Energy Probe

Horrible Traffic in Circassian Women—Infanticide in Turkey

Posted on April 13, 2009 by energyprbe

New York Daily Times, August 6, 1856
April 13, 2009

In the early 1860s, after Russian conquest of their region of the Caucasus, nearly half a million Circassians migrated to Turkey. Many Circassian women, prized for their beauty, were sold into slavery. This article, which originally appeared in a London newspaper, describes this slave economy in detail, including the speculation that the unwanted children of African slaves and Turkish masters were disposed of by infanticide.

This report from another slaveholding society would likely have interested Americans, then embroiled in their own deepening rifts over race and the enslavement of African Americans. Barnum capitalized on this interest and began exhibiting a “Circassian Beauty” at the American Museum in 1865. By the 1870s and 1880s, Circassian women were popular attractions at dime museums and traveling medicine shows.

There has been lately an unusually large number of Circassians going about the streets of Constantinople. Many of them no doubt belonged to the deputation which came to petition the Porte that their country might be taken under the suzerainty of the Sultan. A considerable portion, however, of the Circassians now in the capital have quite another mission than a political one to fulfill. They are here as slave dealers, charged with the disposal of the numerous parcels of Circassian girls that have been for some time pouring into this market. Perceiving that when the Russians shall have reoccupied the coast of the Caucasus this traffic in white slaves will be over, the Circassian dealers have redoubled their efforts ever since the commencement of the peace conferences to introduce into Turkey the greatest possible number of women while the opportunity of doing so lasted.

They have been so successful, notwithstanding the prohibition of the trade by the Porte, and the presence of so many of Her Majesty’s ships in the Black Sea, that never, perhaps, at any former period, was white human flesh so cheap as it is at this moment. There is an absolute glut in the market, and dealers are obliged to throw away their goods, owing to the extent of the supply, which in many instances has been brought by steam under the British flag.

In former times a “good middling” Circassian girl was thought very cheap at 100 pounds, but at the present moment the same description of goods may be had for 5 pounds! In fact, the creatures are eating their heads off, and must be disposed of at any sacrifice, however alarming. Independently of all political, humane and Christian objections to this abominable state of things, there are several practical ones which have even forced themselves on the attention of the Turks. With low prices a low class of purchasers come into the market.

Formerly a Circassian slave girl was pretty sure of being bought into a good family, where not only good treatment, but often rank and fortune awaited her; but at present low rates she may be taken by any huxter who never thought of keeping a slave before. Another evil is that the temptation to possess a Circassian girl at such low prices is so great in the minds of the Turks that many who cannot afford to keep several slaves have been sending their blacks to market, in order to make room for a newly-purchased white girl. The consequence is that numbers of black women, after being as many as eight or ten years in the same hands, have lately been consigned to the broker for disposal. Not a few of those wretched creatures are in a state quite unfit for being sold.

I have it on the authority of a respectable slave-broker that at the present moment there have been thrown on the market unusually large numbers of negresses in the family way, some of them even slaves of pashas and men of rank. He finds them so unsalable that he has been obliged to decline receiving any more. A single observation will explain the reason of this, which might appear strange when compared with the value that is attached even to an unborn black baby in some slave countries.

In Constantinople it is evident that there is a very large number of negresses living and having habitual intercourse with their Turkish masters-yet it is a rare thing to see a mulatto. What becomes of the progeny of such intercourse? I have no hesitation in saying that it is got rid of by infanticide, and that there is hardly a family in Stanboul where infanticide is not practiced in such cases as a mere matter of course, and without the least remorse or dread.

Posted in Pipelines | Leave a comment

Obama’s missed opportunity

Posted on April 11, 2009 by energyprbe

He could have told the Turks of America’s role in ending the universal scourge of slavery.

(Apr. 11, 2009) No country on Earth is more responsible for the abolition of slavery than the United States of America. Continue reading →

Posted in Pipelines | Leave a comment

Obama’s missed opportunity

Posted on April 11, 2009 by energyprbe

National Post
FP Comment
April 11, 2009

He could have told the Turks of America’s role in ending the universal scourge of slavery.

No country on Earth is more responsible for the abolition of slavery than the United States of America. Barack Obama’s blackening of America’s past – he repeatedly referred in his European trip this week to America’s “darker periods” of slavery without acknowledging Americas redemption through its abolition – did America an injustice and cost him a precious opportunity to promote security in vulnerable regions. Ironically, Obama repeated his references to slavery in Turkey, the very nation more responsible than any on Earth for the institutionalization of slavery.

Of the countries that Obama visited in his diplomatic tour of Europe, Turkey, which he courted purposefully, is the most consequential. Without Turkey – the only conduit by which Central Asia’s natural gas can reach Europe – Germany and other EU countries will remain dependant on Russia for their energy supplies, and thus incapable of fully exercising their sovereignty.

The Central Asian energy producing countries, meanwhile, will return to Russian domination without Western export markets. The vital importance to the West of fastening Turkey to its sphere of influence explains why Obama courted Turkey by, for example, supporting its aspiration to join the European Union.

But another part of Obama’s courtship – his attempt to soften America’s image by dwelling on Americas past failings – could backfire. For one, Turkey’s slave past is far more extensive than that of America. Turkey needs no reminder that it has no less to live down than the United States, any more than it would welcome a reminder of the Armenian genocide. For another, Turkey does need a reminder of Western idealism, and assurances that it did not err a century ago when it broke with Orientalism and the Islamic state to embrace Western values.

Throughout most of the world, and throughout much of human history, slavery was the norm, whether in great civilizations such as that of the Chinese and the Romans or in remote tribal societies in Africa and the Americas. The Turkish empires of the Seljuks, and especially the Ottomans – one of the world’s greatest dynasties – did more than any others to institutionalize slavery throughout a highly structured society. Slaves – most often white Christians – not only performed menial work but formed crack fighting forces, served in the bureaucracy and, of course, sumptuously supplied the sultan’s harems.

