Sunday, December 8, 2013

The grab for Greenland - Financial Times

The grab for Greenland



http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/2/8c2b6a12-5c71-11e3-931e-00144feabdc0.html#axzz2mrDv9gRm

December 6, 2013 12:07 pm

The grab for Greenland

By Philip Stephens
The world’s great powers have the Arctic’s natural resources and trade routes in their sights
©Corbis
Nuuk, Greenland, at once capital city and village (population 16,000), was founded by Lutheran missionary Hans Egede 300 years ago
On a hill above the old harbour, Hans Egede braves biting winds to keep watch over the town he founded three centuries ago. Bearing the commission of King Frederick IV of Denmark, the Lutheran pastor pitched up in Greenland in 1721. He planned to bring the Reformation to Norse settlers in this vast, frozen territory. As Egede navigated the ice fjords, he discovered his European kin had long since left in search of more clement climes. Undeterred, he set about preaching the Protestant faith to the native Inuit, supplying Greenlandic with a Latin alphabet to promote study of the scriptures. Egede’s mission established itself in Godthab (Good Hope) on the southwest coast of the island. Church was soon followed by trade and later by the state. Denmark – then a European power with imperial ambitions – acquired a colony.
Greenland is once again catching the imagination of outsiders. International business executives and diplomats are retracing Egede’s journey. The rapid melting of the northern polar ice has set off something of a scramble for the resources buried below. By US estimates, the Arctic may hold 13 per cent of the world’s undiscovered oil and 30 per cent of its untapped gas as well as untold mineral resources. The London-based think-tank Chatham House talks of an Arctic “cold rush”. Greenland, a frozen and mostly empty sprawl of a country reaching up from the Atlantic to the Arctic Ocean, sees a chance to reclaim its pre-colonial identity. “I guess we are in the business of nation-building,” says Vittus Qujaukitsoq, the minister of economy in a government with its sights on independence.
Egede’s statue stares across the ice-speckled harbour to a cluster of timber-framed buildings housing the National Museum. Greenland has wrested autonomy from Copenhagen, and visitors to the museum’s store of historic artefacts are left in little doubt about the colonial record. The hunting paraphernalia, furs, native art and wood-framed kayaks describing the harshness of polar life are accompanied by a commentary that excoriates the interlopers. Christianity and colonisation brought “crucial ruptures . . . in the lifestyle and thinking of the Inuit”. The “master race” corralled the indigenous people into new settlements to better supply Denmark with the spoils of sealing, whaling and fishing. The Inuit were robbed of their spiritual compass as well as their physical freedom. The museum records this story in Greenlandic and in English – not in Danish, until recently the country’s official language.
Daniel Thorleifsen, the quietly spoken curator, brushes off my suggestion of bias in his museum’s celebration of the ancient crafts of the Inuit alongside its distinctly cooler assessment of the modernity imported from Denmark. “We are telling the history correctly. How the exploitation happened. This is not a matter of opinion,” he says. The narrative of repression represents “a simple statement of fact”. This was a sentiment I heard often in Greenland, sometimes from those of Danish as well as Inuit heritage. These lingering anti-colonial resentments have fired nationalist ambitions. Now they are fusing with rising hopes that Greenland is in sight of an economic boom.
Greenlanders live in the more temperate coastal areas; the rest of its two million sq km are covered in ice
Isolated by Denmark, Greenland caught a brief glimpse of the outside world when Americans arrived during the second world war to deny Hitler’s Germany an Atlantic foothold. During its nuclear stand-off with the Soviet Union, Washington stationed bombers at Thule in the far freezing north. But for the most part, Greenland has been a place the rest of the world passed by. Air travellers might glance at the dazzling, ice-sculpted terrain while crossing the Atlantic. Bands of explorers and scientists ventured north to explore the high polar terrain or to drill deep into the ice core to trace the progress of climate change. Intrepid tourists marvelled at the icebergs spilling from its glaciers into the open sea. But Greenland’s frozen nothingness made international headlines only when its hunters and whalers rebelled against the save-a-seal environmentalism of the European Union.
Things are changing. Two of the big forces shaping the world’s geopolitical contours are global warming and the voracious appetite for raw materials of the world’s big emerging markets. Both converge on Greenland’s retreating ice-sheet. What happens next in the Arctic will touch the security and prosperity of the rest of the planet. “The world is paying attention to Greenland,” says Jens-Erik Kirkegaard, the government minister in charge of minerals and mining development, with more than a hint of satisfaction.
Climate change is remaking the Arctic, opening up new transpolar trade routes and offering tantalising sight of the energy and mineral resources beneath the unforgiving tundra. The impact is being felt in changing global weather patterns, migrating fish stocks and rising seas as far away as Asia and, crucially, in the calculations of the world’s great powers. Huge blocks of ice from Greenland’s glaciers spill into the Atlantic currents through the Kangia Fjord. The discovery of iron ore, zinc, gold and much else has attracted prospectors from as far away as Australia. Deposits of rare earth materials could challenge China’s grip on the global trade in the valuable metallic elements vital to today’s technological gadgetry. Greenlanders dream that the seabed beyond its northern coast might one day yield hydrocarbons to rival the riches on the slopes of Alaska. “Climate change,” Qujaukitsoq says, “is a new opportunity for Greenland.”
