If you fight local pollution, you can effectively fight climate change: Erik Solheim

Erik Solheim, Executive Director of the United Nations Environment Programme, in Mumbai. Photo: Vivek Bendre

In Paris, big companies saw the climate agreement gives them enormous opportunity to create new green jobs in renewable energy, climate-smart agriculture, smart transport using less fuel

SHARAD VYAS-October 3, 2016

In Mumbai to participate in a historic beach clean-up, UNEP chief Erik Solheim says he reposes ‘immense faith’ in Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s political will to aggressively push the climate agenda to the domestic audience. Speaking to The Hindu at his hotel room facing the Juhu beach, he says, “Nobody needs to send an army to New Delhi to force implement the agreement.” Excerpts from the interview:

The Hindu: There is a view that India’s ratification of the Paris accord talks extensively of Yoga and Gandhi more than the actual steps needed to cut emissions: Do you also feel India’s commitment is just a ‘collection of wishes’ and not a comprehensive road-map?

Erik Solheim: First of all, of course, this is a huge positive step, especially doing it on the occasion of Gandhi’s birth anniversary is in the spirit of the Mahatma’s philosophy. Gandhi once said that change must start from within and in that sense India is being seen as the agent of change world over. The Paris Agreement is a start.

The strong encouragement I would like to give India is to see this as a business opportunity and not as a burden. This psychological change came at Paris as compared to the past when private players said climate change was expensive and difficult. In Paris, huge numbers of big companies admitted [that] this climate agreement gives them an enormous opportunity to create new green, interesting jobs in renewable energy, climate-smart agriculture, smart transport on less petrol etc.

If it takes this approach, India will move rapidly forward.

The Hindu: There is a strong sentiment here that developed countries must have greater obligation to combat climate change but that is not being pushed. How would you like to address those concerns?

Erik Solheim: No doubt the developed world has a greater responsibility to provide financial resources and technology to combat climate change. Basically, this approach is already turning things on its head. 

For example, Germany has taken the lead and strongest possible efforts to protect the environment and at the same time push for growth. Some of the planet’s most successful companies are based out of Germany, and yet the country has the lowest rate of unemployment and strong environment indicators. 

So, being firm on the environment has produced newer job opportunities in different sectors for Germany, without hampering the environment. Therefore seeing this as a stone on the feet is completely wrong; instead it has to be seen as an enormous opportunity by both developed and developing countries.

The Hindu: The Indian ratification has come with caveats: its climate pact will depend on ‘predictable and affordable access to cleaner sources of energy’. What are the legal consequences of assertions and caveats since some developed nations also threaten the same?

Erik Solheim: At the end of the day, this is about politics. We saw when the planet’s two main emitters and their presidents took the lead, China and the US, everyone followed: including India and Europe. Nobody will send a military force to push Beijing and New Delhi to implement the agreement. So this is about the political will. I am convinced Mr. Modi and other leaders like Obama have that. I am absolutely convinced these two nations and China will drive the agenda forward rapidly.

The Hindu: And you are convinced there is a strong political will in Asia?

Erik Solheim: Absolutely, China is now the main driver of this agenda, fighting climate change and pollution in the big cities of China is one process. And the same approach will be helpful in India. Since the Indian cities are the most polluted on the planet, and fighting pollution is the promise Mr. Modi has been making. ALL of this is related to the health issue, it is clear, and if you fight local pollution, you can effectively fight climate change.

The Hindu: India is walking a tight rope at home between environment conservation and the need for development. For example, there is a clamour from coastal states to relax development in areas falling under the Coastal Regulation Zone (CRZ) norms. How does India balance this?

Erik Solheim: India can start seeing this as one process and not two, not like first do development and start doing environment. As an example, most efficient and best mining operations around the world do not have any harmful effects. So if you have the best regulations in place, there is no choice between development and environment. Both have to be done at the same time.

The Hindu: The country is facing immense challenges: degradation of Himalayas in the North, rampant iron ore mining in Goa, coal extraction in central India and water disputes in South. What can India do better to face up to these?

Erik Solheim: A few thoughts: number one, Himalayas is a life and death issue for India and must be treated as an environment and development issue at the same time. Ganges and Brahmaputra rivers flow from Himalayas, if the glaciers are melting and the water is not flowing, it puts a question mark on the livelihood of millions of people in the Ganges basin.

