Dreadful post coitum in the backstage of power (2)

Dominique Strauss-Kahn VS. Nafissatou Diallo: A case of Comparative Law

A media event on the threshold of the American Criminal Procedure

A brilliant career, stunning accusation · © CNN

Reality is a hard nut to crack.
Dominique Strauss-Kahn is a major figure who has friends who may be sincere in their affection, no matter how often crossbred with ulterior political motives. Whenever a person is accused of something incredibly serious, his relatives have the natural reflex to refuse to believe that it is just possible.

The first instinct is to protect, to rush to help, sometimes awkwardly, like that wife who thought helping her husband accused of robbery and who found nothing better to say at the bar of the criminal court: « Murderer maybe, but a thief, surely not! »

Clumsy reactions, not to say completely ill-advised have been held. Most of those who did so have retracted or expressed their regrets by realizing the nonsense of their arguments.

It is not herein about demonstrating the guilt or innocence of the IMF’s managing director. No more than trying to prove a hypothetical plot, in one way or another, but to describe and explain the criminal proceedings which he is subject to understand what is happening and what will happen. Note that I do not pretend to be a lawyer practicing in New York and I beg more eminent experts than me to forgive my probable errors and approximations, and I will correct the post if required.

The U.S. procedure, a much more balanced system than the French feedback might suggest.
Let us briefly recall the facts: DSK is charged of having appeared suddenly naked, facing a maid who had entered the room thinking it was cleared out, to put it back in order. After closing and locking the door, DSK would have intended to force her for oral sex, he would have tried to take off her clothes in order to go further, but she managed to escape. The police arrived, reportedly found that he had left the scene, forgetting one of his (seven) mobile phones, and tracked him down in the list of passengers on an Air France flight to Paris.

He was arrested onboard by the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey – the local Border Police – and delivered to the NYPD, the Special Victims Unit to be precise.

In the United States like in England, police have broad powers of inquiry and initiative in investigations. Unlike France, where the prosecutor leads the investigation and gives instructions to the police – which are in fact orders –, the district attorney discovers the records when the police bring them together with the suspect. For some serious cases, police officers may have an advisory role, stating the evidence that the DA needs to go further on prosecution. Both authorities are more separated in the U.S. than in France.

The arrest may take place without an arrest warrant in two cases: the crime takes place in the presence of the police officer or if the officer has sufficient evidence to arrest the person (sufficient grounds). In general, a home arrest requires a judge to issue an arrest warrant.

The first stage is booking and it is held at the police station. Fingerprinting, photo identification, judicial collect of criminal record (in New York it is called NYSID report or rap sheet. The person under suspicion may be questioned but he has the right to remain silent (which will never be retained for the prosecution against him unlike in French law). He may be assisted by a lawyer who has the right to intervene during interrogations (the Paris prosecutor shivers in terror at this perspective). The police officer in charge of the case (usually the first on scene) prepares a report – the criminal complaint— which is the basis for prosecution.

Less serious facts give rise quickly to release from custody with straight summons by the judge (Desk Appearance Ticket, DAT). Here we are facing a felony – on top of the scale of gravity, not DAT, but submission to a judge. This arrest should be as brief as possible. The law provides for a period of 48 hours in case of arrest a weekend away, but this rule does not apply in NYC, where hearings are held 365 days a year (from 9:00 a.m. to 1:00 a.m.). In this matter, DSK agreed that such hearing which could take place on Sunday – as ‘New York city’s justice doesn’t sleep’— might be postponed to allow achieving DNA testing.

Once the booking is completed, the suspect is escorted to the Court Building, the competent court (here, in the case of felonies, the New York City Criminal Court, but only for the preliminary phase). It was there that DSK was featured on May 16: his memorable walking out under the flashes, that most French journalists published by asking if they could do it, and his transfer from police station to Criminal Court.

There, the police officer handling the case – and/or the complainant – is received by a substitute (Deputy District Attorney, DDA) who decides whether to prosecute or not. The DDA does NOT speak to the suspect, since in the United States, they have realized quite a long time ago that he is the opposing party (in France, there is hope it finally occurs all along the XXII century). If DDA considers the record substantial, he should formalize a ‘written complaint’, i.e. the official complaint of public prosecution.

