Copenhagen summit – old story new epilogue

The last two month there were a lot of speculations about Copenhagen summit participants and projected emission cuts. The objects of speculation were, China, India and the U.S. because they are the world’s biggest polluters it wasn’t clear in which measure they are interested to participate in greenhouse cut emission. But since 25 November it seams that this story got a different epilogue.

I have read a couple of different articles from leading American, European and Indian newspapers agencies as The Washington Post, The New York Times, Voice of America, The DNA India, The Khabar Express, The Times, BBC, The Guardian etc.

It seams that India and US had realized that energy security, food security and climate change are interlinked. They agreed that eliminating poverty, ensuring sustainable development and a clean energy future are among the primary global objectives. At Wednesday, 25 November 2009 American President Barack Obama and Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh had agreed to forge a “Green Partnership” to address global change challenges in the 21^st century.

President Obama announced that he will go to Copenhagen summit and that he will present U.S. commitment to make sustainable cuts in greenhouse gas pollution over the next two decades, removing one of the greatest obstacles to Copenhagen deal. Mr. Obama propose 17% cut emission from 2005 levels by 2020, by 30% before 2025 and by 42% before 2030.

Europeans warmly welcomed the idea of Green Partnership but President Obama’s announcement that he will be attending the summit only for the first day caused mixed reaction in Europe. Most of the European newspapers reminds the public that Mr. Obama’s presence and targets came after a weeks of lobbying by governments for him to attend. The Times, The Guardian and BBC articles are not hiding disappointment that Copenhagen will be Obama’s pit stop en route to pick up his Nobel Prize in Oslo. In addition, same articles are pointing on Greenpeace statement that “The U.S. offer of 17% on 2005 figures equates to 6% at 1990 levels and will not help the climate summit reach a strong deal to stop climate chaos”. The articles are noting that he 6% cuts are much below the EU pledge to reduce emissions by 20% by 2020 on 1990 levels.

The Washington Post article starts with the note that the administration’s decision to identify a series of goals, including cutting emissions over the next decade is a calculated risk, given that Congress has never set mandatory limits on greenhouse gases. They are noting that 17% reduction range is in line with a climate bill that had been passes in House in June and is pending in the Senate, but it is still below what scientists and European political leaders say is needed.

In addition, the article is noting that the target will be contingent on passage of domestic legalization, and that figure reflects the current US political reality and that President Obama has come under intense pressure from world leaders and his domestic supporters. The article raised a domestic question, weather the administration will be able to deliver on its promises, followed by conservative Heritage Foundation statement “It appears the administration is making the same mistake the US delegation made at Kyoto, promising abroad what probably can’t be delivered at home…and while it’s a large enough number to pose a real risk to the U.S. economy, it is also a target that does not satisfy many in international community, who complaint that America has not done enough.” So it seams that president’s decision to attend Copenhagen meeting raised a lot of domestic questions and widen the gap between democrats and conservatives.

Another part of the article had been reserved for the topic to what extent China and India, which are not bound by the same obligation as industrialized countries under U.N. process, would cut their emissions?

The same picture but the different impression could be gotten from Indian articles. Most of them represent this story as a new hope for a global deal on reducing greenhouse gases, putting American and Indian bilateral cooperation in focus.

China didn’t stay voiceless on American roll-call and argued that greater responsibility falls on advance industrialized nations like the U.S. that had been the biggest emitter of greenhouse gas for decades before China’s rise as a global economic power. China’s state council confirmed President Hu statement that China will trim its “carbon intensity” 40-45% by 2020 on 2005 levels, with small distinction that carbon intensity is defined as the amount of greenhouse gas emitted for each unit of nation income. The state council underlined “This is a voluntary action taken by Chinese government based on its own national conditions and is a major contribution to the global effort in tackling climate change”. Western officials and experts welcomed this statement, as a starting position for negotiations but still there is a lot of skepticism that the target will break the long-standing deadlock over emission-reduction targets. The experts are warning that commitment made by China means as China continues to grow, emissions will increase to, but at slower rate than they otherwise would have done.

Even China, India and the U.S. announced that they would participate on next Copenhagen meeting and came up with its greenhouse emission cuts the success of summit is questionable. The newborn problem is how these low targets, presented by biggest polluters, will influence other participants in decision-making and would it be enough to reach the overall Copenhagen goal to keep temperature rises below 2 degrees Celsius?

