Showing posts with label Europe. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Europe. Show all posts

Friday, August 15, 2014

Breaking: Russian, Ukraine forces begin fighting near border; Update: Convoy trucks “mostly empty,” BBC reports; Update: Russians: Hey, we didn’t cross the border

Breaking:Russian,Ukraineforcesbeginfightingnear

Breaking: Russian, Ukraine forces begin fighting near border; Update: Convoy trucks “mostly empty,” BBC reports; Update: Russians: Hey, we didn’t cross the border

posted at 11:21 am on August 15, 2014 by Ed Morrissey

Remember how tensions appeared to have calmed down on the Russia-Ukraine border earlier today? Good times, good times. Both countries now acknowledge that fighting has erupted between their two military forces, although they disagree on the nature of the conflict. Ukraine insists that it’s in their country, and that they have managed to destroy part of an armored column that invaded their territory:

Ukraine said its troops attacked and partially destroyed an armed convoy that had crossed the border from Russian territory.

Ukrainian government troops engaged the vehicles that had arrived overnight through a rebel-held section of the border, Andriy Lysenko, a spokesman for the country’s military, told reporters in Kiev today. Ukrainian soldiers continue to come under shelling, including rounds fired from Russia, he said.

Nyet, say the Russians. It’s the Ukrainians who attacked the military units protecting a convoy of humanitarian aid that started the conflict, although they seem to concede that the action’s taking place across the border:

Russia’s foreign ministry, meanwhile, said Ukrainian forces are engaging in intense fighting in Eastern Ukraine to stop humanitarian aid to the region.

Well, who could have seen this coming? Just about everyone when Vladimir Putin began putting together his provocative aid convoy. Let’s not forget that Putin sold this as a Red Cross effort to the Russian media while the ICRC denied any involvement in it at all. Today’s inspections were intended to get the Red Cross’ imprimatur on the project, but that didn’t stop Russia from sending in armored personnel carriers — although it did mark the first time they’d been caught at it by the media.

The EU reacted with alarm at the earlier incursion, but may find themselves in the first European war since the Balkans:

Europe voiced alarm on Friday over reports that Moscow had sent military hardware into conflict-torn eastern Ukraine, as Kiev prepared to inspect a controversial Russian “aid” convoy parked up at the border.

Tensions, already high over fears Moscow could use its humanitarian mission as a “Trojan horse” to help rebels, spiralled further after Ukraine’s military confirmed British media reports that a small convoy of Russian armoured vehicles was seen breaching the frontier.

“If there are any Russian military personnel or vehicles in Ukraine they need to be withdrawn immediately or the consequences will be very serious,” British Foreign Secretary Philip Hammond said.

Moscow has denied the allegations, the latest claims from the West that it has sent armour across the border to help pro-Kremlin separatists who launched an insurgency against Kiev in April.

Moscow isn’t denying it now, apparently, just claiming that it was part of the humanitarian effort.

We’ll keep our eye on further developments.

Update: The UK has summoned the Russian ambassador to explain their actions:

No word yet on an official reaction from the Obama administration.

Update: Russia says it’s still in talks with Ukraine over the aid, according to a flash update at CNBC, but warns Ukraine not to disrupt the aid convoy:

Russia, meanwhile, accused Ukraine of attempting to disrupt its humanitarian aid mission to eastern Ukraine and called for a ceasefire in the region to allow for the deliveries. The Kremlin has continuously denied sending weapons and troops into Ukraine.

“We draw attention to the sharp intensification of military action by Ukrainian forces with the apparent aim to stop the path, agreed on with Kiev, of a humanitarian convoy across the Russia-Ukraine border,” the Foreign Ministry said in a statement.

That depends on which side of the border the Russian APCs were engaged, no?

Update: Now the EU has responded by telling Russia to back off:

Still no word from the White House or Martha’s Vineyard. Nothing on the State Department website as of 11:39 ET either.

Update: As of 12:30 ET still no statement from the White House. The Financial Times reports that it’s been grim for the rebellion even before now, and will get even more so:

The resignation of Igor Girkin, the Russian military mastermind behind the takeover of large parts of eastern Ukraine by rebel fighters, this week was the latest crack to appear at the top of the months-long rebellion that has become increasingly strained.

His departure is the third high-profile change in the rebel hierarchy in the past week. Alexander Borodai, also a Muscovite, stepped down last week as prime minister of the self-declared Donetsk People’s Republic. With Mr Girkin, he was part of Russian-backed separatist forces in Moldova’s breakaway region of Transnistria in the early 1990s.

