Net Cast News

O, the cruel and unforgiving world in which we live. 

Almost a year into his presidency, Barack Obama, a newly minted Nobel laureate — only the third sitting U.S. president to receive the prize — finds himself bumping up against the harsh realities of international conflict and diplomacy.

The awarding of the Nobel, which the president didn’t seek, reflects a real gap between expectations and delivery — a gap widened considerably by the president himself.

Even a sympathetic observer might conclude that a good bit of the president’s foreign policies, particularly in the Middle East reflects the triumph of hope over experience and rhetoric over reality.

Whatever else the president takes away from his first year, it’s critical that America’s foreign policy reflect the world the way it is, not just the way the president wants it to be.

I’m sure that Nobel committee members thought they were doing the president a favor in giving him the prize. If there ever was an example of no good deed going unpunished, at least for the president, this is surely it.

The prize was intended no doubt as a down payment for what the Europeans wanted from America’s foreign policy as well as a not-so-subtle message: Hello, Barack Obama nice to see you. Goodbye, George W. Bush, we’re glad you’re gone.

Part of the president’s conundrum is that he can’t fix problems such as Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran, Arab-Israeli peace, but he can’t walk away from them either. For someone who sees himself as a potentially transformative leader, an agent of big change both at home and abroad, this is particularly difficult.

Yet he’s trapped, really, in a transactional world not of clear black and white choices, but grays — the color of intrigue, deception, non-state actors, dysfunctional regimes, and corrupt and extractive powers determined to get what they can from America.

The Middle East, to be sure, is less a land of diplomatic opportunity than a landscape dotted by minefields, traps, intractable problems and headaches. And lofty rhetoric, speechmaking and engagement without strategy don’t help matters.

President Obama isn’t a diplomatic Hercules; he’s really more a Gulliver, tied up by tiny tribes, whose interests may not be America’s. When he’s not being tied up by them, he’s trapped by his own rhetoric and the endearing illusion of many American presidents that they have the power and responsibility to somehow fix all of this.

After all, what could possibly be wrong with engagement, diplomacy, and talking? Nothing really, if you have a clearly thought-out strategy and the leverage to make it work. What’s more, the locals that live in the neighborhood — whether they are Arabs, Israelis, Afghans, or Pakistanis — must own up to their share of responsibility.

Larry Summers, with whom I worked when I was at the State Department in the 1990s, used to say that in the history of the world, no one ever washed a rental car. Because quite simply, you care only about what you own.

Sometimes when I hear the president speak on these matters, I get the distinct feeling that he seems to own these conflicts and their solutions more than the locals themselves.

The pressure to improve America’s image in the world after eight years of George W. Bush’s foreign policy and the need to really enhance U.S. credibility and achieve success after eight years of Bill Clinton’s are both understandable.

But a year into this administration, the results of engagement are telling.

The Iranians continue to play us as the centrifuges spin toward the development of a nuclear weapon, and the one year deadline is looming with no clear sense of how diplomacy or sanctions can stop them.

The Israelis, the Arabs and the Palestinians have each respectively delivered a big “no” to the president: No to a comprehensive settlement freeze, including natural growth; no to normalization with Israel; and no to a return to negotiations without a freeze.

And in Afghanistan, we see the price of rhetoric — “war of necessity” — and the difficulties of matching means to ends.

It’s arguable whether stopping al Qaeda from returning to its bases there, which was the key goal laid out in the president’s West Point speech, is even possible. And arguable whether it’s worth the cost of an additional 30,000 American troops and the likely expenditure in both lives and treasure.

After all, it wasn’t a bunch of guys training on AK47s or running obstacle courses in the Afghan mountains that hurt America on 9/11: Terrorists training in flight schools in the United States and planning in Hamburg, Germany, did far more damage.

Too harsh on the president? Other administrations have run off the highway in their first year, particularly off the Middle Eastern highway, and they’ve adjusted and learned. Maybe President Obama will too.

But the key in the end isn’t caring, commitment, rhetoric, engagement or apologies for previous American transgressions. Instead, it’s a brutally honest assessment of what can be accomplished on any of these excruciatingly difficult problems and the leverage, power and strategy to go with it.

And that, as the president surely knows, is worth a lot more to America than a Nobel or two.

