Category Archives: Viva!

Anti-refugee attacks rise four-fold in Germany

0,,17920583_404,00.jpg

A four-fold rise in attacks on refugee hostels has been recorded this year by Germany’s Federal Criminal Office. It says far-right motives were behind most crimes, which Justice Minister Heiko Maas says are inexcusable.

Peruvian Women Install Solar Panels and Light Up their Communities

Women from Candarave share their knowledge in solar panels installation. Credit: Alicia Condori

Women from Candarave share their knowledge in solar panels installation. Credit: Alicia Condori

By Pilar Celi
TACNA, PERU , Dec 9 2015 (IPS)

Five women from Candarave Province, located in Tacna (Peru), travelled to India to be trained and to learn how to install solar panels. The training has enabled 272 families to have electricity and improve their quality of life.

Solar panels mitigate the emission of greenhouse gases and allow to address climate change.

In 2011, Reina Isabel Humiri Mamani, 41, who has two children and two grandchildren, realized that, sometimes, to make a right decision, you have to break stereotypes, overcome fears and invest in knowledge. Although her mother, brothers, and some people in her community (Tacalaya) were against the idea, she accepted to take part in the Barefoot College programme, travelled to India for six months, and learned that electricity can be obtained by sunlight with the help of solar panels.

In December 2011, Reina together with four other women from Candarave, left for Barefoot College. This institution brings rural women together from around the world to Tilonia, a village in India, to share life experiences and most importantly, learn how to install and maintain solar panels – devices that convert solar radiation into electric energy – and thus improve daily life in their communities.

“At first I was afraid, because I knew what would happen. My family was sad, and in the community, they believed that it wasn’t true that I would come back to help, once I left. ‘My, you’re so brave’, they said,” Reina said to ConexiónCOP.

Before leaving, the inhabitants of the Candarave communities, starting from 6 in the afternoon – at sunset – were experiencing constant problems due to the lack of light. “I decided to travel to India so that I could have electricity. We used to cook or care for animals at night and children would study using the light of candles and lights. But we had to buy kerosene and would inhale the smoke, which caused us trouble breathing,” Reina explained.

As regards to what Reina said, the health system, Allina Health, warns that inhaling noxious fumes can cause disease in the lungs and airways. Moreover, according to a report by the World Health Organization (WHO), around 96,000 children die annually worldwide due to thermal burns, which may result from the use of lighters.

To participate in Barefoot College, Reina flew almost 30 hours. She arrived in India, changed her diet, and left her family. Reina explained that while in Tilonia, she mingled with women around the world, discovered other cultures, beliefs, ideas, and even a new language, and above all, learned about solar technology.

“At the beginning, our group of Peruvian women was greatly shocked by the many changes we faced. The food was different and we did not understand the language, but the teachers followed a method using colours, with which were able to communicate, and we learned how to install solar panels.”

At Barefoot College, the women learn using signs, numbers and colours. The method makes learning possible also by illiterate women. With the help of teachers, they are trained on how to install solar panels, troubleshoot and repair. Also, the aim of this programme is to be replicated in other communities.

When they came back to their communities, Reina and the others were recognized as engineers, a situation that no one had imagined when they were offered the opportunity. In each village, a “solar committee” was set up to organize the population. In January 2013, they received equipment imported from India, which came in “kits” in order to install a low-power solar system for electric lighting. The technology is based on LED lights, which, unlike the traditional types, can be repaired and need not be changed.

The installation of 387 solar units made it possible for 1,360 people (272 families) from nine communities in Candarave Province to have electricity. Alicia Condori Quispe, who was part of the Barefoot College coordinating team in Peru, told ConexiónCOP: “The team monitored the distribution process, but it was the five engineers who installed the panels in the families’ homes. Each beneficiary paid 35 [new] soles for the installation, and each woman was capable of installing up to four units per day. The beneficiaries were very satisfied,” she said.

However, maintaining the solar panels over the years is an issue that still needs to be improved. Due to the high transportation costs and the lack of budget and management in the communities, it was problematic to regularly hire women engineers. However, new populations have requested additional systems, which shows that the benefits outshine the obstacles. As a first step, the engineers trained the beneficiaries on the basic maintenance of the systems, who today can carry out simple repairs independently.

