A week now after the initial revelation that the United States might have monitored the cellphone of German Chancellor Angela Merkel, there’s little doubt that the story has been damaging for this country and for the National Security Agency, which earned the wrath of even longtime defender Sen. Dianne Feinstein, who oversees it as the Senate Intelligence Committee chair.

At the same time, though, the initial anger appears to be giving way to debate: Is it, in fact, a bad idea for the United States to spy on friendly foreign leaders such as Merkel?

That question might sound counterintuitive, even cynical, a sign of the depth of Americans’ hubris that we would even consider it. After all, friends don’t spy on each other, right? But I’m going to let you in on a little secret: The international system is, and always has been, inherently adversarial, even among allies. To paraphrase the 19th-century British statesman Lord Palmerston, countries don’t have friends, they have interests.

Spying on friendly foreign nations does not actually violate the standard practices of international relations and in many ways is consistent with those norms. The close U.S. allies France and Israel are particularly known for it. Still, something as explicit as tapping Merkel’s cellphone is a big and legitimately surprising step, one that may well go too far.

Here is an evaluation of the pros and cons involved that might help clarify why the United States would decide to take such a step.

The simplest case for spying might be that the United States and Germany, despite being allies, still compete with one another, sometimes on quite substantive issues. If spying can give them a leg up on those issues, then aren’t their leaders obligated to sanction it? President Barack Obama’s job, after all, is to further American interests, Merkel’s to further German interests. Those conflict more than you might think; when they do, both leaders are potentially better served if they spy on the other.

In 2011, for example, Obama wanted to intervene in Libya, but Merkel did not and could have used her substantial influence in Europe to reduce NATO’s participation. Ultimately, Germany was alone among Western nations in opposing the U.N. resolution on Libya and nearly alone in not providing military resources for the intervention. Merkel ended up coming under political pressure at home for the move.

Washington and Berlin have also clashed over how to manage the euro-zone crisis, the resolution and progress of which have far-reaching implications for the German and U.S. economies. If dropping in on Merkel’s phone calls can help the United States safeguard its economic and national security interests, that would seem to be a strong argument for doing so.

The case may be even starker with France, another major target of recently revealed NSA spying whose leaders have expressed official outrage at the surveillance.

It’s easy to forget today that in the 1960s, France made several provocative breaks with the American ally that had liberated its capital just two decades earlier. President Charles de Gaulle refused to cooperate on nuclear weapons with the United States, announcing a nuclear strategy of “defense in all directions” that was apparently intended to imply his willingness to use them against the Americans. He vetoed Britain’s entry into the European economic partnership that later developed into the European Union, which the United States had supported.

According to historian John Lewis Gaddis, de Gaulle even tried to persuade the leader of West Germany to loosen his ties with NATO, which would have seriously undermined the U.S.-led coalition and could have changed the course of the Cold War. Surely those were phone calls the United States would have been well-served by monitoring.

More U.S. spying on France may have again been useful in 1985, when New Zealand arrested two French agents caught sinking a Greenpeace ship that was set to interfere with some French nuclear tests. The United States was sucked into the incident but equivocated, perhaps believing Paris’s initial claim that the French government hadn’t been involved.

As a result of the imbroglio, U.S. nuclear war ships are still not permitted to dock in New Zealand. Who knows how it might have gone if the U.S. had had better intelligence on its French ally?

To be sure, the U.S.-French relationship is much closer now than it was in the 1960s or even the 1980s. Still, the yo-yoing alliance is a reminder that, even if Obama and French President Francois Hollande are buddy-buddy today, that can change quickly. The U.S.-German relationship has also had, shall we say, some historical ups and downs. There is no guarantee that just because two countries are allies today, with numerous mutual interests, this will necessarily be the case tomorrow.

Yet there’s something different about heads of state. Even if a foreign leader is, in some political sense, an extension of the country they run and thus just as fair game for eavesdropping as their country’s military and intelligence services, the United States does recognize that there’s something sacrosanct about heads of state.

That’s part of the thinking behind a 1976 executive order, issued by then-President Gerald Ford, prohibiting the U.S. government from political assassinations.

Even if you’re not convinced that heads of state deserve special respect from foreign spy agencies, there are real diplomatic ramifications to targeting them. Foreign militaries and intelligence agencies cannot have their pride offended by U.S. snooping because they are emotionless agencies, run by people who engage in these sorts of activities themselves and surely expect them. Merkel and Obama are also human beings; that they develop a sense of mutual trust and respect is important for their ability to cooperate on shared interests and to reach agreements.

