India bans large denominations

SUBHEAD: India ditches 500 and 1000 rupee notes. For the first time the rich beg the poor to help them.

By Amrit Dhillon on 18 November 2016 for Sidney Morning Herald -
(http://www.inkl.com/news/for-the-first-time-in-india-the-rich-beg-the-poor-to-help-them)


Image above: Indian woman shows discontinued Indian currency notes and a photocopied ID card as she queues outside Reserve Bank of India. Photo by AP. From original article.

Driver Rahul Sharma, 25, remembers the exact day when his employer turned from a wolf into a lamb. It was November 9 when his employer called him  beta  - Hindi for "dear" - for the first time. The maid was asked to give him a cup of tea, for the first time.

"I was shocked at his sudden niceness. It went on for two days," said Sharma. For the past three years, his New Delhi-based employer has been abusive, bad-tempered, and imperious, often demanding that he turn up for work at 6am after finishing work at midnight.

"He didn't even bother to remember my name. When he wanted to summon me, he'd call out 'driver!'," Sharma said.

"On the third day, the penny dropped. He asked me to deposit 250,000 rupees ($4900) in my bank account on his behalf so that he could get rid of his black money."

Maids, drivers, nannies, and cooks in India are experiencing unusual politeness from their employers. Beyond the work they do every day, they suddenly have another use – to launder the undeclared cash which the rich have been hoarding in steel wardrobes, under the mattress and in under-bed storage.

This sudden outbreak of niceness is the outcome of India's current crackdown on "black money" - income in the form of cash that has not been declared to the tax authorities.

On November 8, the day before Sharma's employer became a lamb, Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi scrapped 500 and 1000-rupee notes to root out corruption and force more Indians into the tax net.

In one fell swoop, the tens of millions of rupees that the rich kept at home in these denominations became worthless. If they deposit the money in the bank tax officials will pounce, imposing staggering penalties and taxes.

However until December 30, each Indian is allowed to deposit a smallish sum of 250,000 rupees in such defunct notes in their bank accounts without questions being asked. That is why the rich need the service of the poor.


Image above: A presswallah who irons the clothes in the Indian capital says he was asked by three clients to deposit 200,000 rupees in his account in return for a payment of 10,000. From original article.

Sharma and others like him have been implored by suddenly humble employers to deposit the amount in their accounts by the deadline - to be returned to their employers later.

"I refused him. I don't want to get into trouble later if someone asks me how I got this money when I'm only a driver," Sharma said.


Image above: Coconut water seller Mohan Kishore says the cash crisis has made it hard for him to pay his suppliers but he feels the hardship is worth it for the "punishment" of the rich. Photo by Amrit Dhillon. From original article.

Domestic staff and factory employees are going around with big grins, delighting in the panic and anxiety etched on the faces of the fat cats who never showed them any consideration, not to mention the delicious irony of being beseeched by their now squirming masters.

Modi's message in a recent speech - "see how I make the powerful suffer with you" - has resonated powerfully. "For once the rich are as troubled as we poor Indians are every day," said Akash Atwal, a driver with a New Delhi car rental firm.


Image above: Coconut water seller Mohan Kishore says the cash crisis has made it hard for him to pay his suppliers but he feels the hardship is worth it for the "punishment" of the rich. Photo by Amrit Dhillon. From original article.

In return for depositing the scrapped notes, domestic staff and others are being offered 10 to 25 per cent as commission. Some have accepted, happy to pocket an unexpected windfall; others, fearing trouble, have refused; and others have refused out of the principle that, if some big fish have been caught, leave them wriggling at the end of the line.

In their desperation to get rid of their ill-gotten money, rich Indians are dumping sacks of notes into the River Jamuna in New Delhi.

Some have made a bonfire of their cash at some deserted place before running away to avoid identification. Police have stopped cars filled with suitcases stuffed with 1000-rupee notes, their drivers rushing to distant relatives they haven't seen for years to ask them to deposit their cash.

"Some families who buy fruit from me regularly wanted to get rid of 100,000 ($1900) worth of notes by paying me in advance for the fruit they will buy over the next year" said Bittu Bharati, who runs a fruit stall with his uncle in Lajpat Nagar.

Others who are usually paid in cash – florists, beauticians, personal trainers and "presswallahs' who iron clothes in neighborhoods – have also been told they can have their services paid for two years in advance, just so that affluent families can dispose of their expired cash. Then it's up to them to exchange the money at the bank.


Image above: Indians stand in a queue to deposit and exchange discontinued currency notes outside a bank in Allahabad, India. Photo by AP. From original article.

Some Indians are being too clever by half. A divorced man who had defied the courts by refusing alimony to his wife was seized with a new respect for the law and offered to pay her the arrears - in the banned currency notes. The judge threw him in jail until he paid in the new notes.

Domestic staff have been chuckling while exchanging stories of what's been happening in the homes of their employers: sudden palpitations, wailing wives, altercations over how to get rid of the banned notes, profuse sweating and pure despair.

Chemists have reported a spike in the sale of sleeping tablets. Mumbai hospitals have reported a surge in panic attacks. But some doctors are feeling queasy themselves – it's estimated that about 40 per cent of doctors are paid in cash.

"I'm an ordinary man and I'm suffering hardship too. I was in a long queue on Saturday. But it's worth it. The rich need to be punished for being greedy. I am savouring the moment," said a smiling Mohan Kishore, who sells fresh coconut water on a South Delhi street.


.

The Right and Climate Catastrophe

SUBHEAD: At this point, electing Green-minded leaders is the only realistic path to a habitable planet.

By Michael T. Klare on 15 September 2016 for Tom Dispatch -
(http://www.tomdispatch.com/post/176186/tomgram%3A_michael_klare%2C_the_rise_of_the_right_and_climate_catastrophe/)


Image above: US Presidential candidate Donald Trump "I'm not a big believer in Global Warming". From (http://www.businessinsider.com/bill-nye-great-response-donald-trump-statements-climate-change-2016-1).

In a year of record-setting heat on a blistered globe, with fast-warming oceans, fast-melting ice caps, and fast-rising sea levels, ratification of the December 2015 Paris climate summit agreement -- already endorsed by most nations -- should be a complete no-brainer.  That it isn't tells you a great deal about our world.

Global geopolitics and the possible rightward lurch of many countries (including a potential deal-breaking election in the United States that could put a climate denier in the White House) spell bad news for the fate of the Earth. It’s worth exploring how this might come to be.

The delegates to that 2015 climate summit were in general accord about the science of climate change and the need to cap global warming at 1.5 to 2.0 degrees Celsius (or 2.6 to 3.5 degrees Fahrenheit) before a planetary catastrophe ensues.  They disagreed, however, about much else.

Some key countries were in outright conflict with other states (Russia with Ukraine, for example) or deeply hostile to each other (as with India and Pakistan or the U.S. and Iran). In recognition of such tensions and schisms, the assembled countries crafted a final document that replaced legally binding commitments with the obligation of each signatory state to adopt its own unique plan, or “nationally determined contribution” (NDC), for curbing climate-altering greenhouse gas emissions.

As a result, the fate of the planet rests on the questionable willingness of each of those countries to abide by that obligation, however sour or bellicose its relations with other signatories may be.  As it happens, that part of the agreement has already been buffeted by geopolitical headwinds and is likely to face increasing turbulence in the years to come.

That geopolitics will play a decisive role in determining the success or failure of the Paris Agreement has become self-evident in the short time since its promulgation.