Candarave is province that is particularly vulnerable to climate change. The area lies between 3,500 and 4,800 meters above sea level, and the inhabitants are mainly engaged in trout and alpaca breeding. Alpacas have been affected by the increase of greenhouse gases, as frost and drought are compounded by the effect of climate change, thus affecting their food.

With the arrival of solar power, the children of Candarave can study at home with adequate lighting and improve their school results. The health of the populations has also improved because they no longer inhale the smoke of candles and lighters. In addition, this resulted in significant cost savings for families, because the lighting systems previously used were very expensive.

Villagers on their own initiative also brought power outside the home, which resulted in an increase in the productivity in traditional activities. Policarpio Pariguana, who owns a trout farm, installed five solar panels, which made it possible to feed his fish at night and in the early morning.

Similarly, Reina explained that the villagers who raise alpacas as she does, installed solar lighting systems to protect their alpacas at night and to prevent foxes, which usually eat baby alpacas, from coming near. Another initiative was taken by the parents in the community of Marjani, who collected money to pay for the installation of the solar system in the community school.

Rodrigo París Rojas, journalist, political scientist, diplomat and director for Latin America of Barefoot College, explained that when women return to their homes, they become transformative people who illuminate lives.

“When returning home, women want to stop the consumption of gasoline or kerosene, which provides feeble light and generates CO2 emissions. With the help of NGOs and state institutions facilitating the programme, they also want to do away with the risks of accidents and problems for children’s health due to the amount of smoke that they inhale,” said Rodrigo París Rojas.

In developed and developing economies, access to energy is often the difference between poverty and wellbeing. The importance of the Barefoot College programme, which invests in knowledge and empowerment of the people, lies precisely in this difference.

Rodrigo París explained that during their stay in India, rural women learn to fight and to overcome challenges, and realize that change for the better is possible.

A key component of Barefoot College is that the students are exclusively women, because there is a philosophical notion that very clearly indicates that women are the centre of communities. “Women are generous. They are mothers and grandmothers. They are great storytellers, sharing knowledge among themselves, and ensuring that it will not fade away. And they also think about transforming their environment,” concluded Rodrigo París Rojas.

This story was sourced through the Voices2Paris UNDP storytelling contest on climate change.

George Washington University bans Palestinian flag on campus after “complaints”

Palestine Legal/ 

Today, Palestine Legal wrote to George Washington University (GW), demanding that the university withdraw a ‘Warning Letter’ and threat to sanction a Palestinian-American student for hanging a Palestinian flag outside his bedroom window.

On October 26, a campus police officer came to the dorm room of Ramie Abounaja, a pre-med student at GW, and ordered him to remove a Palestinian flag hanging from his window. The officer explained that the department had received numerous complaints about the flag, and declared that he would leave only after the flag was removed.

The following week, after receiving the police report, GW issued Ramie a ‘Warning Letter’ for the incident.

Confused as to what rule or regulation, if any, he violated, Ramie wrote GW on November 4. In his letter, Ramie wrote:

I felt like I was being singled-out, because of my heritage and the viewpoint of my speech, for something I’ve seen dozens of students, fraternities and other student groups do in my three years at GW . . . The events of the last week have left me feeling humiliated, upset and like I can’t even feel safe in my own dorm room. I’ve had finals this week and have found it very hard to study or to think about anything else.
Since then, Ramie has still received no communication from GW specifying what rule GW believes Ramie has broken. GW has provided Ramie with no hearing, nor any opportunity to respond to the allegations against him.

This morning, Palestine Legal wrote to GW:

It is clear, as reflected by comments from the police officer, that Mr. Abounaja was questioned, censored and sanctioned because some people do not like Palestinians or because they disagree with the viewpoint expressed.
The letter explains how Title VI of the Civil Rights Act prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, color, or national origin by institutions that receive federal funding.

