(MarieClaire) – Angelina Jolie flew to Ethopia with adopted daughter Zahara as part of her latest UN Goodwill Ambassador tour to Africa, visiting the country for the first time since Zahara’s adoption.
Brad and Angelina were on a goodwill mission in Kenya with their children when Angelina, her Ethiopian-born four-year-old and biological daughter Shiloh took a second flight across to Ethiopia.
According to a friend who spoke to People magazine, the girly trip was ‘the first time Zahara had been back home since her adoption. The trip was about keeping up that culture for her.’
Angelina plans to front the plans to build a TB and AIDS clinic in the country, to be set up in Zahara’s name.
Back in Kenya the UN Goodwill Ambassador visited the largest refugee camp in the world in Dabaab on the Kenya/Somalia border, where she witnessed the condition in which 285,000 Kenyans live.
The camp has been open since 1991 and was originally intended to house 90,000 refugees, but has ballooned to accommodate the growing population which sees 7,000 new arrivals each month.
Jolie described the camp as ‘one of the most dire’ she had ever seen in her eight years working for the UN.
Back in the U.S., with domestic action delayed in the Senate, several states and regions in the United States have moved ahead with their own policies and plans. Key among these is California’s Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006, intended to return the state’s greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions in 2020 to their 1990 level. In 2006, three studies were released indicating that California can meet its 2020 target at no net economic cost. That is not a typographical error. The studies found not simply that the costs will be low, but that the costs will be zero, or even negative! That is, the studies found that California’s ambitious target can be achieved through measures whose direct costs would be outweighed by offsetting savings they create, making them economically beneficial even without considering the emission reductions they may achieve. Not just a free lunch, but a lunch we are paid to eat!
Given the substantial emission reductions that will be required to meet California’s 2020 target, these findings are - to put it mildly – surprising, and they differ dramatically from the vast majority of economic analyses of the cost of reducing GHG emissions. As a result, I was asked by the Electric Power Research Institute – along with my colleagues, Judson Jaffe and Todd Schatzki of Analysis Group – to evaluate the three California studies.
In a report titled, “Too Good To Be True? An Examination of Three Economic Assessments of California Climate Change Policy,” we found that although some limited opportunities may exist for no-cost emission reductions, the studies substantially underestimated the cost of meeting California’s 2020 target — by omitting important components of the costs of emission reduction efforts, and by overestimating offsetting savings some of those efforts yield through improved energy efficiency. In some cases, the studies focused on the costs of particular actions to reduce emissions, but failed to consider the effectiveness and costs of policies that would be necessary to bring about those actions. Just a few of the flaws we identified lead to underestimation of annual costs on the order of billions of dollars. Sadly, the studies therefore did not and do not offer reliable estimates of the cost of meeting California’s 2020 target.
This episode is a reminder of a period when similar studies were performed by the U.S. Department of Energy at the time of the Kyoto Protocol negotiations. Like the California studies, the DOE (Interlaboratory Work Group) studies in the late 1990s suggested that substantial emission reductions could be achieved at no cost. Those studies were terribly flawed, which was what led to their faulty conclusions. I had thought that such arguments about massive “free lunches” in the energy efficiency and climate domain had long since been laid to rest. The debates in California (and some of the rhetoric in Washington) prove otherwise.
While the Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006 sets an emissions target, critical policy design decisions remain to be made that will fundamentally affect the cost of the policy. For example, policymakers must determine the emission sources that will be regulated to meet those targets, and the policy instruments that will be employed. The California studies do not directly address the cost implications of these and other policy design decisions, and their overly optimistic findings may leave policymakers with an inadequate appreciation of the stakes associated with the decisions that lie ahead.
On the positive side, a careful evaluation of the California studies highlights some important policy design lessons that apply regardless of the extent to which no-cost emission reduction opportunities really exist. Policies should be designed to account for uncertainty regarding emission reduction costs, much of which will not be resolved before policies must be enacted. Also, consideration of the market failures that lead to excessive GHG emissions makes clear that to reduce emissions cost-effectively, policymakers should employ a market-based policy (such as cap-and-trade) as the core policy instrument.
The fact that the three California studies so egregiously underestimated the costs of achieving the goals of the Global Warming Solutions Act should not be taken as indicating that the Act itself is necessarily without merit. As I have discussed in previous posts, that judgment must rest – from an economic perspective – on an honest and rigorous comparison of the Act’s real benefits and real costs.