Number two, in every area India must look to develop science-based conflict resolution mechanisms. These must operate between, for example, nations (eight) around Himalayas or between two states within India.

India has a lot to learn from the best practices around the world, reduce conflict, and go for science-based pragmatic management of the river basins. For example, the West African states have made good water sharing mechanisms. India can learn.

A think tank in Mumbai has made a Water Management Index, which if implemented could lead to resolutions. India must have proper joint management groups, and, lastly, the more India embarks upon proper consultation with local groups, and indigenous groups around these areas, the better it will be able to do for itself.

The Hindu: What are you concerns when thinking of environment in India?

Erik Solheim: Most immediate issue facing India is the effect of environment degradation on health. Garbage is an enormous health issue, air pollution is also a health issue. These must be addressed immediately.

Keywords: Erik Solheim, UNEP

The drug industry’s answer to opioid addiction: More pills

UNNATURAL CAUSES: SICK AND DYING IN SMALL-TOWN AMERICA | Since the turn of this century, death rates have risen for whites in midlife, particularly women. In this series, The Washington Post is exploring this trend and the forces driving it.

By Ariana Eunjung Cha October 16 at 7:31 AM

Cancer patients taking high doses of opioid painkillers are often afflicted by a new discomfort: constipation. Researcher Jonathan Moss thought he could help, but no drug company was interested in his ideas for relieving suffering among the dying.

So Moss and his colleagues pieced together small grants and, in 1997, received permission to test their treatment. But not on cancer patients. Federal regulators urged them to use a less frail — and by then, rapidly expanding — group: addicts caught in the throes of a nationwide opioid epidemic.

Suddenly, Moss said, investors were knocking at his door.

The drug industry’s answer to opioid addiction More pills.docx by Thavam Ratna on Scribd

விசாரணை முடிவுகளை அறிவிக்கத் தேவையில்லை -ஜனாதிபதிக்கு இலஞ்ச ஊழல் ஆணைக்குழு கடிதம்

15-Oct-2016

தாம் முன்னெடுக்கும் விசாரணைகளின் முடிவுகளை ஜனாதிபதிக்கு அறிவித்து, ஆலோசனையோ அல்லது ஏனைய தீர்மானங்க ளையோ பெற்றுக்கொள்ள வேண்டும் என்ற சட்ட ரீதியிலான கட்டுப்பாடு இல்லை என்று இலஞ்ச ஊழல் ஆணைக்குழு ஜனா திபதி மைத்திரிபால சிறிசேனவிடம் தெரிவித்துள்ளது.

இலஞ்ச ஊழல் ஆணைக்குழு ஜனாதிபதிக்கு நேற்றைய தினம் அனுப்பிவைத்துள்ள கடிதத்திலேயே இந்த விடயம் தெரிவிக்கப்ப ட்டு ள்ளதாக தகவல்கள் வெளியாகியுள்ளன.

இலஞ்ச ஊழல் ஆணைக்குழுவின் மூன்று ஆணையாளர்களின் கையெழுத்துடன் இந்தக் கடிதம் ஜனாதிபதிக்கு அனுப்பி வைக்கப்ப ட்டிருப்பதாகவும் தெரிவிக்கப்படுகின்றது.

ஜனாதிபதி மைத்திரிபால சிறிசேன கொழும்பிலுள்ள இலங்கை மன்றக் கல்லூரியில் இடம்பெற்ற நிகழ்வொன்றில் ஆற்றியிருந்த உரை தென்னிலங்கை அரசியல் களத்தில் பெரும் குழப்பத்தை தோற்றுவித்திருக்கிறது.

குற்றப் புலனாய்வுப் பிரிவு, பொலிஸ் நிதி மோசடி விசாரணைப் பிரிவு, இலஞ்ச ஊழல் ஆணைக்குழு ஆகியன அரசியல் நிகழ்ச்சி நிரலில் செயற்பட்டால் கடும் நடவடிக்கை எடுக்கப்படும் என ஜனாதிபதி எச்சரித்திருந்தார்.

அத்துடன் முன்னாள் பாதுகாப்புச் செயலாளர் கோட்டாபய ராஜபக்ச, முன்னாள் கடற்படைத் தளபதிகள் மூவர் நீதிமன்றில் முன்னி லைப்படுத்தியமையும் ஜனாதிபதி விமர்சித்திருந்ததோடு, விசாரணைக் குழுக்கள் தன்னை தெளிவுபடுத்தாமல் இந்த நடவடிக்கையை மேற்கொண்டிருப்பதாகவும் கூறியிருந்தார்.

