Fossil fuel subsidies outstrip renewables funding by billions

Back in 2009, at the G20 summit in Pittsburgh, leading heads of state decided that subsidies for oil, gas and coal would slowly have to be cut worldwide. The closing statement of the meeting reads:

'The inefficient subsidization of fossil fuels supports wasteful behaviour, complicates investments in clean energy sources and undermines efforts to fight the dangers of global warming.'

Move forward five years and international organizations such as the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the International Energy Agency (IEA) continue to report the problem of fossil subsidies around the globe. Depending on the calculation method used, estimates of the amount of fossil fuel subsidies worldwide varies between 400 billion ($548 billion) and 2.6 trillion euros per year.

According to IEA data, fossil fuel energy use is subsidized to some extent in just about all countries with oil and gas deposits. Countries like Iran, Saudi Arabia, Russia, Venezuela and Nigeria rank their fossil fuels well below the market price for electricity, transport and heating within their own state.

About a quarter of global subsidies for oil and gas, the IEA says, are accounted for by importing countries. In order for energy to be affordable for the population, imported fossil fuels are also kept cheap in countries like India, China and Indonesia.

The problem of fossil fuels

Swantja Küchler, an economist from Green Budget Germany, told DW that money from German state budgets is used to keep prices low. She explained that tax breaks exist for the fossil fuel industries too and pointed out that Germany provides state aid to the coal industry.

'This is direct assistance so German coal will be cheaper,' Küchler said. And farmers 'only have to pay about half of the amount of tax on diesel'.

Within scientific and political circles, the costs incurred by burning fossil fuels is greatly disputed. Carbon dioxide emissions have a knock-on effect across society, primarily through climate change.

'It is estimated to be about 80 euros per ton of CO2,' says Küchler. 'The price has never previously been determined, but instead it's passed on to society.' The worldwide cost on the climate is around 2.7 billion euros per year, Küchler estimates.

Some institutes and experts classify these as-yet unpaid climate costs as fossil subsidies and include them in their calculations. Others leave them out. That would explain the huge discrepancies between figures from the IMF and the IEA, says Küchler. She is currently comparing international studies, in an attempt to pinpoint costs represented in the published figures.

Germany also guilty

Germany and many other EU countries keep a record of their subsidization levels of fossil fuel industries. The OECD also monitors subsidies worldwide.

Economic scientists, energy experts and politicians are in agreement that fossil fuel subsidies don't just speed up damage to the climate, they also interfere with competition. The phase-out of fossil fuel subsidies is actually an important instrument in tackling climate change, says Achim Steiner of the UN Environment Program.

'If we compare the different energy providers on price right now, then we can see renewables will overtake fossil fuel suppliers very quickly,' Steiner told DW.

According to Germany's Federal Environment Agency, the country set aside 52 billion euros for fossil fuel subsidies in 2010. That represented about a sixth of the German national budget. By comparison, in the same year renewable energy was subsidized to the tune of around 10 billion euros.

Bill Gates regains top spot in Forbes rich list

Forbes magazine estimated Gates' net worth at $76 billion (55.2 billion euros), as he returned to the top of the publication's Billionaires List. Gates has held the top spot for 15 of the last 20 years, but had spent the previous four years below Carlos Slim Helu, whose worth was estimated at $72 billion.

Forbes on Monday said that 268 new billionaires joined this year's list, while 100 dropped off the rankings and 16 former members passed away. At 1,645 in total, Forbes had never listed more US-dollar billionaires. The magazine said that 1,080 of the billionaires were self-made.

Spanish clothing magnate Amancio Ortega, whose assets include the Zara retail chain, maintained third position and his spot as the wealthiest European, ahead of famed US investor Warren Buffet in fourth.

The top 10 alone accounted for a net worth of just over $500 billion, or slightly more than the estimated 2012 gross domestic product of Norway, Poland or Belgium.

German supermarket sweep

Karl Albrecht, the 94-year-old founder of the Aldi-Süd supermarket chain also active in English-speaking countries, was Germany's best-placed billionaire, 23rd in line at $25 billion. Theo Albrecht Jr, nephew to Karl and inheritor of the Aldi-Nord chain, and his family placed in 36th. Dieter Schwarz, whose retail empire includes Kaufland and Lidl, was the second-best-placed German in 29th position.