Constantinople’s slave market was the world’s largest. Slavery was so entrenched in Turkey that it continued into the 20th century; not until 1933, a decade after it had become a secular republic, would Turkey ratify the 1926 League of Nations convention on the suppression of slavery. In all, slavery thrived in Turkey for a millennium.

The contrast with America could not be more stark. Even before the United States of America was founded in 1789, the American colonies were a hotbed of opposition to slavery. Pennsylvania’s Quakers’ first declaration against slavery was signed in 1688 (it would be another century before British Quakers started the British abolition movement, in 1783; William Wilberforce, the U.K. evangelical and parliamentarian often credited with stopping the slave trade, began his opposition to slavery in 1787).

Rhode Island limited slave trading in 1774, Vermont’s 1777 constitution abolished slavery, followed by laws to emancipate slaves in Massachusetts and Pennsylvania in 1780 and Connecticut in 1784. By the time George Washington was elected the first president of the United States, abolition movements pervaded all states and territories.

Moreover, the leaders of the abolition movement were not fringe activists but establishment elites, including America’s founding fathers. John Jay and Alexander Hamilton founded in 1785 the New York Society for Promoting the Manumission of Slaves, and Protecting Such of Them as Have Been, or May be Liberated, and Benjamin Franklin in 1787 became president of the Society for Promoting the Abolition of Slavery and the Relief of Negroes Unlawfully Held in Bondage. The U.S. Constitution itself included a provision banning the importation of slaves within 20 years.

By 1807, the United States had prohibited slave trading with Africa. In another half-century, after a civil war waged in good part over slavery, the United States had emancipated all slaves through the 13th amendment to the United States Constitution. No country of slave owners before or since would so quickly overthrow an established slave-owning order. Along the way, much of the Western world abolished slavery, often inspired by the example set by the U.S.

The American democracy’s swift consignation of slavery to the dustbin of history, and the American role in ending a universal scourge that, until recent times, was unrecognized as an evil, is a story Barack Obama could have told with conviction, reigniting the American ideal in Europe and reassuring Turks of their wisdom a century ago in choosing Western values.

Instead, in his description of slavery and of other wrongs, President Obama has become the face of a kinder, gentler, apologetic America. Whether this new America can help a Turkey torn between its Western and Islamic factions, a Central Asia unable to export energy and a Europe without an alternative energy supplier to Russia, will be seen soon enough.

Lawrence Solomon is executive director of Energy Probe and Urban Renaissance Institute. lawrencesolomon@nextcity.com

Green Agenda Forgets About 2nd Grade Science Class

Posted on April 7, 2009 by energyprbe

GreenWatch America
The Hawaii Reporter
April 7, 2009

It’s one of the first things I remember learning in second grade science class: People breathe in oxygen and breathe out carbon dioxide, plants “breathe” in carbon dioxide and breathe out oxygen. It seems that some scientists and journalists missed that day of class.

The phenomenon has been discovered in a variety of flora, ranging from tropical rainforests to British sugar beet crops.

It means they are soaking up at least some of the billions of tons of CO2 released into the atmosphere by humans that would otherwise be accelerating the rate of climate change.

Plants survive by extracting CO2 from the air and using sunlight to convert it into proteins and sugars.

Since 1750 the concentration in the air has risen from of CO2 278 parts per million (ppm) to more than 380 ppm, making it easier for plants to acquire the CO2 needed for rapid growth.

Plants are getting bigger and stronger, taking in more CO2 and, I presume, sending out more O2. Could it be that a little extra CO2 in the atmosphere, rather than spelling out doom for every living thing on the planet, is…a good thing? Could it be that increased CO2 will mean stronger plants, and thusly more and better crops? Could it be that efforts to stem the tide of the increase in CO2 will lead to decreases in food production and food shortages across the globe?

Lawrence Solomon, author of The Deniers, wrote about this very phenomenon last June in the Financial Post, in a column called “In Praise of CO2.”

Doubling the jeopardy for Earth is man. Unlike the many scientists who welcome CO2 for its benefits, many other scientists and most governments believe carbon dioxide to be a dangerous pollutant that must be removed from the atmosphere at all costs. Governments around the world are now enacting massive programs in an effort to remove as much as 80% of the carbon dioxide emissions from the atmosphere.

If these governments are right, they will have done us all a service. If they are wrong, the service could be all ill, with food production dropping world wide, and the countless ecological niches on which living creatures depend stressed. The second order effects could be dire, too. To bolster food production, humans will likely turn to energy intensive manufactured fertilizers, depleting our store of non-renewable resources. Techniques to remove carbon from the atmosphere also sound alarms. Carbon sequestration, a darling of many who would mitigate climate change, could become a top inducer of earthquakes, according to Christian Klose, a geohazards researcher at Columbia University’s Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory. Because the carbon sequestration schemes tend to be located near cities, he notes, carbon-sequestration-caused earthquakes could exact an unusually high toll.

Amazingly, although the risks of action are arguably at least as real as the risks of inaction, Canada and other countries are rushing into Earth-altering carbon schemes with nary a doubt. Environmentalists, who ordinarily would demand a full-fledged environmental assessment before a highway or a power plant can be built, are silent on the need to question proponents or examine alternatives.

Everywhere you look, there’s another hole in the theory of Global Warming. Even a second grader could tell you that.

Additionally, a few weeks ago in this space we told you about the Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act (CPSIA). The goal of this act was to protect small children from ingesting lead. Andrew in New York brings my attention to the sobering reality; the consequences have been disastrous for business, families, and, as it turns out, could be putting children in harm’s way:

Thousands of children 12 and younger ride motorcycles, ATVs and snowmobiles, which is why a lot of effort and time has gone into designing vehicles made for smaller folks. On Friday, The Wall Street Journal noted a study by the Motorcycle Industry Council that concluded “90% of the youth fatalities and injuries on motorcycles occur when kids ride adult vehicles.

On Thursday of last week, the Senate of the United States voted 58 to 39 to reject an amendment to the budget bill designed to keep kids on bikes designed for them and thus off adult vehicles. The reason the amendment was offered by South Carolina’s Jim DeMint is because the 2008 “Consumer Products Safety Improvement Act” mandates that products containing even trace amounts of lead –trace amounts highly unlikely to ever come in contact with a child’s digestion system– were banned from sale to children 12 and under.

