Nothing has happened here for quite a while, and I apologize. Leaving Japan, moving back home, and getting settled has taken some energy and getting used to. And to be honest, since I have returned to Canada I havent felt passionate about my interests the way I did before that could inspire me to really push on with my research. When classes begin again mid-May, I hope that I will get back into the swing of things – so until then!
Jeremy
AWOL Editor
Popularity: 3% [?]
So I read the Clean Act, also known as Cap and Dividend, is gaining momentum in the US thanks to Senators Maria Cantwell (Democratic Washington State) and Susan Collins (Republican Maine).
Through this plan the government will (a) cap the carbon supply, then (b) auction permits to companies, and out of this (c) Pay back dividends to citizens. Every year there is a reduction in permits so supply declines and prices increase. The idea is that once this begins clean technology will become competitive with traditional dirty energy. Consumers will pay more for energy, which in all scenarios will occur (prices are already rising), but monthly dividends from carbon auctions will get sent to every American.
According to CCAN, it is projected that if the Act is implemented for 2012, between $42 billion and $126 billion will be raised and over time that amount will likely grow, as will the rebates. 75% is used for rebates to Americans, and 25% is used for reinvestment in clean energy through a not-for-profit Clean Energy Reinvestment Trust (CERT) Fund. Also, banks and wall-street are explicitly prevented from buying or selling the carbon shares/emissions permits. Trading permits is allowed, but only between the 2-3,000 companies that are required to buy shares at auction.
So, say that in the first year (2012) there is $84 billion raised. That means approximately $210 is returned to every american and $21 billion gets invested into clean energy projects (not including nuclear).
Now, there is also the question of competitive markets internationally and how American companies would be harmed by imports from countries without carbon legislation. There is a fee placed on such imports, comparable if not equal to the cost that US companies would have incurred. How this is established is another aspect far outside of my understanding, but it is definitely important and should not be ignored.
In Cap and Trade, according to Wikipedia:
Companies or other groups are issued emission permits and are required to hold an equivalent number of allowances (or credits) which represent the right to emit a specific amount. The total amount of allowances and credits cannot exceed the cap, limiting total emissions to that level. Companies that need to increase their emission allowance must buy credits from those who pollute less. The transfer of allowances is referred to as a trade. In effect, the buyer is paying a charge for polluting, while the seller is being rewarded for having reduced emissions by more than was needed. Thus, in theory, those who can reduce emissions most cheaply will do so, achieving the pollution reduction at the lowest cost to society.
According to a 2008 article in Scientific American, the problem with Carbon Cap and Trade is that Capping emissions makes carbon scarcer and lets private companies raise carbon prices – which are then forced on consumers. But who ultimately gets the extra money depends on who has the initial rights to the air. Although we would assume the air belongs to everyone, when capping was first proposed, it was assumed that polluting companies would receive permits for free. When Europe introduced its cap-and-trade system, this is what it did and it led to higher consumer prices and further profits for polluters. So instead, U.S. States proposed auctioning off permits instead of handing them out. This way profits go to the government to invest in clean energy (theoretically). Unfortunately consumers are still burdened with approximately $1,600 on average in higher energy prices every year.
By introducing a Cap and Dividend system, limits are placed on CO2 output and will annually be tightened. Permits for allowed CO2 output are auctioned to companies and these proceeds are used to invest in clean energy (75%) and to lower burden on consumers (25%) through automatic refunds. Costs will rise, as they will anyways, but consumers who use less “dirty” energy are rewarded by lower prices (promoting conservative use) and everyone will receive a small monthly dividend out of the profits of carbon auctions. The poor should also be protected to some degree because they traditionally use far less energy than most Americans and will receive equal payments from the carbon dividends.
But in the end…is it too good to be true?
Find out more @ http://www.capanddividend.org/
Popularity: 35% [?]
This is part one in a series dealing with questions of constitutional and international justice as a result of the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq through a case study of Omar Khadr, an enemy combatant currently in US custody at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.
