That long-awaited report didn’t answer a crucial question: What volume of antibiotics are sold in the United States each year for human use. It’s a crucial question because, in answer to concerns about antibiotic resistance arising on farms, the answer has always been that human medicine is equally culpable because it uses similar volumes of antibiotics.
The only research that has attempted to answer that question is contained in a decade-old report by the Union of Concerned Scientists that put the proportion of antibiotics going to animals at 70 percent of the U.S. total.
That UCS report and estimate are a decade old not because no one has cared about the topic, but because accurate updated figures have been so hard to get. So we owe a special holiday thank-you to the researchers at the Center for a Livable Future, who decided the release of the FDA report justified another attempt to get the numbers straight. They succeeded.
In accordance with a 2008 amendment to the Animal Drug User Fee Act, for the first time the FDA released last week an annual amount of antimicrobial drugs sold and distributed for use in food animals. The grand total for 2009 is 13.1 million kilograms or 28.8 million pounds. I … contacted the FDA for an estimate of the volume of antibiotics sold for human use in 2009. This is what a spokesperson told me:
“Our Office of Surveillance and Epidemiology just finished an analysis based on IMS Health data. Sales data in kilograms sold for selected antibacterial drugs were obtained as a surrogate of human antibacterial drug use in the U.S. market. Approximately 3.3 million kilograms of antibacterial drugs were sold in year 2009. OSE states that all data in this analysis have been cleared for public use by IMS Health, IMS National Sales Perspectives™.”
3.3 million kilograms is a little over 7 million pounds. As far as I can determine, this is the first time the FDA has made data on estimates of human usage public.
At its blog, CLF lays out the math for each major drug class as sold for animal use and human use, with a long discussion of the significance of the different drug classes. Here’s the CLF table summing up the math, but please go over to CLF’s blog for its discussion.
Most important to note: Most of the drugs used in animal agriculture and in human medicine are functionally identical. That’s one reason why the overuse of antibiotics in animals is such a concern: When organisms become resistant on the farm to drugs used on livestock, they are becoming resistant to the exact same drugs used in humans. (One major drug category used in animals, ionophores, do not have a direct human analog. But use of them on farms is still a concern, because resistance factors can move freely between species of bacteria. That’s a discussion for another day.)
Loglisci’s conclusion is also worth underlining:
The next battle, which industry has already begun, is defining what non-therapeutic use will constitute. Producers are already claiming that the use of antibiotics for growth promotion has decreased, maintaining current low-dose usage is aimed at disease prevention. Regardless, all low-dose usage of antibiotics can lead to a significant increase in antibiotic resistance.
The world honey bee population has plunged in recent years, worrying beekeepers and farmers who know how critical bee pollination is for many crops. A number of theories have popped up as to why the North American honey bee population has declined--electromagnetic radiation, malnutrition, and climate change have all been pinpointed. Now a leaked EPA document reveals that the agency allowed the widespread use of a bee-toxic pesticide, despite warnings from EPA scientists.
The document, which was leaked to a Colorado beekeeper, shows that the EPA has ignored warnings about the use of clothianidin, a pesticide produced by Bayer that mainly is used to pre-treat corn seeds. The pesticide scooped up $262 million in sales in 2009 by farmers, who also use the substance on canola, soy, sugar beets, sunflowers, and wheat, according to Grist.
The leaked document (PDF) was put out in response to Bayer's request to approve use of the pesticide on cotton and mustard. The document invalidates a prior Bayer study that justified the registration of clothianidin on the basis of its safety to honeybees:
Clothianidin’s major risk concern is to nontarget insects (that is, honey bees). Clothianidin is a neonicotinoid insecticide that is both persistent and systemic. Acute toxicity studies to honey bees show that clothianidin is highly toxic on both a contact and an oral basis. Although EFED does not conduct RQ based risk assessments on non-target insects, information from standard tests and field studies, as well as incident reports involving other neonicotinoids insecticides (e.g., imidacloprid) suggest the potential for long-term toxic risk to honey bees and other beneficial insects.
The entire 101-page memo is damning (and worth a read). But the opinion of EPA scientists apparently isn't enough for the agency, which is allowing clothianidin to keep its registration.