The suspect is then brought before a judge for a hearing called the arraignment. The judge notifies the suspect of charges against him (a copy is delivered to him), of his right to counsel (he must be assisted, if necessary by a court-appointed lawyer at the arraignment), he is entitled to a preliminary hearing (in the case of a felony as it happens to DSK). He will not be asked at this stage whether he pleads guilty or not guilty, only in cases of misdemeanors and minor offenses, the equivalent in France of ‘délit’ and ‘contravention’ (but the suspect is entitled to give it up and, if need be, to plead guilty before the Criminal Court, this option is already ruled out by DSK’s lawyers).

The judge may decide to immediately stop the proceedings if he believes that the offense is not clearly established (case dismissed, French’s ‘affaire classée’)). With regard to alleged felonies against DSK, the indictment is incumbent on the Grand Jury.

The judge will then decide what happens to DSK until the Grand Jury decides. He can be released on his promise of appear spontaneously (Released on his Own Recognizance, ROR), released on bail or exceptionally remanded –i.e. arrested up to 120 hours until the Grand Jury has ruled or a Preliminary Hearing is held if the suspect, who is now the defendant, asks for it; but the prosecution does not bet on it usually).

The essential difference between Preliminary Hearing and Grand Jury is that the former is public and is held in the presence of the defendant while the Grand Jury meets closed-doors in the presence of the sole District Attorney and witnesses brought to testify.

The Grand Jury is composed of 23 people (a quorum of 16 people is required for it to decide). It outlines the evidences gathered and deliberates and it either votes a true bill – 12 jurors at least consider that there is prima facie, and then the case goes to trial (indictment) – or a no bill – i.e. no trial, then the case is dismissed.

In case of indictment by the Grand Jury, a new arraignment hearing is held before the Superior Court competent to try crimes (felonies), here the New York Supreme Court. Thus began the preparatory stage: the parties may negotiate a plea bargaining, ie, a guilty plea, where they have 45 days to submit petitions (motions) to be settled before the trial, eg to exclude illegally obtained evidence, or direct certain actions. Once these motions considered, a trial date is set. The trial shall be public, and judged by a jury who votes only over the conviction. The penalty, under the sole judge’s domain, is ruled at a subsequent hearing.

Finally there are 3 qualifications retained at this point: criminal sexual act, attempted rape, unlawful imprisonment. The penalty system is somewhat complex. Crimes are divided into categories AI, A-II. B. C, D and E. DSK appears to fall into the category B, so a maximum of 25 years imprisonment and a minimum of 1 to 8 years (Criminal Code of New York State. art. 70).

Do not let a crazy driver pushing the button

Administration to propose and implement tax on large banks to target risk-taking.

>> Click here for the French version

French Parliament voted last October an outweigh tax on bank profits …

An amusing story: conservative deputy Jean-Francois Lamour, a former Olympic fencing champion, said he pushed the “wrong button” by voting in favor of the Super 10% tax on bank profits.

And if Mr. Lamour had committed a slip? If he had, somehow, despite himself, voted the outstanding contribution of banks in the state budget?

And why would he do?

Because there’s obviously something wrong. We are facing a big crisis, the biggest since 1929. A crisis even stronger than in 1973  — when one could say whether it was the fault of bad luck, or because oil price was increasing over and over again, or because of geopolitics …

But this time this is different. The present crisis is the responsibility of banks. Millions of people lost their jobs, thousands of businesses were destroyed, other than the banks who still earn profits! Worse, they have returned to their speculation business. The next crisis is on the way already, before our eyes.

This situation reminds me that of a crazy driver, who cause a huge accident, would not pay … and would recover the next day to ride at breakneck speed!

How to avoid further accidents?

The real solution would be to remove driver’s licenses to mad traders, or remove vehicles too dangerous from circuit, that is to say, the financial products that cause disasters.

But as it is complicated, administrations might require banks to pay a share of state expenses – as states must spend more on unemployment and welfare as a result of banks’ behavior.