Sources:

http://www1.voanews.com/english/news/asia/India-US-On-Climate-Change-73563797.html

http://www1.voanews.com/english/news/usa/Obama-Copenhagen-Climate-Summit-25NOV09-73646332.html

http://www1.voanews.com/english/news/26nov09-china-climate-conference-74635257.html

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/44/2009/11/obama-to-attend-copenhagen-un.html

http://greeninc.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/11/26/europe-casts-a-skeptical-eye-on-obamas-trip-to-copenhagen/

http://www.dnaindia.com/world/report_us-and-india-agree-on-environment-goals_1316169

http://www.dnaindia.com/world/report_obama-to-attend-climate-change-summit-to-unveil-new-target_1316931

http://www.khabarexpress.com/25/11/2009-093600/India-US-agree-to-forge-Green-Partnership-to-address-global-climate-change-challenges-news_118565.html

http://www.businessgreen.com/business-green/news/2253988/reports-china-cut-carbon

http://www.reuters.com/article/topNews/idUSTRE5AP14D20091126?sp=true

http://www.reuters.com/article/GCA-GreenBusiness/idUSTRE5AP2JV20091126?sp=true

http://www.reuters.com/article/politicsNews/idUSGEE5AO1RB20091125?sp=true

http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/markmardell/2009/11/is_obama_serious_about_climate.html

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/8380106.stm

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/copenhagen-climate-change-confe/6654467/Barack-Obama-will-attend-Copenhagen-climate-conference.html

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article6931737.ece

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/nov/25/barack-obama-copenhagen

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2009/nov/26/copenhagen-barack-obama

“The wolf and the lambs”

Copenhagen Climate Change Agreement- from another angle

Last week’s news about climate change summit in Copenhagen caused a lot of turbulence in the political scene. The primary goal of the meeting was to setting-up an action plan about greenhouse gas emission cuts up to 2020, with targets that would be given by each country that ratifies this agreement. At the meeting there were 40 Misters form all around. Most of them came with some projections and plans, only America and China, two biggest worlds polluters, came with empty briefcases. This unconscionable movement transfer the spotlight form the greenhouse gas emission cuts to America and China leaders. During the last month in many newspapers it could be read of a possible failure of Copenhagen meeting on behalf of China and India as the fastest growing nations but no body mention possible problem with the U.S. The fact that U.S. commitment became most questionable of all, because it is historically the world’s biggest polluter and it isn’t clear will the ratify convention or not put the speculation of China and India activity in background. But even so, Indian medias didn’t stay voiceless.

During my readings for the previous blog, called “Who cares about the Earth? - Copenhagen Climate Change Agreement“ I had found one interesting article from one of the leading Indian newspapers The Business Standard. In the article could be found the facts that all of articles I have previously read missed, what made me to do some more extra reading to get global overview of this topic. So, I have read several different articles from the other side of the globe, The Business Standard, The Times of India, The Hindustan Times and The China daily, as EEA reports about previous acting of 197 countries that had been ratify Kyoto Protocol in 1997.

Indian The Business Standard did not save it cynic. At the first view from the headline “The wolf and the lamb” it can be seen that they are very sceptic about the future of Copenhagen summit. In the text they are noting that the reach countries have been trying for weeks to pin the blame on China and India. In addition they are pointing at the facts that rich countries have increased their emissions since reference of 1990, instead of reducing them. The facts can be seen in Climate Change Progress Report Europe climate progress. By Business Standard, Copenhagen was dead before it even started because the U.S. Senate said it would not consider a domestic law on emission control until the next meeting or on the other hand U.S. negotiators would be going to the meeting with “empty briefcase”, what will automatically caused the EU to not begin to negotiate. In addition to, toward to Business Standard, developed countries are pointing that the success of the deal depends are China and India willing to take on binding commitments on emission control and reduction. Gullible, Indian interlocutors have fallen for this diversionary line and argued that India should be a “deal maker” rather than “ deal breaker”, language that sidesteps the basic question what kind of deal is on offer. Therefore India moved on domestic agenda and promised to not cross the emission level of other countries. A little bit different statement could be red in The India Times which reminds the publicity that in bid to put and end to speculation Environment Minister Jairam Ramesh has conveyed in writing to the senior members of the negotiation team that India remains committed to its long standing position on climate change. In addition he stated that India repeats its commitment to not accepting international binding emission cuts, no monitoring/verification/reporting of domestically driven measures. Dilution in the Indian position that began with L’Aquila declaration (“India is prepared to reflect in any agreement its commitment to keep its per capita emissions below that of the developed countries”) singed in July 2008 by Prime Minister Manomah Singh, Mr. Ramesh announced that domestic legalisation on emission and more frequent and detailed report to the UNFCCC only served to strength this impression. The Times of India and The Hindustan Times are also noting the fact that was missed by all European and American newspapers agencies that US has never singed the Kyoto Protocol. They are saying that proposing on single legal instrument for emission cuts was a ruse to lower obligation of the rich nations while piling on commitments on the poor countries. In addition Indian newspapers are noting that India’s per capita carbon emission is 1.2 tonne per year, what is less than seven times of what the U.S. emits.

