May 2008 Archives

It looks rather like Hugo Chávez has been caught with his hand in the diplomatic cookie-jar: last week Interpol announced that a trove of computer files linking the Venezuelan leader to Colombia's FARC rebels appeared to be genuine. I've given my take over at Comment is free:

... if some of the Colombian government's specific accusations are a little overblown, taken as a whole the computer files strongly suggest that the Venezuelan government offered, and perhaps provided, material support to the Farc in recent months. The question now becomes: how to respond?

One option, already floated by some hawks, would be for the US to declare Venezuela a state sponsor of terrorism and impose sanctions accordingly. That would be hugely premature. While the recovered laptops are highly suggestive, they are not enough to bundle Venezuela in with the likes of Syria, North Korea and Iran. It would also probably be counterproductive, destabilizing Venezuela ahead of key regional elections and allowing Chávez to rail against US aggression.

Fortunately, with oil prices already closing in on $4 a gallon it's unlikely that US policymakers will rush to turn Venezuela into a petro-pariah. A better option might be so-called "smart sanctions", which would impose travel restrictions and monitor the assets of senior Venezuelan officials without wreaking economic havoc on the rest of the country. Best of all, though, would be for Venezuela's neighbors to remove the need for American action: the Organization of American States should take up the case where Interpol left off, and conduct a formal, impartial and transparent investigation into Venezuela's apparent efforts to hurt its neighbour.

Read the rest here.

Chicago residents can chow down on foie gras once again, after the city's mayor rolled back a two-year-old ban on the buttery delicacy. I've got a piece up at Political Climate arguing that there are lessons here for greens:

Probably activists’ biggest mistake was pursuing a blanket ban on the sale and consumption of foie gras, rather than a more specific ban on inhumane production techniques. That shifted the blame to the consumer rather than the producer, and put greens in the uncomfortably paternalistic position of trying to dictate what people should and shouldn’t be allowed to eat; it also gave farmers and restauranteurs little incentive to explore the various ethical and humane alternatives to traditional production methods.

Fighting for a blanket ban also led campaigners to dismiss evidence that while foie gras factory farms are predictably horrific, small-scale producers are usually fairly humane. The French Institute for Agricultural Research found no increase in ducks’ stress hormones immediately before or after force-feeding sessions, for example; the American Veterinary Medical Association also examined the industry, and determined that birds in US foie gras farms weren’t in any significant distress or pain.

More here.

John McCain is selling his new environmental policy in Oregon today. I've posted some thoughts over at Political Climate:

McCain pitched his plan - essentially a rehash of the cap-and-trade system he proposed back in 2003 - as a third way between the outright climate denial of the Bush years and the more ambitious climate strategies offered by his opponents. “One extreme thinks high taxes and crippling regulation is the solution; another denies the problem even exists,” he announced in a campaign ad accompanying yesterday’s speech. “There's a better way.”

...

McCain might have done better to propose a straight-up carbon tax. That would have sliced through the “crippling regulation” of a cap-and-trade system, and allowed him to present himself as a straight-talking maverick opposed to hidden taxes, big government, and pork-barrel politics. Instead, he offered up a heavily diluted version of the plans already set out by his Democratic rivals: good enough to convince a few independent voters, perhaps, but hardly worthy of a politician who used to be a genuine environmental hero.

More here.

The EPA is considering allowing unlimited amounts of perchlorate - a chemical nasty derived from rocket fuel - in US drinking water. It's not the best idea: perchlorate has been linked to metabolic problems in adults, and to developmental disorders in children and fetuses. I've posted more details over at Political Climate:

Having failed to safeguard our water supplies, the EPA is now dragging its heels over providing a solution. Benjamin Grumbles, the agency’s top water-safety official, told Congress this week that the EPA might not decide whether to begin regulating perchlorate until the end of the year - and that even then there was “a distinct possibility” that the agency would stick to its guns and refuse to limit the amount of perchlorate in America’s drinking water.

