NucNews July 25, 2006 -------- NUCLEAR -------- australia Beazley in U-turn on nuclear power Dennis Shanahan, Political editor July 25, 2006 Australian http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,19902826-601,00.html KIM Beazley has withdrawn his support for Labor's long-standing ban on new uranium mines in Australia, staking his leadership on a policy of more mining and exports. As part of his efforts to appear decisive, the Labor leader has set out an alternative to John Howard's plans for Australia to become "an energy superpower". The Opposition Leader said last night his change of position was aimed at lifting prosperity but he remained totally opposed to nuclear power in Australia because it was "not in our national interest". In the Sydney Institute speech, Mr Beazley also said he did not believe uranium enrichment would happen in Australia for years - and not if he became prime minister. His declaration brings forward the debate on one of Labor's most divisive issues, which threatens to split the ALP conference in April next year, only months before an election. "I believe the real issue is what we do with the uranium we mine - not how many places we mine it," Mr Beazley said. "I will seek a change to my party's platform to replace the 'no new mines' policy with a new approach based on the strongest safeguards in the world. "Banning new uranium mines would not limit the export of Australian uranium to the world - it would simply favour incumbent producers." Mr Beazley's public position was immediately opposed by his frontbench environment spokesman and left-wing factional leader, Anthony Albanese. "I will be opposing this all the way to the national conference next year for all the reasons I have opposed it all along," Mr Albanese told The Australian last night. "I was consulted on this decision, I counselled against it and said I thought it was wrong." Mr Beazley said Labor's new policy should focus on export controls rather than the mines themselves, because Australia was already the world's second biggest supplier of mined uranium and the expansion of South Australia's Olympic Dam mine would make us the biggest. He is proposing three tests for countries wanting to buy Australian uranium: accept the nuclear non-proliferation treaty; accept the world's strictest safeguards on the peaceful use of uranium; and join Australia's new diplomatic initiative against nuclear proliferation. Environment Minister Ian Campbell said Mr Beazley had taken 20 years to do a backflip on uranium mining and it highlighted Labor confusion over a comprehensive energy and environment plan. Industry and Resources Minister Ian Macfarlane said Mr Beazley could not wait months before setting out the policy, but had to do it now. "If this is Mr Beazley's position, then we need to see the policy now and the West Australian and Queensland Labor Governments can act on it," Mr Macfarlane said. But Labor's resources spokesman, Martin Ferguson, another left-winger, supports the Beazley decision. Australian Workers Union leader and Labor candidate Bill Shorten said yesterday Mr Beazley's change of position showed that the party was serious about winning the next election. Mr Shorten said Mr Beazley's intervention was significant and the policy would be changed at the ALP conference next year. "The policy of no new mines was a 'half-pregnant' policy and people got around it in South Australia by linking any number of mines with a road and calling it one mine," Mr Shorten said. "Kim's calling a spade a spade. The no new mines policy was an economic ball and chain around Labor's leg and doing away with it makes economic sense." Acting South Australian Premier Kevin Foley said the decision was sensible and "will give great confidence to the mining industry in South Australia". Mr Foley said: "We're on the verge of a mining boom, this is a great leadership decision by Kim Beazley supporting that shown by Mike Rann." Mr Beazley said his fight for a new policy was part of his leadership years "of decision". "I'm not leading a debate in the Labor Party about uranium mining and export safeguards because it's easy. I believe it's right. Right for Australia's future," he said. The tougher safeguards are aimed at making it more difficult for foreign companies to own Australian uranium mines, strengthening controls on how the uranium is used, boosting safety guarantees on nuclear power stations and developing an international campaign on nuclear non-proliferation. "The new policy will be based on the strength of safeguards, not on the number of mines. "Exporting uranium will help to build our future prosperity - and pay off John Howard's foreign debt," Mr Beazley said. "These controls should be part of the bilateral agreements our Government signs before other countries can import oururanium." Mr Beazley said Labor's position on nuclear power in Australia was crystal clear. "Nuclear power is not appropriate for our country. I rule out nuclear power in Australia. It is not in our national interest." He said the Prime Minister's "nuclear debate" was actually a plan to bring nuclear power into Australia if the Coalition won the next election. Uranium enrichment had no case in Australia "for many years into the future", Mr Beazley said. "It will not happen while I'm prime minister," he said. -------- japan Japan To Help Cos Explore, Develop Uranium Mines Overseas 07-25-06 (Dow Jones) http://feeds.thejapannews.net/?rid=34a46c2c7c95d2f6&cat=c4f2dd8ca8c78044&f=1 TOKYO -- Japan's Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry plans to help Japanese companies explore and develop uranium mines overseas, as well as increase stakes in overseas mines, a government official said Tuesday. For the fiscal year to March 2008, the Agency for Natural Resources and Energy, a unit under the ministry, plans to request for "a few billion yen" from the Ministry of Finance for exploration purposes, the official said, adding that the exact amount has yet to be decided. ANRE expects to submit its request in September. This marks a revival in the government's plan to support Japanese companies in their overseas exploration and development of uranium mines. The government had ceased such funding in 2000 because of low uranium prices and antinuclear power trends. ANRE's plan comes amid tightening uranium supplies in the international market following a global increase in dependence on nuclear power. If approved, government-funded research and exploration body Japan Oil, Gas and Metals National Corp. will be appointed to conduct exploration overseas and provide funds to companies, the official said. Japan's economy is vulnerable to crude oil price fluctuations, as the country imports almost all of its energy requirements, and oil accounts for approximately half of the country's needs. In a bid to diversify the country's energy sources, ANRE has decided to help increase Japanese companies' investments into uranium mines overseas. Separately, Japan Bank for International Cooperation Thursday signed a memorandum of understanding with Kazakhstan's state-owned uranium mining company Kazatomprom, to offer loans to Japanese companies looking to expand their presence in the Kazakh uranium mining sector. Nuclear energy accounts for 13% of Japan's electricity production, but the country doesn't have any uranium deposits. "As countries like China, India and the U.S. plan to build a number of nuclear power plants, demand for uranium is expected to rise," the official said. Global demand is likely to outstrip supply, because of poor investment in uranium mines in the late 1990s, when uranium prices were around $10 a pound, compared with about $45/lb recently, the official said. In 2004, global demand for uranium was around 67,000 metric tons, while production was around 40,000 tons, data from the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development showed. The shortfall in supply was filled with stocks and secondary uranium, such as uranium from unused missile heads, OECD said. Japan imports about 8,000 tons of uranium a year, with Canada supplying about 30%, Australia supplying about 20%, and Namibia supplying about 15%, the Federation of Electric Power Companies of Japan said. -By Mari Iwata, Dow Jones Newswires; 813-5255-2929; mari.iwata@dowjones.com -Edited by Tracy Gan -------- korea Push for nuclear talks as NKorea slams 'imbecile' Rice KUALA LUMPUR (AFP) Jul 25, 2006 http://www.spacewar.com/2006/060725105130.033l80dw.html South Korea said Tuesday efforts are under way to hold six-nation talks on the North's nuclear ambitions, at an Asian security forum where the issue promises to dominate the agenda. North Korea raised the stakes ahead of the ASEAN Regional Forum (ARF) which meets Friday, describing US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice who is also attending as a "political imbecile" for criticising its recent missile tests. South Korean Foreign Minister Ban Ki-Moon, who is in Kuala Lumpur for the forum hosted by the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN), said North Korea's participation in the six-way talks hung in the balance. "There have been discussions... that it is necessary for the foreign ministers of the six parties to discuss the early resumption of the six-party talks," Ban told journalists. "But I am not certain that North Korea's foreign minister is interested in the process." North Korean Foreign Minister Paek Nam-Sun is due to arrive in the Malaysian capital on Thursday. Ban has expressed hopes that he will have a bilateral meeting with Paek here, but said the schedules have yet to fixed. "I would stress that North Korea's return to six-way talks is crucial to settling the issue of missile tests," he said. "I have proposed the meeting to my North Korean counterpart, but I have not yet had confirmation from him." North Korea has boycotted the three-year-old nuclear disarmament talks with the United States, China, South Korea, Russia and Japan since November in protest at US financial sanctions. Tensions rose after Pyongyang's July 5 test-firing of seven ballistic missiles in defiance of international appeals. UN condemnation and sanctions followed. Asked if South Korea would try to broker a US-North Korea ministerial meeting on the sidelines of the forum, Ban, who meets with Rice on Friday, said: "The United States has its own position, so we have to wait and see." The United States has rejected a North Korean offer to hold bilateral negotiations before reviving the six-way talks. The North's official Korean Central News Agency (KCNA) on Monday accused Rice -- who called North Korea a "completely irresponsible" and "dangerous" state for test-firing the missiles -- of distorting the facts. "Obviously, Rice made such an outcry in a bid to justify the US hostile policy to pressurize the DPRK (North Korea) with the ministerial meeting of the ASEAN Regional Forum at hand and draw regional countries into its pressure campaign," KCNA said in a commentary. It said the North was under threat of attack from "the worst gangsters in the