While some progress has been made toward its formal adoption -- the agreement will enter into force only after no fewer than 55 countries, accounting for at least 55% of global greenhouse gas emissions, have ratified it -- it has also encountered unexpected political hurdles, signaling trouble to come.

On the bright side, in a stunning diplomatic coup, President Obama persuaded Chinese President Xi Jinping to sign the accord with him during a recent meeting of the G-20 group of leading economies in Hangzhou.

Together, the two countries are responsible for a striking 40% of global emissions.  “Despite our differences on other issues,” Obama noted during the signing ceremony, “we hope our willingness to work together on this issue will inspire further ambition and further action around the world.”

Brazil, the planet's seventh largest emitter, just signed on as well, and a number of states, including Japan and New Zealand, have announced their intention to ratify the agreement soon.

Many others are expected to do so before the next major U.N. climate summit in Marrakesh, Morocco, this November.

On the dark side, however, Great Britain’s astonishing Brexit vote has complicated the task of ensuring the European Union’s approval of the agreement, as European solidarity on the climate issue -- a major factor in the success of the Paris negotiations -- can no longer be assured. “There is a risk that this could kick EU ratification of the Paris Agreement into the long grass,” suggests Jonathan Grant, director of sustainability at PricewaterhouseCoopers.

The Brexit campaign itself was spearheaded by politicians who were also major critics of climate science and strong opponents of efforts to promote a transition from carbon-based fuels to green sources of energy.

For example, the chair of the Vote Leave campaign, former Chancellor of the Exchequer Nigel Lawson, is also chairman of the Global Warming Policy Foundation, a think-tank devoted to sabotaging government efforts to speed the transition to green energy.

Many other top Leave campaigners, including former Conservative ministers John Redwood and Owen Paterson, were also vigorous climate deniers.

In explaining the strong link between these two camps, analysts at the Economist noted that both oppose British submission to international laws and norms: “Brexiteers dislike EU regulations and know that any effective action to tackle climate change will require some kind of global cooperation: carbon taxes or binding targets on emissions.

The latter would be the EU writ large and Britain would have even less say in any global agreement, involving some 200 nations, than in an EU regime involving 28.”

Keep in mind as well that Angela Merkel and François Hollande, the leaders of the other two anchors of the European Union, Germany and France, are both embattled by right-wing anti-immigrant parties likely to be similarly unfriendly to such an agreement.  And in what could be the deal-breaker of history, this same strain of thought, combining unbridled nationalism, climate denialism, fierce hostility to immigration, and unwavering support for domestic fossil fuel production, also animates Donald Trump’s campaign for the American presidency.

In his first major speech on energy, delivered in May, Trump -- who has called global warming a Chinese hoax -- pledged to “cancel the Paris climate agreement” and scrap the various measures announced by President Obama to ensure U.S. compliance with its provisions.

Echoing the views of his Brexit counterparts, he complained that “this agreement gives foreign bureaucrats control over how much energy we use on our land, in our country. No way.”

He also vowed to revive construction of the Keystone XL pipeline (which would bring carbon-heavy Canadian tar sands oil to refineries on the U.S. Gulf Coast), to reverse any climate-friendly Obama administration acts, and to promote the coal industry.  “Regulations that shut down hundreds of coal-fired power plants and block the construction of new ones -- how stupid is that?” he said, mockingly.

In Europe, ultra-nationalist parties on the right are riding a wave of Islamaphobia, anti-immigrant sentiment, and disgust with the European Union.

In France, for instance, former president Nicolas Sarkozy announced his intention to run for that post again, promising even more stringent controls on migrants and Muslims and a greater focus on French “identity.” Even further to the right, the rabidly anti-Muslim Marine Le Pen is also in the race at the head of her National Front Party.

Like-minded candidates have already made gains in national elections in Austria and most recently in a state election in Germany that stunned Merkel’s ruling party.

In each case, they surged by disavowing relatively timid efforts by the European Union to resettle refugees from Syria and other war-torn countries.

Although climate change is not a defining issue in these contests as it is in the U.S. and Britain, the growing opposition to anything associated with the EU and its regulatory system poses an obvious threat to future continent-wide efforts to cap greenhouse gas emissions.

Elsewhere in the world, similar strands of thinking are spreading, raising serious questions about the ability of governments to ratify the Paris Agreement or, more importantly, to implement its provisions.  Take India, for example.

Prime Minister Narendra Modi of the Hindu nationalist Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) has indeed voiced support for the Paris accord and promised a vast expansion of solar power.  He has also made no secret of his determination to promote economic growth at any cost, including greatly increased reliance on coal-powered electricity. That spells trouble.

According to the Energy Information Administration of the U.S. Department of Energy, India is likely to double its coal consumption over the next 25 years, making it the world’s second largest coal consumer after China.

Combined with an increase in oil and natural gas consumption, such a surge in coal use could result in a tripling of India’s carbon dioxide emissions at a time when most countries (including the U.S. and China) are expected to experience a peak or decline in theirs.

Prime Minister Modi is well aware that his devotion to coal has generated resentment among environmentalists in India and elsewhere who seek to slow the growth of carbon emissions. He nonetheless insists that, as a major developing nation, India should enjoy a special right to achieve economic growth in any way it can, even if this means endangering the environment.

“The desire to improve one's lot has been the primary driving force behind human progress,” his government affirmed in its emissions-reduction pledge to the Paris climate summit. “Nations that are now striving to fulfill this ‘right to grow’ of their teeming millions cannot be made to feel guilty [about] their development agenda as they attempt to fulfill this legitimate aspiration.”

Russia is similarly likely to put domestic economic needs (and the desire to remain a great power, militarily and otherwise) ahead of its global climate obligations.

Although President Vladimir Putin attended the Paris summit and assured the gathered nations of Russian compliance with its outcome, he has also made it crystal clear that his country has no intention of giving up its reliance on oil and natural gas exports for a large share of its national income.

According to the Energy Information Administration, Russia’s government relies on such exports for a staggering 50% of its operating revenue, a share it dare not jeopardize at a time when its economy -- already buffeted by European Union and U.S. sanctions -- is in deep recession.

To ensure the continued flow of hydrocarbon income, in fact, Moscow has announced multibillion dollar plans to develop new oil and gas fields in Siberia and the Arctic, even if such efforts fly in the face of commitments to reduce future carbon emissions.

From Reform and Renewal to Rivalry
Such nationalistic exceptionalism could become something of the norm if Donald Trump wins in November, or other nations join those already eager to put the needs of a fossil fuel-based domestic growth agenda ahead of global climate commitments.

With that in mind, consider the assessment of future energy trends that the Norwegian energy giant Statoil recently produced.  In it is a chilling scenario focused on just this sort of dystopian future.

The second-biggest producer of natural gas in Europe after Russia’s Gazprom, Statoil annually issues Energy Perspectives, a report that explores possible future energy trends.

Previous editions included scenarios labeled “reform” (predicated on coordinated but gradual international efforts to shift from carbon fuels to green energy technology) and “renewal” (positing a more rapid transition).

The 2016 edition, however, added a grim new twist: “rivalry.” It depicts a realistically downbeat future in which international strife and geopolitical competition discourage significant cooperation in the climate field.

According to the document, the new section is “driven” by real-world developments -- by, that is, “a series of political crises, growing protectionism, and a general fragmentation of the state system, resulting in a multipolar world developing in different directions.  In this scenario, there is growing disagreement about the rules of the game and a decreasing ability to manage crises in the political, economic, and environmental arenas.”

In such a future, Statoil suggests, the major powers would prove to be far more concerned with satisfying their own economic and energy requirements than pursuing collaborative efforts aimed at slowing the pace of climate change.