So, its seams that India is in deal but on their own, how successful its actions will be and will they fit to Copenhagen frame in the terms of desirable level of cuts remains questionable.

Guardian is noting hat Indian Primer Minister Manmohan Singh, will visit the White House on 24 November. This partnership on energy could also help to persuade India to agree to specific targets for reducing its emission in the future. So it seams that non-Indian media agencies are sceptic about Mr. Ramesh statements.

Even Chinese president Hu Jinato committed that China will reduce future emissions he hasn’t been specific about the targets numbers. The Guardian is noting that possibly a roughly 50% cut in carbon intensity would be pivotal moment piling the pressure on the U.S. And it is very interesting that most of the Chinese’s medias that could be found in English barley speaks about this topic. Was that on purpose or just pretermission of Chinese’s journalistic? The China Daily in very soft and positive tone writes about next Copenhagen meeting. They are noting that China will take all possible measures to reduce emission by a “notable margin”. Mr Zhang Yesui the Chinese representative to the UN said that China, as always, would actively take a part on next meeting. He adds, “We are convinced that Copenhagen conference must adhere to established framework and principles”. After Obamas visit, President of China, Hu JInato published that the U.S. and China have singed documents including a memorandum of understanding on enhancing cooperation on climate change, energy and the environment and have officially launched an initiative on a joint research centre on clean energy, he added.

I have to note that China took an active role in climate change fight by establishing the China’s National Climate Change Programme. Since 2006, on basis of reports from this programme, China had closed many small-scale coal-fired power plants. In addition to, China is investing in promotion of wind, solar and hydropower and has achieved good progress in use of these resources, what justifies statements of Mr. Zhang and President Hu that China cares about the climate change problem.

In one African article that I have found in English Allafrica it is also notable the double-dealing of developed, rich nations. The article is mostly based on other issues that have direct impact on climate changes putting the focus on deforestation. The article is questioning who is behind Copenhagen deal, global majority or corporate interests?

Even if all parts sing their commitment supported with annexes, I have to remind that participants are from developed and fast developing nations, whose responsibility is deforestations in Africa and Amazon, which contributes 10% to 20% to global warming emissions?

In conclusion, it seams that the first Copenhagen summit, instead of greenhouse cut emission had resulted with emission of a large number of information that haven’t been represented to publicity, or had been forgotten. The real question is what is behind this multiply dealing?

After all the reading for the previous and this blog I have an impression that all countries, with exception of the U.S., are trying to present that they are caring about the planet, but this caring is much more theoretical than a practical. The problem with transferring this theory to a practice, in my opinion, is that action to go green cost a lot as in the terms of investment as in opportunity cost and none are willing to loose their economic position in this “Money and the Power Game”. But will these negligence moves cost us more than we ever imagined?

Sources:

http://www.business-standard.com/india/news/the-wolfthe-lamb/376782/

http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/News/Politics/Nation/India-not-changing-position-on-climate-change-says-Jairam-Ramesh/articleshow/5117948.cms

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/articleshow/msid-5245133,prtpage-1.cms

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/home/opinion/interviews/Global-cooperation-is-vital-to-address-climate-change/articleshow/5216626.cms

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/Climate-Change-India-can-learn-lessons-from-China-says-Jairam-Ramesh/articleshow/5045898.cms

http://www.hindustantimes.com/special-news-report/News-Feed/Apocalypse-not-now/Article1-477394.aspx

http://www.hindustantimes.com/special-news-report/News-Feed/More-bad-news-on-climate-deal/Article1-476830.aspx

http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/china/2009-11/20/content_9013658.htm

http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/china/obamavisitchina/2009-11/17/content_8987617.htm

http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/cndy/2009-10/29/content_8864377.htm

http://www.clean-auto.com/Climate-change-Progress-report-shows-EU-on-tracj-to-meet-or-over-achieve-Kyoto-emissions-target?5578.html

http://www.eea.europa.eu/publications/eea_report_2009_9/ghg-trends-and-projections-2009-summary.pdf

http://ec.europa.eu/environment/climat/gge_progress.htm

http://ec.europa.eu/environment/climat/pdf/gge/com_2009_630.pdf

http://allafrica.com/stories/200911170897.html

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5i9TuMrvrknh-ZXwqmZ2N-48kff3wD9C1E8100

Who cares about the Earth?