This is what the Belgian Government — in shock by the collapse of Fortis Bank — achieved when it taxed banks for € 500 million per year. € 500 million is roughly the same as what would bring the French super-tax.

In the US as well, Ben Bernanke wants to tax banks further. In the United Kingdom, Gordon Brown also intends to involve the banks — as it had been done before him (oh surprise) by the very liberal and very anti-tax Margaret Thatcher in 1981 on the way to reduce her budget deficit, very affected by the 1979 downturn.

€ 500 million is too much? No, just extremely insignificant to BNP Paribas who paid late 2009 € 1 billion in bonuses to its traders. For Société Générale, we talked about € 2 billion, € 7 billion for Santander and HSBC … I do not say it because I am in shame …

French conservative MP Jean-Francois Cope said contrite in opposition to the super-tax: “We are in an upturn, we will not tax the banks when they are better. “

Unrepentant Blair

Protestors called Blair a 'liar' and a 'war criminal'

Former Prime Minister Tony Blair has been appearing before an inquiry looking into Britain’s involvement in the Iraq War. Blair said he did not wait for UN backing, because he believed it would never be given.

Former British Prime Minister Tony Blair said he wanted the backing of the United Nations in the Iraq war, but believed that he would never get it. Giving evidence to a UK public inquiry into the decision to go to war, he said he thought that it would be pointless to continue debating the war with fellow United Nations Security Council members.

The inquiry is examining the legitimacy of the war as well as when the decision on providing military support for the 2003 US-led invasion was made. Blair, now an international envoy to the Middle East, said he doubted at the time that it would be possible to secure a UN “second resolution” that would add legitimacy to the war under international law.

“It was very, very clear to me that the French, the Germans and the Russians had decided they weren’t going to be in favor of this (…) There was a straightforward division, frankly, and I don’t think it would have mattered how much time we had taken; they weren’t going to agree that force should be used.”

Blair denied the accusation that he made a secret agreement with his US counterpart George W. Bush to go to war in Iraq. The former Labour Party leader was asked whether he had pledged to support the war during a visit to the then president’s ranch in Crawford, Texas. Blair said he had told Bush, “we are going to be with you in confronting and dealing with this threat,” but that no promises were made.

9/11 attacks changed judgement

The September 11 attacks changed the “calculus of risk” and meant it was no longer possible to contain Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein through sanctions, Blair also said. Britain committed 45,000 troops to the war. It was the most controversial episode of Blair’s 10-year premiership, provoking huge protests, divisions within his party and accusations he had deceived the public about the justification for invasion.

Under close questioning, Blair said the September 11 Qaeda attacks on the United States – and the threat of weapons of mass destruction – were the main factors in Britain’s decision to invade Iraq.

“We were advised that these people would use chemical or biological weapons or a nuclear device if they could get hold of them; that completely changed our assessment of where the risks for security lay.”

Unrepentant Blair defends war in Iraq without UN backing

No regrets over decision

At the end of the session, Blair said that he did not regret the war despite the fact that weapons of mass destruction were not found.

“If I’m asked if I believe we are safer, more secure, that Iraq is better with Saddam and his two sons out of power, then I believe indeed we are.”

The British inquiry has already heard from senior civil servants who said intelligence in the days before the March 20, 2003 invasion indicated that Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction had already been dismantled.

Protesters outside of the building where the inquiry was being held chanted “Tony Blair, war criminal!” as he entered through a back door amid high security.

Observers say that Blair’s appearance may not only affect his personal political legacy but also damage the Labour government of his successor Gordon Brown, who was chancellor of the Exchequer at the time of the Iraq invasion.

Obama’s War

The worst war is the one being fought into our brains.

West is repeating mistakes of the past in Afghanistan

As soon as its terms are acknowledged you can give it for lost. And you have to write it in full: in Europe, the war in Afghanistan is being considered ever-increasing lost.