Suspicions about clothianidin aren't new; the EPA's Environmental Fate and Effects Division (EFAD) first expressed concern when the pesticide was introduced, in 2003, about the "possibility of toxic exposure to nontarget pollinators [e.g., honeybees] through the translocation of clothianidin residues that result from seed treatment." Clothianidin was still allowed on the market while Bayer worked on a botched toxicity study [PDF], in which test and control fields were planted as close as 968 feet apart.
Clothianidin has already been banned by Germany, France, Italy, and Slovenia for its toxic effects. So why won't the EPA follow? The answer probably has something to do with the American affinity for corn products. But without honey bees, our entire food supply is in trouble.
While the global market for ever more sophisticated tech gadgets grows, the metals and minerals that make them go are controlled by a handful of countries.
To see a list of the raw materials that comprise a cell phone or a computer is to burrow to the planet's core. Some of the names are familiar -- gold, tin -- while others sound as exotic as the places from which they come -- tantalum, indium. As our gadget dependency grows, so does our appetite for these bits of Earth. In fact, demand for the 14 most-critical minerals for today's electronic technologies may as much as triple over the next 20 years, according to the European Commission.
Myriad factors -- volatile markets, low substitution rates, export restrictions -- make some materials more precious than others. "The era of access to easy resources is over," says mining analyst Paul Bugala of Calvert Investments. And while governments may be eager to cash in on their mineral wealth, "the track record for developing countries taking advantage of natural-resource wealth in a sustainable way is really short," he says. "There's often a race to the bottom in terms of regulation and development cost. Any means necessary is used to make sure we have the coltan in our cell phones." Here, a look at these in-demand materials and the nations that produce them.
Charts reflect each country's officially reported share of global production, based on latest available data compiled by the European Commission. Only market share of 10% or higher is shown.
Canada: Lithium batteries account for roughly 20% of the cobalt used today, but portable battery usage is expected to rise sharply over the next decade, especially with the emergence of electric vehicles.
U.S.: Beryllium -- a toxic, light metal with high melting point and strength -- is used in computer and telecom products, as well as home appliances, automotive electronics, and medical equipment. The bulk of the world's beryllium is mined in Utah and Alaska.
Mexico: Geologists laud fluorspar both for its beauty -- it's a rainbow of dazzling crystals, ranging from fluorescent white to deep black -- and for its versatility. It's commonly used in steel, paints, floor insulation, high-performance optics (in place of glass), and even chimney linings.
Democratic Republic of the Congo: After protests against Intel and Apple for their opaque supply chains, President Barack Obama signed a law in July that requires firms to report to the SEC whether their products contain "conflict minerals," including the tin, gold, and cobalt that have helped fuel years of warfare in the D.R.C. Counting both black-market and official output, the D.R.C. also produces an estimated one-fifth of the world's tantalum, a coltan extract that helps energy storage in devices such as the iPod. "This law is going to affect virtually the entire U.S. manufacturing sector," says Rick Goss, VP of environment at the Information Technology Industry Council.
Brazil: The majority of niobium makes its way into structural steel. It's also used in medical tech (MRI scanners, pacemakers) and electronics (microcapacitors). From 1995 to 2005, production of the lustrous gray metal more than doubled. The big beneficiary: the Brazilian company CBMM, which controls 70% of the global market.
Russia: Vehicle manufacturers currently account for roughly half of global platinum and palladium consumption. Though automotive air-pollution-reduction technology in automobiles provides the hottest demand for the six platinum-group metals (iridium, osmium, palladium, platinum, rhodium, and ruthenium), these minerals can also be found up and down the electronics aisle, in hard disks, integrated circuits, and LCD panels.
Turkey: As recently as 1995, nearly half of the world's magnesium came from the U.S., but Uncle Sam has since lost its lead in the market for this commonly used structural metal. New production out of Turkey and China has lowered prices.
Afghanistan: Could minerals reinvent Afghanistan's economy and make it one of the world's premier mining centers? U.S. officials think so. This summer, they announced nearly $1 trillion in mineral deposits -- including cobalt, niobium, rare earth metals, copper, gold, and iron -- had been found in Afghanistan. An internal Pentagon memo says Afghanistan could become the "Saudi Arabia of lithium."