For many of them, this would mean maximizing the cheapest and most accessible fuel options available -- often domestic supplies of fossil fuels.

Under such circumstances, the report suggests, the use of coal would rise, not fall, and its share of global energy consumption would actually increase from 29% to 32%.

In such a world, forget about those “nationally determined contributions” agreed to in Paris and think instead about a planet whose environment will grow ever less friendly to life as we know it.  In its rivalry scenario, writes Statoil, “the climate issue has low priority on the regulatory agenda.

While local pollution issues are attended to, large-scale international climate agreements are not the chosen way forward.

As a consequence, the current NDCs are only partly implemented. Climate finance ambitions are not met, and carbon pricing to stimulate cost-efficient reductions in countries and across national borders are limited.”

Coming from a major fossil fuel company, this vision of how events might play out on an increasingly tumultuous planet makes for peculiar reading: more akin to Eaarth -- Bill McKibben’s dystopian portrait of a climate-ravaged world -- than the usual industry-generated visions of future world health and prosperity.

And while “rivalry” is only one of several scenarios Statoil’s authors considered, they clearly found it unnervingly convincing.

Hence, in a briefing on the report, the company’s chief economist Eirik Wærness indicated that Great Britain’s looming exit from the EU was exactly the sort of event that would fit the proposed model and might multiply in the future.

Climate Change in a World of Geopolitical Exceptionalism
Indeed, the future pace of climate change will be determined as much by geopolitical factors as by technological developments in the energy sector.

While it is evident that immense progress is being made in bringing down the price of wind and solar power in particular -- far more so than all but a few analysts anticipated until recently -- the political will to turn such developments into meaningful global change and so bring carbon emissions to heel before the planet is unalterably transformed may, as the Statoil authors suggest, be dematerializing before our eyes.

If so, make no mistake about it: we will be condemning Earth’s future inhabitants, our own children and grandchildren, to unmitigated disaster.

As President Obama’s largely unheralded success in Hangzhou indicates, such a fate is not etched in stone. If he could persuade the fiercely nationalistic leader of a country worried about its economic future to join him in signing the climate agreement, more such successes are possible. His ability to achieve such outcomes is, however, diminishing by the week, and few other leaders of his stature and determination appear to be waiting in the wings.

To avoid an Eaarth (as both Bill McKibben and the Statoil authors imagine it) and preserve the welcoming planet in which humanity grew and thrived, climate activists will have to devote at least as much of their energy and attention to the international political arena as to the technology sector.

At this point, electing green-minded leaders, stopping climate deniers (or ignorers) from capturing high office, and opposing fossil-fueled ultra-nationalism is the only realistic path to a habitable planet.

• Michael T. Klare, a TomDispatch regular, is a professor of peace and world security studies at Hampshire College and the author, most recently, of The Race for What’s Left. A documentary movie version of his book Blood and Oil is available from the Media Education Foundation. Follow him on Twitter at @mklare1.

.

Participation in RIMPAC 2016

SUBHEAD: The countries participating in largest naval war exercise reach record number and include NATO.

By Juan Wilson  1 June 2016 for Island Breath  -
(http://www.stripes.com/news/pacific/27-nations-set-to-join-rimpac-exercise-in-hawaii-california-1.412494)


Image above: Teaser poster for "Pacific Rim II" film being produced now and ready for 2018. Mashup by Juan Wilson. Click to embiggen.

Note below the two recent articles  (5/31 and 6/1) in Stars and Stripes and Naval Today respectively that are puff pieces more than actual news stories. They both concern RIMPAC 2016 - the international naval war exercises that will begin toward the end of this month.

Both of these articles seem to have been "crafted" from the same US Navy public relations announcement. They cover the same points with about the same amount of detail in the same order.

The gist of the pieces are:

One: To congratulate the US Navy for convincing four new non-Pacific nations (Brazil, Denmark, Germany and Italy) for joining the Rim of the Pacific nations involved with Pacific Naval warfare. Three out of four of them are allies in the North Atlantic Treaty Organization.

Two: To dampen criticism, from the likes of Sen John McCain, that the Chinese Navy should be disenvited from participating as observers in RIMPAC 2016 as they were in 2014. Obviously, the US wants China to see what they would face in and conflict in the South China Sea if they continue to build up they Naval presence in the Western Pacific.

Three: The public relations effort  invokes “The Great Green Fleet” using conservation efforts and alternative fuels; and focusing on rescue and disaster relief operations is a screen for deadlier activities that even in "practice" mode are lethal to the life in the ocean..

As to my opinion of these gists:

One:  The US Navy Pacific fleet in including three NATO navies from the Atlantic Ocean under its wing in the Pacific. Always remember that attacking any NATO nation is an attack on all. In my opinion the US Navy wants to make sure that if there is trouble in the Western Pacific that it will be the US Navy and not NATO doing the coordination.

Two: The US Navy wants the Chinese Navy to observe how mighty and dominant it is in command and control on the Pacific Ocean. They also want the Chinese available for public relations purposes. Also The relationship of a panoramic flotilla of 45 RIMPAC ships from 27nations in proportion to a couple of ships from the Chinese Navy in passive obervation makes a great photo opportunity.

Three: No amount of "Green Fleet" bullshit can obscure the deadly impact of high energy sonar, radar, amphibious operations and live ammo exercises on the Pacific Ocean and its denizens - live reefs, fish, birds, ocean mammals and to the the ecosystems that support them.

It should be noted that buried in the second story below is the detail that Japan Maritime Self Defense Force Rear Adm. Koji Manabe was named the vice commander of the RIMPAC 2016 Combined Task Force. This is interesting because his role was only enabled by an adjustment to Japanese law that disallows any military activity other than that needed for self defense - the old rules would not have allowed a leading role in such an activity as RIMPAC.

As the United States pushes militarily forward in Eastern Europe and the Middle East, it expands its already dominant role throughout the Pacific region. To me it looks like we are pushing for World War Three.  And that's a bad idea. As I have said before - the central role of our navy should not be to threaten live throughout the world, but to protect the oceans and those who live in it.

---

Twenty 27 countries in RIMPAC 2016

By Wyatt Olsen  31 May 2016 for Stars & Stripes  -
(http://www.stripes.com/news/pacific/27-nations-set-to-join-rimpac-exercise-in-hawaii-california-1.412494)


Image above: Reporters and other visitors gather to inspect the bow of the Haikou, China's flagship destroyer, during the 2014 Rim of the Pacific exercise in Hawaii. From original article.

Four nations will join this summer’s Rim of the Pacific drills in Hawaii, increasing the number of countries participating in the world’s largest international maritime exercise to 27.

Brazil, Denmark, Germany and Italy will take part for the first time in the biennial RIMPAC, which is slated to begin June 30 and end Aug. 4, the Navy said Tuesday. China, which joined the exercise in 2014, will also participate.

This year’s U.S. Pacific Fleet-hosted drills – which will focus on disaster relief, maritime security, sea control and complex warfighting – will include 45 ships, five submarines, more than 200 aircraft and 25,000 personnel.

Participating nations include Australia, Brunei, Canada, Chile, Colombia, France, India, Indonesia, Japan, Malaysia, Mexico, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Peru, South Korea, the Philippines, Singapore, Thailand, Tonga and the United Kingdom.

Drills will include amphibious operations, gunnery, counter-piracy, mine clearance, explosive ordnance disposal and diving and salvage operations. Defensive training against missiles, submarines and aircraft will also take place.