The law took effect in February an instantly made it illegal to sell the kid-sized vehicles because of nearly undetectabl amounts of lead in tire valves, brakes, batteries etc. Replacement parts for vehicles for kids are similarly interdicted.

Ed Morrissey states the obvious:

I find it ridiculous to point this out to Congress, but children do not eat ATVs. The lead content of its components will not end up in small stomachs. Children do not ride ATVs without being clothed, so skin contact is minimal and transitory. What’s next — banning cars because children might ride in them?

No, they’ll be banned because of the emissions, silly!

Contact Lawrence Solomon

Read Lawrence Solomon’s bio

Posted in Energy Probe News, The Deniers | 2 Comments

Two Types of Greens

Posted on April 7, 2009 by energyprbe

Michael Trebilcock, a renowned economist and friend of the environment, will be appearing at the Ontario legislature tonight, arguing against the Ontario government’s proposed Green Energy Act.For the many good reason he outlines, this green act is anything but green.

His excellent presentation appears below.
Submission to Legislative Committee on Bill 150:

Speaking Truth to “Wind” Power

I. INTRODUCTION

My wife and I (like many other residents) chose a retirement home in Grey Highlands because it is one of the scenic treasures of southwestern Ontario, dominated by the Niagara Escarpment, Beaver Valley, Lake Eugenia, the Saugeen River, and rolling rural countryside, woodlands and wetlands. Now, however, the residents of Grey Highlands and the many tourists and visitors it attracts (major drivers of the local economy) are threatened with the prospect that its landscape will be blighted by 400 feet, 35-story high industrial wind turbines that cause documented health and environmental risks, dramatically lowering property values and impacting one’s quality of life. The Green Energy Act (Bill 150), now before the Ontario Legislature, is designed to expedite this process by taking planning responsibilities away from local municipalities like ours and remitting key decisions to subsequent ministerial regulations, leaving local residents no say in matters that will dramatically impact their lives and future generations. While we are obviously personally affected by this legislation, the following comments reflect a professional career studying economic regulation, including a year as Research Director of the Ontario Government’s Electricity Market Design Committee (1998). I have four major objections to the legislation.

II. THE CASE AGAINST INDUSTRIAL WIND TURBINES

1) Industrial Wind Turbines Have Minimal Impact on Carbon Emissions

There is no evidence that industrial wind power is likely to have a significant impact on carbon emissions. The European experience is instructive. Denmark, the world’s most wind-intensive nation with more than 6,000 turbines generating 19% of its electricity, has yet to close a single fossil fuel plant. It requires 50% more coal-generated electricity to cover wind power’s unpredictability, pollution and carbon dioxide emissions have risen (by 36% in 2006 alone). Flemming Nissen, the head of development at West Danish generating company ELSAM (one of Denmark’s largest energy utilities) tells us that “wind turbines do not reduce carbon dioxide emissions.”[1] The German experience is no different. Der Spiegel reports that “Germany’s CO2 emissions haven’t been reduced by even a single gram,”[2] and additional coal and gas-fired plants have been constructed to ensure reliable delivery. Indeed, recent academic research shows that wind power may actually increase greenhouse gas emissions in some cases, depending on the carbon-intensity of back-up generation required because of its intermittent character.[3] On the negative side of the environmental ledger are adverse impacts of industrial wind turbines on birdlife and other forms of wildlife, farm animals, wetlands, and viewsheds.
2) Industrial Wind Turbines Are Uneconomic

Industrial wind power is not a viable economic alternative to other energy conservation options. Again, the Danish experience is instructive. Its electricity generation costs are the highest in Europe (15 cents/kwh compared to Ontario’s current rate of about 6 cents). Niels Gram of the Danish Federation of Industries says, “windmills are a mistake and economically make no sense.”[4] Aase Madsen , the Chair of Energy Policy in the Danish Parliament calls it “a terribly expensive disaster.”[5] The U.S. Energy Information Administration reported in 2008, on a dollar per MWh basis, the U.S. government subsidizes wind at $23.34 – compared to reliable energy sources: natural gas at 25 cents; coal at 44 cents; hydro at 67 cents; and nuclear at $1.59, leading to what some U.S. commentators call “a huge corporate welfare feeding frenzy.”[6] The Wall Street Journal advises that “wind generation is the prime example of what can go wrong when the government decides to pick winners.”[7] The Economist magazine in a recent editorial, “Wasting Money on Climate Change”[8] notes that each tonne of emissions avoided due to subsidies to renewable energy such as wind power would cost somewhere between $69 and $137, whereas under a cap-and-trade scheme the price would be less than $15. Either a carbon tax or a cap-and-trade system creates incentives for consumers and producers on a myriad of margins to reduce energy use and emissions that, as these numbers show, completely overwhelm subsidies to renewables in terms of cost effectiveness.

The Ontario Power Authority advises that wind producers will be paid 13.5 cents/kwh (more than twice what consumers are currently paying), even without accounting for the additional costs of interconnection, transmission and back-up generation. As the European experience confirms, this will inevitably lead to a dramatic increase in electricity costs with consequent detrimental effects on business and employment.[9] From this perspective, the government’s promise of 55,000 new jobs is a cruel delusion. A recent detailed analysis (focusing mainly on Spain) finds that for every job created by state-funded support of renewables, particularly wind energy, 2.2 jobs are lost.[10] Each wind industry job created cost almost $2 million in subsidies. Why will the Ontario experience be different?