The replacement of both with Ukrainians marks a transition in the leadership from highly trained Russian military officers to locally recruited warlords in an increasingly tense stand-off with Ukrainian forces.

“It will be like Stalingrad,” an armed rebel nicknamed Taipan recently told the Financial Times, referring to the battle between the separatists and government forces that is expected in coming days and weeks.

Or hours. Or minutes.

Update: But what about the aid? Turns out it’s mostly vaporware:

A convoy of Russian trucks carrying aid for eastern Ukraine has been opened up to journalists at the border. …

The BBC’s Steve Rosenberg noted that many of the trucks were “almost empty”.

Update, 13:21 ET: The Russians have finally gotten around to denying everything:

The Russian defence ministry denied Friday that it had sent a military convoy into Ukraine after officials in Kiev said they destroyed part of the armoured column.

Major-General Igor Konashenkov said “there exists no Russian military convoy that supposedly crossed the Russian-Ukrainian border…”, but better that Ukraine’s armed forces “destroy phantoms instead of refugees or their own soldiers,” he added, according to Russian news agencies.

Yeah, well, except …

NATO chief Anders Fogh Rasmussen backed reports of the “Russian incursion” after British media said it had seen the convoy of some 20 vehicles cross the border.

Still no word from President Obama, either.


Related Posts:

Source from: hotair

Breaking: Russian, Ukraine forces begin fighting near border; Update: Convoy trucks “mostly empty,” BBC reports

Breaking:Russian,Ukraineforcesbeginfightingnear

Breaking: Russian, Ukraine forces begin fighting near border; Update: Convoy trucks “mostly empty,” BBC reports

posted at 11:21 am on August 15, 2014 by Ed Morrissey

Remember how tensions appeared to have calmed down on the Russia-Ukraine border earlier today? Good times, good times. Both countries now acknowledge that fighting has erupted between their two military forces, although they disagree on the nature of the conflict. Ukraine insists that it’s in their country, and that they have managed to destroy part of an armored column that invaded their territory:

Ukraine said its troops attacked and partially destroyed an armed convoy that had crossed the border from Russian territory.

Ukrainian government troops engaged the vehicles that had arrived overnight through a rebel-held section of the border, Andriy Lysenko, a spokesman for the country’s military, told reporters in Kiev today. Ukrainian soldiers continue to come under shelling, including rounds fired from Russia, he said.

Nyet, say the Russians. It’s the Ukrainians who attacked the military units protecting a convoy of humanitarian aid that started the conflict, although they seem to concede that the action’s taking place across the border:

Russia’s foreign ministry, meanwhile, said Ukrainian forces are engaging in intense fighting in Eastern Ukraine to stop humanitarian aid to the region.

Well, who could have seen this coming? Just about everyone when Vladimir Putin began putting together his provocative aid convoy. Let’s not forget that Putin sold this as a Red Cross effort to the Russian media while the ICRC denied any involvement in it at all. Today’s inspections were intended to get the Red Cross’ imprimatur on the project, but that didn’t stop Russia from sending in armored personnel carriers — although it did mark the first time they’d been caught at it by the media.

The EU reacted with alarm at the earlier incursion, but may find themselves in the first European war since the Balkans:

Europe voiced alarm on Friday over reports that Moscow had sent military hardware into conflict-torn eastern Ukraine, as Kiev prepared to inspect a controversial Russian “aid” convoy parked up at the border.

Tensions, already high over fears Moscow could use its humanitarian mission as a “Trojan horse” to help rebels, spiralled further after Ukraine’s military confirmed British media reports that a small convoy of Russian armoured vehicles was seen breaching the frontier.

“If there are any Russian military personnel or vehicles in Ukraine they need to be withdrawn immediately or the consequences will be very serious,” British Foreign Secretary Philip Hammond said.

Moscow has denied the allegations, the latest claims from the West that it has sent armour across the border to help pro-Kremlin separatists who launched an insurgency against Kiev in April.

Moscow isn’t denying it now, apparently, just claiming that it was part of the humanitarian effort.

We’ll keep our eye on further developments.

Update: The UK has summoned the Russian ambassador to explain their actions:

No word yet on an official reaction from the Obama administration.

