EcoRadio

Category: News

Add your news
You can add news from your networks or groups through the website by becoming an author. Simply register as a member of the Generator, and then email Giovanni asking to become an author. He will then work with you to integrate your content into the site as effectively as possible.
Listen to the Generator News online

 
The Generator news service publishes articles on sustainable development, agriculture and energy as well as observations on current affairs. The news service is used on the weekly radio show, The Generator, as well as by a number of monthly and quarterly magazines. A podcast of the Generator news is also available.
As well as Giovanni’s articles it picks up the most pertinent articles from a range of other news services. You can publish the news feed on your website using RSS, free of charge.
 

  • With Rudd gone, Libs are on a loser

     

    Related Coverage

    Lindsay Tanner’s planned retirement is a major blow. If Gillard stumbles, my prediction stumbles with her. She needs a good start to move on from the chaos of recent days.

    Judging by her first speech as PM and her first question time performance, Gillard has what it takes to make Abbott look shrill when he attacks her.

    Abbott’s poor personal ratings might not have mattered when the prime minister was more unpopular. But if voters give Gillard a chance, such a honeymoon will turn attention back on to Abbott. That will flow on to attention to his policies, his team, and whether the Liberals have learnt the lessons of Howard’s defeat. Voters don’t like to admit they were wrong and that is what they would be doing by ousting Labor after just one term.

    With Rudd at the helm voters were seriously considering it; with Gillard they might decide to give Australia’s first female PM the time she needs to succeed or fail on her own terms.

    Abbott wants to remind voters that it is the same failed government with a different leader. That argument only works if voters agree that Labor has been a failure. Yes they have had their problems, major problems, including with policy delivery.

    But the three biggest problems with Rudd’s first term were his autocratic style, his sudden unpopularity and his unwillingness to consult.

    All three are now gone, so watch out Tony Abbott, I say.

    106 comments on this story

  • New ocean’ will split Africa”

     

    “Parts of Afar are below sea level and the ocean, the sea is only cut off by about a 20-metre block of land in Eritrea,” he said.

    “Eventually this will rift apart, the sea will flood in and will start to create a new ocean, and eventually the Somalia plate will drift off and we’ll have a smaller Africa and a very big island which floats out into the Indian Ocean.”

    – BBC

    Tags: science-and-technology, geography, geology, ethiopia

  • Rio declares RSPT dead

    Let’s hope he is right.
     
    Neville Gillmore.
     

    Rio declares RSPT dead

    Friday June 25, 2010, 5:00 pm
     

     

     

     

    The head of Rio Tinto in Australia says the mining super profits tax, in its previous form, is dead.

    Sam Walsh made the comments at the opening of the company’s new operations centre in Perth.

    “I think the tax as it was originally described, is dead, I think what we will see is something that will enable projects to go ahead and I’m very hopeful that will be sooner, rather than later,” he said.

    He says he is hopeful the change in prime minister will allow industry and government to make progress on the resource rent tax, and resolve the issue before the next federal election.

    “I’m very hopeful that with the recent changes in the structure of the Government that we can actually get in and engage and negotiate,” he added.

     

     

     

     

     

    More Quotes and Company Information

  • Change came even faster than the plotters knew

     

    She gave no commitment but said she wanted to sound out friends, including colleagues Warren Snowdon and Brendan O’Connor, and importantly, Kim Carr, the Victorian Left powerbroker who had installed the Rudd-Gillard team in 2006.

    Enthused, Senator Feeney sought out Don Farrell, the South Australian senator and powerbroker. The Victorian Right was split and Senator Farrell would help unite it behind Ms Gillard.

    They started counting numbers.

    Bill Shorten, the Victorian Right MP, had approached Ms Gillard the week before and asked her to stand. He saw her again on Wednesday. By late afternoon, after question time, momentum was building but had not reached critical mass. The Left was oblivious to what was going on and the traditional heavyweights such as Senator Faulkner were out of the loop, but Senator Arbib was working the NSW Right. By early evening, most of the faction had swung behind Ms Gillard.