Justice by Luca Giordano
The last ten years have raised many important questions not only regarding the legal rules of war, but the application of law and justice at home, too.
There are many reasons for this. When you think about it, there are no more front lines, the enemy is no longer in uniform and neither is he following the rules. These wars are no longer against the state of Afghanistan or against the state of Iraq because we already “control” them. Yet we remain there, fighting. These wars – this war – is also no longer isolated within the imaginary borders of these two middle eastern territories. We fight in Iraq, Afghanistan, but also inside Pakistan. We argue with Iran and Yemen. And all the while regular citizens fight at home marching in the streets and pushing through the court systems.
The war began on American soil, and the war of ideology continues to be fought there. In many of the same ways the Vietnam war threatened the stability of American democracy and constitutional rights, today’s war has forced these issues again to the spotlight. In addition, the contemporary world also questions the feasibility of international laws of war and domestically to what extent and to whom our constitutional provisions protect.
Beginning today I will begin a case based exploration of the latest challenges to justice, freedom, and law here in Canada as well as (to a lesser degree) the United States through the ongoing story of a Canadian prisoner of war that has spent the last seven years held in detention in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.
Omar Khadr (at age 14)
Omar Khadr’s case touches on many aspects of constitutional and international rights. He was a minor, only 15 years old, when he was wounded and captured by US soldiers, and although he may very well be guilty of the charges being placed against him – his confinement, treatment, and the questionability of evidence provided by his captors would have in any other case proven an easy win in a civil court. He exists within the military system though. And there he remains, now 23 years old, not convicted but still held as an enemy combattant inside one of the most controversial prisons in the world.
In the next few weeks I will be approaching this case from multiple angles such as International Law, Constitutional Law, and foreign policy. In addition I hope to question and describe how the contemporary war has challenged us to re-examine whose rights we protect, how our own rights have been challenged, and how important we are as active citizens for the development and future of these systems of Justice that we have proudly flaunted for over two-hundred years.
This being said (and understanding there are very few of you out there) if anyone has any suggestions, or questions regarding any of these very broad topics – please let me know! This will be my first exercise of this type, and I want it to be useful to others in the same ways it will help me develop my own broader understanding as well.
Also, the structure and scope of this project will also develop over time depending on my own interests as well as the emergence of new issues connected to the core of this.
To be continued…
Popularity: 10% [?]
Emily reporting from Haiti
Our fellow UN Citizen Ambassador Emily Troutman has spent the past several weeks in Haiti offering her help, recording her experiences and photographing the destruction and now the recovery of the nation.
Recently she has been featured on AOL News (here) describing some of the medical issues now being faced by thousands.
The admirable work of hundreds of doctors and nurses working tirelessly in makeshift hospital camps has already been the focus of numerous international headlines due to the tragic supply shortages they have struggled to work through. However, on top of these hardships there is also increasing worry regarding the future of those who have actually been successfully treated.
As Emily describes, more and more Haitians are finally receiving the surgical treatment they need. However, a growing portion of the population will not only be unable to receive proper physiotherapy for a full recovery, but in the ruins of Port-au-Prince there exists no infrastructure to support the growing numbers of citizens now living with partial-disabilities. Those in the countryside and those individuals now bound to wheelchairs (wheelchairs nowhere to be found) will be even worse off.
St. Nicolas Hospital in Saint Marc, Haiti
Even for those with minor injuries, I can only imagine the atmosphere throughout the swelling outpatient camps that have quickly appeared across the countryside. How would I react? Relief, sadness, hope, frustration? Physical recovery must seem to proceed at a quagmire as your mind races between past and future. Wouldn’t you want to return to your home (or for some start anew) to begin rebuilding your life, to contact extended family, neighbors, friends, yet all the while you’re trapped in the present coping with your injuries – haunting reminders of the past.
This sheltered life has offered me little preparation against reality.