Update: Russia says it’s still in talks with Ukraine over the aid, according to a flash update at CNBC, but warns Ukraine not to disrupt the aid convoy:

Russia, meanwhile, accused Ukraine of attempting to disrupt its humanitarian aid mission to eastern Ukraine and called for a ceasefire in the region to allow for the deliveries. The Kremlin has continuously denied sending weapons and troops into Ukraine.

“We draw attention to the sharp intensification of military action by Ukrainian forces with the apparent aim to stop the path, agreed on with Kiev, of a humanitarian convoy across the Russia-Ukraine border,” the Foreign Ministry said in a statement.

That depends on which side of the border the Russian APCs were engaged, no?

Update: Now the EU has responded by telling Russia to back off:

Still no word from the White House or Martha’s Vineyard. Nothing on the State Department website as of 11:39 ET either.

Update: As of 12:30 ET still no statement from the White House. The Financial Times reports that it’s been grim for the rebellion even before now, and will get even more so:

The resignation of Igor Girkin, the Russian military mastermind behind the takeover of large parts of eastern Ukraine by rebel fighters, this week was the latest crack to appear at the top of the months-long rebellion that has become increasingly strained.

His departure is the third high-profile change in the rebel hierarchy in the past week. Alexander Borodai, also a Muscovite, stepped down last week as prime minister of the self-declared Donetsk People’s Republic. With Mr Girkin, he was part of Russian-backed separatist forces in Moldova’s breakaway region of Transnistria in the early 1990s.

The replacement of both with Ukrainians marks a transition in the leadership from highly trained Russian military officers to locally recruited warlords in an increasingly tense stand-off with Ukrainian forces.

“It will be like Stalingrad,” an armed rebel nicknamed Taipan recently told the Financial Times, referring to the battle between the separatists and government forces that is expected in coming days and weeks.

Or hours. Or minutes.

Update: But what about the aid? Turns out it’s mostly vaporware:

A convoy of Russian trucks carrying aid for eastern Ukraine has been opened up to journalists at the border. …

The BBC’s Steve Rosenberg noted that many of the trucks were “almost empty”.


Related Posts:

Source from: hotair

Breaking: Russian, Ukraine forces begin fighting near border

Breaking:Russian,Ukraineforcesbeginfightingnear

Breaking: Russian, Ukraine forces begin fighting near border

posted at 11:21 am on August 15, 2014 by Ed Morrissey

Remember how tensions appeared to have calmed down on the Russia-Ukraine border earlier today? Good times, good times. Both countries now acknowledge that fighting has erupted between their two military forces, although they disagree on the nature of the conflict. Ukraine insists that it’s in their country, and that they have managed to destroy part of an armored column that invaded their territory:

Ukraine said its troops attacked and partially destroyed an armed convoy that had crossed the border from Russian territory.

Ukrainian government troops engaged the vehicles that had arrived overnight through a rebel-held section of the border, Andriy Lysenko, a spokesman for the country’s military, told reporters in Kiev today. Ukrainian soldiers continue to come under shelling, including rounds fired from Russia, he said.

Nyet, say the Russians. It’s the Ukrainians who attacked the military units protecting a convoy of humanitarian aid that started the conflict, although they seem to concede that the action’s taking place across the border:

Russia’s foreign ministry, meanwhile, said Ukrainian forces are engaging in intense fighting in Eastern Ukraine to stop humanitarian aid to the region.

Well, who could have seen this coming? Just about everyone when Vladimir Putin began putting together his provocative aid convoy. Let’s not forget that Putin sold this as a Red Cross effort to the Russian media while the ICRC denied any involvement in it at all. Today’s inspections were intended to get the Red Cross’ imprimatur on the project, but that didn’t stop Russia from sending in armored personnel carriers — although it did mark the first time they’d been caught at it by the media.

The EU reacted with alarm at the earlier incursion, but may find themselves in the first European war since the Balkans:

Europe voiced alarm on Friday over reports that Moscow had sent military hardware into conflict-torn eastern Ukraine, as Kiev prepared to inspect a controversial Russian “aid” convoy parked up at the border.

Tensions, already high over fears Moscow could use its humanitarian mission as a “Trojan horse” to help rebels, spiralled further after Ukraine’s military confirmed British media reports that a small convoy of Russian armoured vehicles was seen breaching the frontier.

“If there are any Russian military personnel or vehicles in Ukraine they need to be withdrawn immediately or the consequences will be very serious,” British Foreign Secretary Philip Hammond said.