China: The world's No. 1 metals consumer holds more than half of the known global reserves of 9 of the 14 most critical raw materials. Thank it for your buzzing cell phone: China is the top producer of tungsten, which makes cell phones vibrate. Despite soaring international demand, it maintains strict export restraints; this past summer, it imposed new limits on output of minerals. The U.S. and EU cried foul, calling on the WTO to rule on the legality of such export restraints. Chinese Ministry of Commerce director general He Ning defends the restrictions necessary "to protect our environment and preserve the minerals for future generations."
Japan:Indium's first large-scale use was in high-performance aircraft engines during World War II. Today, thin films for flat-screen displays are by far its No. 1 application.
India: While the recession has cut graphite demand, emerging technologies are expected to lift the mineral: Large-scale deployment of fuel-cell technology currently in development could transform the global graphite market.
Australia: Aussie-based Talison Minerals -- which long supplied a third of the world's tantalum, used in gaming consoles, computers, and cameras -- suspended production in 2008 due to cheaper prices being offered by miners in Africa, causing disarray in the tantalum market. It may restart its mine next year.
South Africa: In 2007, South Africa lost to China a title it had held for a century -- world's top gold producer -- but it still holds the crown for platinum, which is used in catalytic converters and many high-tech lab applications. The earth's largest reserves are located in the Bushveld Complex.
Wikileaks Cables Reveal: In 2005, Bush and Blair discussed bombing Al-Jazeera's news headquarters. Al Jazeera's director-general says cables questioning the channel's independence must be challenged.
Written by Wadah Khanfar, director-general of the Al Jazeera Network.
A lot can change in five years. In December 2005, the Guardian opened its pages for me to respond to a leak - the Bush-Blair memo in which both leaders discussed the possibility of bombing Al Jazeera's Qatar HQ, where more than 1,000 people work. While those who leaked the memo were imprisoned, its detailed contents were never disclosed. Earlier this year I learned from a senior US official that the discussions had indeed taken place.
I was not surprised. Our bureaus in Kabul and Iraq had previously been bombed by the US in an attempt to stifle the channel's independence; one of our journalists in Iraq was killed. But this did not deter us from our mission to provide "the opinion and the other opinion" - our motto; to give a voice to the voiceless; to hold centres of power to account; and to uphold our editorial independence no matter what the cost. We maintained these values even as the US bombed our offices, continuing our coverage of both sides of the story.
The Arab world, the region in which we are located, continues to see its share of bloodshed and war. Our audience, often the victim of these conflicts, demands honesty, credibility and integrity. If we get a story wrong, or are biased, it could mean the difference between life and death for viewers. They have come to expect independence as a standard.
This week our independence was once again called into question. Cables from the US embassy in Doha were made accessible by WikiLeaks, alleging that Qatar was using Al Jazeera as a tool for its foreign policy. While nothing could be further from the truth, US diplomats had the freedom to express their opinions. But interpretation and conjecture cannot take the place of analysis and fact. They focused on the source of our funding rather than our reporting, in an attempt to tarnish our work. Judgments made in the cables are plainly erroneous, such as the assertion that we softened our coverage of Saudi Arabia and the Iranian elections due to political pressure - one needs only to look at our reporting of these events to see that this is not the case. We are journalists not politicians - we are not driven by political agendas, for or against anyone.
Journalists across the world picked up the story, and while some were careful to place it in context, many uncritically took the claims as fact. The Guardian's report went well beyond even what was stated in the cables; the article clearly misunderstood the rhetorical statements reportedly made by Qatar's prime minister, which then fed the false claim that Al Jazeera was being used as a "bargaining chip". Those who understand the Middle East also know that Al Jazeera's coverage is no obstacle to a durable peace in the region. Context, analysis and a deep knowledge of the region are essential to a proper reading of the cables. Without these, journalism is another unwitting tool for centres of power.
The region where we are situated is host to some of the most repressive governments in the world, where freedom of expression is silenced, journalists languish in prisons and independent civil institutions are rare. Allegations that we lack independence are part of our daily routine - they no longer surprise us.
But we take measures to protect our editorial integrity in spite of intimidation from governments and regimes - our journalists have been banned, imprisoned, tortured and killed. Al Jazeera's bureaus have routinely been closed, many times by Arab regimes with which Qatar has good relationships. Although banned in these countries, we continue to cover their stories with depth and balance. To institutionalise our independence we have ensured diversity among our staff, and have more than 50 nationalities represented - with no majority of any one nationality.