3) Industrial Wind Turbines Cause Insufficiently Researched Health Effects

A growing body of scientific and medical evidence suggests that the health effects on those subjected to long and frequent periods of pulsating, low-frequency noise associated with wind turbines include sleep disturbances leading to depression, chronic stress, migraines, nausea and dizziness, exhaustion and anger, memory loss and cognitive difficulties, cardiac arrhythmias, increased heart rate and blood pressure. Kamperman and James[11] list no fewer than 13 studies that show noise from wind turbines at night can disturb residents more than 2 km away. Those living close to the source of noise can develop what has been termed “Vibroacoustic Disease (VAD). Noise from wind turbines exhibit the characteristics of noise experienced in various occupations (aircrews, aircraft maintenance workers, ship workers and an islander population exposed to environmental infra and low frequency noise) and has been shown to lead to VAD. Complaints from people living near wind turbines are the same as those from persons who have developed VAD.[12] Also, flicker from turbines at a minimum are disruptive and annoying. Flicker poses a potential risk of photosensitive seizures.[13]

The refusal of the provincial government to order full independent environmental assessments, including assessments of health effects, of any wind turbine project, undermines the credibility of claims that there will be no such negative effects.

4) Industrial Wind Turbines Have Adverse Effects on Adjacent Property Values
A three-year study of 600 property sales near the Melancton wind turbine developments north of Shelburne, Ontario showed that property values decreased by 20% to 25% (an average of $48,000), were on the market more than twice as long as properties in adjacent areas, and a large number (four times those that did sell) could not be sold at any price.[14] While wind developers deny that industrial wind turbines have any effect on property values of neighbouring residents, simple common sense suggests otherwise: how many readers familiar with this development would be prepared to buy recreational or retirement homes in this area, even at sharply discounted prices? In a recreational area that promotes its scenic attractions, like Grey Highlands, these effects on property values are likely to be even more pronounced. Refusal by either wind developers or the provincial government to provide legally enforceable guarantees of compensation for property value losses warrants further skepticism over the claim that there will be no such losses.

III. MINIMIZING THE DAMAGE

Even if one thinks (contrary to my views), that wind turbines are a good idea environmentally and economically, there is a simple solution to the impact on rural residents, who are being conscripted to bear most of the burden of solving a problem they mostly did not create. Ensure that set-backs from residences conform to international standards as endorsed by renowned medical and scientific bodies that have closely examined the health and environmental risks. The French Academy of Medicine recommends 1.5 km, pending further research on health effects of persistent exposure to low-intensity noise. Alternatively, the government could concentrate wind farms in more remote or sparsely populated areas, as has been done in Quebec and much of Europe. These measures would also minimize negative impacts on property values. But these are modest palliatives to the fundamental policy flaws in Bill 150 and do not address industrial wind power’s failure to reduce significantly carbon emissions and its exorbitant cost to taxpayers and consumers.

IV. GOOD POLITICS, BAD POLICY

In debates over climate change, and in particular subsidies to renewable energy, there are two kinds of green. First there are some environmental greens who view the problem as so urgent that all measures that may have some impact on greenhouse gas emissions, whatever their cost or their impact on the economy and employment, should be undertaken immediately (see Bill McKibben, “The Fierce Urgency of Now,” Toronto Star, 25th March, 2009: “We have to do everything we can imagine, all at once.”). Then there are the fiscal greens, who being cool to carbon taxes and cap-and-trade systems that make polluters pay, favour massive public subsidies to themselves for renewable energy projects, whatever their relative impact on greenhouse gas emissions. These two groups are motivated by different kinds of green. The only point of convergence between them is their support for massive subsidies to renewable energy (such as wind turbines).

This unholy alliance of these two kinds of greens (doomsdayers and rent seekers) – a classic Baptist-Bootlegger coalition, harking back to the Prohibition era – makes for very effective, if opportunistic, politics (as reflected in the Ontario government’s Green Energy Act), just as it makes for lousy public policy: politicians attempt to pick winners at our expense in a fast-moving technological landscape, instead of creating a socially efficient set of incentives to which we can all respond.

Michael J. Trebilcock

Professor Law and Economics

University of Toronto, Faculty of Law

April 7, 2009

[1] David J. White, “Danish Wind: Too Good to be True?” The Utilities Journal, July 2004. See also article by Angela Kelly, written for the magazine Green Places and available at http://www.countryguardian.net/Green%20Places.htm

[2] Anselm Waldermann, “Wind Turbines in Europe Do Nothing for Emissions-Reductions Goals,” Der Spiegel, February 19, 2009. Available (in German) at http://www.spiegal.de/international/business/0.1518.606763.00.html.

[3] Arthur Campbell, “Hot Air? When Government Support for Intermittent Technologies Can Increase Emissions,” MIT Department of Economics, November 21, 2008. Available at http://econ-www.mit.edu/files/3563.

[4] See John Dyson, “Tilting Against Windmills,” Reader’s Digest, August 2003; also in the United Kingdom Parliament House of Lords-Science and Technology-Written Evidence, October 2003. Available at http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200506/cmselect/cmwelaf/876/876we14.htm; and the Response to the 2006 Energy Review, April 2005. Available at http://www.berr.gov.uk/files/file31065.pdf

[5] See The United Kingdom Parliament House of Lords-Science and Technology-Written Evidence, October 2003. Available at http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200506/cmselect/cmwelaf/876/876we14.htm; see also the Response to the 2006 Energy Review, April 2005. Available at http://www.berr.gov.uk/files/file31065.pdf

[6] Max Schulz, “Don’t Count on Countless Green Jobs,” Wall Street Journal, February 20, 2009.

[7] William Tucker, Wall Street Journal, December 29, 2008; see also Patrick Sawyer, “Promoters overstated the environmental benefits of wind farms,” Telegraph.co.uk., December 21, 2008. Available at http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/energy/windpower/3867232/Promoters-overstated-the-environmental-benefit-of-wind-farms.html.

[8] “Wasting Money on Climate Change,” Economist, March 14, 2009.

[9] Max Schulz, op. cit.

[10] Study of the Effects on Employment of Public Aid to Renewable Energy Services, Universidad Rey Juan Carlos, March 2009; see also Seven Myths About Green Jobs, University of Illinois, March 16, 2009 and available at http://news.prnewswire.com/ViewContent.aspx?ACCT=109&STORY=/www/story/03-16-2009/0004989090&EDATE=.

[11] “Simple guidelines for siting wind turbines to prevent health risks,” George W. Kamperman and Richard R. JamesDearborn, NOISE-CON 2008, Michigan, July 28-31, 2008.