Kinds of Irish Jewelry Pieces

Irish jewelry, for many people, refers to those pieces of jewelry that have been crafted and bought in Ireland. Although this is correct, it is not just limited to this. In fact there are many pieces of Irish jewelry that are now sold in the United States and other parts of the country as well. The term is now given to refer to those pieces of jewelry that have been designed and crafted following those that have long been used by the different people that have lived in Ireland since time immemorial. Here are a few kinds of Irish jewelry pieces out in the market today.

Celtic Jewelry

Of all the different kinds of Irish jewelry that are available in the market, Celtic jewelry pieces are the most popular. Celtic jewelry pieces are crafted by hand and encrusted by symbols that have long been used by the ancient Celts who had once dominated and ruled the lands of what is now modern day Ireland. While the most popular kinds of Celtic jewelry are rings and bracelets, women who are looking for Irish jewelry pieces that have been crafted with Celtic designs can also choose from a number of different pendants and earrings as well.

Gold and Silver Plated Jewelry

Irish jewelry pieces are usually crafted using 14K gold, 18K gold or sterling silver. Due to the increasing popularity of this kind of jewelry, many jewelers are now offering patrons gold and silver plated Irish jewelry pieces. As such, the prices of these pieces of Irish jewelry are more affordable. This allows more and more people who would like to own pieces of Irish jewelry to accessorize their wardrobe.

Authentic Irish Jewelry Pieces

There is no such thing as a fake piece of Irish jewelry as far as many fans of this kind of jewelry is concerned. Authentic pieces of Irish jewelry have been used to refer to those that have been purchased directly from Ireland and have been crafted through the use of the ancient art of Irish jewelry making. Because of this, authentic Irish jewelry pieces tend to be rather costly to purchase. While this may be so, the beauty and close attention to detail given by jewelers in crafting these pieces of jewelry make them worth every single cent that you spend. These are extremely beautiful masterpieces which many women have made into heirlooms that they plan to pass on to their children.

Fashion Irish Jewelry Pieces

For those who are looking into acquiring pieces of Irish jewelry but do not have the budget to get authentic pieces from Ireland, many stores over the Internet and in local shopping malls. What makes this different from other pieces of Irish jewelry is that they are manufactured with the use of metals and gemstones that are not as precious as those that are used by those creating authentic Irish jewelry pieces. Nevertheless, the beauty and craftsmanship of these fashion Irish jewelry pieces are just as mystifying and magnificent as authentic Irish jewelry pieces.

We have 50 days left to save the world

Prime Minister Gordon Brown from Great Britain puts fuel into the fire before the big meeting in Copenhagen in December.

Gordon Brown states a warning before the Climate Summit starting on December 7th 2009.

The world has only 50 days left to save the world from global warming he states the other day.

Mr. Brown launches a catastrophe scenario with heat waves, floods and periods of droughts unless the Climate Summit agrees on common goals during this meeting.

Brown counted down from 80 days as well, and stated the seriousness in making a green climate agreement in December.

He speaks to 17 top nations around the world, and concludes that if there is no agreement during the 12 days long Summit, much of the hope for a greener planet is over.

There is no Plan B for the earth. During a certain period of time there is only one to two times nations meet to make agreements that can change history, the Summit in Copenhagen is one of these events.

He points out that there will not be any future meetings that can straighten out the destruction already started around the world, and it has to happen fast.

Mr. Gordon Brown states that in the year of 2080 around 1.8 billion humans will suffer from lack of water, and its not only the poor countries that will be touched by the climate crisis coming up on us.

At this trend, Great Britain will have problems only in few decades, he warns us.

The purpose of the Copenhagen Summit in December is to continue and improve the existing Kyoto agreement from 1997, which ends in 2012.

The last time a similar meeting took place was under the coordination of United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) in Bali in 2007. This meeting really did not accomplish the needed changes in the Kyoto agreement.

Despite the 1997 Kyoto Protocol’s status as the flagship of the fight against climate change, it has been a failure in the hard, expensive work of actually reducing greenhouse gas emissions.

Its restrictions have been so gerrymandered that only 36 countries are required to limit their pollution. Just over a third of those — members of the former Eastern bloc — can pollute at will because their limits were set so far above their actual emissions.

China and India, whose fast-rising emissions easily cancel out any cuts elsewhere, are allowed to keep polluting.

And the biggest polluter of all, the United States, has simply refused to join the treaty.