ADDIS ABABA, ETHIOPIA (ST) — Eight major Ethiopian opposition political parties, in an unexpected move, announced a new coalition on Thursday to challenge the ruling party, most expected to win, in the upcoming national election.
The new coalition is announced two days after the ruling, Ethiopian Peoples’ Revolutionary Democratic Front (EPRDF) Tigrean People’s Liberation Front (Woyanne), party’s council decided its chairman and the Prime minister of Ethiopia Meles Zenawi to stay in power for one more term.
As its primary plan of action, the opposition umbrella named as Forum for Democratic Dialogue in Ethiopia (FDDE) in a joint statement said that it will enter into negotiation with government for expansion of democratic space and transparency ahead of the elections.
Ethiopian Prime Minister dictator convoying Ethiopia’s New Year wishes yesterday reaffirmed that his government is dedicated to conduct democratic and fair election. But some opposition leaders who spoke recently to Sudan Tribune said that they are already being harassed by government cadres, which they said is making it impossible for them to conduct election campaigns.
Other opposition members allege that their potential candidates are being intimidated or arrested on false charges; their regional offices are being closed. Government officials reject the claims as “an empty allegation with no single concrete proof”.
Recently Ethiopia’s former president and opposition MP accused government of being behind disruption of a public political meeting in Adama town of the Oromiya region.
“Continuously endorsed new laws like the press laws, the passing of the civil society law and anti terror laws are leaving no democratic space to opposition political parties but arrest of political figures and journalists” the new coalition said in a joint statement
The FDDE also said that it will soon organize a public demonstration in Addis Ababa to push for the release of detained opposition leaders.
The new alliance comprises the Ethiopian Democratic Unity Movement, the Ethiopian and Oromo Federalist Movement, the Somali Democratic Alliance Forces, UDJ, the Arena Tigray Democratic and Sovereignty Party and the United Ethiopian Democratic Forces (UEDF).
Gebru Asrat, the former northern Tigray region’s president is elected to lead the new alliance. He is also the leader of the Arena Tigray party. His party strongly believes that the Eritrea’s port of Assab should be returned back to Ethiopia.
The parties under the new alliance make up 80 of the nation’s parliament’s total 547 seats.
Over at the Cowboys Stadium, it looks like somebody didn’t shut down one of the Windows computers properly.
On Saturday, the $1.15 billion Cowboys Stadium in Arlington, Texas showed a Windows error message on one of its screens. First the screen went blank, then there was some ASCII text shown, and finally the screen stated that “Windows did not shut down successfully.” Such a message can be displayed if one holds down the power button to hard-restart a Windows PC, so the message alone doesn’t mean there was a crash, but viewers at the stadium insist there was gibberish on the screen just before the computer showed the message.
The message showed up during the NCAA season opener for Oklahoma and Brigham Young University. No. 20 BYU upset the third-ranked Sooners 20-13 in Jerry Jones’ brand-new monument to Dallas Cowboys football and Texas excess. One of the highlights of Cowboys Stadium is the enormous HD display hung above the field. Along with the performance of the Sooners offense, the “Windows did not shut down successfully” message was one of the lowlights of the night.
This isn’t the first time that Microsoft has suffered such an embarrassment, and it likely won’t be the last. Too bad we don’t know what iteration of Windows the PC was running, as we could probably lay the blame on an outdated version.
Renault driver Fernando Alonso says he is”very surprised” by the race-fixing charge levelled at his team over last year’s Singapore Grand Prix.
The team are accused of plotting with driver Nelson Piquet Jr to crash in the race to provoke a safety car period in order to aid Alonso’s path to victory.
“I’m very surprised,” Alonso said on Thursday at the Italian Grand Prix.
“I cannot imagine these things, these situations. It’s something that never entered my mind.”
F1’s governing body, the FIA, has called Renault to a hearing of its world motorsport council on 21 September to answer the charge.
If they are found guilty, they face severe sanctions, which could include expulsion from this year’s F1 world championship.
Renault have said they would not make any comment until after the hearing and Alonso refused to answer questions on the specifics of the allegation.
“I will not comment too much about this because the team said that as a team we will not comment,” the double world champion said.
“For me it’s not even the time to think about, or to pay attention to, this.
“It’s difficult to understand for me all this situation and this investigation. It is just too incredible.”
Piquet was sacked by the Renault team after July’s Hungarian Grand Prix and has since been outspoken in his criticism of Renault team boss Flavio Briatore.