[12]”Vibroacoustic disease: Biological effects of infrasound and low-frequency noise explained by mechanotransduction cellular signaling.” Mariana Alves-Pereira and Nuno A.A. Castelo Branco, Progress in Biophysics and Molecular Biology, (2007) 93: 256-279; see also, “On the Impact of Infrasound and Low Frequency Noise on Public Health – Two Cases of Residential Exposure,” Mariana Alves-Pereira and Nuno A.A. Castelo Branco, Rev. Lusofona de Ciencias e Tecnologias da Saude, (2007) 2 (4): 186-200.

[13] “Wind turbines, flicker, and photosensitive epilepsy: Characterizing the flashing that may precipitate seizures and optimizing guidelines to prevent them,” Graham Harding, Pamela Harding and Arnold Wilkins, Epilepsia (2008) 49 (6): 1095-1098.

[14]”Living With the Impact of Windmills,” Chris Luxemburger, Director Brampton Real Estate Board, Chairperson of Real Estate By-laws Committee, paper 2008.

Posted in Alternative Energy, Renewables | 1 Comment

Text of Obama’s Speech to Turkish Parliament

Posted on April 6, 2009 by energyprbe

President Barack Obama
Associated Press
April 6, 2009

PRESIDENT OBAMA: Mister speaker, madam deputy speaker, distinguished members, I am honored to speak in this chamber, and I am committed to renewing the alliance between our nations and the friendship between our people.

This is my first trip overseas as president of the United States. I’ve been to the G-20 summit in London, and the NATO summit in Strasbourg, and the European Union summit in Prague. Some people have asked me if I chose to continue my travels to Ankara and Istanbul to send a message to the world. And my answer is simple: Evet – yes.

Turkey is a critical ally. Turkey is an important part of Europe. And Turkey and the United States must stand together – and work together – to overcome the challenges of our time.

This morning I had the great privilege of visiting the tomb of your extraordinary founder of your republic. And I was deeply impressed by this beautiful memorial to a man who did so much to shape the course of history. But it is also clear that the greatest monument to Ataturk’s life is not something that can be cast in stone and marble. His greatest legacy is Turkey’s strong, vibrant, secular democracy, and that is the work that this assembly carries on today.

This future was not easily assured, it was not guaranteed. At the end of World War I, Turkey could have succumbed to the foreign powers that were trying to claim its territory, or sought to restore an ancient empire. But Turkey chose a different future. You freed yourself from foreign control, and you founded a republic that commands the respect of the United States and the wider world.

And there is a simple truth to this story: Turkey’s democracy is your own achievement. It was not forced upon you by any outside power, nor did it come without struggle and sacrifice. Turkey draws strength from both the successes of the past, and from the efforts of each generation of Turks that makes new progress for your people.

Now, my country’s democracy has its own story. The general who led America in revolution and governed as our first president was, as many of you know, George Washington. And like you, we built a grand monument to honor our founding father – a towering obelisk that stands in the heart of the capital city that bears Washington’s name. I can see the Washington Monument from the window of the White House every day.

It took decades to build. There were frequent delays. Over time, more and more people contributed to help make this monument the inspiring structure that still stands tall today. Among those who came to our aid were friends from all across the world who offered their own tributes to Washington and the country he helped to found.

And one of those tributes came from Istanbul. Ottoman Sultan Abdulmecid sent a marble plaque that helped to build the Washington Monument. Inscribed in the plaque was a poem that began with a few simple words: “So as to strengthen the friendship between the two countries.” Over 150 years have passed since those words were carved into marble. Our nations have changed in many ways. But our friendship is strong, and our alliance endures.

It is a friendship that flourished in the years after World War II, when President Truman committed our nation to the defense of Turkey’s freedom and sovereignty, and Turkey committed itself into the NATO Alliance. Turkish troops have served by our side from Korea to Kosovo to Kabul. Together, we withstood the great test of the Cold War. Trade between our nations has steadily advanced. So has cooperation in science and research.

The ties among our people have deepened, as well, and more and more Americans of Turkish origin live and work and succeed within our borders. And as a basketball fan, I’ve even noticed that Hedo Turkoglu and Mehmet Okur have got some pretty good basketball games.

The United States and Turkey have not always agreed on every issue, and that’s to be expected – no two nations do. But we have stood together through many challenges over the last 60 years. And because of the strength of our alliance and the endurance of our friendship, both America and Turkey are stronger and the world is more secure.

Now, our two democracies are confronted by an unprecedented set of challenges: An economic crisis that recognizes no borders; extremism that leads to the killing of innocent men and women and children; strains on our energy supply and a changing climate; the proliferation of the world’s deadliest weapons; and the persistence of tragic conflict.

These are the great tests of our young century. And the choices that we make in the coming years will determine whether the future will be shaped by fear or by freedom; by poverty or by prosperity; by strife or by a just, secure and lasting peace.

This much is certain: No one nation can confront these challenges alone, and all nations have a stake in overcoming them. That is why we must listen to one another, and seek common ground. That is why we must build on our mutual interests, and rise above our differences. We are stronger when we act together. That is the message that I’ve carried with me throughout this trip to Europe. That is the message that I delivered when I had the privilege of meeting with your president and with your prime minister. That will be the approach of the United States of America going forward.

Already, America and Turkey are working with the G20 on an unprecedented response to an unprecedented economic crisis. Now, this past week, we came together to ensure that the world’s largest economies take strong and coordinated action to stimulate growth and restore the flow of credit; to reject the pressures of protectionism, and to extend a hand to developing countries and the people hit hardest by this downturn; and to dramatically reform our regulatory system so that the world never faces a crisis like this again.

As we go forward, the United States and Turkey can pursue many opportunities to serve prosperity for our people. The president and I this morning talked about expanding the ties of commerce and trade. There’s enormous opportunity when it comes to energy to create jobs. And we can increase new sources to not only free ourselves from dependence of other energies – other countries’ energy sources, but also to combat climate change. We should build on our Clean Technology Fund to leverage efficiency and renewable energy investments in Turkey. And to power markets in Turkey and Europe, the United States will continue to support your central role as an East-West corridor for oil and natural gas.