While most of the exercise is held in Hawaii, amphibious operations will take place in Southern California, featuring a harpoon missile shoot from a Navy littoral combat ship. A submarine rescue is new for this year, the Navy said.

Playing a major role in this year’s RIMPAC is the Navy’s “Great Green Fleet,” a yearlong initiative that uses energy conservation measures and alternative fuels to demonstrate how cutting energy costs can contribute to overall military readiness.

Almost all the vessels participating will use an approved alternate-fuel blend, the Navy said.

Some in Congress have called for China to be disinvited to RIMPAC, citing the country’s expansionist actions in the South China Sea, where it has enlarged small atolls through sand dredging.

The country has built facilities and runways on some, construction the U.S. characterizes as militarization.

Last month, U.S. Rep. Mark Takai, of Hawaii, a member of the House Armed Services Committee, asked Secretary of Defense Ash Carter to reconsider China’s invitation in light of its naval actions over the past two years.

“I guess my question is why then should we reward China for this aggressive behavior by including them in an event meant for allies and partners?” Takai said to Carter during a March hearing. He described China’s behavior as “the polar opposite of U.S. objectives in the region.”

In late April, China told the U.S. it would deny a Hong Kong port visit by the USS John C. Stennis aircraft carrier strike group planned for May 3-8. The denial likely came in response to the strike group’s recent presence near the disputed Spratly Islands close to the Philippines.

U.S. Pacific Fleet commander Adm. Scott Swift has said on numerous occasions he believes the path forward with China is to deepen relationships with military-to-military contact.

In 2014, China sent four ships to RIMPAC, including the destroyer Haikou and hospital ship Peace Ark. It also sent a spy ship, which remained in international waters off Hawaii.

---

Record participation in RIMPAC 2016

By Staff 1 June 2016 for Naval Today -
(https://navaltoday.com/2016/06/01/record-number-of-countries-to-take-part-in-rimpac-2016/)

With four new participants, the number of countries taking part in RIMPAC, the world’s largest international maritime exercise, rose to 27.

45 ships, five submarines, more than 200 aircraft and 25,000 personnel will participate in the biennial Rim of the Pacific (RIMPAC) exercise scheduled June 30 to August 4, in and around the Hawaiian Islands and Southern California.

This is the first time that Brazil, Denmark, Germany, and Italy are participating in RIMPAC 2016. Additional firsts will involve flexing the command and control structure for various at sea events and incorporating a submarine rescue exercise.

Other participants will be forces from:

Australia, Brazil, Brunei, Canada, Chile, Colombia, Denmark, France, Germany, India, Indonesia, Italy, Japan, Malaysia, Mexico, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, People’s Republic of China, Peru, the Republic of Korea, the Republic of the Philippines, Singapore, Thailand, Tonga, the United Kingdom and the United States.

This year will see amphibious operations in the Southern California operating area, feature a harpoon missile shoot from a U.S. Navy littoral combat ship and highlight fleet innovation during the Trident Warrior experimentation series.

RIMPAC 2016 is the 25th exercise in the series that began in 1971. Hosted by U.S. Pacific Fleet.
It will be led by U.S. Vice Adm. Nora Tyson, commander of the U.S. 3rd Fleet (C3F), who will serve as the Combined Task Force (CTF) Commander.

Royal Canadian Navy Rear Adm. Scott Bishop will serve as deputy commander of the CTF, and Japan Maritime Self Defense Force Rear Adm. Koji Manabe as the vice commander.

See also:
Ea O Ka Aina: Judgement Against RIMPAC 2016 5/29/16
Ea O Ka Aina: Prepare for RIMPAC War in Hawaii 5/22/16
Ea O Ka Aina: Navy to "take" millions of mammals 5/17/16
Ea O Ka Aina: US court RIMPAC Impact decision 4/3/15
Ea O Ka Aina: RIMPAC 2014 Impact Postmortem 10/22/1
Ea O Ka Aina: RIMPAC 2014 in Full March 7/16/14
Ea O Ka Aina: 21st Century Energy Wars 7/10/14
Ea O Ka Aina: RIMPAC War on the Ocean 7/3/14
Ea O Ka Aina: Voila - World War Three 7/1/14
Ea O Ka Aina: The Pacific Pivot 6/28/14
Ea O Ka Aina: RIMPAC IMPACT 6/8/14
Ea O Ka Aina: RIMPAC Then and Now 5/16/14
Ea O Ka Aina: Earthday TPP Fukushima RIMPAC 4/22/14
Ea O Ka Aina: The Asian Pivot - An ugly dance 12/5/13
Ea O Ka Aina: Help save Mariana Islands 11/13/13
Ea O Ka Aina: End RimPac destruction of Pacific 11/1/13 
Ea O Ka Aina: Moana Nui Confereence 11/1/13
Ea O Ka Aina: Navy to conquer Marianas again  9/3/13
Ea O Ka Aina: Pagan Island beauty threatened 10/26/13
Ea O Ka Aina: Navy license to kill 10/27/12 
Ea O Ka Aina: Sleepwalking through destruction 7/16/12
Ea O Ka Aina: Okinawa breathes easier 4/27/12
Ea O Ka Aina: Navy Next-War-Itis 4/13/12
Ea O Ka Aina: America bullies Koreans 4/13/12
Ea O Ka Aina: Despoiling Jeju island coast begins 3/7/12
Ea O Ka Aina: Jeju Islanders protests Navy Base 2/29/12
Ea O Ka Aina: Hawaii - Start of American Empire 2/26/12
Ea O Ka Aina: Korean Island of Peace 2/26/12   
Ea O Ka Aina: Military schmoozes Guam & Hawaii 3/17/11
Ea O Ka Aina: In Search of Real Security - One 8/31/10
Ea O Ka Aina: Peace for the Blue Continent 8/10/10
Ea O Ka Aina: Shift in Pacific Power Balance 8/5/10
Ea O Ka Aina: RimPac to expand activities 6/29/10
Ea O Ka Aina: RIMPAC War Games here in July 6/20/10
Ea O Ka Aina: Pacific Resistance to U.S. Military 5/24/10

Ea O Ka Aina: De-colonizing the Pacific 5/21/10

Ea O Ka Aina: RIMPAC to Return in 2010 5/2/10
Ea O Ka Aina: Living at the Tip of the Spear 4/5/10

Ea O Ka Aina: Living at the Tip of the Spear 4/15/10

Ea O Ka Aina: Guam Land Grab 11/30/09
Ea O Ka Aina: Guam as a modern Bikini Atoll 12/25/09
Ea O Ka Aina: GUAM - Another Strategic Island 11/8/09
Ea O Ka Aina: Diego Garcia - Another stolen island 11/6/09
Ea O Ka Aina: DARPA & Super-Cavitation on Kauai 3/24/09
Island Breath: RIMPAC 2008 - Navy fired up in Hawaii 7/2/08
Island Breath: RIMPAC 2008 uses destructive sonar 4/22/08
Island Breath: Navy Plans for the Pacific 9/3/07
Island Breath: Judge restricts sonar off California 08/07/07
Island Breath: RIMPAC 2006 sonar compromise 7/9/06
Island Breath: RIMPAC 2006 - Impact on Ocean 5/23/06
Island Breath: RIMPAC 2004 - Whale strandings on Kauai 9/2/04
Island Breath: PMRF Land Grab 3/15/04

.

Monsanto Suffers Defeats

SUBHEAD: Monsanto threatens to pull out of India.