    Earlier in the day in Sydney, the right-wing Australian Workers Union had a leadership meeting that, included its two heavyweights, Paul Howes and Bill Ludwig.

    They were unaware of any looming spill and resolved to support Rudd.

    However, around 6pm, as news of a push was growing, Mr Howes was shown internal ALP polling which showed the government was facing wipeout in NSW. Mr Howes and Mr Ludwig jumped into action and threw their support behind Ms Gillard. This galvanised the Right nationally.

    Howes called Wayne Swan, of the Right, who was shifting towards Gillard. After talking to Mr Howes, Mr Swan agreed to stand for deputy.

    The Left realised the challenge was serious. Supporters of Laurie Ferguson, for whom Gillard had found a safe seat in western Sydney after his was abolished, joined the stampede.

    By the time Ms Gillard went to see Mr Rudd at 7.20pm, he was doomed.

    Shorten retired to the Hoang Hau Vietnamese restaurant in Kingston.

    From there, he was working two phones and writing down names.

    With him were four South Australians from the Right: the Sports Minister, Kate Ellis, Senator Dana Wortley and two former federal MPs, David Cox and Martyn Evans.

    Rudd was inside his office with Ms Gillard and Senator Faulkner for three hours. It is believed they tried to talk him into standing down.

    At 10.30pm, a defiant Mr Rudd emerged and said he would fight at a leadership spill scheduled for 9am.

    By daybreak, it was estimated Ms Gillard had about 83 of the 112 votes. Anthony Albanese told Mr Rudd he was doomed and should not contest to spare humiliation

  • Big Oil plays jobs cards as it fights offshore=drilling moratorium

     

    Did we mention jobs? Gulf Coast media are chiming in with stories about the moratorium’s ripple effect through local economies and scientists who think the moratorium goes too far.  The New Orleans Times-Picayune recently weighed in with an editorial suggesting that for all his public sympathy for Gulf workers, Barack Obama is guilty of “myopia”:

    President Obama has not heeded the voices urging him to reconsider the scope of the moratorium. Those include engineering and oil industry experts consulted by the administration, who are calling the broad moratorium a mistake that could cause more harm to the economy than the spill itself. They had endorsed different steps such as a moratorium on new drilling permits. They suggested a briefer halt at existing rigs, so that safety tests could be conducted. That’s still a viable strategy. A more nuanced approach would be far wiser and more compassionate than the punishing shutdown that the White House has ordered.

    Not our problem:  During his meeting with BP execs last week, Obama did try to get the company to cover lost wages from the drilling moratorium.  But, as Jonathan Weisman noted in The Wall Street Journal, BP’s lawyers successfully argued that it shouldn’t be responsible for costs directly related to a government ban.  The oil giant eventually agreed to kick in $100 million for Gulf oil workers, in addition to the $20 billion fund to cover spill damages, but that’s probably not enough to cover even a month of lost salaries for rig workers. 

    Putting the people in petroleum: The oil companies, with help from the American Petroleum Institute in Washington, are building their case that when the feds impose drilling bans or otherwise ratchet up regulations, they end up hurting those previously known as “the small people.” As Elizabeth Williamson points out in The Wall Street Journal:

    President Barack Obama’s six-month moratorium on exploratory offshore drilling could strengthen the energy industry’s hand in regulatory battles ahead. The administration says the moratorium is part of a safety review that will “reduce the risk of a second spill by providing the time needed for further investigation.” But in a grassroots effort that reveals the contours of the lobbying battle to come, oil executives and lobbyists point to the moratorium as Exhibit A that more government regulation won’t protect livelihoods in the Louisiana oilfield.

    From sea to sheening sea: No matter how the court fight over the Gulf moratorium turns out, the war over deepwater drilling is only going to get uglier. Big Oil is banking on deep-sea exploration to keep the profits rolling in, as Steve Mufson explains in The Washington Post: 

    Within five years, global deepwater production is expected to rise by two-thirds, to 10 million barrels a day, according to Cambridge Energy Research Associates. That’s equivalent to the amount of crude oil that the world’s largest exporter, Saudi Arabia, produces.