Copenhagen Climate Change Agreement

40 misters from around the world meet up at Copenhagen to replace the 1997 Kyoto Protocol, and to set-up a new global action plan to stem the effects of global warming. The UN wants any deal that will limit increase in world temperatures since industrialization began to 2 degree Celsius. Developed nations are most at risk form heat waves, floods, disease and rising sea levels and that’s the main reason why they are pressing for action most urgently. Denmark envisages a political deal that will deep 2020 for the cuts in emissions by all developed countries and actions to help the poor countries, with the funds and technology for reaching the primary goal, limit the greenhouse gas emission.

I have read several different articles from Reuters, Telegraph, Guardian, LA Times, The Wall Street Journal, The New York Time, BBC, Bloomberg and Voice of America.

The only result of the two days conference was the agreement that finally dates the next meeting that will take place on Dec. 7-18 in Denmark. Danish Climate and Energy Minister Connie Hedegaard said that December summit should result with a clear deadline for emission cuts. Denmark wants all participants to ratify “political agreement” backed up with annexes outlining commitments about emission cuts by each nation.

As much as it could be seen from the articles, the failure of the first meeting can be repeated because U.S. haven’t been prepared for this meeting and it is very likely that this situation will remain the same, considering that one month is a really short period for the U.S. to get prepared.

More than 200 countries had accepted to participate in the next meeting but even so, most of them are sharing opinion that a legally binding deal will have to wait until a Bonn meeting in mid-2010. The main reason for six months delay is to give time to the U.S. Senate to pass carbon-capping legalisation– said Yvo de Boer, head of the U.N Climate Change Secretariat. The Guardian noted that China and America, two world’s biggest polluters, failed to agree a target for reducing gas emissions and that they are seeing a Copenhagen meeting only as a “staging post” rather than an end point. This was more than a diplomatic statement, but how it will fit to next meetings agenda where all countries commitments have to be supported with numbers? By Reuters environmentalists criticised the U.S. secretary of State Hillary Clinton for trivialising summit by saying on Nov. 11 in Singapore, Copenhagen should be a “strong outcome…that would be a stepping stone toward full legal agreement”. Guardian is also noting that Danish Prime Minister Lars Loekke Rasmussen said: “Copenhagen should neither be a stopover nor a tiny stepping stone, as some proclaim”.

Even all headlines were similar “Copenhagen climate talks, conference” all articles have left this topic in the shadows and have put all the focus on American and president Obama. He showed support to a Danish plan but at the same time he didn’t hide his weakness for giving the U.S. commitment for this “political agreement”, because it depends on the Senate. The blockage is the Senate, where a climate bill is making it a complicated progress. The main reason for this blockade is the fact that many of the Senate members are representatives of states that are producers of oil, coal and car industries. Swedish Environment Minister Anders Carlgren told to Reuters “In the end, an agreement in Copenhagen will depend on an America number. Without a clear and ambitious number the whole agreement will be in danger”.

The UK government’s former chief scientist Sir David King told that Copenhagen has come a year too early, and that there wasn’t a way that Obama could act in December. But in my opinion planet can’t wait, can it?

Before the meeting it was unclear will China support the two-stage plan but the world biggest emitters showed their willingness to enforce the plan. Chinese president Hu Jinato committed to reducing future emission but he hasn’t yet come up with a figure.