Moscow has denied the allegations, the latest claims from the West that it has sent armour across the border to help pro-Kremlin separatists who launched an insurgency against Kiev in April.

Moscow isn’t denying it now, apparently, just claiming that it was part of the humanitarian effort.

We’ll keep our eye on further developments.

Update: The UK has summoned the Russian ambassador to explain their actions:

No word yet on an official reaction from the Obama administration.

Update: Russia says it’s still in talks with Ukraine over the aid, according to a flash update at CNBC, but warns Ukraine not to disrupt the aid convoy:

Russia, meanwhile, accused Ukraine of attempting to disrupt its humanitarian aid mission to eastern Ukraine and called for a ceasefire in the region to allow for the deliveries. The Kremlin has continuously denied sending weapons and troops into Ukraine.

“We draw attention to the sharp intensification of military action by Ukrainian forces with the apparent aim to stop the path, agreed on with Kiev, of a humanitarian convoy across the Russia-Ukraine border,” the Foreign Ministry said in a statement.

That depends on which side of the border the Russian APCs were engaged, no?

Update: Now the EU has responded by telling Russia to back off:

Still no word from the White House or Martha’s Vineyard. Nothing on the State Department website as of 11:39 ET either.


Related Posts:

Source from: hotair

Wednesday, July 30, 2014

As Jews flee Europe, the sneering media admonished again

AsJewsfleeEurope,thesneeringmediaadmonished

As Jews flee Europe, the sneering media admonished again

posted at 10:41 am on July 30, 2014 by Noah Rothman

July’s headlines have been grim.

The eruption of conflict this month between Israeli Defense Forces and Hamas militants in the Gaza Strip has brought the worst out of some Europeans (and a few Americans, too).

Thousands of Germans took to the streets of Berlin where they apparently sought out a fight with the city’s Jews and Israeli sympathizers: “Jew, Jew, cowardly pig, come on out and fight on your own,” they reportedly chanted.

In Italy, the resurgence of anti-Semitism is not even thinly veiled as protesters vandalized Jewish-owned businesses and synagogues. “ Phrases like ‘Anne Frank Was a Liar,’ ‘Dirty Jews,’ ‘Jews your end is near,’ and ‘Israel executioner’ were written in spray paint alongside Celtic crosses and rows and rows of swastikas,” the Daily Beast reported.

“Thousands had gathered to demonstrate against the Israeli bombardment of Gaza. But the protest soon turned violent – and against Jews in general,” read a Newsweek cover story datelined France. “Two weeks later, 400 protesters attacked a synagogue and Jewish-owned businesses in Sarcelles, in the north of Paris, shouting “Death to the Jews”. Posters had even advertised the raid in advance, like the pogroms of Tsarist Russia.”

The headlines from the Old World leads one to wonder just how committed the West is to ensuring that the human experience of the mid-20th Century is “never again” permitted to occur. At least, that is what the unsophisticated rabble would think. Fortunately, our erudite superiors in the press corps know better – or, at least, they knew better just a few weeks ago when the consensus opinion was to mock and deride those who are conscious of the tides of history.

Take, for example, Virginia economics professor Dave Brat who had the temerity to campaign vigorously for Congress and unseat former Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-VA) in a primary. The tea party candidate’s victory immediately consecrated Cantor to the pantheon of reasonable and rational Republicans. As Jack Shafer observed, this is an honor the media more often bestows posthumously. The second immediate effect of Cantor’s loss was the familiar effort to impugn the motives, character, and intellectual capacity of his successor.

This instinct was demonstrated by former Politico reporter and current Wall Street Journal scribe Reid Epstein whose filed a report on Brat the day after his victory centering on what was framed as his bizarre conviction that the rise of a fascist strongman in Europe “could all happen again.”

David Brat, the Virginia Republican who shocked House Majority Leader Eric Cantor(R., Va.) Tuesday, wrote in 2011 that Hitler’s rise “could all happen again, quite easily.”

Mr. Brat’s remarks, in a 2011 issue of Interpretation: A Journal of Bible and Theology, came three years before he defeated the only Jewish Republican in Congress.

“They’re suggesting Brat is pro-Hitler?” an incredulous Ace of Ace of Spades asked. “How else can one read their noting that Brat said that Hitler could rise again, and then mention that in reference to the defeat of the GOP’s only Jewish Congressmen as if they’re linked?”