world" after the Bush administration listed it as part of an "axis of evil." "It was none other than Rice who let loose a spate of such piffle over the launch of a few missiles as part of military training to cope with the US reckless moves for aggression and war," KCNA said. "This cannot be construed otherwise than an outburst made by a political imbecile." Malaysia's Foreign Minister Syed Hamid Albar said Monday the two Koreas would meet on the sidelines of the Asian forum this week but that the North was unwilling to join the six-nation talks. "I think they feel that the sanctions, the banks, the embargo on the cash transactions is hurting them a lot," he said. "So all these things need to be addressed in order to bring all the parties back to talking." ---- Isolated NKorea peeks out at world at Asian talks: analysts Police women guard stand guard next to a banner of 39th ASEAN Ministerial Meeting displayed at the entrance of the Kuala Lumpur Convention Centre, in Kuala Lumpur, 24 July 2006. Photo courtesy of Teh Eng Koon and AFP. by Staff Writers Kuala Lumpur (AFP) Jul 25, 2006 http://www.spacewar.com/reports/a060725072035.e3s1nlsk.html North Korea's presence at a regional forum here this week provides a rare chance for the pariah state to escape mounting diplomatic isolation after its missile tests, analysts say. North Korean Foreign Minister Paek Nam-Sun is due to arrive in Kuala Lumpur Thursday to attend Asia's top security talks, the ASEAN Regional Forum (ARF), according to officials at the North Korean embassy here. "Unless they want to be completely isolated, this is an opportunity they shouldn't pass up," Peter Beck, a director of Northeast Asia Project and senior analyst at the International Crisis Group (ICG), told AFP. "They need to keep a couple of doors open. The ASEAN forum is one of the only doors, I think, left that they can try to keep open." Since its test-firing of seven ballistic missiles on July 5, North Korea has been more ostracised than ever by the international community, he said. The UN Security Council unanimously condemned the tests and imposed weapons-related sanctions, even winning the support of the North's long-time ally China. The United States and Japan have since put forward various punitive measures and South Korea, another key sympathizer of Pyongyang, suspended aid to the impoverished state. Besides tensions over the missile tests, North Korea faces a separate battle-front in the form of six-nation disarmament talks aimed at ending its nuclear arms program. North Korea is under mounting pressure to come back to the talks which it has boycottted since November in protest over US financial sanctions. "But for participating in the ASEAN forum, North Korea would be isolated further and keep being dragged by the US-led offensive rationale," said Ko Yu-Hwan, professor at South Korea's Donguk University. The ASEAN Regional Forum will bring together foreign ministers and key officials of all the countries participating in the six-way talks -- the United States, the two Koreas, China, Russia and Japan. Despite hopes that they could convene an impromptu meeting in Kuala Lumpur and make longed-for progress on the crisis, Ko said he expects no big policy change here. "North Korea has a daunting task at the forum to actively justify its internationally unpopular position over missile tests and to ease tensions," he said. "But it remains unclear that North Korea will come back to the six-way dialogue without any meaningful contact with the United States." North Korea has insisted on first addressing the financial sanctions issue with the United States before reviving the multilateral talks. Washington has flatly rejected the offer. The United States and South Korea have been pushing for an unofficial "five-nation" nuclear meeting on the sidelines of the ASEAN regional forum regardless of North Korea's participation. The Malaysian hosts have said that North Korea would meet South Korea on the sidelines of this week's meeting, but that it is not yet ready to rejoin the six-party nuclear talks. The ICG's Beck said that North Korea would be the losers if they returned to their trademark brinkmanship. "As long as they are on the path of provocation, I don't think they are going to be able to break out of the isolation," he said. North Korea's foreign ministry has angrily rejected the UN resolution and vowed to bolster its defenses. Its UN envoy threatened to test more missiles. North Korean media on Monday stepped up their anti-US rhetoric, calling US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice -- who is also due to attend the forum in Kuala Lumpur -- an "imbecile." -------- pakistan Asian arms race heats up as Pakistan builds new reactor By Justin Huggler in Delhi Published: 25 July 2006 UK Independent http://news.independent.co.uk/world/asia/article1195243.ece Satellite photographs of what appears to be a nuclear reactor under construction in Pakistan are the latest evidence that President George Bush's foreign policy is fuelling a nuclear arms race in south Asia. The photographs show a heavy-water reactor capable of producing enough plutonium to make 40-50 nuclear weapons a year, more than 20 times Pakistan's existing capacity, according to the US-based Institute for Science and International Security. The new pictures come just weeks after a former head of Indian intelligence said that a controversial civilian nuclear fuel deal with the US will allow India to produce 50 warheads a year, by freeing up its existing fuel for military