Even if spying on Merkel can help further U.S. interests, the revelation has clearly offended her personally in ways that could set those interests back. And all the negative attention is certainly hurting the United States’ image in the eyes of German voters, who might become slightly less inclined to elect pro-Washington officials or support a pro-Washington agenda.

Maybe most illuminating is Merkel’s response. She has demanded that U.S. tech companies be required to notify European officials every time the United States files a warrant seeking information on a Europe-based customer, which could hamper U.S. intelligence efforts significantly.

She has also suggested that the United States and Germany simply sign an agreement not to spy on one another — which would finally level the playing field between their respective intelligence agencies, long dominated by the U.S.

Some analysts suspect this may be the real motive behind the outrage, as Richard McGregor and Geoff Dyer write in the Financial Times. If you can’t beat your American counterparts at the intelligence game, just find a way to stop playing.

“Frau Merkel has been listened to since she was a teenager,” Frederick Forsyth, a novelist and former Berlin-based correspondent told Reuters. “The only thing that amazes me about the furor is that it amazes people.”

A former French foreign minister, Bernard Kouchner, also suggested the European outrage may be less about the spying crossing any moral line and more about the extent of the United States’ intelligence dominance.

“Let’s be honest, we eavesdrop, too,” he told a French radio station. “Everyone is listening to everyone else. But we don’t have the same means as the United States, which makes us jealous.”

Even if Merkel really were unsurprised by the wiretapping and is only seizing on the revelation in a calculated attempt to undermine American intelligence dominance, it wouldn’t necessarily mean that tapping foreign leaders’ cellphones is ultimately in the United States’ best interests, of course. But it is at least a reminder that the international system is driven more by cutthroat self-interest, and less by principles of fairness and friendliness, than its leaders often suggest.

Max Fisher is The Washington Post’s foreign affairs blogger. He has a master’s degree in security studies from Johns Hopkins University.

Read more here

http://www.linkedin.com/groups/Crown-Management-4782511
http://thecrownmanagement.quora.com/
https://groups.diigo.com/group/the-capital-crown-management/

http://crowncapitalmngt.com/
http://crowncapitalmngt.blogspot.com/

AN investigation into lead contamination in the Western Australian town of Northampton has finally begun with authorities beginning to arrange individual property inspections.

As part of the Northampton Lead Tailings project, the Department of Lands has sought Aurora Environmental to investigate contamination throughout the town in the state's Mid West region.

An information marquee was set up at the Northampton Show yesterday, encouraging people to arrange a time for investigators to visit their property.

Inspectors will walk over each property, photograph sites, collect samples and talk to residents.

The project aims to collect information from every land parcel in Northampton to determine the extent of the distribution of lead tailings, which contain about three per cent lead.

Shire of Northampton chief executive Garry Keeffe said the inspections were a precautionary measure and locals were not overly concerned about lead contamination.

"We can't know until the testing is done if there are any tailings but it will give surety to people,'' he said.

"If any properties do have tailings, the government will rectify it.''

The old Northampton State Battery opened in 1954 and over the next 30 years, leftover materials from mining, called tailings, were stockpiled.

Tailings were removed by local builders and residents, and used elsewhere, unaware of the potential impact on human health.

Since then, steps have been taken to rectify the situation such as demolishing the state battery buildings in 2010 and sealing tailings in a containment cell, but the full extent of the distribution of lead tailings in Northampton remains unknown.

A final report on phase one of the project is due mid next year.

The state government will use it to determine if further investigation or action is required.

SUNY celebrates opening of pellet-fueled gasifier, boiler

The combined-heat-and-power system (CHP) housed within the State University of New York’s College of Environmental Science and Forestry's (ESF) Gateway Center, which was officially opened Friday, uses biomass pellets and natural gas to provide the campus with 65 percent of its heating needs and 20 percent of its electrical power.

"Today we ramp up testing as we connect each piece of technology into the operation. At full power the CHP reduces campus-wide fossil fuel usage by 9,000 barrels of oil annually and lowers campus utility costs by 20 percent," said ESF President Cornelius B. Murphy, Jr.

Some 200 people, including elected officials, friends of the college, business partners, students, faculty and staff attended the ribbon cutting Friday morning.

"We are here today," said Murphy, "because state Senator John DeFrancisco supported us at the beginning with the money needed to jumpstart the project."

