps are little more than subsidies
that enrich special interests. He has long called for scrapping the federal
ethanol tax credit, saying America's corn-ethanol industry can and should
stand on its own. He has also voted against requiring electric utilities to
boost their use of renewable energy sources, preferring to let cities and
states set their own targets for renewable energy.
At a roundtable with business leaders in Washington state last month, Sen.
McCain expressed reluctance to support government incentives such as tax
credits for wind and solar energy. He compared his stance on the matter to
his position on corn ethanol. "I'm a little wary -- I have to give you
straight talk -- about government subsidies," he said. "When government
jumps in and distorts the market, then there's unintended consequences as
well as intended."
Sen. Obama has no such compunction about using the government's means to
achieve his ends on energy and climate change. He says the U.S. doesn't do
enough to move promising but risky clean-energy technologies from the
research lab to the marketplace.
He's promising to invest $150 billion over the next decade in alternative
fuels such as cellulosic ethanol that can be made from materials such as
switchgrass and wood chips. He'd push a requirement that the U.S. by 2025
get at least 25% of its electricity from renewable sources like the wind,
the sun and geothermal energy (which together currently account for less
than 1% of U.S. electricity supply).
Sen. Obama is also framing the climate-change debate in more explicit
language than Sen. McCain. "We can't drive our SUVs and eat as much as we
want and keep our homes on, you know, 72 degrees [Fahrenheit] at all times
and then just expect that every other country's going to say OK. That's not
-- that's not leadership," he told a crowd in Portland, Oregon, last month.
Both candidates' positions have their share of inconsistencies and hedges.
Last year, Sen. Obama, whose home state of Illinois is a big coal producer,
co-sponsored legislation that would subsidize facilities that make liquid
fuel from coal, even though the Environmental Protection Agency has found
liquid coal contains twice the global-warming pollution of conventional
gasoline, when all of its emissions -- from production through development
and consumption -- are measured. After environmentalists protested, Sen.
Obama said he'd support subsidies for the technology only if the resulting
fuel emitted 20% less carbon dioxide than conventional fuels.
On nuclear power, Sen. Obama says he's open to expanding nuclear energy,
which now provides 20% of the nation's electricity, as part of an effort to
increase power sources that emit little or no carbon dioxide. But he also
has said there is no future for expanded nuclear energy until the U.S. comes
up with a safe, long-term solution for disposing of nuclear waste. He
opposes the Bush administration's plan for storing waste at Yucca Mountain
in Nevada.
Sen. McCain has expressed support for the Yucca Mountain proposal. And while
he opposes subsidies for many alternative-energy technologies, he wants
bigger incentives for nuclear energy, arguing that the U.S. "will not
succeed in achieving independence [from] foreign oil nor...in addressing
seriously the issue of greenhouse-gas emissions" without expanding its use
of nuclear power. Many environmentalists see his stance as inconsistent with
his free-market rhetoric.
Sen. McCain's goals in reducing emissions are more modest than Sen. Obama's.
He seeks a 60% reduction from 1990 levels by the middle of the century,
compared with Sen. Obama's more aggressive 80% reduction, which is backed by
many scientists. Sen. McCain also supports a temporary suspension of the
federal gasoline tax, a move that Sen. Obama opposes and that even some
conservative supporters say would encourage motorists to drive more and use
more fuel.
With prices at the pump rising, Congress is under pressure to take action.
This week, the Senate takes up legislation that would allow the Justice
Department to sue members of the Organization of Petroleum Exporting
Countries under U.S. antitrust laws. A spokesman for Sen. Obama says he
supports the measure, while Sen. McCain's spokesman says the senator hasn't
taken a position.