On another hand, leading American newspapers as LA Times, The New York Times and The Wall Street Journal over the weekend published that the world will have to wait at least until next year for a legally binding treaty to curb global warming. They are not hiding that president Obama dramatically lowered expectations for second climate negotiations in Denmark but it doesn’t mean that the U.S. is not willing to participate but with delay of one year. “This kind of comprehensive agreement would be an important step in the effort to rally the world around a solution to our climate change, and we agreed that each of us would take significant mitigation actions and stand behind these commitments” Obama said. They also are noting that even America could not set-up the plan in December, that doesn’t have a direct impact on other participants to set-up their individual targets. Senator Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, the ranking Republican on the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee said “You know what, we’d get blamed at Copenhagen if we acted or if we didn’t act. It is what it is.” by The New York Times. From the angle of The Wall Street Journal there will always be one excuse or another, given that developing countries like China and India will never be masochistic enough to subject their economies to the West’s climate neuroses. They dare even to publish that “If Obama and we are lucky, the Senate will fail to act, the EPA will get tired up in court, and the economy will recover faster without the looming burden of higher energy taxes”. It is more than obvious that Copenhagen deal has widen the gap between Democrats and Republicans in America. But even the gap is much wider now, it seams that all Americans media agencies no matter of their orientation (independent, republican or democrat) stand up into a united guard position to the rest of the world.

So, I as a reader get the impression that most of Europeans newspapers in manner of diplomacy are blaming USA Senate for failure at this summit, and Americans medias for the first time act united under the statement “Don’t blame the U.S. for standoff in climate talks”.

In my opinion, the main reason why spotlight was put on Obama and the U.S. is the fact that America, even if it is world’s historic polluter, put the planet problem behind their individual. De facto is that America has a big economies problem but the crisis is the worlds and all of us are more or less in the same situation and we all feel consequences of it, but still care for the future of the Earth because that is the only planet that we have. It is pretty strange that neither one of newspapers haven’t reminded the public on the fact that the U.S. rejected Kyoto protocol since it made no demand of rapidly growing countries had been forgotten.

The fact that U.S. rejected to Kyoto protocol and its non-preparation for Copenhagen summit brought me to an idea of is the strategy of the USA to avoid its obligations. If America rejects to participate in Copenhagen agreement this problem can make even bigger issue. As it is worldwide known Chinese economy depends on America and a quite large number of investments in China came form America what puts China in matt position. It can be expected that China will follow Americas decision, what for all citizens of the planet can be fatal considering that they are the biggest greenhouse gas emitters. As song says, it’s all about the money, but who will need the money and the power if we don’t have a place to live in?

Sources:

http://www.reuters.com/article/latestCrisis/idUSLH602416

http://www.reuters.com/article/latestCrisis/idUSLH683340

http://www.reuters.com/article/latestCrisis/idUSLG401631

http://www.reuters.com/article/environmentNews/idUSTRE5AE1I720091115

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/earthcomment/geoffrey-lean/6594771/Copenhagen-climate-conference-more-a-planting-than-a-burial.html

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/8364492.stm

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/nov/15/copenhagen-climate-deal-obama

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/nov/17/q-and-a-copenhagen

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601086&sid=aiYupHKUaJv0

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg--obama-climate-qa16-2009nov16,0,6041967.story

http://www.nytimes.com/gwire/2009/11/17/17greenwire-dont-blame-us-for-standoff-in-intl-climate-tal-44165.html

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/15/world/asia/15prexy.html?_r=1

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704431804574540002267533772.html

http://www.voanews.com/english/2009-11-16-voa18.cfm

Water on the Moon

After 40 years, since the first man walked on the moon NASA again has a reason to celebrate. Water on the moon was content of all news headlines last week. At Friday, Nasa announced that substantial water reserves have been found beneath the Moon’s surface. According to the analysis of the dust, which was collected as a result from rocket crash, scientist found at least 25gallons of water (94litres).

This news took a large media attention, and on the most of news websites get into top 10 of viewed.

I had read around 20 articles form all leading newspapers and TV websites as The Times online, Telegraph, Daily mail, The New York Times, Guardian, BBC, Time, Washington post etc. The may reason why I have red so many articles was to get better overview of the topic because it seams that media just partially presented the news, mostly based on information that they got form NASA. Even after I have done all this reading most of my questions, as who have rights to use the moons resources, who is in charge for the moon, what economic value those this discovery have, remains without any answers.

All articles published, in terms of content are more or less the same, the information represented is more if less the same. The statement “We can announce that we’ve found water - not just a little bit, but a significant amount” by Dr. Tony Cloaprete, principal investigation for the mission at NASA’s Ames Research Centre in California, and technical data that they got form NASA department. Even the headlines were consisted of three words water on moon, and even most of them took a large space on the papers, very small amount of practical and useful information, for an average reader could be found. Most of the statements from NASA scientists are presenting this epochal finding as historical point for understanding of solar system and give to it scientific significance, but nobody mention its economics and other values. Water on the moon is possible resource that could be used for drinking and making fuel from oxygen and hydrogen that can play the main role in space exploring and to improve the outlook for long-term human presence.