use. The border between India and Pakistan remains one of the most dangerous nuclear faultlines in the world. The two countries nearly went to war in 2002 - believed by many analysts to be the closest the world has come to nuclear war since the Cuban missile crisis. The photogrpahs of the construction going on at Pakistan's Khushab nuclear site will add to fears of a nuclear arms race across this border. The pictures are the latest example of what could be termed the "Google Earth effect" - the way in which commercially available satellite photpraphs are making what were once state secrets open knowledge. These photographs, provided by Digital Globe, show a construction site next to Pakistan's sole existing plutonium production reactor. But the new construction dwarfs the existing 50-megawatt reactor. The Institute for Science and International Security believes it has a capacity of 1,000 megawatts or more. At the moment Pakistan is believed to have 30 to 50 uranium warheads. The new reactor could allow it to make 50 plutonium warheads a year. That would dramatically raise the nuclear stakes in south Asia. Pakistan declined to deny the institute's analysis. "This ought to be no revelation to anyone because Pakistan is a nuclear weapon state," Tasnim Aslam, a Foreign Ministry spokeswoman, said, but she refused to discuss specific facilities. But it is not only on the Pakistani side of the border that there are signs of a massive increase in the nuclear arsenal. Last month, JK Sinha, a retired head of India's RAW intelligence service, came out publicly with what observers have long suspected: that the nuclear fuel deal with the US will allow India to increase massively its stock of nuclear weapons. Under the controversial deal, the US will supply India with nuclear fuel for civilian power-generating purposes, in return for India agreeing to put most of its reactors under international safeguards that would prevent them being used for military purposes. But. Mr Sinha wrote in Indian Defence Review, that would free India's existing, limited domestic supplies of nuclear fuel to be used exclusively in the six reactors that will remain outside international safeguards, for military purposes. The nuclear deal is at the centrepiece of Mr Bush's attempts to forge a strategic alliance with India as a counterweight to the growing power of China - and, for some, strengthening India militarily has always been part of the agenda. "Why should the US want to check India's missile capability in ways that could lead to China's permanent nuclear dominance over democratic India," Robert Blackwill, a former US ambassador to India who is now lobbying for the nuclear deal, has said. But the prime nuclear rivalry in Asia remains between India and Pakistan, and some observers fear the US may be exacerbating a nuclear arms race between them. Any sign of an expanding nuclear capacity in Pakistan will raise proliferation concerns, with memories of the A Q Khan scandal still fresh. Dr Khan, the scientist known as the father of Pakistan's nuclear bomb, was found to be providing nuclear secrets to Libya, Iran and North Korea. At least one leading Pakistani journalist has said that Dr Khan must have had sanction from within the Pakistani state. The American-based analysts said that Pakistan did not appear to be in a hurry to complete it, or interested in hiding the reactor. Satellite photographs of what appears to be a nuclear reactor under construction in Pakistan are the latest evidence that President George Bush's foreign policy is fuelling a nuclear arms race in south Asia. The photographs show a heavy-water reactor capable of producing enough plutonium to make 40-50 nuclear weapons a year, more than 20 times Pakistan's existing capacity, according to the US-based Institute for Science and International Security. The new pictures come just weeks after a former head of Indian intelligence said that a controversial civilian nuclear fuel deal with the US will allow India to produce 50 warheads a year, by freeing up its existing fuel for military use. The border between India and Pakistan remains one of the most dangerous nuclear faultlines in the world. The two countries nearly went to war in 2002 - believed by many analysts to be the closest the world has come to nuclear war since the Cuban missile crisis. The photogrpahs of the construction going on at Pakistan's Khushab nuclear site will add to fears of a nuclear arms race across this border. The pictures are the latest example of what could be termed the "Google Earth effect" - the way in which commercially available satellite photpraphs are making what were once state secrets open knowledge. These photographs, provided by Digital Globe, show a construction site next to Pakistan's sole existing plutonium production reactor. But the new construction dwarfs the existing 50-megawatt reactor. The Institute for Science and International Security believes it has a capacity of 1,000 megawatts or more. At the moment Pakistan is believed to have 30 to 50 uranium warheads. The new reactor could allow it to make 50 plutonium warheads a year. That would dramatically raise the nuclear stakes in south Asia. Pakistan declined to deny the institute's analysis. "This ought to be no revelation to anyone because Pakistan is a nuclear weapon state," Tasnim Aslam, a Foreign Ministry spokeswoman, said, but she refused to discuss specific facilities. But it is not only on the Pakistani side of the border that there are signs of a massive increase in the nuclear arsenal. Last