For all of Emily’s recent photo journalism:
Healing Begins in Haiti, but What’s Next for Patients? – AOL News
Signs of Another Survivor in Haiti Don’t Pan Out – AOL News
Photos From Haiti: Life Beyond the Headlines – AOL News
Photos: Back in Haiti, Searching for Friends – AOL News
Popularity: 15% [?]
Toxic Dumping in Côte d'Ivoire
Is this for real? I cannot find any other sources than Wiki leaks.
UPDATE: Its real. Also covered (and solicited by Trafigura’s lawyers) on UK’s Guardian, BBC NewsNight, Huffington Post,and Greenpeace.
According to Business Respect, Trafigura has offered 1,000 British Pounds ($1624 USD) as compensation to each of the 30,000 people affected.
SOURCE: WIKILEAKS
This file contains a deleted BBC news article on the toxic-waste dumping of commodities giant Trafigura. According to a September 2009 UN report, the dumping drove 108,000 people in the Ivory Coast to seek medical attention.
Trafigura and their lawyers Carter Ruck had been pursuing an ongoing libel case against the BBC over a news story from on the case that aired in May 2009[1].
In the story “Dirty Tricks and Toxic Waste in the Ivory Coast”, the BBC’s Newsnight programme stated: “It is the biggest toxic dumping scandal of the 21st century, the type of environmental vandalism that international treaties are supposed to prevent. Now Newsnight can reveal the truth about the waste that was illegally tipped on Ivory Coast’s biggest city, Abidjan”. The programme alleged that a number of deaths had been caused by the dumping of this toxic waste, which had originated with Trafigura.
Until this week the story was still available on the BBC website.[2]
The link stopped working some time on December 10th or 11th, but at the time of writing the Google cache is still available[3].
Popularity: 31% [?]
Dreaming beyond the wall
My thoughts on the recent AIU Lecture Symposium and another uneventful night of studying for exams has resulted in a fun (that’s debatable) mini-project as I ended up creating my own mock Security Council resolution referring Israel and Palestinian Human Rights violations to the International Criminal Court.
Why?
Well, first of all I have a feeling I will have to explain how Israel and the PA may be held accountable for violations of international law on my upcoming exam.
Secondly, I think it is good practice to role-play this way so as to understand where the law may be applicable and where things might be a bit of a stretch for any prosecution – especially if you are going to be shouting demands to world leaders (how embarrassing to be misinformed!).
I know this is a bit exhaustive (I was using the Darfur referral and an ICC Prosecutor summons warrant as mixed templates while using the Goldstone Report summary as my actual evidence) but if anyone out there has considered the possibility of the SC taking charge on the Israel/Palestine conflict and has any ideas or considerations about how justice may be enforced – do share your opinions!
Also, it is probably riddled with holes and formatting errors – this was not meant to be taken seriously.