It is about the culture war (1) wherein violent actions have a dual persuasive function: intimidate the whole population and transfer responsibility — i.e. guiltiness — to those who act in disagreement with radical Islam, thereby becoming potential targets. The result is that they lead to restraint freedom of expression and censorship. This war has many accomplices, because not only radical Muslims ask for a special status for their religion. Ireland enforced this Jan 1^st an anti-blasphemy act which punishes by fine up to € 25,000 those who commit blasphemy publicly. A soldier of this war is the Somali who the Year’s Day attempted assassination — ax and knife in hand — against Kurt Westergard, the Danish cartoonist who published a Muhammad caricature in the Jylland Posten in 2005 — who, since then, is under police protection. Pope, Tony Blair and even George Bush agreed criticizing the cartoons — despite freedom of expression is far better protected in West than in Middle East.

The next battle to fight, waged in view of everybody in the street and in institutions, is not far behind. As the former fight, its identification mark suggests that you are losing it as soon as you accept its existence. The dream of invulnerability can lead to the greatest aberrations. What a hard life will have those who use air transportation! But it happens likewise in trains, buses, subways and even private cars. There is however an inversion of terms in this case. In Europe, for now more familiarized with risk society, the reaction is moderate. In the US, however, where the legend of invulnerability has thrived, even Obama has been incapable to reverse the effects of war on the rule of law and freedoms. The soldier of this war is a Nigerian who tried to blow up the Northwest flight on its arrival to Detroit — from Amsterdam — on Christmas Day. And because of it Guantanamo will remain open. And as a result, imprisoned people without trial will keep on running, as well as secret warrants, eavesdropping without judicial control and everything Bush did at wholesale scale, but now acomplished in retail and with greater care and prevention.

The Culture War of values as shown on a graffiti

Where we are losing the second war at most — the war on values — is inside the third war; the war of real fighters with true clashes, and belligerent general staffs… basically, Obama’s real war. It is a regrettable and revolting war, as any war, but it is more certain and effective. It is waged in secret, without bluster, quietly — although the effects emerge with no little alarm from time to time. Such as, in the recent suicide attack on the CIA base in Afghanistan — a historic setback for the United States who believed getting bin Laden within reach through a double agent when in fact they lost six US agents and one  Jordan’s allied. This action of Al Qaeda is in response to a cyber war through drones, which maintains the CIA in Afghanistan and Pakistan, and has killed at least two dozen of prominent terrorist leaders.

Obama has intensified this kind of war, to the point that some experts say it will replace the current massive presence of troops in the conflict zone that spreads out from Pakistan to Somalia. The CIA has accomplished more than 50 attacks from Predator and Reaper drones all through Obama’ first year at the White House – figures that double those of 2008 with Bush on the stage and surpass the whole activity of the Bush 8 year Presidency. Formally it is about a targeted assassinations program that Bush authorized after another Republican president, Gerald Ford, banished it in 1976. Philip Alston, UN Special Rapporteur on Extrajudicial Executions and law professor at the New York University, believes that such actions may be legal in terms of “just war” when there are no other means to stop or prevent the enemy to go on with its activity and when every precaution is taken to avoid civilian casualties. But this does not appear to be the case because there is no official information and no possibility of judicial or parliamentary control over such actions.

Bush made a package with all those wars, which he called Global War on Terror — some mistook with a war against the Arabs or against Islam. “Invoices” for those errors, increasingly higher, are still coming now. Obama qualifies and distinguishes amongst them: but this does not make him immune to criticism from the right, for his supposed excessive restraint and, from the left, because of his continuity with Bush’s illegal war.

_____________

(1) Have a look on the clash of ideas over here: The Cultural War

Is Obama’s Smart Diplomacy Substandard?

In Afghanistan, the military solution is like a bottomless pit: just look at the affirmative accents of former president Bush and right now president Obama (“We must finish the job”). What does the US public opinion ponder while Obama is willing to strengthen the conventional forces ?

Yet after his first year, and after his speech of Dec 1st, let us consider President Obama’s general guidelines.

The fall of the Berlin Wall has highlighted the decisive character of the Afghan adventure among the causes of the collapse of the Soviet Union. The Red Army was well and truly stuck on this theater of operations – deemed dangerous. Could it also become fatal to Obama’s America?