The EPA says it needs to give its scientists more time to figure out whether perchlorate is actually harmful, and at what levels. That sounds reasonable - but given the agency’s usual disregard for scientific opinion, some greens believe that other factors may be at work behind the scenes. Prime suspect: the Pentagon, which has been lobbying against a federal perchlorate standard for years, hoping to avoid an expensive cleanup of its military and aerospace facilities.

Read more here.

Alaskan residents and green activists have launched another legal challenge to the Bush administration's efforts to open the Chukchi Sea to oil exploration. I've written it up for Plenty's Political Climate blog:

According to their complaint, federal officials gave oil companies the go-ahead to use powerful acoustic devices to test for seismic activity - without waiting for legally mandated reports on the tests’ potential environmental impact.

The tests - which give a whole new meaning to the phrase “oil boom” - involve firing massive air-guns at the Arctic seabed, creating a noise ten times louder than a rocket launch. The din, which can carry for hundreds of miles, is repeated every 10 to 15 seconds, sometimes for weeks or months at a time.

That can have a devastating impact on marine wildlife, particularly mammals like whales, walrus and seals: Nearby animals can be permanently deafened, and thousands more interrupt their feeding and migratory patterns to escape the noise. The Chukchi Sea - home to tens of thousands of marine mammals, including several endangered species of whale - is particularly vulnerable: Its bad weather and choppy waters can make it almost impossible for seismic survey ships to spot and steer clear of marine mammals.

Read the rest here.

I wrote the Today's Papers column for Slate last night; the big news is that Microsoft has abandoned its bid to buy Yahoo, after the two companies failed to agree on how much the internet giant was worth. Get your fix here.

This week saw both Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton put in appearances on Fox News. That's angered the netroots - but might win them brownie points with superdelegates, who're keen for the candidates to reach out to moderate and independent voters. I've jotted some thoughts for the Guardian's Comment is free site:

It's unclear quite what the candidates hoped to gain from their Fox interviews. In 2004, only 7% of Fox fans voted for John Kerry, making the network's audience a more reliably Republican constituency than gun owners, white evangelical Christians or even self-defined conservatives. Could it be that the candidates are taking a cue from Operation Chaos and hoping to pick up crossover votes from Republicans whose own party's nomination was wrapped up long ago?

More likely, perhaps, is that the candidates' Fox-fest was designed to send a message to the Democratic superdelegates. An appearance on Fox was bound to be taken as a snub by the netroots - and arguably that's no bad thing, if you're a left-leaning candidate desperate to stake out a claim to the centre ground. In an election that looks likely to be fought and won among independents and moderates, it's more important than ever for Obama and Clinton to convince superdelegates that they are ready and able to reach out to swing voters. Even if that means sleeping with the enemy.

More here.

Nancy Pelosi's efforts to give Congress an environmental overhaul are going slower than she'd hoped, thanks to foot-dragging lawmakers and congressional bureaucracy. I've posted some details over at Political Climate:

Last year, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi launched a major new initiative aimed at turning Congress into a model of environmental best practice. Some of the changes were small, simple things: Meeting-rooms had their lights rigged to motion detectors, vending machines were ordered to be turned off at night, and a bike share program was set up for staffers. Even the House cafeteria got a face-lift: Freedom fries were swapped for organic arugula and free-range eggs, and styrofoam containers gave way to biodegradable plates and cutlery.

Other changes were more significant - and more controversial. Efforts to install energy-efficient spotlights to illuminate the Capitol dome met with fierce opposition from Republicans, who called the $671,900 project a “ridiculous boondoggle”. The decision to spend almost $90,000 on carbon offsets nearly sparked a full-blown inquiry. And only this week, lawmakers threw an almighty strop over new rules requiring them to trade their taxpayer-funded SUVs and luxury gas-guzzlers for more fuel-efficient models.

More here.