“It’s troubling that at a time when Islamophobic and anti-Arab sentiment is on the rise, GW is choosing to ignore its obligations to its students and under the law,” said Radhika Sainath, an attorney with Palestine Legal, which recently issued a report documenting the widespread suppression of speech in favor of Palestinian rights. “GW must allow Ramie to express his identity just as it does for any other student on campus.”

Israeli tanks invade the Gaza strip, again

PNN/ Gaza/
Israeli Occupation Tanks and bulldozers on Wednesday morning have carried a limited invasion into Al-Breij refugee camp, central Gaza strip, in midst of discopntinouos gunfire.

According to locals, three tanks and three bulldozers have gone 150 meters into farmland of the strip, and started bulldozing land in midst of random gunfire.

Many residents have reported such attacks on their farms and homes in Gaza, where tanks invade and bulldoze land, and soldiers open fire in the area, terrorizing residents and focing them to flee.

This week as well, Israeli occupation Naval forces have opened fire on fishermen’s boats off Gaza shores, in repetitive attacks, breaking the alleged “firetruce” pledged following last year’s deadly genocide on Gaza.

Ashrawi: Anyone who deviates from Israeli ideology is subject to vicious threats

PNN/ Ramallah/

“Anyone who criticizes Israel or digresses from the official Israeli line is singled out for public attacks. Israel is attempting to censor international leaders and defame anyone who deviates from its public positions in any way.”

PLO Executive Committee Member Dr. Hanan Ashrawi made these comments in response to Israel’s smear campaign against Swedish Foreign Minister Margot Wallström.

“We commend world leaders like Margot Wallström who are people of principle and courage and who continue to stand up to Israel and speak against injustice. We are grateful to Sweden and other countries that are not intimidated by Israeli campaigns to silence dissent and that persist in upholding the principles and requirements for justice, freedom and peace.”

Another example of Israel’s defamation strategy is its decision to suspend diplomatic contacts with the European Union (EU) and its representatives connected to the peace process following the European Commission’s move to adopt new guidelines for labeling products and goods produced in the illegal settlements in Occupied Palestine, Dr. Ashrawi said:

“Such a step constitutes a hysterical response. The idea that Israel presumes to be the sole gatekeeper to an international pursuit of peace is the epitome of arrogance, particularly since Israel itself is responsible for destroying the peace process. Israel is not the arbiter on the eligibility of global partners.”

In response to media reports that the Israeli foreign ministry is planning to distribute a document worldwide claiming that the settlements are legal, Dr. Ashrawi stated:

“Israel is attempting to present so-called “legal arguments” to legalize the settlements and is subjecting the whole world to its own interpretation of international law to negate the very existence of the military occupation of Palestine and of the Palestinian people. Such “legal” manipulations and distortions are a travesty that must be exposed and countered.”

In the same vein, Dr. Ashrawi commented on Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s response to U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry’s remarks on the two-state solution:

“Once again, Netanyahu has the arrogance to attack Israel’s closest ally and defender merely because Kerry stated the obvious to ensure Israel’s security and its “democratic and Jewish” character. It has become evident that anyone who deviates from Israeli ideological arguments and official government spin is subject to vicious attacks and unfounded accusations and threats in an attempt to intimidate and to silence any independent or objective voices that do not parrot Israeli distortions and fabrications.”

Exposed: Academics-for-hire agree not to disclose fossil fuel funding

princeton 2

A Greenpeace undercover investigation has exposed how fossil fuel companies can secretly pay academics at leading American universities to write research that sows doubt about climate science and promotes the companies’ commercial interests.

Posing as representatives of oil and coal companies, reporters from Greenpeace UK asked academics from Princeton and Penn State to write papers promoting the benefits of CO2 and the use of coal in developing countries.

The professors agreed to write the reports and said they did not need to disclose the source of the funding.

Citing industry-funded documents – including testimony to state hearings and newspaper articles – Professor Frank Clemente of Penn State said: “In none of these cases is the sponsor identified. All my work is published as an independent scholar.”

Leading climate-sceptic academic, Professor William Happer, agreed to write a report for a Middle Eastern oil company on the benefits of CO2 and to allow the firm to keep the source of the funding secret.