Barak Obama tried one week ago to convince the US opinion, more and more reluctant to increase to 100 000 the number of U.S. soldiers engaged in war against the Taliban. Therefore the use of force is preferred, with a deadline.

Will this voluntarism shut up the critics who, since taking office, accuse Obama of being a “weak president”, a new Jimmy Carter, who will eventually be run by those he tries to coax? These critics point out that the “smart diplomacy” of the new Democratic administration has, so far, no notorious  success, meanwhile his hand extended policy toward the traditional adversaries of America remains desperately unrequited. Neither Iran nor North Korea have been sensitive to calls for restraint. In the Middle East, American diplomacy seems without real outlets on a situation which deteriorates every day. And coming back from China – his main partner now – the president returned empty-handed: no revaluation of the yuan, inflexibility on climate policy, and  human rights totally muted.

Of course, it is too early to decide on a foreign policy that is yet preparing the ground for milestones…

The latest false move from Obama, a step towards the militarization of US foreign policy.

It was surprising – and not only in US – to survey television reports whereas in his recent visit to several Asian countries, President Obama prompted a solemn bow before the Emperor of Japan. It is hard to believe that Obama – or anyone from his entourage –could ever consider the Emperor as Heaven Sent when he is just a simple constitutional symbol of the Japanese nation. I do not remember Obama giving such unnecessary signs of respect to other dignitaries – who are also symbols of their respective sovereignties.

For some critics of Obama’s policy in Afghanistan, the speech meaning through the president finally defined his strategy to follow on that troubled country, was another sign of unjustified respect and reverence, but this time to the US military institution and its senior executives. Not only because he chose to do so before the select audience of the Military Academy at West Point instead of the Oval Office. The worst and most ominous precedent of this fact is that also on the same stage, and before a similar audience, his predecessor in the White House presented seven years ago the disastrous strategy of “preventive war” that blazed a trail of blood and destruction across the world. Let us say, in defense of Bush and against Obama, that the first delivered his speech during the military graduation ceremony of the new officers, as it seems to be usual in West Point, while Obama has done so for no particular reason, which is still more shocking.

It is not about criticizing here, once again, the major strategic error which consists to expect winning a war and, secondly, to establish in advance the time frame in which the victorious troops return home. One cannot satisfy both the desires of the people, tired of an endless war that, the lower social strata are suffering especially, and some military commanders who want to achieve all the signs of victory and none of the defeat – as the shameful retreat from Saigon who still lives in the minds of many Americans. Therefore, the date of July 2011 as the scheduled move back is an empty gesture as the withdrawal of the occupation troops will take place just when possible. Just as the closure of Guantanamo, announced later this year and unenforceable to date.

The outcome is that over the next six months 30,000 new US troops will arrive in Afghanistan, i.e. in less than two years the US military contingent will triple, reaching about 100,000. If we add up the 38,000 NATO (to increase by about 7,000), the military deployment in Afghanistan will exceed that of the USSR in the eighties, which contributed to the final disintegration of the Soviet superpower. Will Obama get what the former Soviet Kremlin could not achieve?

But there is another problem. In the aforementioned speech Obama literally said:

“As commander-in-chief, I have determined that it is in our vital national interest to send an additional 30,000 US troops to Afghanistan. After 18 months, our troops will begin to come home. These are the resources that we need to seize the initiative, while building the Afghan capacity that can allow for a responsible transition of our forces out of Afghanistan.”

What is and on what terms you define a “responsible transition”? When will the armed and security forces of Afghanistan be operative as to replace foreign troops of occupation? That’s not up to the White House nor NATO. Uncertainty is the same as before the speech delivery because the objectives of this war are still not clearly defined.

“I make this decision because I am convinced that our security is at stake in Afghanistan and Pakistan,” Obama said. “This is the epicenter of the violent extremism practiced by al-Qaida. It is from here that we were attacked on 9/11, and it is from here that new attacks are being plotted as I speak.”

President Barak Obama chose not to recall that his predecessor in the White House was the true catalyst for the spread of terrorism in these and other countries, with his aberrant “preventive war on terror”.