இந்த நிலையிலேயே இலஞ்ச ஊழல் ஆணைக்குழு ஜனாதிபதிக்கு இந்தக் கடிதத்தை அனுப்பிவைத்துள்ளமை குறிப்பிடத்தக்கது.

Is this counter-terrorism in a far deadlier garb?

Sunday, October 16, 2016

A draft policy and legal framework aimed at a new law on counter-terrorism to replace Sri Lanka’s Prevention of Terrorism Act (PTA) may well be a classic case of the cure being far worse than the disease.

A bare reading of the draft immediately gives rise to several questions that gravely impact on the protection of life and liberty. As reported, the Cabinet has forwarded the draft to a parliamentary Sectoral Oversight Committee on National Security. It is hoped that this Committee will give its most anxious consideration to the contents and breadth of what is proposed.

Whole range of new offences

The draft framework proposes a whole range of new offences, apart from the primary offence of terrorism. The additional offences include ‘terrorism related’ offences, ‘associated’ offences as well as an offence of Espionage. These encompass a variety of problematically broad acts.
Thus, for example, the definition of terrorism categorizes eleven acts including causing serious damage to the environment and the economy of (not only) this country (but also) any other sovereign nation. The one exception provided is when a person acts in good-faith in the lawful exercise of a fundamental right or following a lawful order or a judicial order. As (thankfully) declared, this is not tantamount to an act of terrorism. This safeguard however is qualified as will be discussed later.

The acts prohibited must be with the intent to, or with the object of or knowing or reasonably believing that they would bring about four listed objectives. These objectives include first, threatening, attacking, changing or adversely affecting the unity, territorial integrity, security or sovereignty of Sri Lanka or that of any other sovereign nation.

Prohibiting ‘ideological domination’?

Far more worryingly, the second ground relates to ‘illegally or unlawfully’ compelling the Government to ‘reverse, vary or change a policy decision’ or to do or abstain from doing any act relating to the defence, national security, territorial integrity and sovereignty of Sri Lanka and the protection of the people. The same prohibition applies in relation to the government of any other sovereign nation.

It is a matter for most profound puzzlement as to why ‘reverse, vary or change a policy decision’ has been brought into the ambit of this proposed prohibition. The impact thereof in regard to advocacy on reforming government policies, which may be categorized as ‘illegal’ or ‘unlawful’, is troubling.

The third ground specifies ‘illegally’ causing a change of the Government of Sri Lanka or of any other sovereign nation. And arousing justifiable consternation is the fourth ground listing ‘committing any act of violent extremism towards achieving ideological domination.’ Using terms such as ‘ideological domination’ brings us to new and terrifyingly unfamiliar territory of the ‘thought police’ as it were.

Using the old terminology of offences

Punishments include the death penalty upon conviction by a High Court if a death has occurred as a reasonable consequence. In other respects, imprisonment up to a maximum extent of 20 years, imposition of a fine and the confiscation of property can follow. The proposed ambit of the four listed objectives are so wide that even the exercise of a fundamental right intending or knowing or reasonably believing that it would bring about these results will not be excused.

Meanwhile, the definition of ‘terrorism related’ offences proceeds on almost the same terminology reflected in emergency regulations under the Public Security Ordinance. Similarly stringent punishments are proposed in this regard. Restraining elements of necessity and proportionality laid down in numerous judicial decisions in the eighties to mid nineties appear to be absent.

Further, the inclusion of an offence of ‘espionage’ in regard to the gathering and providing of ‘confidential information’ relating to the listed offences is exceptionally chilling. There is an unacceptably broad definition of what constitutes ‘confidential information.’ This awakens echoes of the much unloved colonial-era Official Secrets Act. This does not bode well for the new information culture supposed to be a clarion call of the Unity Government.

Abandoning first principles

The draft framework merits meticulous and critical scrutiny which is not possible in these column spaces. Other overriding concerns are many. It permits confessions to be given to a police officer above the rank of a Superintendant of Police continuing a heavily critiqued tradition identified as the primary cause of torture by state agents. It is little comfort that a forensic examination of a suspect by a government forensic medical specialist supervised by a magistrate may be mandated.