Questions about Al Jazeera's independence and its relationship with Qatar, our primary source of funding, are asked in almost any interview I give. Because the region has a history of state-controlled media it is assumed our host country must impact upon our editorial policy. But the Qatari government has kept its distance - it is similar to the kind of model one sees in other publicly funded arm's length broadcasters such as the BBC. Qatar's prime minister openly criticises Al Jazeera, and has talked about the "headaches" caused by our independence. But we subject state officials to the same hard questions and journalistic standards we have for everyone else. Al Jazeera has strong editorial policies to protect its independence from the influence of power - one only has to look at the screen to witness this.
While we do not claim to get it right all of the time (we are only human), we have got it right most of the time. We have placed a great deal of value on reporting from the field. Had the US diplomats actually watched Al Jazeera's reports, they would have heard the voices and players who were shaping conflicts, wars and emerging democracies. By analysing our content they would have gained insights into the region. When George Bush declared "Mission Accomplished" in Iraq and most media outlets echoed his simplistic version of events, Al Jazeera was providing pictures and analyses that predicted the coming storm. At the time we were roundly criticised, often by states who had friendly relations with Qatar. And in Afghanistan, while others broadcast images of progress and calm, Al Jazeera highlighted the growing influence of the Taliban, reflecting the politics on the ground. In these cases and many others, time has vindicated our reporting. Had these diplomats listened to the voices reflected in our coverage perhaps some of their mistakes could have been averted.
Those who lobby against Al Jazeera seek to delegitimise the work of dedicated and courageous journalists who put their lives on the line. For 14 years we have committed ourselves to safeguarding our editorial independence. Our audiences rely on us for this, and we will not be affected by pressure from regimes, states, media or other centres of power. We have full confidence in our mission as journalists.
The US is closely monitoring China's expanding role in Africa, the latest secret US diplomatic cables released by Wikileaks reveal. A cable from February quotes a senior US official in Nigeria's main city, Lagos, describing China as "aggressive and pernicious".
US diplomatic cables from Africa also reveal claims by oil giant Shell that it infiltrated Nigerian ministries.
Wikileaks has so far released more than 1,100 of 251,000 secret US cables. The BBC's diplomatic correspondent Jonathan Marcus says the latest documents provide a fascinating insight into Washington's rivalry with Beijing in Africa.
China has massively expanded its economic ties to countries across Africa in recent years, sparking criticism from human rights groups, who accuse Beijing of helping some of Africa's worst governments stay in power.
China adopts a policy of not interfering in domestic politics, while Western countries sometimes make aid conditional on "good governance".
He describes China as "a very aggressive and pernicious economic competitor with no morals".
The Chinese are dealing with the Mugabe's and Bashir's of the world, which is a contrarian political model”
"China is not in Africa for altruistic reasons," he says. "China is in Africa primarily for China."
He adds: "A secondary reason for China's presence is to secure votes in the United Nations from African countries."
He argues that China is not seen in Washington as a military or security threat at the moment. But he says there are, what he calls "tripwires" in Africa for the US when it comes to China.
"Have they signed military base agreements? Are they training armies? Have they developed intelligence operations? Once these areas start developing then the US will start worrying," he says.
"The United States will continue to push democracy and capitalism while Chinese authoritarian capitalism is politically challenging. The Chinese are dealing with the [Zimbabwean president] Mugabe's and [Sudanese president] Bashir's of the world, which is a contrarian political model."
'Bribes'
Another US cable talks about China's military and intelligence support for the government of Kenya.
A Chinese enterprise is said to have won a contract to supply telephone monitoring equipment to Kenya after bribes were paid while on a trip to China.
The name of the individual concerned has been edited out.
Our diplomatic correspondent says the cable provides a case study of China's role in Africa.
Its influence in Kenya is said to have grown rapidly, with Chinese involvement in a host of infrastructure projects as well as collaboration with Kenya's National Security and Intelligence Service.
'Secondments'
The secret cables also say that Shell's top executive in Nigeria at the time, Ann Pickard, told US diplomats that the oil company had good access to government information.