Possibly. More likely the entire report was designed to serve as an unspoken shibboleth, a secret handshake, signifying that Brat was different. Provincial, paranoid, traditional – this report was meant to convey the impression that Brat is the kind of person who watches History Channel for the scant remaining programming devoted to abridged and simplistic history.

Brat’s “reference to Hitler’s Germany that is likely to turn heads during Mr. Brat’s first full day as a tea party star,” Epstein assured his readers. It did not, save for a few swivel-mounted crania in effete circles on the coasts. In fact, it was implied sneering at the academic assertion that a Hitlerian figure could again emerge, a claim vindicated by so many recent events, which irked Epstein’s readers more.

Another of Brat’s sins revealed in that report was his claim that private charity, capitalism, and Western religious culture can and should augment many of the current services provided by taxpayer-funded safety net programs. Brat added that Western Christian and capitalist traditions can buttress society so that government need not “backstop every action we take.” This led the philosophers at Think Progress to dub Brat a “radically pro-capitalist Christian theologian.”

Maybe those intellectually superior members of the journalistic class should take a lesson from alleged theocrats like Brat. He seems to have a better grasp on history than do his detractors.


Related Posts:

Source from: hotair

Thursday, July 17, 2014

VIdeo: Shep Smith incredulous as State Department opens briefing … by ignoring Ukraine plane crash

VIdeo:ShepSmithincredulousasStateDepartmentopens

VIdeo: Shep Smith incredulous as State Department opens briefing … by ignoring Ukraine plane crash

posted at 4:35 pm on July 17, 2014 by Allahpundit

Via the Blaze, it’s appropriate for America’s diplomatic arm to be cautious in assigning blame, but this isn’t caution. It’s avoidance, and it’s inexplicable given that Psaki knows it’s the only topic anyone’s interested in. Whatever she has to say about Afghanistan can wait until tomorrow. What could State possibly be thinking?

One of Ace’s commenters thinks it’s a simple matter of the administration being paralyzed as their problems internationally get bigger. Obama doesn’t know what to do or say about Russian separatists shooting down a passenger jet, so he goes on his burger run and gives a 60-second perfunctory statement. If he’s calm and treats it like no big deal, maybe everyone else will treat it like less of a big deal too. Psaki might be making the same move. If the White House isn’t treating this like a crisis, it’s unfair to expect them to do much about it, right? There’s something to that, but I think you’re also seeing in O’s and Psaki’s responses how invested the White House is in pushing its daily “message” to the media, no matter what else is going on in the world. Psaki’s job today was to spin Afghanistan and, darn it, she was going to spin it, no matter how many bodies are scattered across eastern Ukraine. Obama did the same thing in his Delaware speech earlier this afternoon, segueing easily from the crash to babbling about infrastructure spending. They’re in control of the narrative, not the media — or at least they want to be. In reality, Shep and Jennifer Griffin are laughing at them and going back to covering the crash. Baffling, but this is where we are with two and a half years to go.


Related Posts:

Source from: hotair

Monday, June 23, 2014

Is Moscow “secretly working with environmentalists to oppose fracking” in Europe?

IsMoscow“secretlyworkingwithenvironmentaliststooppose

Is Moscow “secretly working with environmentalists to oppose fracking” in Europe?

posted at 1:21 pm on June 23, 2014 by Erika Johnsen

That’s what the chief of NATO suggested at a conference last week, and frankly, I wouldn’t put it past the Kremlin. Via the Guardian:

Anders Fogh Rasmussen, secretary-general of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (Nato), and former premier of Denmark, told the Chatham House thinktank in London on Thursday that Vladimir Putin’s government was behind attempts to discredit fracking, according to reports.

Rasmussen said: “I have met allies who can report that Russia, as part of their sophisticated information and disinformation operations, engaged actively with so-called non-governmental organisations – environmental organisations working against shale gas – to maintain European dependence on imported Russian gas.”