So without further ado…
RESOLUTION X
Adopted by the Discoursive Council at its final meeting, on 15 December 2009
The Discoursive Council,
HAVING EXAMINED the International Court of Justice (ICJ) Advisory Opinion of 9 July 2004 on the “Legal Consequences of the Construction of a Wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory,” the United Nations Human Rights Council (UNHRC) “Human Rights in Palestine and Other Occupied Arab Territories Report of the United Nations Fact-Finding Mission on the Gaza Conflict” of 25 September 2009, and the supporting material and other information gathered by the Council;
NOTING Chapter VII of the Charter of the United Nations and Articles 7(1), 8(2)(a), 8(2)(b), and 12(3) of the Rome Statute;
NOTING ICJ Advisory Opinion of 9 July 2004 and Supreme Court of Israel judgement of 30 May 2004 which state, according to Article 2 of the Fourth Geneva Convention, because an armed conflict exists (despite recognition of war or states involved) and such a conflict has arisen between two contracting parties, the convention applies to Israel and the Palestinian Territories thus placing both parties responsible under Article 8(2)(a) and 8(2)(b) as conflicts of international character;
NOTING the Declaration recognizing the Jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court, as per Act 12(3) of the Rome Statute, on 21 January 2009 by Ali Kashan, Minister of Justice, on behalf of the Government of Palestine;
CONSIDERING that there are reasonable grounds to believe that there has been a failure by the Government of Israel and the Palestinian National Authority (PA) to provide effective penal sanctions for persons committing, or ordering to be committed any of the listed grave breaches included within the Convention as per Article 146 of the Fourth Geneva Convention regardless of their nationality, before their own courts;
CONSIDERING that there are reasonable grounds to pursue involved individuals within the parties of Israel and Palestine for war crimes as per Article 8(2)(a) and 8(2)(b) of the statute including prosecution of those responsible for crimes against protected persons (including willful killing, torture or other inhuman acts, taking hostages, and collective punishments), crimes against property (including extensive destruction of property not justified by military necessity and carried out unlawfully and wantonly, destroying or seizing property of the enemy, pillaging, and declaring abolished, suspended or inadmissible in a court of law the rights and actions of the nationals of the hostile party), crimes relating to the use of prohibited methods and means of warfare (including directing an attack against civilians or civilian objects, launching an attack directed against legitimate targets if such attack causes excessive incidental civilian casualties or damage to the environment, improper use of the protective emblems, the use of starvation of civilians as a method of warfare, use of human shields and acts of terror), or direct attacks against protected personnel, installations, material, units or vehicles involved in a humanitarian assistance or peacekeeping mission;
CONSIDERING that there are reasonable grounds to pursue the Government of Israel for crimes against humanity as per Article 7(1)(a) (murder) for fatal use of force during civilian demonstrations, 7(1)(d) (deportation or forcible transfer or population) for the expropriation of land for the building of the wall and its infrastructure, settlements, buffer zones, military bases and military training zones, and the roads built to connect these places, 7(1)(e) (Imprisonment or other severe deprivation of physical liberty) for detention of men, women and children Palestinians without due process, for the combination of physical obstacles, such as full territory closures in Gaza and the West Bank, roadblocks, checkpoints, “Israeli only” roads, and the Wall, and administrative measures, such as identity cards, permits, assigned residence, laws on family reunification, and policies on the right to enter from abroad and the right of return for refugees, and 7(1)(j) (Apartheid) as the result of preventative measures taken by Israel to restrict self-determination and self-governance of the Palestinian people, official fragmentation of the Palestinian population, official discrimination exemplified by administrative identity cards, and the accumulation of the previous questioned violations;
CONSIDERING that there are reasonable grounds to pursue the PA and Hamas for crimes against humanity as per Article 7(1)(a) against Hamas supporters by the PA and Fatah supporters by Hamas; 7(1)(e) for the arrests of civilian supporters of Hamas by the PA ; 7(1)(f) for practices used by PA security forces in the West Bank amounting to torture, and cruel, inhumane and degrading treatment and punishment sometimes resulting in death; and 7(1)(h) for excessive force and suppression of popular demonstrations supporting Gaza by PA security services;
DETERMINING that the situation in the Occupied Palestinian Territories continue to constitute a threat to international peace and security;
ACTING under Chapter VII of the Charter of the United Nations;
1. DECIDES to refer the situation in the Palestinian Occupied Territories since 28 December 2008 to the Prosecutor of the International Criminal Court;
2. DECIDES that the Government of Israel and all other parties to the conflict in the Palestinian Territories, shall cooperate fully with and provide any necessary assistance to the Court and the Prosecutor pursuant to this resolution;
3. ALSO EMPHASIZES the jurisdiction of the ICC as per Article 12(3) in the Occupied Palestinian Territory;
4. RECOGNIZES that none of the expenses incurred in connection with the referral including expenses related to investigations or prosecutions in connection with that referral, shall be borne by the United Nations and that such costs shall be borne by the parties to the Rome Statute and those States that wish to contribute voluntarily;
5. INVITES the Prosecutor to address the Council within three months of their date of adoption of this resolution and every six months thereafter on actions taken pursuant to this resolution;
6. DECIDES to remain seized of the matter.
Popularity: 30% [?]