A cable dated 20 October 2009 outlines a conversation Ms Pickard had with the then US ambassador to Nigeria, Robin Renee Sanders.
When Ms Sanders asked the Shell executive about Chinese business interests in Nigeria, Ms Pickard told her that she knew that Nigerian officials had found Chinese offers not good enough.
"She said the [government of Nigeria] had forgotten that Shell had seconded people to all the relevant ministries and that Shell consequently had access to everything that was being done in those ministries," Ms Sanders reported.
The dispatches also show that Shell exchanged intelligence with the US about militant activity in the oil-rich Niger Delta, where activists say local people have suffered environmental damage because of the oil industry without reaping its economic rewards.
The BBC's Caroline Duffield in Lagos says the picture of Shell's tentacles reaching into government and accessing secret documents will shock ordinary Nigerians.
Environmentalists have long claimed the oil giant exerts a powerful political grip on Nigeria's government. Our correspondent says they will see these cables as evidence supporting that argument.
A Shell spokesman told the BBC the company could not comment on a leaked cable containing the views of a private conversation.
Wikileaks says it intends to release all the secret US cables in its possession, although it could take months to do so.
The move has been strongly condemned by the US and other countries.
Close relations: Chinese President Hu Jintao accompanies Zimbabwe President Robert Mugabe to a ceremony in the Great Hall of the People in Beijing
In the greatest movement of people the world has ever seen, China is secretly working to turn the entire continent into a new colony.
Reminiscent of the West's imperial push in the 18th and 19th centuries - but on a much more dramatic, determined scale - China's rulers believe Africa can become a 'satellite' state, solving its own problems of over-population and shortage of natural resources at a stroke.
With little fanfare, a staggering 750,000 Chinese have settled in Africa over the past decade. More are on the way. The strategy has been carefully devised by officials in Beijing, where one expert has estimated that China will eventually need to send 300 million people to Africa to solve the problems of over-population and pollution.
The plans appear on track. Across Africa, the red flag of China is flying. Lucrative deals are being struck to buy its commodities - oil, platinum, gold and minerals. New embassies and air routes are opening up. The continent's new Chinese elite can be seen everywhere, shopping at their own expensive boutiques, driving Mercedes and BMW limousines, sending their children to exclusive private schools.
The pot-holed roads are cluttered with Chinese buses, taking people to markets filled with cheap Chinese goods. More than a thousand miles of new Chinese railroads are crisscrossing the continent, carrying billions of tons of illegally-logged timber, diamonds and gold.
New horizons? Mugabe has said: 'We must turn from the West and face the East'
The trains are linked to ports dotted around the coast, waiting to carry the goods back to Beijing after unloading cargoes of cheap toys made in China.
Confucius Institutes (state-funded Chinese 'cultural centres') have sprung up throughout Africa, as far afield as the tiny land-locked countries of Burundi and Rwanda, teaching baffled local people how to do business in Mandarin and Cantonese.
Massive dams are being built, flooding nature reserves. The land is scarred with giant Chinese mines, with 'slave' labourers paid less than £1 a day to extract ore and minerals.
Pristine forests are being destroyed, with China taking up to 70 per cent of all timber from Africa.
All over this great continent, the Chinese presence is swelling into a flood. Angola has its own 'Chinatown', as do great African cities such as Dar es Salaam and Nairobi.
Exclusive, gated compounds, serving only Chinese food, and where no blacks are allowed, are being built all over the continent. 'African cloths' sold in markets on the continent are now almost always imported, bearing the legend: 'Made in China'.
From Nigeria in the north, to Equatorial Guinea, Gabon and Angola in the west, across Chad and Sudan in the east, and south through Zambia, Zimbabwe and Mozambique, China has seized a vice-like grip on a continent which officials have decided is crucial to the superpower's long-term survival.
'The Chinese are all over the place,' says Trevor Ncube, a prominent African businessman with publishing interests around the continent. 'If the British were our masters yesterday, the Chinese have taken their place.'
Likened to one race deciding to adopt a new home on another planet, Beijing has launched its so-called 'One China In Africa' policy because of crippling pressure on its own natural resources in a country where the population has almost trebled from 500 million to 1.3 billion in 50 years.