As the Supreme Court itself has observed, the inability of judicial officers to properly perform their tasks is a regrettable reality. For example, in the Maximus Danny case (SC Application No. 488/98 SC Application No. 488/98), the Court noted that “unfortunately, the Magistrate has almost mechanically made an order of remand because the police wanted them to be remanded.” Such instances are the rule rather than the exception.

That the law must not enable the procuring of confessions by coercion has been reiterated in authoritative precedents by Sri Lankan judges before emergency law completely subverted our legal structure. Confessions given not only to police officers but also any individual standing in a position of authority were automatically shut out. That was how rigorous the legal standard once was, sternly enforced by judges of extraordinary ability at the time. Abandoning first principles such as these and providing crumbs from the state security table in the form of increased magisterial oversight is no solace.

Worrying replacement of the PTA

Neither is the draft’s stipulation that the prosecution has to prove the voluntary nature of the confession. Discharging that burden will not be difficult given the way that the criminal justice system works. And as in the case of the now deferred amendment to the Criminal Procedure Code, access to counsel is only allowed after the recording of the first statement by the police, or the expiry of 48 hours from the time of arrest, whichever occurs first. These are all excellent aids to the disregarding of the Rule of Law.

It is therefore a supreme irony that the motivation for Sri Lanka’s contemplating a new counter-terrorism law was the passionate argument that the PTA’s broad powers to search, detain and arrest is contrary to modern human rights protections. What the draft attempts to do is clothe the outmoded and somewhat clumsy substance of the archaic anti-terrorism law in modernistic and infinitely deadlier garb.

That surely must be a cause of considerable public concern in these unsettling times.

The Proposed Constitution Will Worsen The Ethnic Issue

By Dinesh D. Dodamgoda –October 15, 2016

Dinesh Dodamgoda

Although the draft of the proposed constitution is not yet available, comments made by ‘authors’ indicates its fundamentals. It will be again the same old wine poured into new wineskins, especially in terms building peace sustainably.

Majoritarianism

It is clear from remarks made by the Prime Minister and the M.P. Mr.Jayampathy Wickramaratne, a member of the Steering Committee drafting the new constitution that the new constitution will also adhere to philosophical principles of Majoritarianism, the main cause of the ethnic issue in Sri Lanka, in a context where the Committee should adopt Pluralism.

Prime Minister Ranil Wickremesinghe recently stated that Buddhism would be given the foremost place in Sri Lanka’s new Constitution, a statement that upholds Majoritarianism. Interestingly, it was reported in the government run Daily News that the Prime Minister said all political parties and religious leaders across faiths had “no issue in giving priority to protect Buddhism in the country.” The Prime Minister added the Tamil National Alliance (TNA), the main political grouping here representing Sri Lanka’s northern Tamils, agreed to retain those articles protecting Buddhism in the existing Constitution unchanged.

What does the Prime Minister tries to say in his statement? It is again Majoritarianism in the new constitution as well and even the minority religious leaders and the TNA, groups that should propose pluralism as the guiding principle for the new constitution, are also pleased carry on with Majoritarianism. What a world we live in!

It doesn’t matter what the minority or majority leaders want to believe. Yet, their beliefs matter to citizens as they are the segment that severely would suffer from another round of violent conflict. If we are not to aim at building sustainable peace with the proposed structures in the new constitution on the basis of pluralism, it will take Sri Lanka into another round of violence.

Bankruptcy in finding a solution

It is evident from the minority and the majority leaders’ satisfactory stances that they believe that the Majoritarianism would bring sustainable peace. This shows that their pundits are ideologically bankrupt in finding an out of the box solution. May Triple Gem and the God bless Sri Lankans!

The problem in Sri Lanka is a problem of identity! The Sinhalese think as the Sinhalese or even Sinhala-Buddhists, the Tamils think as the Tamils, the Muslims think as the Muslims, the Catholics / Christians think as the Catholics / Christians etc. Furthermore, where their cultural and group demands are not met democratically, they fight and challenge the State’s monopoly on violence. The Majority wins most of the times where the minority veto that creates ‘super minorities’ is not recognised. The causes for all the problems again go back to Majoritarianism.

Such Majoritarianism is the principle that the country’s majority and the minority leaders want to uphold again in the new constitution as well. Why? Their pundits and those leaders think that they cannot adopt pluralism in Sri Lanka without neglecting the majority. What an ideological bankruptcy?