    And you thought you’d heard the last of “Drill, baby, drill.”

     Randy Rieland is a writer who lives in Washington, D.C., but tries to spend as many weekends as possible at his cottage in the Shenandoah Mountains of Virginia. He also actually remembers the first Earth Day. You can email him at randy.rieland[at]gmail[dot]com.

  • Reasonably high chance BP files for bahkruptcy

     

    The specter of Chapter 11 bankruptcy terrifies Gulf residents because it could allow BP to delay, or even avoid, paying billions of dollars to businesses and individuals affected by the Gulf spill. The chapter is specifically for companies in temporary financial trouble who can reemerge as viable if they receive new funding, cancel burdensome contracts and delay, restructure, or wall off repayment obligations.

    I spoke with Kaufman about the possibility of a BP bankruptcy on Monday. Here is an edited transcript of our conversation yesterday, which includes further clarifications from an email follow-up with Kaufman this morning:

    The Climate DeskQ. Let’s say you’re advising BP. What would you tell them to do?

    A. I’d advise them to explore the option of bankruptcy. I only know BP from public information. BP has a lot of cash and the ability to generate huge amounts of cash. But remember, just because BP can pay claims doesn’t mean they should, or that they will, given that their primary obligation is to their shareholders.

    Bankruptcy laws are designed to help companies rehabilitate themselves. What I’m suggesting here is that BP is or ought to be analyzing the possibility of insolvency proceedings, and the pros and cons of doing so. Now understand, this would be an absolute horror for the U.S. government. If BP succeeds in putting a wall around its Gulf liabilities, payment on those claims fall to the U.S. government or they’re not paid.

    Q. What would a BP bankruptcy look like?

    A. It could work a lot of different ways. They could cut loose BP America and it could be BP America that files for bankruptcy. My presumption is that it’s BP America that’s responsible for the spill. They can wall off the non-BP America assets from the Gulf — which is about 50 percent of the company’s net value –and try to reorganize BP America. That’s likely to take a very long time, and BP would not make good on its promise for the 20 billion [in the escrow fund].

    Or they could file all of BP, and do so in London. Wonder how well-received our government and legitimate Gulf claimants would fare in a British insolvency court?

    Q. Now let’s say you’re advising the U.S. government on dealing with BP. What actions do you take now to keep BP from filing for bankruptcy to limit its exposure to liabilities?

    A. I would start with the same analysis BP is undertaking. Perform the same analyses BP is performing about various bankruptcy strategies and figuring out how its assets and liabilities match up structurally, and how to shift assets from one entity to another. Develop judgments about potential outcomes from those bankruptcy strategies. Develop views on total costs that BP might face. We need to be able to anticipate where and how BP is going and then plan courses of action designed both to blunt and address BP’s potential strategies.

    In short, I would want to have a very good understanding of what BP could do. My thinking now is that BP America could file here or they could file the whole thing in London. Why should they continue to get berated by this country, pay $20 billion [via the escrow fund] and still face an unlimited liability for not only civil, but also for criminal charges, if there’s a better way for the company?

    It would be a mistake, in my judgment, to view BP as a political piñata that can be beat around the head repeatedly without consequences. It’s not reasonable to expect BP to pay unlimited liabilities and face criminal charges, and the United States needs to understand the size of the gun BP can pull.

    Q. I see the case for exploring the bankruptcy option. But what are some reasons they shouldn’t file for Chapter 11?

    A. If BP makes the calculated decision that the amount of damages they’ll have to pay doesn’t warrant the money, time, risk, hassle of going through solvency proceedings, they won’t do it.

    In short: if both sides fully understand the alternatives and options available to everyone around the table, that should lead to a global resolution and settlement. Otherwise, it will be rampant litigation and BP could pull some very unpleasant surprises. I should not want to see the United States surprised and unprepared.

    This story was produced by The Atlantic for the Climate Desk collaboration.