China is hungry - for land, food and energy. While accounting for a fifth of the world's population, its oil consumption has risen 35-fold in the past decade and Africa is now providing a third of it; imports of steel, copper and aluminium have also shot up, with Beijing devouring 80 per cent of world supplies.
Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders has been holding a mock filibuster today (mock, because he's not actually blocking a measure scheduled for a vote on the floor), with welcome help from Sens. Sherrod Brown and Mary Landrieu. It might not be the real thing, but it's been powerful in laying out the progressive case against this tax deal. He's particularly strong when he's talking about income inequality, points he made in this video:
"Mr. President, in the year 2007, the top 1 percent of all income earners in the United States made 23.5 percent of all income," Sanders said. "The top 1 percent earned 23.5 percent of all income--more than the entire bottom 50 percent. That is apparently not enough. The percentage of income going to the top 1 percent has nearly tripled since the 1970s. In the mid-1970s, the top 1 percent earned about 8 percent of all income. In the 1980s, that figure jumped to 14 percent. In the late 1990s, that 1 percent earned about 19 percent."
PolitiFact got requests to fact-check Sander's claim. They did, and found it's true.
So, we're left with three studies that vary slightly but which all point in the same general direction -- showing the top 1 percent earning between 21.4 and 23.5 percent of the national income in 2007. The studies also show that this share exceeds what the entire bottom 50 percent of the United States earns. So we rate Sanders' statement True.
Whether it's 21.4 or 23.5 percent is of much less importance than the fact that the top one percent earns more than the entire bottom 50 percent. That's obscene, and Democrats should not be lining up to perpetuate that status quo.
Senator Bernie Sanders spent 8.5 hours today schooling us by, “reminding the world that lack of jobs and declining incomes are bad things.”
“I am simply here today to take as long as I can to explain to the American people the fact that we have got to do a lot better than this agreement provides.” Technically, this isn’t a filibuster but his point is well taken.
Last year's climate summit in Copenhagen was a political disaster. Leaked US diplomatic cables now show why the summit failed so spectacularly. The dispatches reveal that the US and China, the world's top two polluters, joined forces to stymie every attempt by European nations to reach agreement.
In May 2009 the Chinese leaders received a very welcome guest. John Kerry, the powerful chairman of the Senate Foreign Affairs Committee, met with Deputy Prime Minister Li Keqiang in Beijing. Kerry told his hosts that Washington could understand "China's resistance to accepting mandatory targets at the United Nations Climate Conference, which will take place in Copenhagen."
According to a cable from the US embassy in the Chinese capital, Kerry outlined "a new basis for 'major cooperation' between the United States and China on climate change."
At that time, many Europeans were hoping the delegates at the Copenhagen summit would agree climate-change measures that could save the planet from the cumulative effects of global warming. But that dream died pitifully in mid-December 2009, and the world leaders went their separate ways again without any concrete achievements. Confidential US diplomatic cables published by WikiLeaks now show just how closely the world's biggest polluters -- the United States and China -- colluded in the months leading up to the conference. And they give weight to those who have long suspected that the two countries secretly formed an alliance.
The cooperation began under the last US president, George W. Bush. In 2007 Bush's senior climate negotiator, Harlan Watson, organized a 10-year framework agreement with China on cooperation on energy and the environment. The two countries also agreed to hold a "Strategic and Economic Dialogue" -- backroom talks that neither the Americans nor the Chinese were willing to admit to at first.
China and the US Continue Polluting
Bush's successor, President Barack Obama, and the new secretary of state, Hillary Clinton, continued this dialogue. During Clinton's inaugural visit to China, Beijing agreed to the formation of a "new partnership on energy and climate change," according to a US embassy dispatch dated May 15, 2009. Here too the aim was to ensure the outcome of the climate talks in Copenhagen would be favorable to Washington and Beijing.
But was it really favorable for the two countries? Both had previously managed to avoid committing to serious reductions in greenhouse-gas emissions. The Kyoto Protocol, signed at the climate summit that preceded Copenhagen in 1997, distinguished between industrialized nations, which were to reduce their emissions, and developing countries -- including economic powerhouse China -- which could basically continue releasing carbon dioxide into the atmosphere without restrictions. "Joint, but differentiated responsibility," was the principle upon which the Kyoto Protocol was based.