Happer is due to appear as a star witness in Senate hearings called by Republican Presidential candidate Ted Cruz.

In emails to reporters he also revealed Peabody Energy paid thousands of dollars for him to testify at a separate state hearing, with the money being paid to a climate-sceptic think tank.

Republican presidential candidate and Texas Sen. Ted Cruz shakes hands with William Happer of Princeton University following a USSenate subcommittee 'Data or Dogma' hearing. Cruz chairs the committee and used it as a platform to attack the overwhelming scientific majority opinion that burning fossil fuels is causing climate change. 8 Dec, 2015 © Ken Cedeno / Greenpeace

Read the emails with Professor Frank Clemente

Read the emails with Professor Happer and the Donors Trust

The investigation also found:

US coal giant Peabody Energy also paid tens of thousands of dollars to an academic who produced coal-friendly research and provided testimony at state and federal climate hearings, the amount of which was never revealed.

The Donors Trust, an organisation that has been described as the “dark money ATM” of the US conservative movement, confirmed in a taped conversation with an undercover reporter that it could anonymously channel money from a fictional Middle Eastern oil and gas company to US climate sceptic organisations.

Princeton professor William Happer laid out details of an unofficial peer review process run by the Global Warming Policy Foundation, a UK climate sceptic think tank, and said he could ask to put an oil-funded report through a similar review process, after admitting that it would struggle to be published in an academic journal.

A recent report by the GWPF that had been through the same unofficial peer review process, was promoted as “thoroughly peer-reviewed” by influential columnist Matt Ridley – a senior figure in the organisation.

The findings echo the case of Willie Soon, who was the subject of an investigation published in the New York Times earlier this year. The investigation revealed that Soon had accepted donations from fossil fuel companies and anonymous donors in return for producing climate-sceptic scientific papers. He described his studies as “deliverables” and failed to declare who paid for the research.

The revelations also follow a series of reports showing fossil fuel companies burying the truth about climate change, while funding flawed research to cast doubt on the scientific consensus.

Academics for hire

Reporters approached the academics claiming to be representatives of unnamed fossil fuel companies – one, a Middle Eastern oil and gas exploration company, the other a coal mining firm based in Indonesia – looking to commission “independent” research.

The individuals approached have previously been linked to fossil fuel companies or climate sceptic organisations that have received fossil fuel funding.

Professor Frank Clemente, a sociologist from Penn State university, was asked if he could produce a report “to counter damaging research linking coal to premature deaths (in particular the World Health Organization’s figure that 3.7 million people die per year from fossil fuel pollution)”.

He said that this was within his skill set; that he could be quoted using his university job title; and that it would cost around $15,000 for an 8–10 page paper. He also explained that he charged $6,000 for writing a newspaper op-ed.

When asked whether he would need to declare where the money came from, Professor Clemente said: “There is no requirement to declare source funding in the US.”

Clemente is a favourite of the coal industry and particularly Peabody Energy, which regularly uses his research as evidence of the need for an expansion of coal power in developing countries.

From Left to Right Dr Will Happer Dr Richard Lindzen & Dr Patrick MooreFrom Left to Right Dr Will Happer Dr Richard Lindzen & Dr Patrick Moore.

In the exchange Clemente disclosed that for another report on “the Global Value of Coal” he was paid $50,000 by Peabody Energy – the sponsorship was mentioned in the small print of the paper, but the amount has not been disclosed until now.

Following the report Clemente produced an op-ed arguing against the coal divestment movement in universities, which was picked up by over 50 newspapers across the US. But as Clemente told undercover reporters: “In none of these cases is the sponsor identified. All my work is published as an independent scholar.”

Professor Clemente failed to respond to requests for comment.

Investigators also approached Professor William Happer of Princeton University, who is chairman of the climate sceptic George Marshall Institute and a former Director of Energy Research at the US Department of Energy under the first President Bush where he “supervised all of DOE’s work on climate change”.

Professor Happer, who is a physicist rather than a climatologist, told Greenpeace reporters that he would be willing to produce research promoting the benefits of carbon dioxide for $250 per hour. He asked that the money be paid to climate sceptic campaign group, the CO2 Coalition, of which he is a board member.