Greenland isn’t green. Not much of it, anyway. During the short summer a scattering of sheep peer down from the coastal hills to the ice floes below, but some 80 per cent of the two million square kilometres of territory (an area almost four times that of France) is sheeted with ice. The people – about 56,000 hardy souls at the latest count – mostly huddle together in small towns and settlements on the southwestern coastline. As the writer Sara Wheeler notes in her magnificent chronicle of the modern polar region, The Magnetic North, the country was given its name by Erik Thorvaldsson, more popularly known as Eric the Red. Arriving from Iceland during the 10th century, Erik had a 21st-century copywriter’s eye for marketing. “Gronland”, he thought, would conjure up images of fertile plains and draw in European settlers.
©Alban Kakulya
The Arctic’s melting ice is revealing natural resources and opening up new trans-polar trade routes
This part of the world has known big changes in climate before. Warming temperatures during the eighth and ninth centuries brought Inuit tribes from Alaska and northern Canada – the Thule – who displaced the now-disappeared Dorset peoples in the frozen north. The Norse settlers arrived in the more temperate south. By the 15th century, however, the mercury was falling again. The Norse disappeared, leaving behind the Inuit who, kept warm by the skins of their prey, could scratch a subsistence life by fishing or hunting whales, walruses, seals and musk oxen.
. . .
The latest change in the weather pattern is faster and more pronounced. Arctic temperatures have been rising twice as fast as elsewhere. The polar region has lost about three-quarters of its sea ice. This summer the White House published a US strategy for the region. The warming trend, it said, “is unlike anything previously recorded. The reduction in sea ice has been dramatic, abrupt, and unrelenting.” This had the potential “to transform global climate and ecosystems as well as global shipping, energy markets and other commercial interests”. The prospects were for the opening of hitherto unnavigable sea passages from Asia to Europe and from the Pacific to the Atlantic. The thaw could make accessible “vast quantities of mineral resources, including rare earths, emeralds, iron ore and nickel”.
Governments and businesses are beating a path to the Arctic’s door, hoping to tap into potential riches revealed by climate change
So Greenland finds itself at the heart of one of the 21st century’s big geopolitical games: the race to stake out territory and interests in the world’s last ungoverned space. One outcome may be a free-for-all in which competing states fight it out above and below the ice for control of trade routes and resources. Another, enshrined in the ambitions of the eight-nation Arctic Council, would see the creation of a unique structure of international co-operation charged with defusing tensions and safeguarding the unique ecology.
For now, there are pointers in both directions. The council – comprising the five Arctic Ocean littoral states of the US, Russia, Canada, Norway and Denmark (representing Greenland), along with Sweden, Finland and Iceland – started out as a body preoccupied with the environment, marine safety and the rights of indigenous peoples. More recently it has developed a broader political remit. The so-called Arctic Five have agreed that disputes about maritime boundaries will be settled peacefully under the terms of the United Nations convention on the law of the sea. The Scandinavian members of the council see a chance to create an unprecedented model of “preventative diplomacy”.
©AP
The Russian flag, seconds after being planted on August 2 2007
Whether such goodwill outlasts serious contact with conflicting claims to mineral resources and shipping rights is a tougher question. In 2007, Moscow dispatched a submarine to plant the Russian national flag below the North Pole, thereby underscoring its claim to vast tracts of the Arctic seabed. Norway, usually nothing if not avowedly multilateral, has strengthened its military forces in the Arctic region and hosts regular exercises for Nato troops in the high north. Normally placid Canada is boisterously nationalistic about its polar territory where it is embroiled in disputes with Washington about shipping rights in the Beaufort Sea. The US, which after the second world war tried and failed to buy Greenland from Denmark (in 1917 it had completed a similar transaction with Copenhagen to secure ownership of what are now the US Virgin Islands), has only quite recently woken up to the broader strategic significance of the Arctic. US secretaries of state, who had previously deputed their juniors to handle the region, now make a point of turning up at the regular ministerial gatherings of the Arctic Council.
©Getty
Icelandic PM Johanna Sigurdardottir with Chinese president Xi Jinping, April 2013
The power plays reach beyond governments with an obvious territorial stake in the region. China rebranded itself a “near-Arctic” state some time ago. After an intense diplomatic campaign – which Russia failed to scupper – Beijing has secured a seat as an observer on the Arctic. It has signed free-trade and economic agreements with financially beleaguered Iceland in what western governments see as an attempt to establish an Arctic staging post. “China wants to buy it,” says one western diplomat bluntly of Beijing’s courtship of Reykjavik. With an eye on potential mineral resources, Beijing may send up to 3,000 workers to open an iron ore mine in Greenland. All this stirs anxiety in Washington. “If China is paying attention,” a US official says, “we cannot afford not to.”