That leaves Western Europe, Canada, Japan and New Zealand to do the work of the world. Their emissions are rising despite their commitment, starting next year, to reduce them by an average of roughly 8% from 1990 levels.

Fixing the flaws of Kyoto has become an urgent crusade, to create the successor to the treaty, which expires at the end of 2012.

The scientists say there is no leeway for weak measures. The push has come from a series of landmark reports by the U.N.’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change that concluded that greenhouse gas emissions must begin declining in the next decade to prevent a dangerous temperature rise. The panel laid out a framework for reducing emissions that could cost trillions of dollars over the next two decades.

The UN climate summit in New York on September 23rd did make one concrete step forward. But the step has nothing to do with reduction goals or greenhouse gases. Instead, it has much more to do with one simple political realization: Forget Copenhagen.

US President Barack Obama addressed nearly 100 global leaders gathered in New York for a one-day UN climate summit. The meeting was meant to give momentum to the major United Nations climate change conference to be held in Copenhagen from Dec. 7-18. There, world leaders hope to replace the Kyoto Protocol, which expires in 2012, with a new, comprehensive accord on climate change.

The Climate Conference in Copenhagen is essential for the world’s climate and the Danish government and UNFCCC is putting hard effort in making the meeting in Copenhagen a success ending up with a Copenhagen Protocol to prevent global warming and climate changes.

The Climate Conference will take place in the Bella Center. The conference centre is placed not far from Copenhagen and near the Copenhagen Airport, Kastrup.

Governmental representatives from 170 countries are expected to be in Copenhagen in the days of the conference accompanied by other governmental representatives, NGO’s, journalists and others. In total 8000 people are expected to Copenhagen in the days of the climate meeting.

Gordon Brown has said the Copenhagen climate change summit in December is “a profound moment for our world” – but does it have a chance of success?

We can differ in opinion, whether it will be a success or not, however, we just have to hope the skeptics amongst us will be proven wrong, otherwise we are in for a rough ride the next decades to come, and we all will be suffering.

We all know if not USA, China and India together with Russia can make the commitments and follow up on any agreement, any text signed in Denmark this year will be a dead document.

China’s policy changes to combat climate change are a positive element but there are still many challenges to overcome.

According to a report compiled by the U.N. Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs and the Internal Displacement Monitoring Centre (IDMC), it is estimated at least 20 million people have been displaced due to climate change.

For developing states such as China and India the main issue is how to cope with climate change without compromising economic development. Developed states have long enjoyed the benefits fossil fuel for decades and caused the offset of climate change. Developing nations feel they are at a disadvantageous position without the provision of alternative energy supplies, and find it unfair to emphasize on reducing carbon emissions.  Developing nations house 80% world population but produce only 40% of the world’s emissions, while 60% of global emissions originate from the rich nations that house 20% of the world’s population.  Developing states do not necessarily have the technology or resources to combat climate change, and feel developed states should offer more aid to compensate this gap.  Developing states and developed states remain at odds as to how to spread out greenhouse emission curbs, and how much rich nations should pay poor nations in coping with climate change.

While the European Commission recently proposed that the EU should provide $2-15 billion annually to poor nations to protect themselves from climate change, it falls short of UN estimates of $100 billion for poor nations to effectively adapt to climate change. Joris den Blanken, climate and energy policy director of Greenpeace-EU has criticized that the EU is just leaving “a tip” instead of “paying the bill for climate change”.

China plays a significant role in combating climate change, as it is one of the biggest carbon emitters and emerging state.  China and USA each account for 20% greenhouse emissions. The EU accounts for 14% emissions, followed by India and Russia 5% each.  China has taken a positive step forward during the G20 summit. China’s President Hu Jintao revealed plans of curbing carbon emission per unit of GDP (i.e. carbon intensity) to a “notable margin” by 2020. China plans to tackle climate change by developing renewable energy, and plant a forest the size of Norway. China also plans to acquire 15% of its energy from clean energy (hydro, wind, and solar energy) by 2020. In comparison EU has set its target at 20%.  However, China has been criti
cized for not providing specific target numbers in reducing carbon intensity.

So far the US has only provided nice words and rhetoric’s and not implemented any plans with commitment within the budget to reduce the negative effects of climate change.

Japan is the only developed state that has vowed to further reduce carbon emissions to 25% by 2020.

Whether the upcoming Copenhagen summit will be a success will depend on US and China’s political will to commit and follow up in practice with real actions in their own backyard..