Happer described his work on carbon dioxide as a “labor of love” and said that while other pollutants produced by burning fossil fuels are a problem, in his opinion “More CO2 will benefit the world”, adding “The only way to limit CO2 would be to stop using fossil fuels, which I think would be a profoundly immoral and irrational policy.”

When reporters asked if it would be possible for the fossil fuel client’s role in commissioning the research to remain hidden, in order to give the work more credibility, Happer replied that: “If I write the paper alone, I don’t think there would be any problem stating that ‘the author received no financial compensation for this essay.'”

Happer also disclosed that Peabody Energy paid $8,000 in return for his testimony in a crucial Minnesota state hearing on the impacts of carbon dioxide. This fee was also paid to the CO2 Coalition.

The academics’ willingness to conceal the source of funding contrasts strongly with the ethics of journals such as Science, which states in its submission requirements that research “should be accompanied by clear disclosures from all authors of their affiliations, funding sources, or financial holdings that might raise questions about possible sources of bias”.

Late last month Happer appeared at a climate sceptic summit in Texas. There he defended CO2 production saying: “Our breath is not that different from a power plant.” He went on to say, “If plants could vote, they would vote for coal”.

Hiding the money trail

The investigation has also revealed a system by which oil and gas companies can anonymously fund US climate-sceptic scientists and organisations.

When asked to ensure that the commissioning of the report could not be traced back to the Middle East oil and gas company, Professor Happer contacted his fellow CO2 Coalition board member, Bill O’Keefe, explaining: “I am trying get [sic] another mysterious client to donate funds to the CO2 Coalition instead of compensating me for my writing something for them.”

O’Keefe, a former Exxon lobbyist, suggested channelling it through the Donors Trust, a controversial organisation that has previously been called the “Dark Money ATM” of the US conservative movement.

The organisation has a long history of channelling funding to US climate sceptics, including controversial professor Willie Soon, and some of the most influential organisations in the US conservative movement, including Americans for Prosperity, the Heartland Institute and the American Enterprise Institute.

When investigators asked Peter Lipsett of the Donors Trust if the Trust would accept money from an oil and gas company based in the Middle East, he said that, although the Trust would need the cash to come from a US bank account, “we can take it from a foreign body, it’s just we have to be extra cautious with that.”

He added that: “I’ll double check everything and make sure I’m wording things correctly after chatting with our CFO [Chief Financial Officer], but what he’s told me before is that the preference is to have it in US dollars, and the ideal preference is to have it originate from a US source, but the US dollars is the important bit”.

http://bitly.com/1REHokz

Peter Lipsett is director of growth strategies at the Donors Trust and has worked in a senior position for Charles Koch, and before that Koch Industries for almost a decade. When contacted for on the record comment, Mr Lipsett said:

“We only accept donations in UScurrency and drawn from USbanks. Donors Trust has never accepted secret donations from foreign donors. We have supported over 1,500 organizations representing the arts, medicine and science, public policy, education, religion, and civics. We are no more a “middle man” between donors and their causes than any other community or commercial donor-advised fund sponsoring organization”.

Mr O’Keefe said: “As a matter of personal policy, I do not respond to requests such as yours.”

Peer review

As well as exposing how fossil fuel companies are able to anonymously commission scientific research, Greenpeace can reveal details of a so-called “peer review” process being operated by the Global Warming Policy Foundation (GWPF), a UK climate sceptic think tank.

Sense About Science, a UK charitable trust, describes peer review as the process by which “scientists submit their research findings to a journal, which sends them out to be assessed for competence, significance and originality, by independent qualified experts who are researching and publishing work in the same field (peers).” The process usually involves varying degrees of anonymity.

Professor Happer, who sits on the GWPF’s Academic Advisory Council, was asked by undercover reporters if he could put the industry funded report through the same peer review process as previous GWPF reports they claimed to have been “thoroughly peer reviewed”. Happer explained that this process had consisted of members of the Advisory Council and other selected scientists reviewing the work, rather than presenting it to an academic journal.