©Getty
John Kerry and Swedish PM Fredrik Reinfeldt at the Arctic summit, May 2013
The pace of change in the Arctic will be slower than imagined by some excited commentators. If chunks of Greenland’s glaciers now turn up as icebergs in the Caribbean, the polar region still has an awful lot of ice. China may have sent a cargo vessel to traverse the Arctic sea route above northern Russia – cutting weeks off the journey through the Suez Canal – but traffic is seasonal and negligible in comparison with traditional routes. It will be decades before the polar seaways challenge the Suez and Panama canals. Digging out minerals and pumping oil will be fraught with environmental and technical hazards. The terrain is inhospitable, communications difficult and mining operations expensive. The Inuit inhabitants of Alaska, Canada and Greenland are also determined to have their say.
Geopolitics does not wait for the future. Governments, businesses and NGOs are rushing to stake out ground. China has been joined as an observer on the Arctic Council by India, Singapore, South Korea, Japan and Italy – all states that consider they have an interest in access to new Arctic resources and trade routes. An international organisation that started out as a sleepy backwater for boffins and environmentalists has become an arena for strategic competition. Greenland’s politicians may soon enough discover that climate change poses as many risks as it holds promises for a nation that wants to reclaim a vanishing identity.
. . .
Danish Godthab, the capital, was renamed Greenlandic Nuuk in 1979 when Greenlanders demanded autonomy from Copenhagen. A home rule agreement in that year laid the foundations for a comprehensive self-government accord in 2009. This repatriated Denmark’s remaining powers over domestic policy, leaving foreign affairs and security to Copenhagen. Greenland took full control of its economy, including the mineral and hydrocarbon resources, while remaining, like the Faroe Islands (another former colony lying between Denmark and Iceland) part of the “Danish realm”. Fights with European environmentalists about seal and whale hunting and fishing rights had already prompted Greenland to quit the European Union, though Denmark remains an EU member.
©Getty
British Royal Marines train with Nato forces in Bardufoss, Norway, March 2013
Nuuk is at once a capital city and a village. The jumble of pretty clapboard houses rising up from the rocks above the harbour gives way to a sprawl of flimsy, badly worn apartment blocks that might have been designed by an architect of the Soviet school. This is not an elegant town. The 16,000 or so residents are served by a couple of small shopping centres, while a swelling band of business and diplomatic visitors converge on a single hotel. The city’s bars are often full – long, dark winter nights, high unemployment and a culture of living-for-the-moment make for a disturbing tradition of heavy drinking. Sisimiut and Ilulissat, the next largest population centres, each have about 5,000 residents. Most Greenlanders live in towns of a thousand or two. In the far north, a typical settlement is home to a hundred or less.
©National Geographic Creative
Canadian ice-breaker Louis S St-Laurent in the Beaufort Sea (part of the Arctic Ocean)
There are no roads connecting this scattering of communities. The ice and the distances preclude even rudimentary highways. A single vessel of the state-owned shipping line plies its trade up and down the western coastline each week but people and products mostly get around by plane and helicopter. Everything rests on the weather-defying feats of Air Greenland. Given the freezing weather, feats they are. Christian Keldsen, the airline’s chief commercial officer, showed me around the hangars at Nuuk airport as a group of engineers stripped down one of half a dozen Dash turboprops. The flying warhorses are built for tough conditions but the mechanics wielded their wrenches with surgical care. Everything is checked, double checked and then checked again, every nut and bolt scrupulously accounted for. The brutal conditions facing the pilots leave no room for mistakes.
An hour to the north, Kangerlussuaq serves as Air Greenland’s communications hub and the country’s lifeline to the outside world. Built by the Americans, the runway is one of only two long enough for long-range jets. For most of the year the airline runs a daily service to Copenhagen. A ramshackle cluster of shops and homes assembled in wood and corrugated steel stands in dismal relief to the dazzling mountains that rise from the runway. In winter, temperatures here drop below -40C. A rickety hotel beside the single terminal is a reminder that even the sturdiest of aircraft must sometimes bow to the forces of nature.
The precariousness of this life – the mainstays of the economy are fishing and a small, though burgeoning tourism industry, and more than half of the government budget comes in the form of a subsidy from Copenhagen – has not dampened the enthusiasm of local politicians for independence. Economy minister Qujaukitsoq says climate warming gives the country the chance to “create our own economy – firstly by rebuilding our fishing industry, secondly by creating a mining industry and thirdly with tourism”. Lest anyone think there is a shortage of riches, he reels them off: “gold, silver, platinum, palladium, zinc, iron, copper, rare earths, lead, to name just a few we know for certain Greenland has in large quantities”.