Articles in details explain LCROSS expedition and mission and the process of “Bombing the Moon”, but just couple of them were free enough to dare to go step further and give their opinion, comments and include some more information. Not even one of the American newspapers remained the public that this discovery was confirmation of the Indian space mission announced in September. This information could be found only by deeper analyses and mostly in British media. Even most of British articles reserved at least one line to announce the costs of $79million (£49million) for this expedition. Some of the British newspapers as The Times online wrote that this discovery came just in time for NASA scientists that are expecting White House decision for the future funding for lunar exploration. They reminded readers that Bush administration set the budget of $18billion annually for establishment of permanent lunar base and note the possibility that this project could require additional 3 billion dollars. I could not find any of these information in American newspapers, what gave me the impression that American news are avoiding to mention any costs.

The New Your Times, if we except cost, gave the best description, covering the story from couple of different aspects. Behind the technical information, which most of the newspapers are presenting in this article what could be found very interesting is information as a statement of Dr. Colaprete “There were squiggles in the data that indicated other molecules, possible carbon dioxide, sulphur dioxide, methane or more complex carbon-based molecules”. Further more, only in this article could it be found the information that lunar ice, behind its possibility to offer drinking water and rocket fuel, also give astronauts air to breathe. This Article also reveals NASA’s current exploration plans, which calls for a return of astronauts to the Moon by 2020, if anything the future of this project depends of the agency’s budget.

In conclusion, this is epochal discovery that will change the history. Even NASA’s published hypotheses that there is water on the moon in my opinion there the value of this detection will be much more than that. Mr Colaprete said “It wasn’t just water- there was a lot more interesting stuff in there” and this was a clear message that something more is going on behind the scene. It is very interesting that this sentence could be found in Washington post only, and even more interesting is that nobody did not raise a question what was he thinking about. Now, after the readings I have even more questions. Why did the media present only partial information? From the statement of Dr. Colaprete that there are more interesting stuff in there, it is more than obvious that he has a lot to talk about but why none of the media did a interview with him? Is he waiting testing results or his thoughts are government owned? The readings of the articles brought me to a conclusion that all of them are incomplete and that the real value of this discovery is privilege for the Space Explorer Company only.

Sources:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/science/space/article6916297.ece

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/space/6563654/Water-found-on-Moon-after-Nasa-bombing-mission.html

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1227595/NASA-discovers-significant-water-moon.html

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/14/science/14moon.html?_r=1&scp=1&sq=water%20on%20moon&st=cse

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/science/space/article6867876.ece

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/science/space/article6859492.ece

http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2009/nov/14/moon-nasa-water-discovery

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8359744.stm

http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1939473,00.html

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wpdyn/content/article/2009/11/13/AR2009111301986.html

http://www.kfoxtv.com/technology/21606789/detail.html

Alter, alter U.S. Unemployment rate reached 10.2%

USA GDP rose for 3.5% in this quarter. Even it seams that America found the formula from going out from recession, this was the reason only for temporary happiness. The shocking unemployment rate that had reached double digits 10.2% in October, took over all public attention. This is the score that American has not been seeing for 26 years, since the Great Depression.

I have red a couple of different articles from different newspapers Guardian, The New York Times, The Times online.

All of them agreed that this unemployment rate is alarming, considering that it reached astonishing 10.2%. It’s interesting that all newspapers are making parallel with the statistical data from the 80’s, the Great Depression time, what makes this situation even more alarming.

Most of the articles published that president Obama admits that he is not happy with the existing situation and that he will consider all possible solution to encourage and accelerate job creation. But just some of them as The Time online and Guardian, are mentioning that the Republicans did not stayed immune on this information and note this as a weak point of Obama’s Administration. It could be expected that Republicans will use these negative results as their main weapon on the next November’s midterm Congressional elections in 2010, what leaves less then a year for the President and Democrats to take some actions or they can lose their seats.

Most of the articles are not hiding their confusion in the terms that GDP rose for 3.5% comparing to second quarter, and that the rate of unemployment is so high.

In opinion of the Guardian, there are two possible solutions for this paradox; one is that employers still do not have need for new employees and other is that they will wait for some time to be sure that economy is recovered. Guardian also notes that 17.5% of workers are negatively affected, and this data is barley mentioned in Americans newspapers.