He added: “I would be glad to ask for a similar review for the first drafts of anything I write for your client. Unless we decide to submit the piece to a regular journal, with all the complications of delay, possibly quixotic editors and reviewers that is the best we can do, and I think it would be fine to call it a peer review.”

GWPF’s “peer review” process was used for a recent GWPF report on the benefits of carbon dioxide. According to Dr Indur Goklany, the author of the report, he was initially encouraged to write it by the journalist Matt Ridley, who is also a GWPF academic advisor. That report was then promoted by Ridley, who claimed in his Times column that the paper had been “thoroughly peer reviewed”.

Sense About Science, which lists Ridley as a member of its Advisory Council, has warned against such review processes, saying: “sometimes organisations or individuals claim to have put their studies through peer review when, on inspection, they have only shown it to some colleagues. Such claims are usually made in the context of a campaign directed at the public or policy makers, as a way of trying to give scientific credibility to certain claims in the hope that a non-scientific audience will not know the difference.”

The organisation also says that: “reporters or advocates citing these sources as peer reviewed would show themselves to be biased or uninformed”.

Professor Happer claimed that the review of the paper was “more rigorous than the peer review for most journals”. But he also told undercover reporters that he believed most members of the Academic Advisory Council had been too busy to comment on the paper:

“I know that the entire scientific advisory board of the Global Warming Policy Foundation (GWPF) was asked to submit comments on the first draft. I am also sure that most were too busy to respond,” he said.

Professor Happer also noted that submitting a report on the benefits of carbon dioxide to a peer-reviewed scientific journal would be problematic.

“That might greatly delay publication and might require such major changes in response to referees and the journal editor that the article would no longer make the case that CO2 is a benefit, not a pollutant, as strongly as I would like, and presumably as strongly [as] your client would also like,” he said.

When asked about the review process behind Dr Goklany’s report, GWPF explained that the report had gone for review to other chosen scientists beyond just those in their Advisory Council and that: “the quality of Dr Goklany’s report is self-evident to any open-minded reader.”

Peabody Energy

The investigation raises further questions for coal giant Peabody Energy, which earlier this year was investigated by New York attorney general Eric Schneiderman over accusations that they violated New York laws prohibiting false and misleading conduct, in relation to misleading statements on the risks it could face from tightening climate change laws. Peabody have now agreed to change the way it reports the risks posed to investors by climate change.

Professors Clemente and Happer were both employed by Peabody to provide testimony favourable to the company in state and governmental hearings. The company paid $8,000 for Professor Happer to make the case on the social costs of carbon.

Other prominent climate sceptics who provided testimony in the Minnesota hearing on behalf of Peabody included: Roy Spencer who told Greenpeace he was paid $4,000 by Peabody; Richard Tol who said he was not paid and Richard Lindzen and Robert Mendelsohn who failed to reply to questions. Tol, Lindzen and Mendelsohn are all members of the GWPF Academic Advisory Council.

Both Penn State and Princeton University declined to comment.

The GWPF said: “Professor Happer made his scientific views clear from the outset, including the need to address pollution problems arising from fossil fuel consumption. Any insinuation against his integrity as a scientist is outrageous and is clearly refuted by the correspondence.

“Nor did Professor Happer offer to put a report “commissioned by a fossil fuel company” through the GWPF peer review process. This is a sheer fabrication by Greenpeace.

“The cack-handed attempt by Greenpeace to manufacture a scandal around Dr Goklany’s report, and to smear Professor Happer’s reputation, only points to the need for the Global Warming Policy Foundation to redouble its efforts to bring balanced, rigorous and apolitical research on climate and energy policy issues to the public’s attention, as counter to the misleading noise and activist rhetoric from groups like Greenpeace.”

Journalist and GWPF Academic Advisor, Matt Ridley, did not respond to requests for comment.

Lawrence Carter and Maeve McClenaghan are Investigative Editors for Greenpeace UK.

This story first appeared on the Energydesk.

Read more:
From Greenpeace USA – WATCH: Industry-Funded Climate Denier Goes Off on Camera, Lies About Fossil Fuel Funding