Kirkegaard, the mining minister, welcomes the world’s attention. The government has lifted a decades-old ban on the mining of uranium which had applied even when the material was collected as an unavoidable byproduct. The Australian-based Greenland Minerals and Energy describes the move as a “transformative event” which opens up huge potential for the mining of rare earths in southern Greenland. Kirkegaard says the timing for such developments is perfect – the demand for resources from the swelling middle classes of the emerging nations comes at the moment an investor spotlight has turned to the Arctic. There are plenty of other places with untapped resources but “Greenland is strategically in a good place. The rule of law applies. It is a democratic country where you can trust the courts and laws. That’s important for mining companies.” It will take time to locate the oil and gas reserves but Shell, Maersk, Statoil and Cairn Energy are among companies with drilling licences. For now, says Kirkegaard, “You know it’s there, but not quite where.”
. . .
There is a Klondike quality about all this. Every summer a pilgrimage of prospectors arrives in search of gold, silver, diamond and ruby deposits. Some of them stay. In Nuuk, Joshua Hughes, a Welsh-born geologist, took me to lunch. He had been visiting Greenland for years, he explained, before deciding to settle in the capital. He is a man with the gleam of riches in his eye. As chief geologist for NunaMinerals, Hughes has been digging for gold; and he is sure he has discovered it. Nuna, he says, has found a valuable seam in southern Greenland, and is raising funds on the Toronto Stock Exchange to finance commercial exploitation.
Greenland’s future, though, may hang on one big deal. The British-based London Mining heads a consortium that wants to establish an iron ore mine at Isua, 100 miles north of Nuuk. Once in operation, this single project would have an output worth a staggering $2bn a year – equivalent to Greenland’s present national income. To build the facility and a nearby deep-sea port, London Mining plans to bring in Chinese capital and up to 3,000 Chinese workers. Surveys and negotiations have dragged on over years but 2013 saw a breakthrough in talks with the government. In what Kirkegaard terms a “historic moment”, London Mining secured a 30-year licence to exploit the ore.
©Getty
Aleqa Hammond, Greenland’s prime minister
More cautious voices say ministers are getting carried away by such heady optimism. The government’s nationalist rhetoric, diplomats say, collides with some harsh realities. Greenland lacks the infrastructure, the people and the resources to rush into independence. If Denmark was once a rapacious colonial power, Greenland now depends on Copenhagen’s financial benevolence. There are questions too about Aleqa Hammond, the feisty leader of the Simuit party, who won this year’s general election to become Greenland’s first woman prime minister. Hammond, local business leaders observe, looked a more convincing figure on the campaign trail than in government. Some draw unflattering comparisons between Hammond and Kuupik Kleist, her predecessor and the leader of the Inuit Ataqatigiit party. Kleist earned a reputation as a “grown-up”, a politician brave enough to take unpopular decisions to sort out the public finances and modernise an outdated fishing industry.
For all its commitment to independence the government struggles to shake off an air of amateurism – a sense that inexperienced ministers have not quite grasped the complexities and risks of the geopolitical game now being played in the Arctic. Much of the work of administration still falls to officials born or trained in Denmark, while, perversely, Hammond’s vote-winning pledges have increased Greenland’s financial dependence on Copenhagen.
©Getty
Greenlanders vote in a referendum on self-rule in November 2008
Kleist’s Inuit Ataqatigiit party spearheaded calls for independence during the 1970s and 1980s and he remains committed to the goal. But he warns that the country lacks the financial and human capital to cut itself adrift any time soon. The problems lie not only in numbers – though finding the people to govern a state from a population of only 56,000 will never be easy – but in low educational attainment and high unemployment. Nuuk boasts a small, bustling university but many children leave school with only minimal qualifications. There is no point, Kleist says, “in yelling in the streets for independence if you do not know how to get there”. Climate change carries opportunities – everything has been moving north, including valuable fish stocks, but you have to build “your own nation to be strong enough to take care of itself”.
The cold rush throws up a profound paradox. The world’s rediscovery of the Arctic, like Egede’s landing in Greenland, promises economic and social upheaval. Climate change threatens to elbow aside what remains of the precious traditions honoured in Daniel Thorleifsen’s museum. The number of native hunters in Greenland’s high north has fallen to less than a thousand. They are growing old and, as the ice melts, their children are moving south.
Climate change offers a platform for independence but it will not turn back history. It will more likely force Greenlanders to decide who they are. Centuries of intermingling and intermarriage have blurred the boundary between Greenlandic and Inuit. Greenlanders of mixed or mostly Danish heritage say they too would like independence but they don’t look to the past for their future. There are those in Hammond’s government who say it is time to close the colonial chapter by retiring Egede from his towering vantage point. The irony is they are not at all sure what they would put in his place.
-------------------------------------------
Philip Stephens is the FT’s chief political commentator. To comment, please emailmagazineletters@ft.com