Therefore, apart from the statement made by the Prime Minister regarding Buddhism, M.P. Mr. Jayampathy Wickramaratne even afraid of taking the ethnic issue into the forefront of the Agenda of the Constitution. In a statement given to Daily News he leaves the issue in the periphery. In my opinion this cowardly tactics can be welcomed at the initial phase of drafting the constitution in attracting minority groups and requesting their assistance. Yet, the same tactic that cannot be changed later will be counterproductive at the consolidation phase where the country should establish peace into a sustainable mechanism.

Read More

Buddhist vihara construction continues in Mullaitivu

15 Oct  2016

The construction of a Buddhist vihara in the Tamil North-East has continued to take place, despite the Mullaitivu District Secretariat ordered a halt to further proceedings.

Footage obtained by TamilNet shows an expansion in the vihara’s construction from previous video footage obtained in April of this year. A Sinhala Buddhist monk was seen in the April video, assisting directly with the construction.

The construction is taking place on private land owned by Mr Manivannadhas, who stated that Buddhists monks initially began occupying his land in 2012. Though a 2015 complaint by him calling for a halt in construction was upheld, work has continued at the site since.

Related Articles: 

Buddhist monks oversee vihara construction in Mullaitivu

Costly short-circuit at Sampoor - Kumar David

Colossal overruns will open-circuit the fiscal deficit

Oct 15, 2016

Criticism is an opportunity for correction; Britain just revoked its stop order on the 3200MW, GBP 18 billion, Hinckley Point C nuclear power station. It will be tougher in Lanka due to multiple pressures, some reasonable, some naïve, others venal. The government has no clue what it is doing and is in a muddle. Following last week’s piece on principles of planning I will devote this one to current concerns; next week’s finale will be on sector restructuring.

The authorities confessed in court last week that they would dump the proposed joint venture coal-fired project with India. This may also be the first step to privatising the CEB and opening the power market to the private sector as in the infamous oil power scams of the 1990s.  It’s naïve to think it is only loss making state enterprises the government plans to privatise; it’s the most profitable ones that the private sector salivates after. Domestic and foreign LNG lobbies seem to have influence in the Power Ministry and at even higher levels. I am not opposed to private participation in power as Part III will clarify next week, but 1990s style subterfuge is not acceptable.
 
The Sampoor Coal Power Project (SCP), which is ready to take-off, is a joint venture between the CEB and India’s NTPC (National Thermal Power Corporation). It is a 50:50 joint venture named Trincomalee Power Company (TPC). It has been incorporated and financing agreed ($75 million from each side, $600 million to be raised in capital markets). Engineering designs have been finalised and environmental approval partially secured. It was ready to go; now it is kaput!

Had SCP gone ahead the private sector would have been cut out for a decade. Domestic and foreign LNG vendors, now circling for huge turnkey contracts, would have been setback. Had vested interests been the only issue I would have opposed cancelation outright, but there is another reason for ambivalence, environmental concerns. (Arrogant and self-righteous environmental high priests, driven by indigestion to colic, and simple minded tunnel-vision evangelists, can be prudently disregarded and attention steadfastly focussed on real environmental worries). There is a better tactic than termination of SCP though arguably it should be our last coal project, unless coal gasification or ultra supercritical combustion with sequestration or pressurised fluidised bed combustion become economically viable.

Short-circuit at Sampoor

The monumental blunder will cost Lanka a cumulative Rs.200 billion (not million!). Tax payers or electricity consumers will eventually pay; in the meantime debt will mount. SCP has been deferred repeatedly (as Norochcholi was in the 1990s oil power scams) but had this 2016 knockout not been administered and a green light given, two 250 MW units would have come on stream in 2020 and 2021. Now Lanka faces power shortages in 2018 if the economy blossoms, 2019 otherwise. So old Satan, oil power, is to be rushed into service; 170 MW of diesel engines and 105 MW of oil fired turbines; both presumably private power contacts. There will be huge fuel cost overruns compared to what SCP electricity would have cost.  Electricity price increases are as inevitable as sunset.