Deported from the West Bank
BBC News – West Bank student Berlanty Azzim’s deportation upheld
Berlanty has a Gaza ID card. She went to the West Bank under a visitors permit but instead stayed for four years to study Business Management – which she would be finishing this coming month.
At the end of October, she was stopped at an Israeli checkpoint, detained for six hours, then blindfolded, handcuffed and told she would be taken to a detention centre in the southern West Bank. When her blindfold was removed hours later she was left at an entry point to Gaza. She was also not allowed to seek legal council.
Based on the existing legal frame-work, she was illegally living in the West Bank. I can understand her removal. I however fail to understand the procedures of the Israeli military police who detained her. Blindfolds, threats, and no legal rights? I thought Israel claimed to be a state of the rule of law? But then again she is not a ”citizen,” but a member of an occupied group without rights for almost three generations now.
Another main concern I have relates to the estimated 25,000 Palestinians living illegally in the West Bank. Although I understand security fears, it seems completely unreasonable to completely segregate the palestinians this way. Are there not excessive checkpoints already in place? Have walls not already been erected? The restriction of domestic freedom by disallowing movement of all palestinians out of fear of a minority is beyond my understanding. Issuance of these ID Cards is no less disturbing. I really hate sounding so extreme, but all I can think of is “divide and conquer.” How can one be deported from and to their own home by a government that is not their own?
What a frustrating situation.
Popularity: 20% [?]
AIU Lecture Symposium 2009
Again, great thanks to Saul Takahashi for taking the time to conference with us last night and for helping shed some light on the real situation in the Occupied Palestinian Territories.
Some points from the discussion:
Now I must ask if movement is made and accountability is established, if violations of Human Rights cease (or at least lessen) – will this just be removing the sting from a continued illegal occupation? This will bring the two parties back to the drawing board to establish a) a single state or b) two (or 3?) separate states in the region.
There are so many external factors, such as land quality, access to water, public opposition, etc that can potentially lead to yet another violent outbreak when new borders are established and illegal settlements are either bulldozed or ceded to a new state. Does this mean a single-state solution may be the lesser of all evils? And if so, how do we ensure that the Palestinian people are represented as equal citizens within the state even though they will be entering this agreement with little to no economic resources compared to their new Israeli partners?
Has the separation between Gaza and the West Bank caused a significant rift that the desires of the Palestinians in each region have polarized towards conflicting goals? Is there a desire for a separation of states? A unified state? Multiple?
We’ll it’s something to think about.
Popularity: 8% [?]
Raise your voice
The request is to Raise Your Voice and be part of COP15 to contribute to a meaningful discussion about our world’s future. The most popular video submissions are to be aired globally during the COP15 CNN YouTube debate on December 15, and the top two submissions will win a trip to Copenhagen.
With only 14 days left and little positive news from world leaders, we have to do our best to not only spread awareness but to encourage all global citizens to raise their voices and tell world leaders we demand a safe and healthy future for our children.
Last month we featured Kirsty’s submission for the COP15 YouTube initiative and now without further delay, allow me to present our own Breno Coelho’s submission. As always, excellent work Breno!
Also, thanks to efforts by Google, climate change scenarios are now also available on Google Maps and Google Earth. Users can view visualizations of greenhouse gas emissions by region, the likely consequences of climate change, as well as narrated virtual tours. Check out Al Gore’s Google Earth 3D Climate Change tour, and other IPCC sourced climate change tours here.
Popularity: 9% [?]
Something to think about:
“Last year 750,000 Americans filed bankruptcy, over half of those bankruptcies were because of medical expenses. Over half of the people who filed bankruptcy because of medical expenses had health insurance. Don’t we need to do something on health insurance reform? Of course we do.” -Harry Reid
Popularity: 10% [?]