Even if it seems simplistic, it looks as if Obama gets rid of the straight weight on Afghanistan, putting it on the shoulders of the Pentagon and NATO, to pursue other more immediate and politically profitable concerns. A step forward in the usual militarization of US foreign policy, that Obama does not seem determined to change.

The Financial Bubble is Ready

Stanley Kubrick’s Dr. Strangelove [ The music is We'll Meet Again by Vera Lynn]

>> Haga clic aquí para la versión en castellano

Dubai’s House of Cards
Dubai is the leading exponent of housing bubbles that have occurred worldwide.  Eccentricity of management has turned a city in the middle of the desert in a field full of hotels and skyscrapers. It was a time – the golden era – when anything was little for the Emirate.

But the crisis has beaten hard Dubai. Works have stopped and credit flow is dead blocked. Up to the point that, yesterday the state holding announced a moratorium on payment of $ 4 billion debt – the same holding that built the famous Jumeira Palm Island. This did not sit well with international markets.

The problem is that the Emirate owes $ 80 billion and markets begin to have doubts about its solvency. As soon as the moratorium on debt payment was announced markets felt down. The worst financial crisis could recur. But instead of banks’ cessation of payments we may now witness States’ suspension of payments.

Speculative Bubble Emerging
Meanwhile, in another part of the planet – the United States – the policy of the Federal Reserve to keep interest rates near zero is fuelling a wave of speculative capital that can initiate the next crisis. Many warn that a new bubble is brewing, and several specialists see in this quantitative easing an equivalent outcome Japan had for its crisis of the early 90s. Low Japanese interest rates did contribute definitely to the outbreak of the Asian crisis in 1997.

Ben Bernanke, an academic on the Great Depression, monitored the most massive injection of liquidity into the world’s largest economy, committing himself not to make the mistake of the 30s when the Fed officials pursued a strict and rigorous monetary policy that only aggravate the crisis further enough. The lack of available money in 1930 is regularly considered the reason why the crisis lengthened for a decade. The little response to current liquidity injections shows that the situation is all but comforting and that new limits of monetary policy may further alter the global imbalances that the crisis left uncovered.

One of these speculation operations is the so-called carry trade; investors borrow in $ (0%) headed for invest in other currencies that offer higher interest rates such as Australia, Brazil and New Zealand. Much of the flow in the capital markets moves ahead that direction. Hence the importance that Asian and Oceania assets are acquiring versus Europe and US assets. Korea, Taiwan, Hong Kong and Singapore assets are rising to levels that are incompatible with the reality that replicates the real estate bubble of US in the 90s and Japan in the 80s – when the Imperial Palace Gardens in Tokyo came to cost more than the entire US state of Washington.

Despite this, former Fed Governor Frederick Mishkin assumed that there is no evidence that a speculative bubble is emerging, since not all bubbles present risks to the economy. Mishkin split good from bad bubbles. The former are instigate by a credit boom, whereas expectations lead to increased demand, generating a rise in asset prices, encouraging lending against those assets and positive feedbacks cycle until it explodes.

The second category of bubbles what Mishkin calls “pure irrational exuberance bubble” is less harmful because there is no credit boom, and if no credit boom occurs the bursting of the bubble can not damage the system – e.g. the bubble in technology in the ’90s and the dotcom’s of 2000, had no global impact. For Myshkin the rise of the credit stirs the bubbles. Now, there is no credit boom in small scale. But bubble is building on the macro scale of speculative capitals, those who move billions of dollars of pension funds, the very same that play in the stock market or speculate on the gold and oil at the expense of the dollar. And at macro levels, everything where bubbles get involved presage awful signs for the economy. Otherwise, it’s like thinking that a bomb may have some positive effect.

Future generations’ fate is at stake in Copenhagen

Negotiators will try to reach a political compromise on fighting climate change in Copenhagen

Negotiators will try to reach a political compromise on fighting climate change in Copenhagen. Countries including the United States are backing away from commitments made two years ago to fight climate change.

Only globally coordinated international law that is binding and can be enforced through sanctions when violated is capable of possibly preventing Greenland’s ice sheet from significantly melting, semi-arid regions from drying to the point where millions of people are forced to flee and extreme weather conditions from a state of irreversible damage even wealthy countries’ economic powers.