This economic cooperation only reinforces the common security that Europe and the United States share with Turkey as a NATO ally, and the common values that we share as democracies. So in meeting the challenges of the 21st century, we must seek the strength of a Europe that is truly united, peaceful and free.

So let me be clear: The United States strongly supports Turkey’s bid to become a member of the European Union.

We speak not as members of the EU, but as close friends of both Turkey and Europe. Turkey has been a resolute ally and a responsible partner in trans-Atlantic and European institutions. Turkey is bound to Europe by more than the bridges over the Bosporus. Centuries of shared history, culture, and commerce bring you together. Europe gains by the diversity of ethnicity, tradition and faith – it is not diminished by it. And Turkish membership would broaden and strengthen Europe’s foundation once more.

Now, of course, Turkey has its own responsibilities. And you’ve made important progress towards membership. But I also know that Turkey has pursued difficult political reforms not simply because it’s good for EU membership, but because it’s right for Turkey.

In the last several years, you’ve abolished state security courts, you’ve expanded the right to counsel. You’ve reformed the penal code and strengthened laws that govern the freedom of the press and assembly. You’ve lifted bans on teaching and broadcasting Kurdish, and the world noted with respect the important signal sent through a new state Kurdish television station.

These achievements have created new laws that must be implemented, and a momentum that should be sustained. For democracies cannot be static – they must move forward. Freedom of religion and expression lead to a strong and vibrant civil society that only strengthens the state, which is why steps like reopening Halki Seminary will send such an important signal inside Turkey and beyond. An enduring commitment to the rule of law is the only way to achieve the security that comes from justice for all people. Robust minority rights let societies benefit from the full measure of contributions from all citizens.

I say this as the president of a country that not very long ago made it hard for somebody who looks like me to vote, much less be president of the United States. But it is precisely that capacity to change that enriches our countries. Every challenge that we face is more easily met if we tend to our own democratic foundation. This work is never over. That’s why, in the United States, we recently ordered the prison at Guantanamo Bay closed. That’s why we prohibited – without exception or equivocation – the use of torture. All of us have to change. And sometimes change is hard.

Another issue that confronts all democracies as they move to the future is how we deal with the past. The United States is still working through some of our own darker periods in our history. Facing the Washington Monument that I spoke of is a memorial of Abraham Lincoln, the man who freed those who were enslaved even after Washington led our revolution. Our country still struggles with the legacies of slavery and segregation, the past treatment of Native Americans.

Human endeavor is by its nature imperfect. History is often tragic, but unresolved, it can be a heavy weight. Each country must work through its past. And reckoning with the past can help us seize a better future. I know there’s strong views in this chamber about the terrible events of 1915. And while there’s been a good deal of commentary about my views, it’s really about how the Turkish and Armenian people deal with the past. And the best way forward for the Turkish and Armenian people is a process that works through the past in a way that is honest, open and constructive.

We’ve already seen historic and courageous steps taken by Turkish and Armenian leaders. These contacts hold out the promise of a new day. An open border would return the Turkish and Armenian people to a peaceful and prosperous coexistence that would serve both of your nations. So I want you to know that the United States strongly supports the full normalization of relations between Turkey and Armenia. It is a cause worth working towards.

It speaks to Turkey’s leadership that you are poised to be the only country in the region to have normal and peaceful relations with all the South Caucasus nations. And to advance that peace, you can play a constructive role in helping to resolve the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict, which has continued for far too long.

Advancing peace also includes the disputes that persist in the Eastern Mediterranean. And here there’s a cause for hope. The two Cypriot leaders have an opportunity through their commitment to negotiations under the United Nations Good Offices Mission. The United States is willing to offer all the help sought by the parties as they work towards a just and lasting settlement that reunifies Cyprus into a bi-zonal and bi-communal federation.

These efforts speak to one part of the critical region that surrounds Turkey. And when we consider the challenges before us, on issue after issue, we share common goals.

In the Middle East, we share the goal of a lasting peace between Israel and its neighbors. Let me be clear: The United States strongly supports the goal of two states, Israel and Palestine, living side by side in peace and security. That is a goal shared by Palestinians, Israelis and people of goodwill around the world. That is a goal that the parties agreed to in the road map and at Annapolis. That is a goal that I will actively pursue as president of the United States.

We know the road ahead will be difficult. Both Israelis and Palestinians must take steps that are necessary to build confidence and trust. Both Israelis and Palestinians, both must live up to the commitments they have made. Both must overcome long-standing passions and the politics of the moment to make progress towards a secure and lasting peace.

The United States and Turkey can help the Palestinians and Israelis make this journey. Like the United States, Turkey has been a friend and partner in Israel’s quest for security. And like the United States, you seek a future of opportunity and statehood for the Palestinians. So now, working together, we must not give into pessimism and mistrust. We must pursue every opportunity for progress, as you’ve done by supporting negotiations between Syria and Israel. We must extend a hand to those Palestinians who are in need, while helping them strengthen their own institutions. We must reject the use of terror, and recognize that Israel’s security concerns are legitimate.

The peace of the region will also be advanced if Iran forgoes any nuclear weapons ambitions. Now, as I made clear in Prague yesterday, no one is served by the spread of nuclear weapons, least of all Turkey. You live in a difficult region and a nuclear arm race would not serve the security of this nation well. This part of the world has known enough violence. It has known enough hatred. It does not need a race for an ever-more powerful tool of destruction.

Now, I have made it clear to the people and leaders of the Islamic Republic of Iran that the United States seeks engagement based on mutual interest and mutual respect. We want Iran to play its rightful role in the community of nations. Iran is a great civilization. We want them to engage in the economic and political integration that brings prosperity and security. But Iran’s leaders must choose whether they will try to build a weapon or build a better future for their people.