Opinion of the blog’s on American newspaper websites, it could be easily seen that people are not surprised, as economist, with these high numbers and that most of them are very skeptical about taken governments actions. Most of them are very cynical about the future and have negative attitude toward to articles. For me as an non-American, who can get the information about the situation in America only through news this rises a question, how independent and accurate American newspaper are? After my deeper search I came up with a conclusion that most of the articles are consisted of data that they get form National Bureau of Labor Statistics and explanation of them, but if a reader wants to have a clearer picture of the existing situation in America he/she should read the blog’s because in my opinion the truth is in the middle.

In conclusion from all previously read, articles and blog’s, American government should take more action to activate labor market, and a logical opinion and the opinion of the public the government supporter packages are not the best solution for that. America’s budget of 787 billion dollars is already at the bottom what brings the need for new finance injection. There is a question how productive is to invest in passive investment. In the theoretical prospective if we are looking into macroeconomic shifts it is reasonable measure, more money given to the population means more spending and social piece but is it so? There is a large scale of experts and labor union representatives that are sharing the same opinion that government should change direction of its actions and start to finance large-scale projects that will make new work places.

In my opinion, this is a much better direction, taking under consideration theoretical knowledge, how most of the European countries resolved the problem of unemployment after the Second World War. For example Yugoslavian government made a program of public work in infrastructure sector. Even the situation in Yugoslavia then, was much different than existing situation in America it seams as a possible solution. This action can force people to work rather than giving them $221 weekly check not to do anything, people could get paid some minimum wage for this work. This action can also be supported with some government benefits which public workers will get when the crisis passes, maybe to give some rights or number of government bonds with 10 year maturity, with the coupons that cannot be paid out until the crisis passes, or similar actions.

One is sure the next year will be very turbulent for Obama and his administration, how successful they will be in their actions, statistics will show.

Sources:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2009/nov/06/us-unemployment-labour-market

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/14/business/economy/14charts.html?ref=business

http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/economics/article6906983.ece

http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/economics/article6914699.ece

American GDP rose in 3rd Quarter 3.5%

American government reported that GDP in third quarter rose by 3.5% compared to second. Large numbers of media distribute this information as America moved out of recession, but is it early to celebrate? The similar articles could be found in most of the leading news agencies as The New York Times and The Economist.

Even so, this is first positive announcement from second quarter 2008; it is very early to bring up this serious conclusion. The facts that during the last period government put a lot of injections and stimulant programs cannot be forgotten, and for sure they had it a large impact on these positive changes in GDP, the question is for how long this GDP is sustainable?

Even a small group of academic economist is confident that the recession was over in June, group of researcher form The Economist by YouGov came up with a different result about public confidence. 35% of respondents answered that economy is getting worse and only 28% have positive impression, others stayed independent. The most important note that easily could be missed is that growth of 3.5% is only comparison to second quarter, which if we look historically had very bad results.

Firstly, even GDP is one of the most important macroeconomic markers; we cannot ignore others, as rate of unemployment, exchange rate, inflation rate, trade deficit and others. As much as it could be catch up form the media the most considerable of all of them is still growing trade deficit and very high unemployment rate, which is in constant staidly grow since January 2008. In October it reached 10.2% what haven’t been seen on this territory since 1983. The fact that dollar depreciate 15% comparing to euro in the last eight months also cannot be ignored. This change in value of dollar will have positive effect on USA export but it is very considerable in the terms of import, and as it well-known Americans preferred to buy imported good rather than domestic. This can caused stagflation.

In my opinion, American government should take some actions that have direct impact on import of goods, as higher custom tariffs and stricter quotes for imported goods.

Furthermore, government should invest in rising awareness that the price of imported goods that Americans are paying for them is not definitive, and that the real price of buying them can be seen since December 2007 or on the other hand since credit crunch began.

Injection and stimulant programs should be more oriented on long-term solutions. Up to now stimulate programs as “cash for clunkers”, and $8,000 federal tax credit for first-time home buyers had short-time effects, but the way out from this negative situation requests more effective programs in long-term.

Personally I think that government also should make some reforms in unemployment sector, to find the way to stimulate employers to employee more labour power. Maybe the way is to give benefits, in the terms of reducing or cut off of income taxes, for hiring new labour, for some determinate time of period, one-two years. Decrease in rate of unemployment will for sure have multiply effect in macroeconomic and microeconomics area. Resolving of this problem can be the key for opening the process on macroeconomic level. If there is higher number of employees there will be a higher number of people that have an income, they will spend more and in the future, when the crisis time past it can be expected that their preferences and needs will rise and that they will be willingness to improve their life and spend even more. One thing is well known Americans are consumer oriented market so this can be continual process and stabile column of economy.