By Staff on 6 March 2016 for My Republica -
 (http://www.myrepublica.com/world-news/story/38254/seeds-of-trouble-monsanto-threatens-to-pull-out-of-india.html)


Image above: Indian man holds sign reading "Genetic Engineering is NOT SCIENCE! It is Unethical Experimentation on LIFE".  From original article.

U.S. seed giant Monsanto has threatened to pull its genetically modified crop technology from India if the government goes ahead with its plan to cut the company's royalty fees.

Monsanto's joint venture firm in India said that it would be difficult to bring new technologies to India because it was becoming difficult for the company to recoup its investments in research and development of genetically modified seeds.


Shilpa Divekar Nirula, chief of Monsanto's India unit, said in a statement seen late Saturday that if the committee recommends imposing a cut in the fees that local seed companies pay to use Monsanto's crop genes then the company would have to reevaluate its position in India.

Nirula said it was difficult for Mahyco Monsanto Biotech (India) Limited, the company's joint venture, "to justify bringing new technologies into India in an environment where such arbitrary and innovation-stifling government interventions make it impossible to recoup research and development investments."

In December, India's government ordered that cotton seed prices, including royalties on seeds, be controlled from the 2016-17 crop year. India's agriculture ministry has set up a committee to determine the price of cotton seeds, including fees the company charges for licensing crop genes.

"If the committee recommends imposing a sharp, mandatory cut in the trait fees paid on Bt-cotton seeds, MMBL will have no choice but to reevaluate every aspect of our position in India," Nirula said.

The company said it was "shocked and disappointed" at the news that the government plans to reduce the "trait fees," or the fees that seed companies pay Mahyco Monsanto to use its crop genes, by around 70 percent.

Monsanto said about 7 million cotton farmers in India use its seeds. Over the last two decades, millions of small farmers have adopted genetically modified cotton seeds, making India one of the world's biggest producers of cotton and a major exporter of raw cotton.

However, farm activists say that the pest-resistance of the seeds has gone down and that farmers have to use more insecticide on their cotton crops.

Genetically modified plants are grown from seeds that are engineered to resist insects and herbicides, add nutritional benefits or otherwise improve crop yields and increase the global food supply. Advocates say these new strains will boost yields and stabilize supply by also improving drought resistance.

India has allowed the use of genetically modified seeds only to grow cotton. It says further study needs to be done to guarantee consumer safety before genetically modified food crops can be cultivated in the country.

---

Monsanto getting flack

SOURCE: Ray Songtree (rayupdates@hushmail.com)
SUBHEAD: Monsanto suffers week of devastating defeats as lawmakers back away from biotech influence and intimidation.

By Julie Wilson on 20 March 2016 for Natural News -
(http://www.naturalnews.com/053368_GMO_labeling_Jeff_Merkley_Senate_bill.html)

Monsanto may hold a near-monopoly on the world's seed supply, but it cannot control the minds, hearts and voices of those who support and demand clean, healthy and non-toxic food. Advocates have increasingly consolidated to create a powerful health food movement that's gained so much momentum it is now deemed unstoppable.

This doesn't bode well for seed companies dependent on crops laced with foreign DNA and coupled with noxious herbicides. Thanks to the tireless work of food and health activists, bloggers and the indie media, the public is no longer in the dark about the health and environmental dangers of GMOs – and there is no reversing that opinion.

Americans have shown overwhelming support for GMO-labeling, a position reflected in the U.S. Senate yesterday after it blocked a controversial, anti-consumer bill that would have preempted states' rights to pass GMO-labeling laws, as well as reverse existing legislation, such as that in Vermont, which is set to go into effect July 1, 2016.

Senate ignores push to ban GMO-labeling

In order to pass, the DARK Act (Deny Americans the Right to Know) needed 60 votes in the Senate. But it fell3 short, receiving only 49 "yes" votes and 48 "no" votes. Food and Water Watch says that all of the senators they pressured to vote against the DARK Act came through on Wednesday, including the following:

• Debbie Stabenow (D-MI)
• Michael Bennet (D-CO)
• Sherrod Brown (D-OH)
• Robert P. Casey Jr. (D-PA)
• Amy Klobuchar (D-MN)
• Dick Durbin (D-IL)
• Susan Collins (R-ME)
• Tim Kaine (D-VA) T

The legislation was essentially Monsanto's dream bill, as it would have put a permanent end to the expensive battles fought by them and other seed giants, as well as Big Food, in several U.S. states trying to pass labeling laws.

More than 70 GMO-labeling bills have been proposed in 30 states thus far, with three states passing the legislation, including Maine, Connecticut and Vermont. New Hampshire is on the verge of passing similar legislation, and is set to vote on the measure before the month's end.

Trouble in paradiseThe agrichemical industry is facing yet another blow to its empire, with the introduction of a national, uniform GMO-labeling law, that if passed, could lead to the creation of a national symbol that would clearly disclose the presence of genetically modified ingredients.

Proposed by Senator Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.), the bill is called the Biotech Food Labeling Uniformity Act or S. 2621.

"This is what real disclosure looks like. This bill finds a way to set a national standard and avoid a patchwork of state labeling laws while still giving consumers the information they want and deserve about what's in their food," said Jean Halloran, director of food policy initiatives for Consumers Union.

Monsanto is also facing trouble abroad. This week, India's prime minister showed Monsanto the door amid complaints over its inflated prices on GM cotton. Prime Minister Narendra Modi said Monsanto will lose its 90 percent dominance of the Indian market unless it agrees to reduce its seed prices.

"India cut the royalties paid by local firms for Monsanto's seeds by nearly 70 percent, also capping GM cotton seed prices at 800 rupees ($11.9) for a packet of 400 grams, starting in April 2017," according to the Russian Times. "Last year the seeds were sold at prices ranging from 830 rupees ($12.4) to 1,100 rupees ($16.4) in different parts of the country."

"It's now upon Monsanto to decide whether they want to accept this rate or not," said Sanjeev Kumar Balyan, the junior agriculture minister. "If they don't find it feasible, then they are free to take a call. The greed (of charging) a premium has to end. ...

"We're not scared if Monsanto leaves the country, because our team of scientists are working to develop (an) indigenous variety of (GM) seeds," he added.

Halfway through COP21

SUBHEAD: ...And a very long way from world-saving deal thanks to corporations and First World nations

By John Queally on 5 December 1025 for Common Dreams -
(http://www.commondreams.org/news/2015/12/05/halfway-through-paris-and-very-long-way-world-saving-deal)


Image above: “The enemies of a decent deal know they have one week to kill words in the text that commit the world to ‘full decarbonization,'" said Martin Kaiser, head of the international climate negotiations for Greenpeace. From original article.

The COP21 climate talks in Paris reached their halfway point on Saturday, but a deal that experts and global justice campaigners would consider acceptable remains a long way off as the fossil fuel industry and wealthy nations maintain their powerful grip on the direction of the international summit.

Given the troubled history of the UN-sponsored talks, most members of civil society headed to Paris acknowledging the two-week gathering was unlikely to yield the kind of agreement that either the science of global warming, or the movement for climate justice, would find acceptable.

However, in the wake of released draft texts by the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), the body governing the talks, environmental campaigners and rights groups are expressing contempt for the negative influence that powerful corporations and the fossil fuel industry—backed by the world's wealthiest and most polluting nations—are having on the progress towards reaching an ambitious and transformative deal.

“The enemies of a decent deal know they have one week to kill words in the text that commit the world to ‘full decarbonization,'" said Martin Kaiser, head of the international climate negotiations for Greenpeace. "They know that would set us on a path towards 100% renewables by the middle of the century. Those regressive forces will fight instead for words that call for a 'low emission transformation,' knowing that such a watered down phrase will do almost nothing to keep fossil fuels in the ground."