RELATED TOPICS

Saturday, December 7, 2013

The Major Problem With Electric Cars - TIME

The Major Problem With Electric Cars


http://business.time.com/2013/12/07/the-major-problem-with-electric-cars/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+timeblogs%2Fcurious_capitalist+%28TIME%3A+Business%29




2011 Chevrolet Volt

Mitsubishi is the latest in a long line of automakers to slash prices on an electric car, the unpronounceable, unfortunately named i-MiEV. The model is now the cheapest EV on the market, yet it’s still hard to imagine many drivers excitedly running out to buy one.
Overall, American consumers are paying more for cars. The average price paid for a new light vehicle in November was $32,769, up 3% compared to October, and 1.1% year over year, according to Kelley Blue Book. Yet as average prices rise, one segment of the new car market has gotten markedly cheaper. “Electric vehicles had the largest decrease in pricing, down 15 percent due to several price cuts during the past year,” said Karl Brauer, senior analyst for Kelley Blue Book.
This is a trend that only seems to be growing, as another electric car, a golf cart-like model Mitsubishi, has just been marked down by 20%.
In the world of electric vehicles, Mitsubishi’s i-MiEV has mostly been an afterthought. The model lacks the sex appeal of Tesla, it’s not nearly as practical as the plug-inChevy Volt (which has a driving range of 380 miles thanks to battery and gas power), and the large price cut of the Nissan Leaf meant that it offered far more bang for the buck than Mitsubishi’s electric car. The Leaf also generally has received far better reviews, and it has superior range: 75 miles on a single charge, compared to about 60 miles for the i-MiEV.
The best indication of interest in specific electric car models is simply the sales tally. Tesla expects to sell 21,500 Model S cars by the end of 2013. Data collected by Autoblogindicates that Nissan and Chevrolet are neck and neck for the EV sales lead this year, having sold a bit more than 20,000 Leafs and Volts through November. Speaking of November, 2,003 Leafs were sold nationally that month, compared to 1,920 Volts. And what about Mitsubishi’s EV? Automotive News reported that a grand total of 12 i-MiEVs sold in the month. Just over 1,000 i-MiEVs have been purchased nationally thus far in 2013, and many of them were sold with the help of dealer incentives amounting to discounts of up to $10,000.
In light of data like that, and the examples set by Nissan, Chevy, and other automakers which saw sales take off after electric model price cuts, it’s understandable that Mitsubishi just announced a major price slashing for the next i-MiEV. The 2014 model starts with a sticker price of $23,845, a drop of $6,130 from the previous edition. Federal tax credits effectively knock the price paid out of pocket by drivers down to $16,345, and in states with further incentives like California, the net take-away price potentially inches down to under $14,000. That’s among the cheapest prices available for any new car sold today, no matter how it’s powered.
Hopefully, the price cut will help Mitsubishi sell more than a dozen EVs per month. But even at that price, it’s not clear if all that many drivers will bite. The reviewers atConsumer Reports say that the i-MiEV is “not a car in which anyone will be happy spending time,” and that the newly discounted price is “still a lot of money for a car that feels like little more than an enclosed golf cart. The appeal lies solely in providing attainable access into the world of pure-electric cars. At this price, it becomes more feasible as a second, occasional-use car.”



Read more: The Major Problem With Electric Cars | TIME.com http://business.time.com/2013/12/07/the-major-problem-with-electric-cars/#ixzz2mnjSDsj4

Friday, December 6, 2013

Obituary: Nelson Mandela - BBC NEWS

Obituary: Nelson Mandela


http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-22892784

By Fergal Keane
A look back at the life of Nelson Mandela
To those who observed him closely, Nelson Mandela always carried himself as one who was born to lead.
As his former cellmate and long time friend, Ahmed Kathrada, said recently: "He was born into a royal house and there was always that sense about him of someone who knew the meaning of leadership."
The Mandela who led the African National Congress into government displayed a conspicuous sense of his own dignity and a self-belief that nothing in 27 years of imprisonment had been capable of destroying.
Although Mr Mandela frequently described himself as simply part of the ANC's leadership, there was never any doubt that he was the most potent political figure of his generation in South Africa.
Nelson Mandela shakes hands with FW De KlerkNo bitterness... Mandela and De Klerk
To the wider world he represented many things, not least an icon of freedom but also the most vivid example in modern times of the power of forgiveness and reconciliation. Back in the early 1990s, I remember then President, FW De Klerk, telling me he how he found Mandela's lack of bitterness "astonishing".
His fundamental creed was best expressed in his address to the sabotage trial in 1964. "I have fought against white domination, and I have fought against black domination," he said.
"I have cherished the ideal of a democratic and free society in which all persons live together in harmony and with equal opportunities. It is an ideal which I hope to live for and to achieve. But if needs be, it is an ideal for which I am prepared to die."
Born in 1918, Rolihlahla Dalibhunga Mandela was raised in the village of Mvezo in the Transkei in the Eastern Cape. He was one of 13 children from a family with close links to the royal house of the Thembu people.
Mr Mandela often recalled his boyhood in the green hills of the Transkei with fondness. This was a remote landscape of beehive-shaped huts and livestock grazing on poor land.
He was only nine when his father died of tuberculosis. Always closer emotionally to his mother, Mr Mandela described his father as a stern disciplinarian. But he credited his father with instilling the instincts that would help carry him to greatness.
Nelson Mandela with Oliver Tambo in Addis Ababa, in 1962Mandela met future ANC leader Oliver Tambo at university
Years later Mr Mandela would write that "my father possessed a proud rebelliousness, a stubborn sense of fairness…" His death changed the course of the boy's life.
The young Mandela was sent from his home village to live as a ward of the Thembu royal house, where he would be groomed for a leadership role.
This meant he must have a proper education. He was sent to a Methodist school, where he was given the name Nelson. He was a diligent student and in 1939 went to Fort Hare University, then a burgeoning centre of African nationalism.
Nelson Mandela
1918 Born in the Eastern Cape
1943 Joined African National Congress
1956 Charged with high treason, but charges dropped after a four-year trial
1962 Arrested, convicted of incitement and leaving country without a passport, sentenced to five years in prison
1964 Charged with sabotage, sentenced to life
1990 Freed from prison
1993 Wins Nobel Peace Prize
1994 Elected first black president
1999 Steps down as leader
2001 Diagnosed with prostate cancer
2004 Retires from public life
2005 Announces his son has died of an HIV/Aids-related illness
It was at Fort Hare that Mr Mandela met the future ANC leader, Oliver Tambo, with whom he would establish the first black law practice in South Africa. Both were expelled from the university in 1940 for political activism.
First as a lawyer, then an activist and ultimately as a guerrilla leader, Mr Mandela moved towards the collision with state power that would change his own and his country's fate.
The late 1950s and early 1960s were a period of growing tumult in South Africa, as African nationalists allied with the South African Communist Party challenged the apartheid state.
When protest was met with brute force, the ANC launched an armed struggle with Mr Mandela at its head.
He was arrested and charged with treason in 1956. After a trial lasting five years, Mr Mandela was acquitted. But by now the ANC had been banned and his comrade Oliver Tambo had gone into exile.
Nelson Mandela went underground and embarked on a secret trip to seek help from other African nations emerging from colonial rule. He also visited London to meet Tambo.
But soon after his return he was arrested and sentenced to five years in jail. Further charges, of sabotage, led to a life sentence that would see him spend 27 years behind bars.
Nelson Mandela revisiting his prison cell in 1994Nelson Mandela revisited his cell several times after his release
He worked in the lime quarry on Robben Island, the prison in Cape Town harbour where the glaring sun on the white stone caused permanent damage to his eyes; he contracted tuberculosis in Pollsmoor Prison outside Cape Town, and he held the first talks with government ministers while he was incarcerated at the Victor Verster prison farm.
In conversation, he would often say prison had given him time to think. It had also formed his habits in sometimes poignant ways.