2008年6月9日月曜日
地球環境イニシアティブ（GEIN）フォーラム
‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥
地球環境イニシアティブ（GEIN）フォーラム Vol.1参加者募集
「再生可能エネルギーの推進を日本の環境・エネルギー政策の柱に」
http://re50.jp/event/event.php?id=6
‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥
エネルギー政策は、地球温暖化に大きな影響を及ぼします。EU や
アメリカなど主要国は、再生可能エネルギーについての具体的施策を
打ち出し、化石燃料から再生可能エネルギーへとシフトしはじめてい
ます。日本は、再生可能エネルギーが重要だと表明していますが、具
体的な政策を示していません。持続可能な世界を実現するため、そし
て、今年7 月に開催される洞爺湖サミットにて、日本が議長国として
世界の地球環境のイニシアティブをとれるよう、国会議員の方々をお
招きして、日本の環境・エネルギー政策についての討論会を開催いた
します。ぜひ、ご参加ください。
●日 時 2008 年6 月17 日（火） 18:30 ～ 20:30（開場18:00）
●会 場 新宿文化センター http://www.shinjukubunka.or.jp/
●参加費 無料(要事前申込）
●プログラム
１．挨拶「地球環境イニシアティブ（GEIN) の目指すもの」
地球環境イニシアティブ代表 小田全宏
２．パネルディスカッション
○パネリスト（50音順）
・岡田 克也 衆議院議員(民主党)
・加藤 修一 参議院議員(公明党)
・川口 順子 参議院議員(自由民主党)
・福山 哲郎 参議院議員(民主党）
・水野 賢一 衆議院議員(自由民主党)
○コメンテーター
・湯川 れい子 地球環境イニシアティブ設立発起人
○コーディネーター
・小田 全宏 地球環境イニシアティブ代表
●申込方法 https://fs222.formasp.jp/q296/form1/
からお申込下さい
●申込締切 2008 年6 月10 日（火）必着
※ただし、定員（200 名）になり次第、
申込終了とさせていただきます。
主催：地球環境イニシアティブ（GEIN）
後援：NPO法人 環境エネルギー政策研究所（ISEP）、
NPO法人 気候ネットワーク
協力：NPO法人 日本政策フロンティア
地球環境イニシアティブ（GEIN）フォーラム Vol.1参加者募集
「再生可能エネルギーの推進を日本の環境・エネルギー政策の柱に」
http://re50.jp/event/event.php?id=6
‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥
エネルギー政策は、地球温暖化に大きな影響を及ぼします。EU や
アメリカなど主要国は、再生可能エネルギーについての具体的施策を
打ち出し、化石燃料から再生可能エネルギーへとシフトしはじめてい
ます。日本は、再生可能エネルギーが重要だと表明していますが、具
体的な政策を示していません。持続可能な世界を実現するため、そし
て、今年7 月に開催される洞爺湖サミットにて、日本が議長国として
世界の地球環境のイニシアティブをとれるよう、国会議員の方々をお
招きして、日本の環境・エネルギー政策についての討論会を開催いた
します。ぜひ、ご参加ください。
●日 時 2008 年6 月17 日（火） 18:30 ～ 20:30（開場18:00）
●会 場 新宿文化センター http://www.shinjukubunka.or.jp/
●参加費 無料(要事前申込）
●プログラム
１．挨拶「地球環境イニシアティブ（GEIN) の目指すもの」
地球環境イニシアティブ代表 小田全宏
２．パネルディスカッション
○パネリスト（50音順）
・岡田 克也 衆議院議員(民主党)
・加藤 修一 参議院議員(公明党)
・川口 順子 参議院議員(自由民主党)
・福山 哲郎 参議院議員(民主党）
・水野 賢一 衆議院議員(自由民主党)
○コメンテーター
・湯川 れい子 地球環境イニシアティブ設立発起人
○コーディネーター
・小田 全宏 地球環境イニシアティブ代表
●申込方法 https://fs222.formasp.jp/q296/form1/
からお申込下さい
●申込締切 2008 年6 月10 日（火）必着
※ただし、定員（200 名）になり次第、
申込終了とさせていただきます。
主催：地球環境イニシアティブ（GEIN）
後援：NPO法人 環境エネルギー政策研究所（ISEP）、
NPO法人 気候ネットワーク
協力：NPO法人 日本政策フロンティア
登録:
投稿 (Atom)