Facebook's Mark Zuckerberg jumped up to 21st on the list as his net worth more than doubled to $28.5 billion, as Internet moguls continued to climb. Google Inc founders Larry Page ($32.3 billion) and Sergey Brin ($31.8 billion) placed in 17th and 19th, sandwiching Amazon.com Inc's Jeff Bezos ($32 billion).

At 492, the US boasted the most billionaires, followed by China at 152 and Russia on 111. Tycoons from four new countries joined the Forbes' nine-naught club; meaning Algeria, Lithuania, Tanzania and Uganda were all represented for the first time.

Will US budget cuts lead to splendid isolation?

US President Barack Obama publishes his budget on Tuesday, a week after Secretary of State Kerry had warned that cuts in military spending potentially signaled a 'new isolationism' among the American public and its elected representatives.

'This not a budget we want,' Kerry told reporters last Wednesday. 'It's not a budget that does what we need. It was the best the president could get. It's not what he wanted.'

'Look at our efforts to get the president's military force decision on Syria backed up on (Capitol Hill),' the secretary of state said. 'Look at the House of Representatives with respect to the military and the budget.'

'All of those diminish our ability to do things,' Kerry said, adding that the US was 'acting like a poor nation.'

But according to Andrew Bacevich, a professor of international relations at Boston University, accusations of 'isolationism' are little more than a political tactic used to delegitimize critics.

'This is standard American politics,' Bacevich, a Vietnam veteran and former army colonel, told DW. 'There seems to be a belief in Washington that if you can portray your critics as isolationists, that doing so will then strengthen one's own claim to wisdom. The United States is not an isolationist country - quite frankly it's never been. Certainly it's not today.'

‘Looking for effective leadership’

Last December, a poll conducted by the Pew Research Center and the Council on Foreign Relations indicated that 52 percent of Americans believe the US 'should mind its own business internationally and let other countries get along the best they can on their own.' That's the highest percentage recorded since the question was first asked more than 50 years ago, according to Pew.

But David Adesnik, with the American Enterprise Institute (AEI), does not believe the data points to a broad isolationist sentiment among the American public. The poll also found that 72 percent of Americans favored a global leadership role for the US so long as other powers shared the burden.

'There’s no question that Americans are dissatisfied with where their foreign policy has been for pretty much a decade,' Adesnik, an expert on national security policy, told DW. 'There are a lot of important signs in the data that they are looking for effective leadership. They are not looking for someone to take them out of the role of leadership.'

'Look at the costs of what happens when America doesn’t stay engaged,' he said, citing the metastasizing civil war in Syria and the confrontation in Ukraine. 'We have forgotten that when America doesn’t take a leadership role, you get increasing chaos.'

Military budget cuts

The president's budget would cut military spending by $31 billion in 2014 and by another $45 billion the following year. That would reduce the defense budget to $496 billion in 2015, roughly equivalent to the spending levels before the 9/11 terrorist attacks. According to US Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel, the Pentagon plans to reduce the army from 520,000 soldiers to between 440,000 and 450,000 troops, its smallest size since before World War Two.

While Bacevich says these cuts will 'make it more difficult for the United States to invade and occupy countries,' he believes this is a positive development given Washington's mixed record in Afghanistan and Iraq.

But according to Adesnik, the cuts signal 'a lack of appreciation of the continuing importance of military power after the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.'

'The idea that the army is taking the brunt of the cuts relates to part of the idea that we can plan only for contacts where air and naval power are likely to be predominant, whether that is in a conflict with China, or we hope that’s the shape of a potential conflict with Iran,' he said.

Although the Pew poll indicates that a majority of Americans want Washington to 'mind its own business' in the world, 56 percent of respondents also said that they want America to remain the sole military superpower.

Culture of 'self-restraint'

Last year, President Obama decided to consult Congress on the question of launching military strikes against Syria for the Assad regime's alleged use of chemical weapons.But after the inconclusive interventions in Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya, congressional opposition to the use of force in Syria proved much stiffer than many officials, including Secretary of State Kerry, had apparently bargained for.

'To contrast 2014 with 2002, yes, there is reluctance on the part of the American people to endorse any large scale use of force,' Bacevich said. 'Because a large scale use of force in the previous decade didn't produce the results that were promised.'

'So there is a broader current of self-restraint, I wouldn't call it isolationism,' he said.

According to US foreign policy expert Joseph Nye, 'prudence is not the same as isolationism.'