Best of the BBC's archive

Nelson Mandela
I recall a breakfast with several other journalists, where Mr Mandela was briefing us on the latest political talks. The waiter approached with a bowl of porridge. Tasting it briefly, the ANC leader shook his head. "It is too hot," he said. The waiter went away and returned with another bowl. This too was sent back. The waiter was looking embarrassed as he approached for the third time.
Fortunately the temperature was now cool enough. The famous broad smile appeared. The waiter was heartily thanked and breakfast - and our questions - were able to continue.
"That was a bit fussy wasn't it," I remarked to a colleague afterwards.
My colleague pulled me up short with his reply. "Think about it. If you spent 27 years in jail, most of the time eating food that was either cold or at best lukewarm, you are going to end up struggling with hot food."
There it was, expressed in the most prosaic of realities, a reminder of the long vanished years of Nelson Mandela.
Prison had taken away the prime of his life. It had taken away his family life. Relations with some of his children were strained. His marriage to Winnie Mandela would end in divorce.
Left: A 1961 photo of Nelson Mandela (AP); Centre: Mr Mandela and his then-wife on his release from prison in 1990 (AFP); Right: Mr Mandela pictured in 2007 (AP)
But as I followed him over the next three years, through embattled townships, tense negotiations, moments of despair and elation, I would understand that prison had never robbed his humanity.
I remember listening to him in a dusty township after a surge of violence which threatened to derail negotiations. Fighting between ANC supporters and the predominantly Zulu Inkatha movement had claimed thousands of lives, mainly in the townships around Johannesburg and in the hills of Natal.
Man holding newspaper on the day Nelson Mandela was set freeHuge crowds greeted Nelson Mandela's release
In those circumstances another leader might have been tempted to blame the enemy alone. But when Mr Mandela spoke he surprised all of us who were listening: "There are members of the ANC who are killing our people… We must face the truth. Our people are just as involved as other organisations that are committing violence… We cannot climb to freedom on the corpses of innocent people."
He knew the crowd would not like his message but he also knew they would listen.
As an interviewee, he deflected personal questions with references to the suffering of all South Africans. One learned to read the expressions on his face for a truer guide to what Mr Mandela felt.
On the day that he separated from Winnie Mandela, I interviewed him at ANC headquarters. I have no recollection of what he said but the expression of pure loneliness on his face is one I will always remember.
But my final memory of Nelson Mandela is one of joy. On the night of 2 May 1994 I was crammed into a function room full of officials, activists, diplomats and journalists, struggling to hear each other as the music pulsed and the cheers rang out.
The ANC had won a comprehensive victory. On the stage, surrounded by his closest advisors, Nelson Mandela danced and waved to the crowd. He smiled the open, generous smile of a man who had lived to see his dream.

Thursday, December 5, 2013

Large Companies Prepared to Pay Price on Carbon - New York Times


Large Companies Prepared to Pay Price on Carbon




Michael Stravato for The New York Times
Shell, a co-owner of the Motiva oil refinery in Port Arthur, Tex., has added climate-related carbon taxes to its long-term budgets.
  • FACEBOOK
  • TWITTER
  • GOOGLE+
  • SAVE
  • EMAIL
  • SHARE
  • PRINT
  • REPRINTS

WASHINGTON — More than two dozen of the nation’s biggest corporations, including the five major oil companies, are planning their future growth on the expectation that the government will force them to pay a price for carbon pollution as a way to control global warming.