The Rs.200 billion is made up as follows – Rs.180 billion for oil power (over and above the cost of coal power) up to 2025, and Rs.20 billion capital for the diesel engines which have to be mothballed when LNG comes on stream. The turbines can be converted from oil to gas if LNG reaches the West coast – but not if LNG is landed in Sampoor. Actually 2025 is an optimistic date since power-plant and harbour location disputes have to be settled, financing found ($480 million for a land-based harbour, $350 million for a 300MW gas-fired power station cum basic transmission), environmental approval secured, engineering designs executed, and harbour and power plant construction completed. It would surprise me if the plant delivers power by 2025 and the additional cost attributable to oil over coal or gas for each year of delay beyond 2025 is Rs.37 billion.

    There is no dispute that coal should be eased out. This is why China and India which plan to install hundreds of thousands of MW of coal power in the next 20 years, nevertheless, will reduce the increments to zero and eventually decommission all. They take a balanced long-term view despite being the world’s largest and third largest gross greenhouse gas emitters – the US is second. Per capita China emits 6.6 tons of carbon dioxide per year, the US 16.2, Germany and Japan about 9.5 each and India 1.5 tons. Sri Lanka’s per capita emission is a mere 0.7 tons per year; 60% from the transport sector and 30% from the electricity sector. Even if we double our emissions, which I certainly do not advocate, we would still be way below our international obligations.

    The problem is not greenhouse gases; we make a minuscule contribution to global warming. The problem is local; it is the misery of people living in the immediate vicinity (up to 3km downwind of Norochcholi). The CEB has unpardonably neglected this environmental obligation. The horrible truth is fine fly-ash (alu like when you completely burn down firewood) which is carried by the wind from the 5 acre ash dump beside the power station. With the right waste management tools the CEB could have circumvented the problem. World class plant (Japan, Hong Kong, Taiwan) control ash and eliminate coal dust. Locals from Sampoor who visited villages downwind of the Norochcholi ash dump will never agree to live near a power station even if the CEB promises the sun and the moon about new technology. “Why should we trust them?” they rightly ask. Once bitten twice shy.

    (Heavy metals like mercury residues of coal firing, and particulate emissions are a health hazard. They can be trapped and prevented from getting into groundwater and soil as done elsewhere. This pushes up cost; ash, coal dust and heavy metal control adds about 15% to electricity prices).
 
    We have to take an overview; a cumulative cost of Rs200+ billion, no greenhouse gases above Lanka’s international obligations, advanced containment technologies at a price, but a life distressing calamity for the local population, or what? If we cut the crap the options are candid; either scarp the project or pay to resettle local people in good quality alternative homes and lands.

What would that cost? Let’s calculate on a per 1000 family basis (Minister Swaminathan estimated 825 families in June 2015). If it takes Rs 1 million per family to relocate to new homes and lands (plus schools, health and transport services), 1000 families will require a Rs 1 billion commitment. That’s two orders of magnitude below Rs200+ billion. Even if the number of families and cost per family were two or three times higher, the total cost is still comparatively tiny. Some families may prefer to take the money and make their own plans. Ignore the evangelicals; they are engaged in great battles of principle nearer nirvana. The point is what’s better; SCP with tighter environmental controls plus one or two billion rupees for resettlement, or no SCP and Rs200 billion in added power costs? You the public choose; I can only lay out the options. It’s your problem!

The longer term

 The Simplified Table provides a comparison – for a Full Engineering Table see:

https://www.colombotelegraph.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/Comparison-of-Coal-at-Sampoor-with-LNG-at-West-Coast.pdf

The tables compare a remote coal station (not necessarily at Sampoor) with West coast LNG. But before that I must make a point about greenhouse effects. Research shows that coal and gas fired electricity have equally bad greenhouse effects. Methane is many times worse than carbon dioxide in greenhouse entrapment. Even in the US it has not been possible to reduce methane leakage to below 3%; hence the damage per kWh is no different between a gas-fired power station and a modern high-tech coal plant. The differential environmental dispute is the aforesaid effect on nearby populations.

I take responsibility for the data in the tables though much of it and the calculation procedure follow a CEB Excel program. However I am not dependent on this stakeholder; algebra and the laws of physics are invariant, results are data driven. Column 1 is for a traditional coal plant like SCP, column 2 is for one unit of a four-unit high-efficiency environmentally clean coal plant proposed by the Japanese as Sampoor stage-2.  The third and fourth columns are for LNG located in the Western Province (only a nincompoop will locate an LNG power plant in Sampoor). Column 3 is for a cheaper floating terminal (which entails $50 million annual rental) while column 4 is for a large land based terminal. Sensitivity of electricity price to gas prices is included in the Full Engineering Table. By matching FET results with those in the Simplified Table in this text the effect of small difference in assumptions can be seen to be inconsequential.