He declined to give details of those operations, saying: “That is my interpretation.” …

A Nato official told the Guardian that Russia’s influence on energy supplies was causing problems for Europe. The official said: “We don’t go into the details of discussions among allied leaders, but Russia has been using a mix of hard and soft power in its attempt to recreate a sphere of influence, including through a campaign of disinformation on many issues, including energy. …”

I doubt many of these groups of usefully idiotic eco-crusaders really need any outside prodding to fuel their campaign to thwart Europe’s exploration and fracking of its own potential shale deposits (and, incidentally, Europe’s best practical hope for cleaner-burning emissions at the moment as well as economic growth, good grief), but Russia most definitely does not want that fracking to happen. Russia’s revenue and economy are largely dependent on energy exports, and because Putin’s government wants to keep the Europeans dependent on their gas shipments, Russian officials have been publicly critical of fracking — even as they themselves try to entice Western companies to share their fracking know-how to further unlock more of Russia’s reserves. As Keith Johnson at Foreign Policy notes, you expect the usual environmentalist opposition in places like Britain and Germany, but in other areas in Europe, the sudden rise of outright opposition is  a little more oddly conspicuous:

“It’s very concrete; it relates to both opposition to shale and also trying to block any alternative pipelines with environmental challenges,” said Brenda Shaffer, an energy expert at Georgetown University.

“There is a lot of evidence here; countries like Bulgaria, Romania, Ukraine being at the vanguard of the environmental movement is enough for it to be conspicuous,” she said.

Bulgaria’s anti-shale movement is particularly telling. The country initially embraced fracking as a way to develop its own energy resources and reduce reliance on Russia, even signing an exploration deal with Chevron in 2011. But then came an eruption of seemingly grassroots environmental protests and a televised blitz against fracking. In early 2012, the government reversed course and banned the practice.

Researchers who’ve worked on the ground in Central and Eastern Europe say there is plenty of anecdotal evidence, if no smoking guns, of Russian financial support for some environmental groups that have recently mobilized opposition to shale gas development.


Related Posts:

Source from: hotair

Friday, June 20, 2014

Germany, of all places, is holding back the EU’s emissions deal — and France wants to follow suit for some reason

Germany,ofallplaces,isholdingbackthe

Germany, of all places, is holding back the EU’s emissions deal — and France wants to follow suit for some reason

posted at 3:21 pm on June 20, 2014 by Erika Johnsen

That’s gotta’ hurt. The Germans’ ambitious Energiewende plan to cut down on nuclear while subsidizing wind and solar was supposed to land them at the head of the Europeans’ green-energy cool-kids table, but their subsequently skyrocketing energy prices cutting into their competitiveness and their reversion to coal-fired power plants has the European Union worried that the Germans might mess up the whole arrangement. Via Bloomberg:

The European Union’s attempt to cap greenhouse-gas emissions over the next 16 years is threatened again as rising pollution from the bloc’s biggest economies shows even developed nations want to burn cheap coal.

Germany, Europe’s largest economy, boosted consumption of the fuel by 13 percent in the past four years, while use in Britain, No. 3 in the region economically, rose 22 percent, statistics from oil company BP Plc show. While Germany pledged to cut heat-trapping gases 55 percent by 2030 from 1990 levels, it’s managed 25 percent so far and is moving in the wrong direction, according to the European Environment Agency.

The EU is seeking to craft a deal in October that would cut greenhouse gases 40 percent by 2030 in the world’s biggest effort to combat global warming since the Kyoto climate treaty of 1997.

Reverting to coal is what happens, of course, when you 1) resist natural-gas drilling innovations on purely ideological grounds; 2) pour a bunch of public money into price-inefficient wind and solar technology when your weather consistently provides neither of these things; and 3) start shuttering nuclear power plants based on nothing other than anti-nuclear sentimentalism. In terms of the European Union’s Kyoto-ish internal scheme, Germany is still doing better with its emissions than others (like Poland, which uses coal to generate 80 percent of its electricity and wants assurance that it won’t be penalized for being a poorer country before it signs onto the arrangement), but Germany was supposed to be leading the charge here and is instead lagging behind their own targets.

But here’s the really facepalm-worthy part about all of this: France — over-taxed, over-regulated, GDP-growth-challenged France — has some of the lowest energy prices in Europe thanks to their own heavy share of nuke plants. It’s been one of their few economic saving graces, but the Socialist government for some reason wants to follow in Germany’s nuke-drawdown footsteps despite their coal-heavy results, via the Financial Times:

A so-called energy transition law, unveiled by the Socialist government on Wednesday, reiterated an election pledge by President François Hollande to cut the share of nuclear power in French electricity generation to 50 per cent by 2025 from about 75 per cent today, the highest level among developed economies.

Critics say the government is compromising a vital strategic asset that has allowed France to charge among the lowest prices in Europe for electricity.

But, under pressure from the left and its Green party allies, the government insists the country needs to rebalance its energy mix to boost its lagging performance in non-nuclear renewables and meet ambitious environmental targets.