Although the US signed the protocol, it never ratified it. As such, the Chinese and the Americans can continue polluting at will. Meanwhile European nations will have to cut their energy consumption. They, therefore, fought for a new agreement in Copenhagen, one that would tie the United States, China and newly-industrialized nations India and Brazil to specific emission-reduction targets.
'Working Hard at Cutting Emissions'
During his visit to China, Senator Kerry, a former presidential candidate for the Democrats, told the Beijing leadership that the Europeans were determined to push through their goal for agreement on concrete cuts in emissions for the US and other industrialized countries. However, nothing would change for China. Together with the other "developing countries" the Chinese would merely have to say they would "work hard to reduce emissions."
A "scenesetter" drawn up for Kerry by American embassy officials estimated China would invest "$175 billion in environmental protection in the next five years" and that US companies were well positioned to benefit handsomely from this investment. "Westinghouse, for example, estimates that several thousand US-based jobs are retained every time China orders another nuclear reactor from them," the paper claimed.
A note from the US ambassador in Canberra, Australia, showed that the Europeans were well aware of the close relationship between China and the United States.
The memo summarizes a conversation between an embassy employee and an Australian climate negotiator, who reported on a preparatory meeting for the G-8 summit in L'Aquila, Italy. He said the other delegations "including the EU" had noticed the "visibly more comfortable" interaction between the US and China. The Australian said the Europeans' observations led them to doubt whether they could get their climate-change measures approved.
The Germans Complained
In September 2009 the US State Department ordered its European embassies to launch a kind of PR campaign. This was to be targeted primarily at governments, but also to "the press, NGOs … and other opinion leaders." The diplomats were to explain that "Obama is taking the United States in a new direction in the fight against climate change" and that he wanted a decisive 17-percent cut in greenhouse gases.
However, the Europeans suspected that Washington was playing with numbers by using the year 2005 as their baseline rather than 1990, which European figures were based on. Nevertheless embassy staff tried to convince the skeptical Europeans that the US government's targets "are consistent with keeping the increase in global temperature to 2 degrees Celsius."
When the leaders and representatives of 192 countries gathered in Copenhagen last December, everyone was talking about an agreement. However, at the decisive moment Europe's politicians were forced to stand by helplessly while China, India, South Africa and Brazil met in a hotel room and took matters into their own hands. They took the draft Copenhagen agreement and struck off all binding obligations. Later on the plotters were joined by Barack Obama. The outcome of this paring-down is now known as the "Copenhagen Accord." In international negotiations, this vague draft resolution now stands alongside the specific plan demanded by the Europeans.
A month after the Copenhagen debacle, German negotiators complained bitterly to the Americans. They said the "Europeans were unhappy that they had not been included in important negotiations between the US and China."
US Dangled Carrot in Front of Developing Nations
In contrast to the apathy that befell the Europeans after the summit, US climate negotiator, Jonathan Pershing, went to great lengths to shore up his country's advantage. He and his emissaries offered carrots in the form of development aid to poorer nations in particular to get them to agree to the "Copenhagen Accord."
For example, Pershing more-or-less forced an ambassador from the Maldives to take millions of dollars in assistance. He said the ambassador should simply state exactly how much his Indian Ocean archipelago needed. This, Pershing claimed, would increase "the likelihood" that Congress would quickly approve the funds. "Other nations would then come to realize that there are advantages to be gained by compliance," a US memo noted.
To help convey the message to developing nations, the Maldivian ambassador suggested President Obama come to the islands to give a speech on the issue. After all, the ambassador reasoned, the Maldives would form "a dramatic backdrop" against which to talk about environmental challenges.
A WikiLeaks cable details the behind-the-scenes diplomacy before Cardinal Seán Brady met Pope Benedict XVI in Rome, after which the pope said he shared the 'outrage, betrayal and shame' of Irish Catholics. Photograph: Tony Gentile/Reuters
The Vatican refused to allow its officials to testify before an Irish commission investigating the clerical abuse of children and was angered when they were summoned from Rome, US embassy cables released by WikiLeaks reveal.