Readers’ Comments


The development is a striking departure from conservative orthodoxy and a reflection of growing divisions between the Republican Party and its business supporters.
A new report by the environmental data company CDP has found that at least 29 companies, some with close ties to Republicans, including ExxonMobil, Walmart and American Electric Power, are incorporating a price on carbon into their long-term financial plans.
Both supporters and opponents of action to fight global warming say the development is significant because businesses that chart a financial course to make money in a carbon-constrained future could be more inclined to support policies that address climate change.
But unlike the five big oil companies — ExxonMobil, ConocoPhillipsChevronBP and Shell, all major contributors to the Republican party — Koch Industries, a conglomerate that has played a major role in pushing Republicans away from action on climate change, is ramping up an already-aggressive campaign against climate policy — specifically against any tax or price on carbon. Owned by the billionaire brothers Charles and David Koch, the company includes oil refiners and the paper-goods company Georgia-Pacific.
The divide, between conservative groups that are fighting against government regulation and oil companies that are planning for it as a practical business decision, echoes a deeper rift in the party, as business-friendly establishment Republicans clash with the Tea Party.
Tom Carnac, North American president of CDP, said that the five big oil companies seemed to have determined that a carbon price was an inevitable part of their financial future.
“It’s climate change as a line item,” Mr. Carnac said. “They’re looking at it from a rational perspective, making a profit. It drives internal decision-making.”
Companies do not know what form a future carbon price would take. Congress could one day vote to directly tax emissions. President Obama is moving forward with plans to regulate carbon pollution from coal plants, with or without action from Congress — and states could carry out those regulations by taxing carbon polluters. At climate change talks at the United Nations, State Department negotiators have pledged that the United States will cut its carbon emissions 17 percent below 2005 levels by 2020, and 80 percent by 2050.
Mr. Carnac said: “Companies see that the trend is inevitable. What you see here is a hardening of that understanding.”
Other companies that are incorporating a carbon price into their strategic planning include Microsoft, General Electric, Walt Disney, ConAgra Foods, Wells Fargo, DuPont,Duke Energy, Google and Delta Air Lines.
During the 2012 election, every Republican presidential candidate but one, Jon Huntsman, questioned or denied the science of climate change and rejected policies to deal with global warming. Opponents of carbon-pricing policies consider them an energy tax that will hurt business and consumers.
Mainstream economists have long agreed that putting a price on carbon pollution is the most effective way to fight global warming. The idea is fairly simple: if industry must pay to spew the carbon pollution that scientists say is the chief cause of global warming, the costs will be passed on to consumers in higher prices for gasoline and electricity. Those high prices are expected to drive the market away from fossil fuels like oil and coal, and toward low-carbon renewable sources of energy.
Past efforts to enact a carbon price in Washington have failed largely because powerful fossil-fuel groups financed campaigns against lawmakers who supported a carbon tax.
In 1994, dozens of Democratic lawmakers lost their jobs after Al Gore, who was vice president at the time, urged them to vote for a climate change bill that would have effectively taxed carbon pollution. In 2009, President Obama urged House Democrats to vote for a cap-and-trade bill that would have required companies whose carbon-dioxide emissions exceeded set levels to buy emissions rights from those who emitted less. The next year, Tea Party groups spent millions to successfully unseat members who voted for the bill.
But ExxonMobil, which last year was ranked by the Fortune 500 as the nation’s most profitable company, is representative of Big Oil’s slow evolution on climate change policy. A decade ago, the company was known for contributing to research organizations that questioned the science of climate change. In 2010, ExxonMobil purchased a company that produces natural gas, which creates less carbon pollution than oil or coal.
ExxonMobil is now the nation’s biggest natural gas producer, meaning that it will stand to profit in a future in which a price is placed on carbon emissions. Coal, which produces twice the carbon pollution of natural gas, would be a loser. Today, ExxonMobil openly acknowledges that carbon pollution from fossil fuels contributes to climate change.
“Ultimately, we think the government will take action through a myriad of policies that will raise the prices and reduce demand” of carbon-polluting fossil fuels, said Alan Jeffers, an ExxonMobil spokesman.
Internally, ExxonMobil now plans its financial future with the expectation that eventually carbon pollution will be priced at about $60 a ton, which Mr. Jeffers acknowledged was at odds with some of the company’s Republican friends.
“We’re going to say and do what’s in the best interest of our shareholders,” he said. “We won’t always be on the same page.”
It remains unlikely that any climate policy will move in today’s deadlocked Congress, but if Congress does take up climate change legislation in the future, Mr. Jeffers said ExxonMobil would support a carbon tax if it was paired with an equal cut elsewhere in the tax code — the same policy that Mr. Gore has endorsed. “ExxonMobil and many other large companies understand that climate change poses a direct economic threat to their businesses,” said Dan Weiss, director for climate policy at the Center for American Progress, a liberal research group with close ties to the Obama administration. “They need to convince their political allies to act before it’s too late.”
Koch Industries maintains ties to the Tea Party group Americans for Prosperity, which last year campaigned against Republicans who acknowledged the science of climate change. The company also contributes money to the American Energy Alliance, a Washington-based advocacy group that campaigns against lawmakers that it claims support a carbon price. This year, the American Energy Alliance says it has spent about $1.2 million in ads and campaign activities attacking candidates who it says support a carbon price.
Robert Murphy, senior economist at the American Energy Alliance, said his group was not concerned that it had taken a different position from the major oil companies. “We’re not taking marching orders from Big Oil,” he said.
In fact, Koch has a longtime resentment of the biggest oil companies.
According to company history, Koch’s founder, Fred Koch, the father of Charles and David, invented a chemical process to more efficiently refine oil but was blocked from bringing it to the market by John D. Rockefeller, the owner of Standard Oil — the company that was later broken up to make some of the major oil companies of today, including ExxonMobil.
People at Koch say sore feelings remain to this day.