'A smart power strategy starts with a clear assessment of limits,' Nye, a professor of international relations at Harvard's Kennedy School of government, wrote in an editorial for Project Syndicate on February 12. 'The number one power does not have to man every boundary and be strong everywhere.'

FBI mole had contact with bin Laden years before 9/11: US media

WASHINGTON: An informant working for the FBI had contact with terrorist leader Osama bin Laden eight years before the September 11, 2001, attacks on the United States, The Washington Times and NBC reported.

An FBI mole inside the al-Qaeda terrorist network met with bin Laden and knew that he wanted to finance attacks.

The FBI informant had worked as a driver and a confidant of the radical Egyptian preacher Omar Abdel Rahman, the blind shiekh serving life in prison for the 1993 attack on the World Trade Center in New York. Rahman allegedly told the informant "If you need money, go directly to Osama and tell him that I sent you."

According to the reports, neither Congress nor the 9/11 Commission knew about the mole despite extensive investigations into the attack, which killed nearly 3,000 people.

The 9/11 Commission made serious accusations against the FBI and the CIA. It said during the administration of president George W Bush and his predecessor, Bill Clinton, there were 10 missed opportunities to uncover plans for the attacks. (Monitoring Desk)

Bin Laden son-in-law on trial

A US district court has opened proceedings against Sulaiman Abu Ghaith, Osama bin Laden's son-in-law. The terror trial is expected to last around one month, with the first few days dedicated to picking a 12-person jury.

District Judge Lewis Kaplan asked a pool of almost 50 prospective jurors a series of questions on Monday, seeking to whittle their numbers down to 12. All of the candidates said that they did not know the accused, Sulaiman Abu Ghaith, while none answered in the affirmative when Kaplan asked if anybody had never heard of al Qaeda before. The court is expected to pick its dozen jurors by Wednesday. Owing to the nature of the case, the 12 jurors and their alternates will remain anonymous.

Sometimes referred to as the group's "spokesman," Abu Ghaith is accused of providing assistance to al Qaeda and conspiring to kill US citizens, and is among the highest-ranking members of the terror group to face trial in the US.

The prosecution was planning to show a picture which allegedly shows the 48-year-old seated with bin Laden and other al Qaeda leaders on September 12, 2001. Another key submission from the prosecution is a video broadcast from October 9 that year, in which the cleric said that "the storm of airplanes will not stop."

Abu Ghaith, who has pleaded not guilty and could face life in prison, worked as an imam in his native Kuwait before moving to Afghanistan and joining al Qaeda in 2000. He then married one of bin Laden's daughters, Fatima.

The decision to try Abu Ghaith at a civil court on US soil, as opposed to a Guantanamo Bay military tribunal, has courted some criticism from US lawmakers. Republican Senator Lindsey Graham voiced concern of setting a precedent "that will come back to haunt us later."

Abu Ghaith was taken into US custody in Jordan last year; the details on his arrest and whereabouts in the years after the September 11 attacks remain hazy. The defendant himself submitted a court affidavit saying he was arrested in Iran in 2002 and was held in captivity there until 2013. Abu Ghaith said he was then moved to Turkish detention, before being flown to Jordan and handed over to US authorities.

Egypt tightens grip on mosques to curb insurgents dissent

Amnesty International says crackdown on pro-Morsi supporters have already left more than 1,400 people dead. PHOTO: FILE

CAIRO: Egypt’s military-installed authorities are tightening their grip on mosques by laying down the theme for the weekly Friday sermons, in the latest move to curb insurgent dissent.

The controversial measure comes as Egypt remains deeply polarised after a government crackdown on supporters of president Mohamed Morsi, who was deposed by the army last July.

Morsi’s supporters have since capitalised on the weekly prayers to garner backing for their protests calling for his reinstatement.

The authorities accuse insurgent groups, particularly the Muslim Brotherhood to which Morsi belongs, of using mosques to spread their ideology and enrol new recruits across Egypt.

The religious endowments (Waqf) ministry in late 2013 dismissed 55,000 imams who did not hail from the state-controlled al-Azhar university, the most prestigious institution in Sunni sect.

They were accused of “inciting violence and using mosques to spread religious extremism and promote insurgent groups”.

Amnesty International says the crackdown on pro-Morsi supporters have already left more than 1,400 people dead since his ouster.

In January, the ministry, which has nearly 120,000 mosques on its list, decided to unify the Friday sermon by setting a common theme for the weekly prayers.