So both Turkey and the United States support a secure and united Iraq that does not serve as a safe haven for terrorists. I know there were differences about whether to go to war. There were differences within my own country, as well. But now we must come together as we end this war responsibly, because the future of Iraq is inseparable from the future of the broader region. As I’ve already announced, and many of you are aware, the United States will remove our combat brigades by the end of next August, while working with the Iraqi government as they take responsibility for security. And we will work with Iraq, Turkey, and all Iraq’s neighbors, to forge a new dialogue that reconciles differences and advances our common security.

Make no mistake, though: Iraq, Turkey and the United States face a common threat from terrorism. That includes the al-Qaida terrorists who have sought to drive Iraqis apart and destroy their country. That includes the PKK. There is no excuse for terror against any nation.

As president, and as a NATO ally, I pledge that you will have our support against the terrorist activities of the PKK or anyone else. These efforts will be strengthened by the continued work to build ties of cooperation between Turkey, the Iraqi government, and Iraq’s Kurdish leaders, and by your continued efforts to promote education and opportunity and democracy for the Kurdish population here inside Turkey.

Finally, we share the common goal of denying al-Qaida a safe haven in Pakistan or Afghanistan. The world has come too far to let this region backslide, and to let al-Qaida terrorists plot further attacks. That’s why we are committed to a more focused effort to disrupt, dismantle and defeat al-Qaida. That is why we are increasing our efforts to train Afghans to sustain their own security, and to reconcile former adversaries. That’s why we are increasing our support for the people of Afghanistan and Pakistan, so that we stand on the side not only of security, but also of opportunity and the promise of a better life.

Turkey has been a true partner. Your troops were among the first in the International Security Assistance Force. You have sacrificed much in this endeavor. Now we must achieve our goals together. I appreciate that you’ve offered to help us train and support Afghan security forces and expand opportunity across the region. Together, we can rise to meet this challenge like we have so many before.

I know there have been difficulties these last few years. I know that the trust that binds the United States and Turkey has been strained, and I know that strain is shared in many places where the Muslim faith is practiced. So let me say this as clearly as I can: The United States is not, and will never be, at war with Islam.

In fact, our partnership with the Muslim world is critical not just in rolling back the violent ideologies that people of all faiths reject, but also to strengthen opportunity for all its people.

I also want to be clear that America’s relationship with the Muslim community, the Muslim world, cannot, and will not, just be based upon opposition to terrorism. We seek broader engagement based on mutual interest and mutual respect. We will listen carefully, we will bridge misunderstandings, and we will seek common ground. We will be respectful, even when we do not agree. We will convey our deep appreciation for the Islamic faith, which has done so much over the centuries to shape the world – including in my own country. The United States has been enriched by Muslim Americans. Many other Americans have Muslims in their families or have lived in a Muslim-majority country – I know, because I am one of them.

Above all, above all we will demonstrate through actions our commitment to a better future. I want to help more children get the education that they need to succeed. We want to promote health care in places where people are vulnerable. We want to expand the trade and investment that can bring prosperity for all people. In the months ahead, I will present specific programs to advance these goals. Our focus will be on what we can do, in partnership with people across the Muslim world, to advance our common hopes and our common dreams. And when people look back on this time, let it be said of America that we extended the hand of friendship to all people.

There’s an old Turkish proverb: “You cannot put out fire with flames.” America knows this. Turkey knows this. There’s some who must be met by force, they will not compromise. But force alone cannot solve our problems, and it is no alternative to extremism. The future must belong to those who create, not those who destroy. That is the future we must work for, and we must work for it together.

I know there are those who like to debate Turkey’s future. They see your country at the crossroads of continents, and touched by the currents of history. They know that this has been a place where civilizations meet, and different peoples come together. They wonder whether you will be pulled in one direction or another.

But I believe here is what they don’t understand: Turkey’s greatness lies in your ability to be at the center of things. This is not where East and West divide – this is where they come together.

In the beauty of your culture. In the richness of your history. In the strength of your democracy. In your hopes for tomorrow.

I am honored to stand here with you – to look forward to the future that we must reach for together – and to reaffirm America’s commitment to our strong and enduring friendship. Thank you very much. Thank you. Thank you.

Posted in Pipelines | Leave a comment

The History of Toronto’s Unfinished Expressway System

Posted on April 5, 2009 by energyprbe

April 5, 2009

Toronto is served by a system of both Provincial Freeways and Municipal Expressways. Provincial Freeways are owned and operated by the Ontario Ministry of Transportation including the Queen Elizabeth Way and Highways 400, 401, 403, 404, 409, 410 and 427. Highway 407 was sold to a private company and is operated as an express toll route.

Municipal Expressways, which are owned and operated by the City of Toronto (formerly Metropolitan Toronto), include the Gardiner, Don Valley and Allen (Spadina) Expressways. The Province also transferred Black Creek Drive (400 Extension), Highways 27 and 2A and a stretch of the Queen Elizabeth Way, which is now part of the Gardiner Expressway, to the City of Toronto. Black Creek and Highway 27 are part of the arterial road system.

Read the full 26-page document in .pdf format

Posted in Public Transit | 1 Comment

Stimulating sprawl

Posted on April 4, 2009 by energyprbe

Lawrence Solomon
FP Comment
April 4, 2009

Governments throughout the continent are shovelling money as fast as they can, largely into low- or no-value infrastructure projects.

Sprawl in Toronto just got its biggest boost in 50 years, thanks to Ontario Premier Dalton McGuinty’s decision this week to stimulate the economy through a $9-billion spending spree on transportation infrastructure. Look for Toronto to bust out all over – North, East and West – in line with the major routes he promises to fund. And look for low-density sprawl to spread to Toronto’s detriment, just as occurred with the uneconomic transportation infrastructure built in the past.

Fifty years ago, the big impetus to sprawl was the creation of Metropolitan Toronto, a melding of a viable Toronto with its struggling suburbs. Among the legacies of Metro was the financial destruction of the Toronto Transportation Commission, then the premier transit system in North America. Before Metro’s creation, all of Toronto’s public transit routes were robust and profitable. Upon Metro’s creation, the TTC’s profitable routes were bled in an attempt to provide transit service to the unprofitable low-density suburbs. Soon, virtually all of the TTC’s routes, in both city and suburb, became unprofitable, and the city, too, fell on hard times.