At speech inside the conference hall on Saturday, Tony de Brum, the Foreign Minister for the Marshall Islands, gave what was described as a "rousing speech," touching on the vulnerability of low-lying nations and the world's poor as he vowed to press for ambitious emissions targets as well as adequate levels of financial assistance to pay for the damage already triggered by greenhouse gases.

"We cannot leave Paris with a minimalist agreement, we must build a coalition of high ambition," declared de Brum. "I refuse to go home without an agreement that I can look my grandchildren in the eye and be proud of my contribution."

Also on Saturday morning, the UNFCCC released the latest draft text (pdf) of the chapter focused on national financial commitments designed to deal with the impacts of global warming in the decades to come. As Fiona Harvey reports for the Guardian:

The world’s least developed countries face the greatest threat from climate change as they lack the technology to cut greenhouse gas emissions and their infrastructure is too fragile to cope with extreme weather. Under the proposed wording, developing countries with rapidly growing economies, such as China, would be included alongside established developed nations in being regarded as potential donors to poorer nations.
Rich countries argue that the wording merely reflects current reality, as at least eight governments classed as developing have already made “climate finance” contributions that will aid those poorer than them. China pledged $3bn (£2bn) to the Green Climate Fund in September, and has made further pledges to help Africa.
But some developing countries see the attempt to bracket them with the rich as a threat. They think it could be used in the future to force them to become donors alongside countries such as the US and the EU.

Tamar Lawrence-Samuel, associate research director for the U.S.-based Corporate Accountability International, responded to the latest draft by describing it as an affront to the "historical responsibility of the Global North" and said it offers only more proof that rich nations remain the key blockers of the urgently needed transition away from dirty energy.

Speaking on behalf of Friends of the Earth International, spokesperson Asad Rehman, said: "Rich, developed countries, led by the United States are negotiating in bad faith here in Paris – they are refusing to even discuss proposals brought by developing countries. The poorest, most vulnerable nations are being bullied behind closed doors and their issues are being railroaded out of this process.

It is simply unacceptable that the USA won’t live up to its legal and moral responsibilities. At the same time civil society observers, the eyes and ears of global citizens, are being shut out of negotiating rooms. Not only are we seeing an ambition deficit, but we are seeing a fundamental lack of justice."

"While the draft outcome released this morning for negotiation next week will likely be met with applause by Global North governments and their corporate board room backers," explained Lawrence-Samuel, "it fails to deliver meaningfully toward the systemic transition climate change requires.

At the core of this failure are the obstinate negotiating positions of the US and other Global North governments who are bent on deregulating the global rules applying to them and advancing the financial needs of big business over the survival needs of people."

She continued by saying that even as the U.S. delegation and President Obama, who spent two days in Paris talking about climate earlier in the week, are framing their commitments at COP21 as grand and far-reaching, the contents of this latest draft betray such claims.

"The chasm between rhetoric and action continues to grow," she said. "Whether it’s finance or technology, loss and damage or differentiation, the positions reflected in this text are heavily biased towards the US, Japan, EU and other Global North countries, and the emissions-intensive industries they represent."

Highlighting the widely-held sentiment that corporations and the individually powerful continue to have an outsized and negative influence when it comes to the UN-sponsored climate talks, activist filmmakers debuted a short film in Paris on Friday night, entitled "La Fête est Finie (The Party is Over)."

The black-and-white short depicts a private gathering of powerful members of industry and government officials in shadow of the Eiffel Tower as they indulge and celebrate. Watch:


Image above: From (https://vimeo.com/147336202).

In a statement released alongside the film, Mark Donne, one of the co-directors, said: "As with any party, the skill is in knowing when to leave. For decades fossil fuel extracting trans-nationals and western governments have continued to dance and partake long after the bright lights of climate science evidence were switched on and the deafening music of denial had its plug pulled."

Meanwhile, and despite evidence showing the deal reached in Paris will ultimately prove inadequate, Kaiser said Greenpeace remains "optimistic about the process" though "less so about the content," though indicated room remains for negotiators to prove campaigners wrong. "At this point in Copenhagen we were dealing with a 300 page text and a pervasive sense of despair," he said. "In Paris we’re down to a slim 21 pages and the atmosphere remains constructive.

But that doesn’t guarantee a decent deal. Right now the oil-producing nations and the fossil fuel industry will be plotting how to crash these talks when ministers arrive next week."

And according to Lucy Cadena, a campaigner for Friends of the Earth International, it remains important to remember that what happens outside of the halls of power—whether in Paris or around the world—is ultimately more important than what happens inside conference centers and meeting rooms.

"It is still unclear whether the warm words and half promises we’ve heard this week will yet lead to firm commitments," Cadena said. "Will we really see a commitment to a more ambitious temperature threshold?

There have been piecemeal pledges for finance for vulnerable countries to adapt, but nothing consistent or in line with rich nations’ fairshare of effort.

Nor is there clarity on support to enable the poorest to recover from unavoidable impacts of climate change. Those who grew rich through a dirty climate-changing system and addiction to carbon pollution are leaving poorer countries to foot the bill as if they carry equal responsibility."

She concluded, "The lack of progress in the halls is in complete contrast with the vibrancy and creativity of people on the streets and in alternative gatherings throughout Paris."

.

Are resource wars our future?

SUBHEAD: The COP21 summit should be viewed as a kind of preemptive peace conference, before the wars truly begin.

By Michael Klare on 3 November 2015 for Tom Dispatch-
(http://www.tomdispatch.com/post/176063/tomgram%3A_michael_klare%2C_are_resource_wars_our_future/)


Image above: China diverted much of the Brahmputra River with the Xiawan Dam on the eastern plateau of Tibet before its water reach thirsty India and Bangladesh.  Is this an act of war? From (http://bfmedic.com/lancang-dam-real-life/xiaowan-dam/).

At the end of November, delegations from nearly 200 countries will convene in Paris for what is billed as the most important climate meeting ever held.  Officially known as the 21st Conference of the Parties (COP-21) of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (the 1992 treaty that designated that phenomenon a threat to planetary health and human survival), the Paris summit will be focused on the adoption of measures that would limit global warming to less than catastrophic levels.

If it fails, world temperatures in the coming decades are likely to exceed 2 degrees Celsius (3.5 degrees Fahrenheit), the maximum amount most scientists believe the Earth can endure without experiencing irreversible climate shocks, including soaring temperatures and a substantial rise in global sea levels.

A failure to cap carbon emissions guarantees another result as well, though one far less discussed.  It will, in the long run, bring on not just climate shocks, but also worldwide instability, insurrection, and warfare.  In this sense, COP-21 should be considered not just a climate summit but a peace conference -- perhaps the most significant peace convocation in history.

To grasp why, consider the latest scientific findings on the likely impacts of global warming, especially the 2014 report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).  When first published, that report attracted worldwide media coverage for predicting that unchecked climate change will result in severe droughts, intense storms, oppressive heat waves, recurring crop failures, and coastal flooding, all leading to widespread death and deprivation.

Recent events, including a punishing drought in California and crippling heat waves in Europe and Asia, have focused more attention on just such impacts.

The IPCC report, however, suggested that global warming would have devastating impacts of a social and political nature as well, including economic decline, state collapse, civil strife, mass migrations, and sooner or later resource wars.