“The latest procedures aim to prevent incitement to violence and the spread of lies in mosques, which were being used by the Brotherhood to spread their ideas and fool people,” ministry official Sabry Ebada told AFP.

The decision was also taken to “spare mosques from political fights”.

Scuffles have often broken out between pro- and anti-Morsi camps during Friday prayers, particularly when the sermon appears to favour one side over the other.

But now imams have government-approved themes such as squatter settlements, the role of youth, employment and the environment.

“The ministry’s decision is aimed at controlling the militants current supporting the Brotherhood at a time when many imams feel sympathetic towards the Brotherhood and Morsi,” said Amr Ezzat, a researcher with the Egyptian Initiative for Personal Rights.

“Mosques are the scene of an ongoing battle between authorities who are trying to prove that their policies are in line with Islam, and the current of political Islam which is trying to strip the state of its religious legitimacy.”

But not all imams are toeing the government line, and Ezzat said the ministry had “no tools allowing it to impose its control over all mosques.”

Khalaf Massoud, imam of Montazah mosque in Cairo’s working-class neighbourhood of Imbaba, has talked of what is “right and wrong” in his Friday sermons, in a reference to the ongoing political strife in Egypt.

“The state is adopting measures to secure backing through religious preachings. This is unacceptable,” Massoud told AFP.

“I am an imam who follows religion, not an imam who follows power.”

After last Friday’s sermon, four Cairo imams were being investigated by the ministry for “inciting violence and calling for anti-government protests,” ministry official Ebada said.

The control of mosques, many of which run their own charities, is important for both sides, said Georges Fahmy, an analyst with the Cairo-based Arab Forum for Alternatives.

These places of worship are “channels through which public opinion is formed,” particularly in Upper Egypt and the Nile Delta, both rural areas, he said.

And the control of mosques is vital for militants to air their views since the authorities have shut down many of their television stations, Fahmy added.

Each week’s theme is published on the ministry’s website and also passed on to imams by their local waqf offices in Egypt’s 27 provinces, said Mohamed Abdel Salam Badr, imam of a northern Cairo mosque.

Worshippers are divided over the measure.

“I am against unifying the sermon,” said engineer Bahaa Marwan, as he attended a sermon at Assad Ibn al-Furat mosque, a stronghold of pro-Morsi Salafi preacher Hazem Abu Ismail.

“The intention is political and the objective is to silence dissent.”

Another worshipper, Ahmed, agreed, saying the aim was “to make people listen only to what the government has to say”.

But Mahmoud Hussein, a 53-year-old electrician, backed the move.

“The government is trying to defuse the situation by silencing those who are inciting violence,” he said.

Senior US official heads to India to revive strained ties

Nisha D Biswal says countries must sort out their differences of opinion through healthy and vigorous public debate. PHOTO: FILE

NEW DELHI: A senior US official headed to India on Tuesday, admitting that the two countries had “real challenges” to overcome as they try to move on from an ugly diplomatic dispute earlier this year.

Nisha D Biswal, the Indian-born US Assistant Secretary of State for South and Central Asia, will be the most high-profile US visitor to New Delhi since the row over the arrest of an Indian diplomat in New York in December.

Devyani Khobragade was arrested and strip-searched on suspicion of visa fraud involving her domestic servant.

The detention and treatment of the envoy sparked one of the worst rifts in years between the world’s biggest democracies and led India to take a series of measures targeting US embassy staff and interests in January.

Several planned trips between Indian and American officials have since been cancelled and a fresh trade dispute has further complicated a relationship that had grown closer over the last decade.

Writing in The Times of India newspaper ahead of her three-day trip, Biswal said that while there had been significant progress in ties, “that does not mean our relationship does not have real challenges to overcome.”

She said the countries must sort out their differences of opinion through healthy and vigorous public debate that “befits our values”.

While bilateral trade has grown in recent years to touch almost $100 billion a year, Biswal said it was time to create a more open environment to boost commercial exchanges.

She also touched on the contentious issue of intellectual property rights, calling on India to provide stronger patent protection.

Last month New Delhi reacted furiously to a threat of sanctions by the US Trade Representative’s office over India’s allegedly weak protection of intellectual property rights and preference for domestic producers.

“Stronger enforcement of intellectual property and patent protection is not just good for American companies but will also protect India’s entrepreneurs, content creators and investors,” Biswal wrote.

Washington said last month it was filing a second case at the World Trade Organisation over domestic content requirements in New Delhi’s solar programme.