Metro’s ruinous expansion of transportation infrastructure included an expressway network that was abruptly halted with one major component, the Spadina Expressway, half built. Another major component in an even earlier state of construction – the Crosstown Expressway – was likewise halted (Toronto residents will recognize the only part that was built as what now appears to be a seemingly endless interchange connecting the Don Valley Parkway to Bayview Avenue and Bloor Street).

Now the Crosstown is back, a few miles north of the original Crosstown route and recast as a light-rail road, rather than as an automobile expressway. Like the original, this express route, now called the Eglinton Crosstown Rapid Transit line, is divorced from the needs of riders – the minimal traffic to be carried can justify perhaps one-tenth of its estimated $4.6-billion expense. The rest is waste.

McGuinty’s justification for the line is neither need nor profitability, but “shovel-ready projects” and “economic stimulus.” In this he is not alone: Governments throughout the continent are shovelling money as fast as they can, largely into low- or no-value infrastructure projects that have never had either the financing or the customer demand to proceed. With wasteful government spending now seen as a virtue, all restraints are off, particularly since much of the spending is also justified on environmental grounds. Along with unneeded transit and roads, we’re seeing unneeded windmills and other green power plants, and the unneeded power grids to support them.

In the government’s thinking, the immense cost of this stimulus spending, and the decades of indebtedness it brings, is justified by an immediate benefit to the economy and a long-term benefit to the environment. But the consequences to the environment are often negative, not positive, even with seemingly praiseworthy projects such as public transit.

This was the case with Metropolitan government 50 years ago, when subsidized public transit and other infrastructure fuelled the growth of the modern suburb, and this was also the case almost 100 years ago, when public transit played a dominant role in the creation of Toronto’s older suburbs.

Until the 1920s, Toronto’s suburbs were viable – small, self-supporting communities that had developed on the basis of local agriculture or some other local industry. Transit to the suburbs – at the time provided by a profit-oriented private sector – was minimal, in keeping with the minimal demand. Then Toronto’s municipal government asked the private sector to operate unprofitable routes to the suburbs and, when it refused, took over the private company and bent transit services to its will. The suburbs soon over-expanded, became financially insolvent and, when tough economic times came in the 1920s and 1930s, they became derelict and most became bankrupt, leading the province to take over their financial affairs.

Dereliction is also a consequence for Toronto of sprawling suburbs. City taxes must rise to provide services for those in the suburbs who use city roads and other city services; city taxes must then rise again as businesses and residents flee the tax burden in the city, leaving those behind with higher tax burdens. City governors, meanwhile, cut back on services to fend off a tax revolt. It is this vicious cycle that leads to the hollowing out of cities.

Preceding every hollowing out, we hear hollow words. This week, we heard Premier McGuinty announcing “the most ambitious project of its kind in Canadian history” and promising that more money would come.

Lawrence Solomon is executive director of Energy Probe and Urban Renaissance Institute, and author of Toronto Sprawls.

Click here to read about “The History of Toronto’s Unfinished Expressway System”

Contact Lawrence Solomon

Read Lawrence Solomon’s bio

Posted in Energy Probe News, Public Transit | Leave a comment

Green Investment Opportunities Abound in Toronto

Posted on April 3, 2009 by energyprbe

Greg Davis
blogTO
April 3, 2009

Thanks to record government deficit spending, there is one economic sector that appears to be flush with money that needs to be spent: green projects.

This week Toronto Greenhouse aimed to bring together environment-focused entrepreneurs and investors. It was the first in a line of downtown events that will take place on the last Tuesday evening of every month. Kicking things off at the Steamwhistle Brewery, the place was packed (apparently sold out) as presenters pitched their ideas to a room full of potential investors (or lots of people with suits anyhow). The crowd was totally abuzz, with half the room content to focus on networking as opposed to what was going on up on the stage.

It’s really no wonder the suits are lining up to board the green investment train. In the US, Obama’s budget plan includes billions in green spending that could trickle down to the sector here in Canada. The Ontario government has recently announced $593 million in green stimulus funds in its budget. And Toronto is set to receive billions in public transit funding, even more than was expected.

Add to this the fact that the new Ontario Green Energy Act is chalk full of new subsidies for renewable projects and other green incentives, which seems to have already attracted some developments in solar projects. The new regulations should provide an additional boost to an already booming wind sector where according to government figures, Ontario had only 10 turbines in 2003; now there are 589. There are also other new programs that were planned years ago and are now coming on line, for example electronic waste collection is set to expand in Toronto and throughout Ontario.

I could keep going, but I’ll stop there. My point is that there are tons of green investment opportunites flowing through the city and the province. Of course, all this green buzz doesn’t come without its share of skeptics. Some in the US have questioned the value of Obama’s green spending plans, and if you are looking for a local dose of skepticism look no further than the National Post’s Lawrence Solomon arguing that green economics just don’t add up.

Read the original story at BlogTO.com

Read Lawrence Solomon’s bio

Posted in Energy Probe News, Renewables | Leave a comment

Conservation

Posted on March 31, 2009 by energyprbe

In 1974, in response to the OPEC oil crisis, Energy Probe argued that the western countries should allow oil prices to rise to market levels (then called "world oil prices") as a means to eliminate shortages. This policy, opposed at the time by governments, by consumer groups, and by the energy industry itself, was later adopted by governments, leading to stabilized markets and an end to the energy crisis. Western economies now wring far more value from the oil they consume.

Today, energy conservation remains the most cost-efficient and environmentally benign energy option, not just in oil but also in electricity and natural gas. The best way to induce conservation, Energy Probe argues, is by removing the direct and indirect subsidies that promote energy consumption. Free roads and subsidies to automobiles and public transit lead to overuse of vehicular traffic, for example, while subsidies to agriculture, mining, forestry and energy, among other resource industries, lead to an oversized, overly energy-intensive resource sector.

For more on Energy Probe’s policies on energy conservation, please refer to Our Accomplishments. The links below will take you to our documents, organized in reverse chronological order by category. Our search function may also prove useful in navigating our site.

Posted in Conservation | Leave a comment