“We are not exiting nuclear, but its part [in the mix] must fall,” said Ségolène Royal, energy minister. “It is thanks to nuclear that we can make a secure energy transition.”

So, even though you have clean nuclear power, you want to “invest” in wind and solar… just for the sake of wind and solar? …Because you have so much money to spare, and everything?


Related Posts:

Source from: hotair

Wednesday, June 11, 2014

London, Paris, Madrid: Taxi drivers around the world are protesting innovation, competition

London,Paris,Madrid:Taxidriversaroundtheworld

London, Paris, Madrid: Taxi drivers around the world are protesting innovation, competition

posted at 8:51 pm on June 11, 2014 by Erika Johnsen

If innovative and wildly successful ride-sharing services like Uber and Lyft — which ingeniously allow customers to hail and pay for a GPS-traceable taxi cab through a smartphone app — have been facing regulatory hurdles and legal challenges in Washington, D.C. and New York City, they’re practically nothing compared to the veritable war European taxi drivers and unions are waging to thwart them.

With even larger bureaucracies, more under-the-table corruption and cronyism, farther-reaching regulations and the accompanying capture, more expensive taxes, and more inflexible labor laws, the good ol’ fashioned free-market competition that these new businesses are dishing out is an excellent and rapidly unfolding test of Europe’s willingness to either accept partial creative destruction as the growth-positive force that it is — or else allow their economy/economies to continue to languish in stagnation mode.

But the entrenched taxi businesses will not be going gently into that good night. Via Reuters:

Taxi drivers sowed traffic chaos in Europe’s top cities on Wednesday by mounting one of the biggest ever protests against Uber, a U.S. car service which allows people to summon rides at the touch of a button.

Drivers of hundreds of London’s black taxis snarled traffic in the streets around Trafalgar Square, hooting their horns as they passed Downing Street, the home of Prime Minister David Cameron, and the Houses of Parliament.

In Paris, taxi drivers slowed traffic on major arteries into the city centre during the morning commute. In Berlin hundreds choked the main road to the city’s historic centre while commuters juggled buses and trains, or simply walked, to get to work in Madrid and Barcelona. …

“This about an all out assault on our profession, our livelihoods,” said Max Small, a driver of one of London’s black taxis for 34 years. “These big companies are coming in, not playing by the rules.”

Taxi drivers across Europe level a variety of charges against Uber: that its applications break local taxi rules; that its drivers fail to comply with local insurance rules; and that it is therefore in breach of licensing and safety regulations.

You know, there might very well be something to the argument that new enterprises like Uber have an unfair advantage because they are managing to work outside of many European countries’ innovation-killing Procrustean bed of antiquated, prohibitive regulations, while traditional taxi drivers have to pay for expensive leases and medallions and training certifications and whatever other barriers to entry they’ve come up with over the years. Perhaps what they should be protesting, then, are those prohibitive regulations themselves, because their attempt to disparage new enterprises today… kind of backfired. Oops.

Taxi-hailing app Uber saw sign-ups jump to record levels on Wednesday, following a rush of publicity as cab drivers across Europe went on strike to protest against the company.

Marketing experts described the strike as an “own goal”, after Uber said there had been an 850 percent increase in sign-ups compared to last Wednesday. …

Andre Spicer, professor of organisational behavior at Cass Business School, described the strike as “PR gold” for Uber.

“It’s an own goal. Uber is top of everyone’s minds. Lots of people who have never heard of the app before now know what Uber is,” he told CNBC.


Related Posts:

Source from: hotair

Thursday, June 5, 2014

Europe: Sorry we rejected you, Canada; we really want your oil sands after all

Europe:Sorrywerejectedyou,Canada;wereally

Europe: Sorry we rejected you, Canada; we really want your oil sands after all

posted at 4:41 pm on June 5, 2014 by Erika Johnsen

One of the reasons eco-radicals harbor such strong distaste for the Keystone XL pipeline is because they believe that Canada should quixotically eschew the economic opportunities in their oil sands and instead leave those natural resources in the ground. Their quest to kill the pipeline has therefore always been epically illogical, since Canada will and has found a way to get their oil to market, either to our Gulf refineries via rail transport or else by building their own domestic pipelines out to the coasts for shipment by sea.