Following the ceremonies attendees were invited to tour the building with faculty and staff available to explain the unique aspects of the Gateway Center.

"We made a commitment on this campus not just to design a building but to design a building that will teach," Murphy said.

Joining him in cutting the green ribbon were DeFrancisco and N.Y. Lt. Gov. Robert J. Duffy. Duffy said ESF has been "an environmental leader" for more than 100 years. "This school is fantastic in so many ways," Duffy said. "You really are leading the nation in meaningful ways, in terms of how we are going to live."

DeFrancisco gave Murphy, who has announced he will step down as ESF president, credit for leading ESF through a tremendous period of growth. "The progress since Neil has been here is unbelievable," DeFrancisco said.

The Gateway Center is a centerpiece of the college's Climate Action Plan, which states ESF's commitment to achieving carbon neutrality by 2015. In addition, the Gateway Center, with its Trailhead Cafe, ESF College Bookstore, conference center and gathering areas, serves as a hub for campus activity. A portion of the college's renowned Roosevelt Wildlife Collection is also on display.

The Gateway Center has a high-performance building envelope: a bioclimatic façade that controls thermal loss and solar gain to minimize building design loads. Building design is integrated with innovative energy systems connecting to the campus infrastructure.

Renewable fuels are used to help reduce ESF's carbon footprint and the building showcases a variety of technologies to further research, community engagement and the college's educational mission. The CHP will serve as a teaching tool, especially for students enrolled in ESF's new sustainable energy management major and renewable energy minor.

The wood pellet-fired gasifier is connected to a steam boiler that produces 8,000 pounds of high-pressure steam per hour. The high-pressure steam is run through a turbine to produce electricity and the low-pressure steam exiting the turbine is piped into five campus buildings to provide heat.

There are two natural gas-fired steam boilers to allow the system to efficiently meet peak and seasonal loads. The larger natural gas-fired boiler produces 10,000 pounds of steam per hour. Again, the high-pressure steam from this boiler is fed into the steam turbine producing electricity and the low-pressure steam is used for heat.

Because heat demands are low in the summer, a smaller natural gas steam boiler is put into operation producing just 2,000 pounds of low-pressure steam to meet any summer needs.

There are also three natural gas-fired microturbines that are part of the system. The microturbines burn the natural gas to produce heat, which spins the turbine to generate electricity. The exhaust heat from the process is captured and converted to low-pressure steam in a heat recovery boiler and distributed via heat exchangers through the Gateway Center plus Jahn Laboratory, Illick Hall, Moon Library and Baker Laboratory.

A passive solar thermal unit on the upper roof of the building produces hot water for domestic use while a garden roof comprising native New York plants on the second floor roof helps insulate the Gateway Center and reduce storm water runoff. The roof is open to campus visitors.

Source

Missouri municipal power plant to test burn engineered pellets

Columbia (Mo.) Water and Light has approval from its advisory board to purchase biomass pellets for trial burns at the municipal power plant this winter. As part of its renewable energy program, CWL has been co-firing coal with waste wood chips since 2008 and has continuously explored the use of other biomass fuels, explained Tad Johnsen, director of water and light in a memorandum to the advisory board.

With the approval, CWL is planning test burns in January of engineered pellets developed in a collaborative effort between Missouri Corn Growers Association and Enginuity Worldwide LLC. Enginuity’s bid was to deliver 700 tons of the experimental fuel made from corn stover or a mixture of stover and grass for testing at a cost of $500 per ton. When including the cost of stack testing, fuels testing, engineering monitoring and analysis, furnace monitoring and measurement and incidentals, the total expected cost of a test burn is $375,000. CWL and Missouri Corn Growers have applied for a $125,000 grant from the American Public Power Association to help with costs.

Last October, the CWL conducted a test firing using miscanthus pellets with mixed results. While the pellets mixed well with the coal and were handled easily in the system that includes a front end loader, bucket elevator, screw auger and chute delivery to supply the stokers, the coal plant’s handling system created dust and degraded the pellets. In addition, although the pellets were covered with tarps in the outdoor storage area, wherever water could infiltrate, the pellets swelled and disintegrated. Recommendations following that test included making the pellets larger and weatherproofing or hardening them. Storage and handling should be either indoors or better protected from the weather. A separate fuel handling system should be used if the pellets are to be used in the current form that would feed them into the boiler fuel train at about the coal scale level of the boiler. And finally, any future test burns should be done in two phases that first tests the handling and combustion characteristics, and if successful, completes stack testing in a second phase.