Despite the lack of co-operation from the Vatican, the commission was able to substantiate many of the claims and concluded that some bishops had tried to cover up abuse, putting the interests of the Catholic church ahead of those of the victims. Its report identified 320 people who complained of child sexual abuse between 1975 and 2004 in the Dublin archdiocese.
A cable entitled "Sex abuse scandal strains Irish-Vatican relations, shakes up Irish church, and poses challenges for the Holy See" claimed that Vatican officials also believed Irish opposition politicians were "making political hay" from the situation by publicly urging the government to demand a reply from the Vatican.
Ultimately, the Vatican secretary of state, Cardinal Tarcisio Bertone (equivalent to a prime minister), wrote to the Irish embassy, ordering that any requests related to the investigation must come through diplomatic channels.
In the cable Noel Fahey, the Irish ambassador to the Holy See, told the US diplomat Julieta Valls Noyes that the Irish clergy sex abuse scandal was the most difficult crisis he had ever managed.
The Irish government wanted "to be seen as co-operating with the investigation" because its own education department was implicated, but politicians were reluctant to press Vatican officials to answer the investigators' queries.
According to Fahey's deputy, Helena Keleher, the government acceded to Vatican pressure and granted them immunity from testifying. Officials understood that "foreign ambassadors are not required or expected to appear before national commissions", but Keleher's opinion was that by ignoring the commission's requests the clergy had made the situation worse.
The cable reveals the behind-the-scenes diplomacy in which politicians in the Irish government attempted to persuade an imperious Vatican to engage with the investigation.
The foreign minister, Michael Martin, "was forced to call in the papal nuncio (representative)" to discuss the situation. The ambassador reported that resentment towards the church in Rome remained very high in Ireland, largely because of the institutionalised cover-up of abuse by the Catholic church hierarchy.
Finally the Vatican changed tactics and on 11 December 2009 the ambassador stated that the pope had held a meeting with senior Irish clerics. The Irish cardinal Seán Brady and the archbishop of Dublin, Diarmuid Martin, went to Rome and met the pontiff, who was flanked by Bertone and four other cardinals.
At the end of the meeting, the Vatican issued a statement saying that the pope shared the "outrage, betrayal, and shame" of Irish Catholics, that he was praying for the victims, and that the church would take steps to prevent recurrences.
On 21 March this year, Benedict issued a letter savaging the Irish bishops for their earlier handling of the crisis: "Grave errors of judgment were made and failures of leadership occurred. All this has seriously undermined your credibility and effectiveness."
He also apologised to the victims: "You have suffered grievously and I am truly sorry. I know that nothing can undo the wrong you have endured. Your trust has been betrayed and your dignity has been violated. It is understandable that you find it hard to forgive or be reconciled with the church. In her name, I openly express the shame and remorse that we all feel."
In a section entitled "Some Lessons Learned, but Crisis Will Play Out for Years", the ambassador related that his contacts at the Vatican and in Ireland expected the crisis in the Irish Catholic church to be protracted over several years, as the Murphy commission dealt only with allegations from the Dublin archdiocese.
They believed further investigations into other archdioceses would lead, "officials in both states lament, to additional painful revelations".
Americans have a really distorted view of how wealth is distributed in this country.
This chart is from a paper called "Building a Better America One Wealth Quintile at a Time" by Dan Ariely and Michael I. Norton.
The top row shows the actual distribution of wealth in America. The richest 20 percent, represented by that blue line, has about 85 percent of the wealth. The next richest 20 percent, represented by that red line, has about 10 percent of the wealth. And the remaining three-fifths of America shares a tiny sliver of the country's wealth.
Below that, the "Estimated" rows show how different groups think wealth is distributed. As you can see, in people's misinformed minds things are much more equitable.
What’s interesting here is the extent to which the public vastly overestimates the prosperity of lower-income Americans. The public thinks the 4th quintile has more money than the median quintile actually has. And the public thinks the 5th quintile has vastly more wealth than it really has.
You can easily see how this could have a giant distorting effect on our politics. Poor Americans are simply much, much, much needier than people realize and this is naturally going to lead to an undue slighting of their interests.
Indeed. It's fine if reasonable people have different ideas about whether we should extend the Bush tax cuts for people making more than $250,000. Or think estate taxes are unfair. But when we have those debates, it's critical that everyone has a clear understanding of how things really are. We're becoming a plutocracy.