There are reports that the Brazilian has told the FIA that he was asked to crash by the team before the race, and that Renault in their evidence to the FIA investigators denied this.
Asked directly whether he knew of any plan to ask Piquet to crash in Singapore, Alonso said: “No.”
F1 is awash with conspiracy theories about the race and the investigation.
Brawn driver Rubens Barrichello said: “I hope we get the truth.
“It’s easier to crash a Formula 1 car than to drive one. With all the power it’s quite easy to spin and crash, but I would be very disappointed if someone did that because someone said so.
“He [Piquet] is much younger than me but as a person he seems a very fair guy. I was shocked at the allegations. There are lots of rumours, which leads you to have all sorts of different ideas. I would be ashamed if it’s true.”
Alonso won in Singapore last year when Piquet crashed two laps after the Spaniard had come in for a routine pit stop.
That meant that when race officials sent out the safety car to clear up the debris from Piquet’s car, Alonso was alone among the front-runners in not having to stop for fuel and tyres.
At the time, Piquet attributed the crash to a simple error, but he was dropped by Renault after July’s Hungarian Grand Prix and has since been outspoken in his criticism of Renault team boss Flavio Briatore.
The Brazilian specifically cited unequal treatment between himself and two-time world champion Alonso as the source of his discontent.
Former world champions Renault have already been in the FIA dock this season.
They were banned for one race after a wheel flew off Alonso’s car at the Hungarian Grand Prix.
However, the suspension, which would have ruled Alonso out of his home race in Valencia in August, was lifted on appeal.
Football fans in many cities will not have to dig as deep this year as 21 teams kept prices the same or reduced them, according to a study by a sports marketing firm.
However, the average cost of NFL tickets overall actually rose 3.9 percent to $74.99 thanks largely to a pricey new home for the Dallas Cowboys, where the average price hit a record $159.65, up 89.8 percent from last year, in an annual survey compiled by Team Marketing Report in Northbrook, Illinois.
The results suggest that the NFL, the most popular sports league in North America, has been forced to adjust to lower fan and corporate spending amid the weak economy.
The league, which boasts strong television ratings and annual revenue topping $7 billion, kicks off its season on Thursday night in Pittsburgh.
Last year, the NFL’s 32 owners terminated their labor contract with the players union early, in a move to cut salary costs. They cited rising payments to cover stadium construction, operations and improvements.
The TMR survey found that after four consecutive seasons of increases of about $5, the 2009 average rose only $2.79 from last year.
Meanwhile, the average Fan Cost Index, the cost of taking a family of four to an NFL game, rose 4.1 percent to $412.64, said TMR, which released the survey late on Wednesday. However, only 10 of the 32 NFL teams were above that average, led by the Cowboys’ 74.2 percent increase to $758.58.
The Fan Cost Index comprises the price of four tickets, two beers, four soft drinks, four hot dogs, parking, two game programs and two caps, said TMR, which compiles ticket data on all the major North American sports leagues.
In TMR’s 2009 survey, the only other NFL teams with double-digit percentage increases in their average ticket prices were the Baltimore Ravens (up 12.6 percent) and the Atlanta Falcons (up 13.3 percent). Last year, 12 teams had such increases.
Eighteen teams saw their averages remain unchanged, while the Miami Dolphins, Detroit Lions and Tampa Bay Buccaneers cut their prices by 0.8 percent, 1 percent and 10.1 percent, respectively, TMR said.
While the Cowboys, who move into a new $1.2 billion stadium this season, jumped to the top, they offer season tickets starting at $59, as well as standing room-only tickets on a game-by-game basis that cost $29. TMR said the standing room-only tickets did not figure in the average price.
The Cowboys moved ahead of the New England Patriots, which have an average of $117.84, unchanged from last year, TMR said. Those two were the only teams with average prices in the triple digits.
TMR Executive Editor Jon Greenberg said next year’s average is likely to rise at a higher rate as the economy recovers and teams look to boost prices after easing off this year. Also included in next year’s average will be a new stadium to be shared by the New York Giants and Jets.
The Super Bowl champion Pittsburgh Steelers ranked No. 14 with an average of $67.47, unchanged from last year, while its Fan Cost Index cost rose 2 percent to $391.88, TMR said.
On a Fan Cost Index basis, 10 teams saw their average prices remain unchanged or fall, TMR said.