If we continue to build coal-fired power plants and increase our use of gasoline and diesel vehicles, then we will literally be burning up many people’s futures. Approximately half of the carbon dioxide generated by that exhaust will remain in the atmosphere for centuries to come, and will continue to accumulate – unless we reduce output by at least 50 percent – and will raise temperatures in the lower atmosphere, the surface of the Earth and gradually the inner-regions of the ocean to levels which homo-sapiens have never experienced.

Only after a delay of decades will the full level of warming be reached, which will only be complete after centuries. Sea levels will continue to rise for centuries even without further warming of surface temperatures.

Humanity has never had to solve a long-term problem such as this, which is why our present political infrastructure is of little use for this phenomenal task. We need global domestic policies such as those of the European Union that already exist for a small portion of the international community.

.

Carry out the polluter-pays principle

Burning coal is like burning people's futures

As yet, every country deals with the external effects of supplying energy in its own ways. Nearly all countries go so far as to promote global warming by reducing the prices of all or some fossil fuels for all or some portions of their populations, and they saddle succeeding generations or the general public – but not the emitters – with external effects such as health costs, air pollution or climate damage. Each year, direct or indirect subsidies account by approximation for 300 billion Euros ($450 billion) worldwide. Nearly all humans pay nothing for the emission of hazardous substances such as illness-causing diesel soot, and fainthearted European emissions trading of carbon dioxide is still far removed from an actual internalization of such external effects.

In Germany a kilowatt hour of electricity generated by a black coal-fired plant should cost 7 euro cents more with adherence to all environmental costs and 8.9 euro cents in the case of brown coal, which means that wind power, with an electricity-compensation price of 8.5 euro cents today, would already be cheaper than energy generated by brown coal. All the same, the large electricity distributors continue to speak of subsidizing renewable energy sources and most citizens parrot what they say.

Energy providers in Europe would only be acceptable choices as suppliers if their portfolios included a portion of renewable energy sources larger than the overall average. At much less than 2 percent, they lie miles beneath today’s average of 11 percent of energy coming from renewable sources.

.

What would a Copenhagen Protocol a success?

First of all, when it includes binding and stronger emissions reductions for all industrialized countries by 2020 of at least 25 percent measured against the output of emissions in 1990.

Second, if the integration of countries with emerging markets – which encompass about half of all humans and in several of which the per-capita emission level is rapidly approaching our own – were to succeed along with initial reduction measures through partial financial compensation of their reduction and adaptation measures through global emissions trading amongst industrialized countries.

Third, if industrialized countries give financial support for measures to adapt to the changing climate to particularly affected developing nations.

All of the above was already covered in the declaration of the 13th United Nations Climate Change Conference on Bali.

Industrialized nations should help emerging countries adapt to climate change

But now several countries are hesitating, including the United States. Its new president is being limited by the long-term effects of erroneous politics led by a public and its representatives who are so unwilling to see the facts that the average US citizen will remain the front-runner when it comes to emissions for a long time to come.

Fourth, I would like to see a commitment to a long-term objective of emission equality, recognition of the equal rights of every human to produce emissions, and therefore much stronger emissions reductions for strong emitters such as the United States and the United Arab Emirates as a precondition for global emissions trade – adherence to the polluter-pays principle. Emissions would cost money and the market would initiate a rapid alteration to the energy supply system. We would only need a five-thousandth of the potential energy of the sun, and every country would have the bulk of its energy resources (sun, wind, water) within its borders. The conflicts connected to the appropriation of oil and gas would be things of the past.

But even should this succeed, coming generations will still have to carry the burden because we did not undertake the comparatively marginal effort of emissions reduction as compared to the cost of adaptation. This is in part because we did not initially know about the issue, and then nearly all of us suppressed it, and in part we still do not want to recognize it.

Should nothing be accomplished in Copenhagen, the possibility that in the 22nd century many cities with millions of inhabitants on weakly protected coastlines will further sink rapidly increases. Even before that occurs, millions of people will have been displaced from regions of industrialized nations distressed by water.