 The choice between the two types of LNG terminal depends on whether gas will be found in exploitable quantities in the Gulf of Mannar. If ‘yes’ a floating terminal which can be folded up and returned is better. The switch of electricity generation to gas cannot be economically justified because of large harbour investments entailed unless a switch of transport and industry to gas is envisaged. This is crucial but not sufficiently appreciated.

Financially coal is cheaper than gas; roughly speaking coal power will cost Rs10 to Rs11.50 per kWh, LNG power Rs12.50 to Rs15.00. But the great unknown is the unpredictability of fuel prices in the next decades, so it’s a bit of a toss up. Fuel prices may move in tandem, so comparative estimates are more reliable than absolute ones. Taking the median and current prices as a rough guide, coal power is Rs10.50 per kWh, LNG power Rs13.50 per kWh. These financial costs are not much changed if the costs of human resettlement discussed previously are included.

One further matter warrants mention; consequences of careless decision making on relations with India. When the Indian PM was asked “Please abandon coal and agree to LNG as an alternative” he is reported to have responded to this capricious tinkering with the diplomatic equivalent of “This is not like flipping your breakfast order between scrambled eggs and omelette”. Mr Mody had been briefed by professionals, our leader by novices and quacks. I don’t know if fences have since been mended.

Trump threatens to prosecute Hillary, Sirisena threatens prosecutors of Gota

 

by Rajan Philips-October 15, 2016

Donald Trump is in a free fall in the US presidential election. Facing what appears to be certain defeat he is behaving like a wounded Neanderthal and is threatening to take down the American political system with him. He is riling his base for a post-election showdown, accusing the political and media elites of rigging the electoral system to engineer his defeat. He is equally rousing his followers with his (empty) victory promise to subject Hillary Clinton to special prosecution for a lifetime of lies and criminal acts. All of this is shocking, but should not be surprising, because Trump is a grotesque and dangerous clown who is personifying the worst elements of male chauvinism in America against its first female presidential candidate. What was surprising last week was to hear President Sirisena’s public outburst against the CID, FCID and the Bribery Commission for their allegedly disrespectful handling of Gotabaya Rajapaksa and former Navy Commanders over allegations of abuse of authority and financial misdemeanours.

Everyone seems to have been taken by surprise. Using the three-legged metaphor I trotted out last week, it is as if the President has tried to swing his free leg behind him to land a kick on the Prime Minister’s backside. The President’s surprising political acrobatics had both men losing their unity balance and falling face down. The Prime Minister hurriedly extricated himself and huddled with this half of the national government before having a chat with the President. The main media and the social media are busy mining for meanings from the President’s uncharacteristic ‘loss of cool’. Speculations range from calling it a sign of serious differences between him and the UNP, to a fatherly attempt to deflect attention from the night club thuggery of his enfant terrible and his bodyguards. More discerning observers think that the President may have been legitimately concerned about what is said to be going on in the Bribery Commission, but ill-advisedly threw mud at the police and prosecutors in the CID and the FCID.

While admittedly incomparable, the two threats are opposing examples of political interference in the judicial process. Trump’s threat is an unprecedented presidential threat against his rival candidate and underscores his ignorance of the inability of the US President to direct the Justice Department to do anything. Sri Lanka of course saw that playbook in action when the Rajapaksas humiliated the retired Army Commander and 2010 presidential candidate, Sarath Fonseka, and jailed him after an orchestrated court martial hearing. When President Sirisena publicly berates the police and the prosecutors for arraigning the former Defence Secretary and retired Navy Commanders, he seems to be forgetting what the Defence Secretary and his brother President did to Sarath Fonseka after the presidential election in 2010. More importantly, the President is interfering in the judicial process.

Just as much as the Executive has no business to direct the judiciary to prosecute someone, it has no business either to direct the judiciary not to prosecute someone. In threatening to prosecute Hillary, Trump is showing both his ignorance and desperation. In accusing the CID, FCID and the Bribery Commission of following a ‘political agenda’, President Sirisena is throwing a political wrench of his own into the already unclear world of this government’s investigation of corruption. Doing it so publicly is what has surprised everyone. He may have wanted to send a message to the UNP and the Prime Minister, but he has only awakened the civil society groups that worked their hearts out to have him elected as President in January 2015. They may have got tired and given up on their expectations of good governance from the Sirisena-Wickremasinghe government. Now the President has inadvertently whipped them into action. The JVP also has come alive after the President’s outburst. Whatever reasons the President may have had for his outburst, he will now have to deal with its unintended consequences. And that is not a bad outcome, because those who worked hard to get him elected can now get activated again and demand results.