Wednesday, December 4, 2013

Why work so hard? - Financial Times

Why work so hard?

http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/2/2244c266-4c5d-11e3-923d-00144feabdc0.html#axzz2kzwTQnwX

November, 15, 2013

By Harry Eyres
‘Keynes predicted that by the early 21st century the working week would be cut to 15 hours’
What do the Bushmen of the Kalahari have in common with John Maynard Keynes? In a visionary essay entitled “Economic Possibilities for our Grandchildren” (1930), Keynes made two prophecies: first, that the Great Depression would prove to be “only a temporary period of adjustment” and that prosperity would increase for the next two generations and more. On this his prediction that living standards “one hundred years hence will be between four and eight times as high” was correct; we are five times better off than our grandparents or great-grandparents were in 1930 and our children may be eight times better off than them by 2030.
His second prediction was that by the early 21st century the working week would have been cut to 15 hours. Here he was dead wrong. The number of hours worked in both the US and Europe has remained pretty steady for decades, at more than 40 hours a week, with Americans working much harder than Europeans. But the 15-hour working week is not a pure pipe dream; for millennia, until the possibilities for their hunter-gatherer lifestyle were taken away, the San (Bushmen) people of southern Africa thrived, with a good diet (2,500 calories a day), on little work (two to three hours a day) and much play.
This provocative comparison was made by the anthropologist Dr James Suzman in a recent lecture for Protimos, a charitable organisation committed to providing legal assistance to marginalised communities in the developing world. The traditional lifestyle of the San, he argued, represented a kind of “primitive affluence”. Our narratives of progress, starting with Hobbes’s lines about life in the state of nature being “nasty, brutish and short”, have assumed a steady improvement in the human lot as hunter-gathering, under threat from sabre-toothed tigers, has given way to farming and then industry (under threat from sabre-toothed bosses).
For some time now anthropologists and others have cast doubt on this over-simple story. Farming did not immediately bring improvements in health and longevity. Indeed, in 1987 the geographer Jared Diamond wrote an article outlining why agriculture was the “Worst Mistake in the History of the Human Race”. With it came “the gross social and sexual inequality, the disease and despotism, that curse our existence”. Skeletons uncovered in Greece and Turkey show that the average height for men dropped from 5ft 9in at the end of the last Ice Age to 5ft 3in in 3000BC, after the invention of agriculture.
So the myths of a golden age were not just nostalgic fantasy. Unfortunately, the San do not live in a golden age. Their condition is, in Suzman’s words, “truly grim”; they have been enveloped as governments and other entities have acquired ownership of what was once their land, turned into indentured serfs and ravaged by ill health and alcoholism. The lecture, introduced by Lord Justice Laws, had the ulterior purpose of raising funds for a legal centre dedicated to protecting the San’s intellectual property rights, which are in effect their only assets.
Helping to protect the San certainly seems a worthy cause: perhaps the most amazing moment in the evening was some footage from the BBC’s Life of Mammalsshowing the hunting of a kudu by a lone San hunter. The coup de grâce seemed to have a kind of grace, as an act of love as well as killing.
The lecture got me thinking – as it was designed to – not just about the San but about matters closer to home; that is, about supposedly advanced societies in the early 21st century. Why are we all so addicted to work? Why do we assume that working harder and harder is an unquestionable virtue?
This tendency reached its apogee in the recent Tory party conference in the UK with its motto “for hardworking people” (though I liked the Private Eye cover with a speech-bubble coming out of David Cameron’s mouth saying, “I thought of the slogan while I was on holiday” – Cameron being famed for his skill at chillaxing). For “hardworking” you might read “desperately overworked”. Madeleine Bunting’s disturbing 2004 book Willing Slaves revealed an epidemic of work-related stress and depression among British white-collar workers. One correspondent described the effects of “work overload” as “poor sleep quality, an inability to engage in evening conversation, a ‘Fuck it’ attitude to bills, shopping, parent phoning, friend phoning, eating and sex.” But the addiction to work goes deeper than the very real external compulsion as workforces are squeezed. There is also, as Bunting recognises, a voluntary aspect to the plague of overwork; people associate work with status and money, though if they work all the time when will they have time to enjoy it?
At the Geneva Congress in 1866, the International Association of Working Men set down its demand for an eight-hour day: “We require eight hours work, eight hours for our own instruction and eight hours for repose.” Cultivating ourselves and caring for others is also a kind of work.