America should also focus on mortgages and loans, and make programs that are more accurate in the terms that users are able to pay them if the situation on market has negative changes. In the terms of this suggestion, in my opinion government of America in the past period gave a lot of stimulants for buying goods on a credit, what gave irresistible and fake impression that all the people can have goods which in real life actually the could not have. So people were spending more that they could earn and it is more than obvious that this delusion have it own limits and the life cycle. The price for this illusion cost a lot of people to lose their homes and end up at the street.

If the government would twist on its own production capacities and rise awareness of importance to buy domestic goods it can be solution to resolve main problems as unemployment and trade deficit at the same time. This action needs a lot of efforts, programs, actions and time but it seams as reasonable.

Sources:

http://www.economist.com/node/14779329

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/30/business/economy/30econ.html

http://www.globaleconomiccrisis.com/blog/archives/643

http://www.dnaindia.com/money/report_us-exits-recession-economy-expands-3-5pct-in-q3_1304721

http://www.tradingeconomics.com/Economics/GDP-Growth.aspx?Symbol=USD

STAND-ALONE NAVIGATION SYSTEMS JEOPARISED BY NEWS

˝In the latest blow to the business, Google announced a free navigation service for mobile phones on Wednesday that will offer turn-by-turn directions, live traffic updates and the ability to recognize voice commands. The service will initially be available on only one phone, the new Motorola Droid, but will be expanded to more phones soon. ˝

Is the time of stand-alone navigation system business passing by?

Not so long ago Garmin, the leading company in this branch of industry, was in expansion, with 131% annually growth of sale in 2007 (Revenue $870.4million)

In very short time period (just two years), industry profit was hit by couple of different threats. First wave was the price war, caused by new enterer on this market segment, second threat was GPS application adopted for mobile devices usage and thirdly nobody did not stay immune on credit crunch crisis. This market segment felt indirect effects of crisis, because their B2B clients’ automotive, aviation and marine segments were directly hit by crisis. All these factors caused Garmin revenue to drop for 10% comparing to 2007 (2008 Revenue was $781.3million).

After first quarter in 2009, Research Company In-Stat. predicts that in 2009 Garmins` grow in sale will be just 19% comparing to previous year.[1]

Now just two quarters after, one announcement made the future of stand-alone navigation systems more volatile.

It seams that companies that are doing stand-alone navigation systems business will measure the time, before and after Google announcement. Until 27.10.2009 it seamed that existing situation at the market is not so bright but there is a future for this kind of equipment and services, but after 28.10.2009 since Google announced a free navigation service for mobile phones, the question is, is there any future for stand-alone navigation products?

The power and effects of this announcement could be seen on stock exchanges, where the prices of the shares of leading companies as Garmin and TomTom had started rapidly to decrease on stock exchanges worldwide.

Open price for Garmin ltd. share on 28.10.2009 was $36.02, and after the news, close price was $31.59 on Nasdaq, or 14% drop in price. TomTom shares felt even stronger turbulence, drop of 21% on the Amsterdam Stock Exchange. Since than, the price of shares in this market segments is in constant slight decreasing, what brings a conclusion that Google announcement seriously jeopardized stand-alone navigation company business. This phenomenon raises a large set of question in the terms of power of “Google voice” and sustainability of this market segment.

Nevertheless, even this announcement caused big turbulence with negative effect in price of shares of navigation system suppliers, as Garmin and TomTom, it’s very interesting that it did not caused any positive change in price of Google shares.

There is a question, if the announcement of Google could make such a big turbulence on stock exchanges, what will really happen when Google launch this innovation?

No mater what is the answer on previous question, it is more than obvious that it is the last minute Garmin and similar companies to take an action and re-act on new market trends if they want to stay in a game.

The only advantage from this situation is that now they are aware of threat, and now they know who are playing with. The fact that all new technologies need time for implementation makes space for stand-alone navigation companies to react. Companies that are doing business in this market segment need to do very fast strategic re-thinking how to adopt on new market trend in GPS technology and save existing position on market.

After all, it seams that reaction on stock exchange was overact, considering that everything is based on Google announcement only. However, negative effects on share price, caused by announcement, will need some time and a lot of efforts to recover and turn back the trust of shareholders.