The government has serious challenges to face and it is not at all funny to see the President and the Prime Minister creating unnecessary distractions and difficulties for themselves and the government by their rather silly obsessions. For whatever reason, the Prime Minister is not willing to let go of Arjuna Mahendran from public life; and the President for all his power to berate police officers and prosecutors in public, is unable to discipline his errant son in private and put him in his place. If their private addictions lead to their political downfalls, that is their problem. But given the state of Sri Lankan politics and government, the President and the Prime Minister bear a greater responsibility to the public to simply cut loose their private obsessions for the public good. If they fail, they will not only go down themselves but will also bring the house down with them. Of course, the Rajapaksas will return, but that will not do anybody any good except the Rajapaksas themselves.

Trump’s majority of the majority

There is a more ominous parallel between Trump’s political assertions and methods and the ‘majority of the majority’ thesis that is sometimes articulated in Sri Lanka and elsewhere. He is honing his message to white Americans to get a sufficient majority of them to vote for him, while viciously attacking Hillary Clinton to discourage independent voters from voting for her and encourage them to avoid voting at all. Some in Trump’s entourage including one of his sons have tweet-suggested that because Trump is assured of a majority among white male voters, the path to victory could by disenfranchising women voters; that would require the rescinding, in the midst of an election campaign, the 19th Amendment that was enacted in 1920 enfranchise American women. Their political naivety is both appalling and dangerous. The implication of this campaign is also that a Hillary Clinton victory, insofar as it will be based on a majority of non-white voters, will not be ‘legitimate’ because it would not have won a ‘majority of the majority’ white male voters.

The fact of the matter is that there are too many Americas than what the simplistic Trump and his supporters can reckon. Even white males are divided and subdivided by age, education, income, region, and religion, not to mention sexual orientation. Trump draws his main support from the less educated white males with lower incomes, who are also racist, misogynous and homophobic. It is not that these sections of society are to be treated as rejects, but it is only that the amelioration of their own conditions can never be achieved through hateful and exclusionary politics. And Donald Trump who has inherited and wallowed in wealth, and rather obscenely so by his own boasts, is hardly the champion of the underprivileged.

Exclusion and hate are the hallmarks of Trumpism, as indeed they are of bigots everywhere. It is not an accident that Trump in America and Marine Le Pen in France are relying on the rhetoric of national sovereignty to advance their political agendas. What is also not accidental is that after 200 since its beginnings, nationalism has virtually lost its emancipatory and democratic content; more so in the West, where it began, than anywhere else. America is also home to people who have migrated from every other country in large and small numbers, including a good number of Sri Lankans. Hopefully, one useful outcome of the Trump phenomenon would be the realization of the dangers of nationalism, and the fallacy of the ‘majority of the majority’ thesis and what could be its horrendous consequences for America and other political societies.

President, UNP discuss crisis at late night meeting: Sirisena vows no one can topple Government

The President and the Prime Minister seen at the Walukarama Temple on Thursday night. Soon after that they had a late night meeting to settle the dispute over the President’s outburst on Wednesday.

Public outburst on CIABOC has chilling effect on judiciary, police and international community

Civic action groups question credibility of Government’s anti-corruption drive, JVP also condemns Sirisena’s remarks

By Our Political Editor-Sunday, October 16, 2016

For the first time in his 21-month tenure as President of Sri Lanka, Maithripala Sirisena fired strong salvos at his own United National Front (UNF) Government led by Prime Minister Ranil Wickremesinghe.

He warned he would take action if the Criminal Investigations Department (CID), the Financial Crimes Investigation Division (FCID) and the Bribery Commission were working on a “political agenda.” He said he was displeased and even disgusted at the manner in which former Defence Secretary Gotabaya Rajapaksa and three former Commanders of the Navy were hauled up before the courts recently.

President, UNP discuss crisis at late night meeting Sirisena vows no one can topple Government.docx by Siva Thavam on Scribd