These Keystone XL-hatin’ eco-radicals almost had a helpful partner in the European Union, which — heeding the complaint that oil sands are somewhat more carbon-intensive than conventional crude — was all ready with legislation meant to encourage the use of cleaner transport fuels by slapping heavy and deliberately discriminatory penalties on imports of Canada’s oil sands. Canada was all ready to get to work and trade with Asian countries anyway, but all the better if they can open up the European market, too — and Europe’s newfound skittishness about energy security and eagerness to reduce dependence on Russia has the bloc looking to diversify its supplies.

I mentioned last month that the EU was rethinking its high-minded pooh-poohing of the oil sands, and it looks like Canada may actually get its wish in the form of a major reversal on those forthcoming EU regulations that will instead allow Canada’s oil sands to do steady business there, via the Financial Times:

Canada today exports little crude to Europe, but it has plans to increase those exports if new pipelines are built linking the oil sands to ports, such as TransCanada’s proposed Energy East project to take oil from Alberta to the east coast. …

Chris Davies, a European parliamentarian on the environment committee, said that Connie Hedegaard, the EU climate commissioner, had lost out to stronger voices in the commission with industrial and trade portfolios. “She got beat,” Mr Davies said. …

The latest draft of the EU legislation is a reversal from earlier versions of the plan, which would have required fuel suppliers to disclose the carbon footprint of the original crude oil that was used to make their products, and stay below maximum limits for associated emissions. …

Under the new methodology, companies will only have to make their emission cuts based on EU averages for the “output” fuels – the petrol or diesel – regardless of whether it was originally made from heavy crude or not.


Related Posts:

Source from: hotair

Tuesday, June 3, 2014

More shots fired in the ongoing solar-powered trade dispute between China and the U.S.

Moreshotsfiredintheongoingsolar-poweredtrade

More shots fired in the ongoing solar-powered trade dispute between China and the U.S.

posted at 8:41 pm on June 3, 2014 by Erika Johnsen

The United States, the European Union, and China have been caught up in a trade-war-triangle for at least the past couple of years over, apparently, who is “fairly” subsidizing their domestic solar manufacturing industry, and who isn’t. I must confess, I rather fail to see the distinction between the myriad cash grants, loan guarantees, tax credits, and portfolio standards that both China and the U.S. offer the solar industry at various levels of production and installation — but I suppose we’re meant to believe that there is one, since the Obama administration just imposed further duties on our Eastern competitor’s solar market, via Reuters:

The United States slapped new import duties on solar panels and other related products from China on Tuesday after the Commerce department ruled they were produced using Chinese government subsidies, potentially inflaming trade tensions between the two countries.

The U.S. arm of German solar manufacturer SolarWorld AG filed a petition complaining that Chinese manufacturers are sidestepping duties imposed in 2012 by shifting production of the cells used to make their panels to Taiwan and continuing to flood the U.S. market with cheap products.

The new complaint seeks to close that loophole by extending import duties to also cover panels made with parts from Taiwan.

In a preliminary determination, the Commerce department imposed duties of 35.21 percent on imports of panels and other products made by Wuxi Suntech Power and five other affiliated companies, 18.56 percent on imports of Trina Solar and 26.89 percent on imports from other Chinese producers.

Oh, good grief. Protectionism, which happens to be yet another form of special treatment for domestic solar panel manufacturers, is never a good idea, but neither is the subsidization that just keeps on escalating this travesty of free trade. Subsidization is a really great way to discourage the kind of price efficiency and innovation that can actually help newer, less established technologies gain their own competitive merits — which is probably one of the reasons why China’s solar-panel market is a hot mess of over-supply, corner-cutting, poor quality, and environmental self-defeat, via the NYT:

Although China may be a cheaper place than Europe for producing solar panels, the savings come at a higher cost to the environment, a new study says.

Weaker environmental standards and the more highly polluting sources of energy used by Chinese manufacturers are the reasons for the discrepancy, according to research by Northwestern University and the United States Department of Energy’s Argonne National Laboratory. …

The environmental cost of Chinese- made solar panels is about twice that of those made in Europe, said Fengqi You, a corresponding author of the paper, which will be published in next month’s issue of the journal Solar Energy.

‘‘While it might be an economically attractive option to move solar panel manufacturing from Europe to China, it is actually less sustainable from the life cycle energy and environmental perspective — especially under the motivation of using solar panels for a more sustainable future,’’ Dr. You, an assistant professor of chemical and biological engineering at Northwestern, said in a news release last week from the Argonne National Laboratory.


Related Posts:

Source from: hotair