These predictions have received far less attention, and yet the possibility of such a future should be obvious enough since human institutions, like natural systems, are vulnerable to climate change.  Economies are going to suffer when key commodities -- crops, timber, fish, livestock -- grow scarcer, are destroyed, or fail.  Societies will begin to buckle under the strain of economic decline and massive refugee flows.

Armed conflict may not be the most immediate consequence of these developments, the IPCC notes, but combine the effects of climate change with already existing poverty, hunger, resource scarcity, incompetent and corrupt governance, and ethnic, religious, or national resentments, and you’re likely to end up with bitter conflicts over access to food, water, land, and other necessities of life.

The Coming of Climate Civil Wars
Such wars would not arise in a vacuum.  Already existing stresses and grievances would be heightened, enflamed undoubtedly by provocative acts and the exhortations of demagogic leaders.

Think of the current outbreak of violence in Israel and the Palestinian territories, touched off by clashes over access to the Temple Mount in Jerusalem (also known as the Noble Sanctuary) and the inflammatory rhetoric of assorted leaders. Combine economic and resource deprivation with such situations and you have a perfect recipe for war.

The necessities of life are already unevenly distributed across the planet. Often the divide between those with access to adequate supplies of vital resources and those lacking them coincides with long-term schisms along racial, ethnic, religious, or linguistic lines.

The Israelis and Palestinians, for example, harbor deep-seated ethnic and religious hostilities but also experience vastly different possibilities when it comes to access to land and water.  Add the stresses of climate change to such situations and you can naturally expect passions to boil over.

Climate change will degrade or destroy many natural systems, often already under stress, on which humans rely for their survival.  Some areas that now support agriculture or animal husbandry may become uninhabitable or capable only of providing for greatly diminished populations.

Under the pressure of rising temperatures and increasingly fierce droughts, the southern fringe of the Sahara desert, for example, is now being transformed from grasslands capable of sustaining nomadic herders into an empty wasteland, forcing local nomads off their ancestral lands.

Many existing farmlands in Africa, Asia, and the Middle East will suffer a similar fate.  Rivers that once supplied water year-round will run only sporadically or dry up altogether, again leaving populations with unpalatable choices.

As the IPCC report points out, enormous pressure will be put upon often weak state institutions to adjust to climate change and aid those in desperate need of emergency food, shelter, and other necessities. “Increased human insecurity,” the report says, “may coincide with a decline in the capacity of states to conduct effective adaptation efforts, thus creating the circumstances in which there is greater potential for violent conflict.”

A good example of this peril is provided by the outbreak of civil war in Syria and the subsequent collapse of that country in a welter of fighting and a wave of refugees of a sort that hasn’t been seen since World War II.  Between 2006 and 2010, Syria experienced a devastating drought in which climate change is believed to have been a factor, turning nearly 60% of the country into desert.  Crops failed and most of the country’s livestock perished, forcing millions of farmers into penury.

Desperate and unable to live on their land any longer, they moved into Syria’s major cities in search of work, often facing extreme hardship as well as hostility from well-connected urban elites.
Had Syrian autocrat Bashar al-Assad responded with an emergency program of jobs and housing for those displaced, perhaps conflict could have been averted.  Instead, he cut food and fuel subsidies, adding to the misery of the migrants and fanning the flames of revolt.

In the view of several prominent scholars, “the rapidly growing urban peripheries of Syria, marked by illegal settlements, overcrowding, poor infrastructure, unemployment, and crime, were neglected by the Assad government and became the heart of the developing unrest.”

A similar picture has unfolded in the Sahel region of Africa, the southern fringe of the Sahara, where severe drought has combined with habitat decline and government neglect to provoke armed violence.

The area has faced many such periods in the past, but now, thanks to climate change, there is less time between the droughts.  “Instead of 10 years apart, they became five years apart, and now only a couple years apart,” observes Robert Piper, the United Nations regional humanitarian coordinator for the Sahel.  “And that, in turn, is putting enormous stresses on what is already an incredibly fragile environment and a highly vulnerable population.”

In Mali, one of several nations straddling this region, the nomadic Tuaregs have been particularly hard hit, as the grasslands they rely on to feed their cattle are turning into desert.  A Berber-speaking Muslim population, the Tuaregs have long faced hostility from the central government in Bamako, once controlled by the French and now by black Africans of Christian or animist faith.

With their traditional livelihoods in peril and little assistance forthcoming from the capital, the Tuaregs revolted in January 2012, capturing half of Mali before being driven back into the Sahara by French and other foreign forces (with U.S. logistical and intelligence support).

Consider the events in Syria and Mali previews of what is likely to come later in this century on a far larger scale.  As climate change intensifies, bringing not just desertification but rising sea levels in low-lying coastal areas and increasingly devastating heat waves in regions that are already hot, ever more parts of the planet will be rendered less habitable, pushing millions of people into desperate flight.

While the strongest and wealthiest governments, especially in more temperate regions, will be better able to cope with these stresses, expect to see the number of failed states grow dramatically, leading to violence and open warfare over what food, arable land, and shelter remains.

In other words, imagine significant parts of the planet in the kind of state that Libya, Syria, and Yemen are in today.  Some people will stay and fight to survive; others will migrate, almost assuredly encountering a far more violent version of the hostility we already see toward immigrants and refugees in the lands they head for.  The result, inevitably, will be a global epidemic of resource civil wars and resource violence of every sort.

Water Wars
Most of these conflicts will be of an internal, civil character: clan against clan, tribe against tribe, sect against sect.  On a climate-changed planet, however, don’t rule out struggles among nations for diminished vital resources -- especially access to water.  It’s already clear that climate change will reduce the supply of water in many tropical and subtropical regions, jeopardizing the continued pursuit of agriculture, the health and functioning of major cities, and possibly the very sinews of society.

The risk of “water wars” will arise when two or more countries depend on the same key water source -- the Nile, the Jordan, the Euphrates, the Indus, the Mekong, or other trans-boundary river systems -- and one or more of them seek to appropriate a disproportionate share of the ever-shrinking supply of its water.  Attempts by countries to build dams and divert the water flow of such riverine systems have already provoked skirmishes and threats of war, as when Turkey and Syria erected dams on the Euphrates, constraining the downstream flow.

One system that has attracted particular concern in this regard is the Brahmaputra River, which originates in China (where it is known as the Yarlung Tsangpo) and passes through India and Bangladesh before emptying into the Indian Ocean.

 China has already erected one dam on the river and has plans for more, producing considerable unease in India, where the Brahmaputra’s water is vital for agriculture.  But what has provoked the most alarm is a Chinese plan to channel water from that river to water-scarce areas in the northern part of that country.

The Chinese insist that no such action is imminent, but intensified warming and increased drought could, in the future, prompt such a move, jeopardizing India’s water supply and possibly provoking a conflict.  “China’s construction of dams and the proposed diversion of the Brahmaputra’s waters is not only expected to have repercussions for water flow, agriculture, ecology, and lives and livelihoods downstream,” Sudha Ramachandran writes in The Diplomat, “it could also become another contentious issue undermining Sino-Indian relations.”

Of course, even in a future of far greater water stresses, such situations are not guaranteed to provoke armed combat.  Perhaps the states involved will figure out how to share whatever limited resources remain and seek alternative means of survival.  Nonetheless, the temptation to employ force is bound to grow as supplies dwindle and millions of people face thirst and starvation.  In such circumstances, the survival of the state itself will be at risk, inviting desperate measures.

Lowering the Temperature
There is much that undoubtedly could be done to reduce the risk of water wars, including the adoption of cooperative water-management schemes and the introduction of the wholesale use of drip irrigation and related processes that use water far more efficiently. However, the best way to avoid future climate-related strife is, of course, to reduce the pace of global warming.  Every fraction of a degree less warming achieved in Paris and thereafter will mean that much less blood spilled in future climate-driven resource wars.