In its bid to CWL to test the experimental pellet, Enginuity Worldwide addressed many of the issues uncovered in the miscanthus pellet test burn. “Based on the laboratory testing to date, it is not anticipated the EWW will experience any of the same handling or physical stability issues that were observed in the fall 2012 test burn of miscanthus pellets.” Enginuity has trademarked its process as eCARB, for environmentally continuous annually renewable biomass. The eCARB process produces a pellet that is specified to be 97 percent durable with a shape and size designed to work well when mixed with coal with minimal retrofits to handling systems. The company says its fuel is water resistant.  

Based in Columbia, Mo., Enginuity Worldwide is owned by Nancy Heimann. The company has several patent applications filed on the biomass fuel methods that describe it as including an adhesive comprised of a starch and a hydroxide. Further additives include a silicate, a viscosity agent, a preservative and a Btu additive, all of which are combustible materials.

Source

Solar, utility companies clash over changes to net metering

In the sunny Southwest, a fight between utilities and solar companies is heating up, casting a shadow over future renewable energy growth.

At stake are revisions to net metering, a key incentive for rooftop solar installations in the United States. Under these policies, the utility gives the homeowner a credit for the energy his rooftop photovoltaic panels put onto the grid that is subtracted from the electricity his home uses when the sun isn't shining.

Currently, 43 states, the District of Columbia and four U.S. territories have net metering policies in place, with differing capacity limits. Under the Energy Policy Act of 2005, all public utilities are required to offer net metering to customers upon request.

According to the Energy Information Administration, the number of residential net-metered utility customers exploded from almost zero in 2003 to more than 300,000 in 2012. Falling panel prices, coupled with attractive incentives, expanded the market for rooftop solar. Last month, even the White House installed a rooftop solar array.

This rapid growth is leading some utilities to rethink rules favoring solar energy, citing unexpected consequences and issues of fairness. But rooftop solar developers are aggressively pushing back, accusing utilities of attempting to quash an emerging competitor and entrenching their energy monopoly.

A proposed surcharge

Arizona's main electric utility, Arizona Public Service Co., proposed a surcharge in July for new residential solar installations based on how much energy they draw from the grid. The other option is for customers to receive a bill crediting them for the energy they put on the grid at the same market rate the utility gives to other generators. Existing residential installations would be grandfathered in, and commercial installations would be exempt. The policy still needs approval from regulators.

"Everybody that's connected to the grid is utilizing the grid at some time, and solar customers are no exception," said Greg Bernosky, manager of renewable energy programs for APS. "There are costs that solar customers avoid on their bills that are ultimately shifted to non-solar customers."

He explained that most homes don't have a way to store excess energy, so even if they produce more than they use over the course of a day, they still draw on the grid once the sun sets or when clouds form above. For conventional homeowners, the costs of transmission, distribution, maintenance and upkeep are built into their rates.

A home with a rooftop photovoltaic array foists the cost of keeping electricity on tap onto everyone without a solar installation, to the tune of an extra $1,000 annually per home, according to Bernosky.

This recent push for new rules in large part stems from efficiency improvements and cost reductions for photovoltaic panels in recent years, making the economic case for a home installation much more viable. "The technology wasn't as vibrant as it is today. It wasn't anticipated at that time it would evolve to where it was evolving today," said David Owens, executive vice president of the Edison Electric Institute, a utility industry group.

Net metering policies are a distinctly American incentive for renewable energy and spread gradually at a time when rooftop solar was a novelty. Countries like Germany, Italy and Spain used feed-in tariffs to encourage residential solar. Such tariffs give electricity from solar panels an above-market price so consumers stand to make more money from their investment.

Owens explained that this led to a large and rapid build-out for rooftop arrays but ended up costing these countries a great deal. In wake of the financial crisis, policymakers are scaling back tariffs and even adding more taxes for home solar systems, leading some homeowners to remove their installations.

A 'disruptive challenge' to utilities?

Though not as dramatic, net metering is also facing some growing pains in the United States as distributed solar takes up a greater share of the generation mix. Grid operators now have to account for power flowing in the opposite direction, away from homes and onto the grid. This requires new investments in hardware, monitoring and safety, Owen said.

Solar energy advocates, however, say that the industry has had distributed generation in its cross hairs since its inception. "Utilities have opposed net metering from day one," said Bryan Miller, president of the Alliance for Solar Choice. "What's different now is utilities have woken up and realized solar is a threat to their business model."