This is why the Paris climate summit should be viewed as a kind of preemptive peace conference, one that is taking place before the wars truly begin.  If delegates to COP-21 succeed in sending us down a path that limits global warming to 2 degrees Celsius, the risk of future violence will be diminished accordingly.  Needless to say, even 2 degrees of warming guarantees substantial damage to vital natural systems, potentially severe resource scarcities, and attendant civil strife.

As a result, a lower ceiling for temperature rise would be preferable and should be the goal of future conferences.  Still, given the carbon emissions pouring into the atmosphere, even a 2-degree cap would be a significant accomplishment.

To achieve such an outcome, delegates will undoubtedly have to begin dealing with conflicts of the present moment as well, including those in Syria, Iraq, Yemen, and Ukraine, in order to collaborate in devising common, mutually binding climate measures.  In this sense, too, the Paris summit will be a peace conference.

For the first time, the nations of the world will have to step beyond national thinking and embrace a higher goal: the safety of the ecosphere and all its human inhabitants, no matter their national, ethnic, religious, racial, or linguistic identities.  Nothing like this has ever been attempted, which means that it will be an exercise in peacemaking of the most essential sort -- and, for once, before the wars truly begin.

• Michael T. Klare, a TomDispatch regular, is a professor of peace and world security studies at Hampshire College and the author, most recently, of The Race for What’s Left. A documentary movie version of his book Blood and Oil is available from the Media Education Foundation. Follow him on Twitter at @mklare1.


.

WTO vs India's solar energy push

SUBHEAD: WTO ruling against India's solar energy push threatens climate and clean energy.

By Nadia Prupis on August 27 2015 for Common Dreams -
(http://www.commondreams.org/news/2015/08/27/wto-ruling-against-indias-solar-push-threatens-climate-clean-energy)


Image above: Indian woman walks in front of parabolic solar reflectors that can be used to heat water. Photo by Knut-Erik Helle at flickr/cc. From original article.

The U.S. should be applauding India’s efforts to scale up solar energy—not turning to the World Trade Organization (WTO) to strike the program down."

The WTO on Wednesday ruled against India over its national solar energy program in a case brought by the U.S. government, sparking outrage from labor and environmental advocates.

As power demands grow in India, the country's government put forth a plan to create 100,000 megawatts of energy from solar cells and modules, and included incentives to domestic manufacturers to use locally-developed equipment.

According to Indian news outlets, the WTO ruled that India had discriminated against American manufacturers by providing such incentives, which violates global trade rules, and struck down those policies—siding with the U.S. government in a case that the Sierra Club said demonstrates the environmentally and economically destructive power of pro-corporate deals like the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP).

"Today, we have more evidence of how free trade rules threaten the clean energy economy and undermine action to tackle the climate crisis," Ilana Solomon, director of the Sierra Club's Responsible Trade Program, said on Thursday. "The U.S. should be applauding India’s efforts to scale up solar energy—not turning to the WTO to strike the program down."

According to Indian media outlet Livemint, the U.S. government

has resorted to similar measures, specifying local content requirements and offering a range of subsidies for promoting its renewable energy sector at the federal, state, regional and local levels.

India spoke repeatedly against the US at WTO’s committee on subsidies and countervailing measures, stating that American subsidy schemes relating to local or domestic content requirements for its solar companies are inconsistent with its global trade obligations.

In addition, Livemint reports, the ruling "goes against the spirit of an agreement signed early this year.... [in which] the two sides agreed to promote clean energy and expand solar energy initiatives."
Regardless, Solomon said, the WTO "needs to get out of the business of hampering climate action in countries around the globe.

The outdated trade rules on the books now and under negotiation in trade pacts including the Trans-Pacific Partnership and the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership encourage trade in fossil fuels and discourage countries from developing local clean energy capacity."

"These rules simply do not reflect the urgency of solving the climate crisis and stand in the way of clean energy growth," Solomon said.

The Indian government will appeal the decision to the WTO's highest court, the appellate body. It is the second time that the WTO has ruled against India in a case with the U.S., which first brought legal action against the country's food security program in 2014.

The WTO ruled on that case in June, when it decided that the Indian ban on certain foods from the U.S. was "inconsistent with the global norms."


.

India and US seal nuclear deal

SUBHEAD: Less of liability opens the door for US corporations to help India develop more nuclear power.

By Staff on 25 January 2015 for BBC News -
(http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-india-30930581)


Image above:  More nuclear of India. The "Dance of Death". India's Prime Minister Narendra Modi broke with protocol to meet President Obama personally at the airport in Delhi. From original article.

The US and India have announced a breakthrough on a pact that will allow American companies to supply India with civilian nuclear technology.

It came on the first day of President Barack Obama's visit to India.

The nuclear deal had been held up for six years amid concerns over the liability for any nuclear accident.

Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi said the nations were embarking on a "new journey" of co-operation, with stronger defense and trade ties.

Mr Obama said that the nations had declared a new friendship.

Security is intense in Delhi, with Mr Obama to be the guest of honour at Monday's Republic Day celebrations. Thousands of security personnel have been deployed in Delhi.

Renewed trust
The nuclear pact had been agreed in 2008 but the US was worried about Indian laws on liability over any accidents.

Now, a large insurance pool will be set up, without the need for any further legislation.

US ambassador Richard Verma said: "It opens the door for US and other companies to come forward and actually help India towards developing nuclear power and support its non carbon-based energy production."

  

The BBC's Sanjoy Majumder in Delhi says the sides also agreed to increase their bilateral trade five times, from the current $100bn (£66.7bn) a year. The US will also sell more military hardware to India.

Earlier, Mr Modi stressed the importance of the visit by breaking with protocol to receive Mr Obama personally at Delhi airport.

After his arrival, the US president travelled to the presidential palace, Rashtrapati Bhavan, for an official welcoming ceremony.

Mr Obama laid a wreath at the Mahatma Gandhi memorial and planted a tree.
At a joint press conference, Mr Modi said the two countries were "starting a new journey" based on "renewed trust and sustained attention".

He said of Mr Obama: "We have forged a friendship, there is openness when we talk."
He said the two nations would increase cooperation on defence projects and on "eliminating terrorist safe havens and on bringing terrorists to justice".

Mr Obama said the countries "had declared a new friendship to elevate our partnership", which "commits to more meetings and consultations across governments".

He added: "The new partnership will not happen overnight. It will need patience but will remain a top foreign policy priority for my administration."

Out of bounds The BBC's Geeta Pandey in Delhi says security around the Republic Day parade is generally tight, but this year the high-profile visit has taken preparations to a new level.

India Gate and the Rajpath (the King's Avenue), where Monday's parade takes place, have been out of bounds for most people for the past few days, with thousands of policemen on duty.
Security has been upgraded at several upmarket hotels, where the US president and his team are staying.

Traffic restrictions have been put in place across the city, and extra checks have been taking place at metro stations.

Mr Obama's visit to India has been shortened so he can visit Saudi Arabia and pay his respects following the death of King Abdullah.

It means he will not now visit the Taj Mahal.


Image above: The Tarapur Atomic Power Station in Maharashtra. The Nuclear Power Corporation of India on said Indian nuclear plants have remained safe during recent natural calamities but there was no room for complacency.From (http://www.thehindu.com/news/national/indian-nuclear-plants-safe-but-no-room-for-complacency-npcil/article1537394.ece).

.