month, JK Sinha, a retired head of India's RAW intelligence service, came out publicly with what observers have long suspected: that the nuclear fuel deal with the US will allow India to increase massively its stock of nuclear weapons. Under the controversial deal, the US will supply India with nuclear fuel for civilian power-generating purposes, in return for India agreeing to put most of its reactors under international safeguards that would prevent them being used for military purposes. But. Mr Sinha wrote in Indian Defence Review, that would free India's existing, limited domestic supplies of nuclear fuel to be used exclusively in the six reactors that will remain outside international safeguards, for military purposes. The nuclear deal is at the centrepiece of Mr Bush's attempts to forge a strategic alliance with India as a counterweight to the growing power of China - and, for some, strengthening India militarily has always been part of the agenda. "Why should the US want to check India's missile capability in ways that could lead to China's permanent nuclear dominance over democratic India," Robert Blackwill, a former US ambassador to India who is now lobbying for the nuclear deal, has said. But the prime nuclear rivalry in Asia remains between India and Pakistan, and some observers fear the US may be exacerbating a nuclear arms race between them. Any sign of an expanding nuclear capacity in Pakistan will raise proliferation concerns, with memories of the A Q Khan scandal still fresh. Dr Khan, the scientist known as the father of Pakistan's nuclear bomb, was found to be providing nuclear secrets to Libya, Iran and North Korea. At least one leading Pakistani journalist has said that Dr Khan must have had sanction from within the Pakistani state. The American-based analysts said that Pakistan did not appear to be in a hurry to complete it, or interested in hiding the reactor. ---- Pakistan launches huge nuclear arms drive · Satellite images reveal major building site · US and China embroiled in buildup of rival arsenals Randeep Ramesh, Julian Borger in Washington Tuesday July 25, 2006 The Guardian http://www.guardian.co.uk/pakistan/Story/0,,1828058,00.html Pakistan appears to have embarked on a dramatic expansion of its nuclear arsenal with the construction of a new heavy water reactor capable of producing enough plutonium for up to 50 warheads a year, according to a report released yesterday by a US thinktank. The report by the Institute for Science and International Security (Isis), is largely based on commercially available satellite images showing a large building site at a nuclear production complex at Khushab, in Pakistani Punjab. Isis, a non-governmental nuclear watchdog, estimates that the huge rectangular building under construction and the circular structure inside it almost certainly represent the early stages of a 1,000MW reactor capable of generating more than 200kg (440lbs) of weapons-grade plutonium per year. When completed it would be 20 times the size of the existing reactor at Khushab. The Khushab complex uses deuterium oxide, known as heavy water because of its chemical similarity to water, to produce plutonium and tritium, which is used as a booster in nuclear fission weapons. The Isis report suggests the Indian government must know of the new reactor and may be seeking to increase its own plutonium production. In an agreement with the Bush administration, under review by Congress this week, India insisted several of its own nuclear reactors remain exempt from international safeguards. "South Asia may be heading for a nuclear arms race that could lead to arsenals growing into the hundreds of nuclear weapons, or at a minimum vastly expanded stockpiles of military fissile material," the Isis report said. The Pakistani army is thought to have about 50 uranium warheads. India and Pakistan, which have fought three conventional wars in less than 60 years, already have nuclear weapons and an arsenal of missiles capable of reaching far beyond each other's territory. There has so far been no official reaction from Islamabad, although the Washington Post quoted an unnamed "senior Pakistani official" as acknowledging that an expansion of the country's nuclear programme was under way. Ayesha Siddiqi Agha, a Pakistani writer on defence issues, pointed out that since Washington had proposed a nuclear deal with India, the Pakistani establishment had been keen to "match it": "The signal is that while India surges ahead, Pakistan has ways to pull them off balance. So this may be about restoring a psychological balance between the two." Commodore Uday Bhaskar of the Institute of Defence and Strategic Analysis in Delhi suggested the timing of the report could be intended to influence the US Congress's debate on the Indian deal: "My initial reaction is that one of the report's authors [David Albright] is a critic of the India-US nuclear deal and therefore this report has to be seen in the light of its passage through Congress. It may be true but there's a reason why the report appears now." Mr Albright, a former UN weapons inspector who now runs Isis, denied there was any link between the timing of the report and the congressional debate. "It is a strange twist to the debate to see a potential Pakistani threat to India as an attempt to derail the India agreement in Congress," he said, adding that the publication was dictated more by the need to get the report out before the summer holidays began. There is speculation in Delhi that the new plant may be a fresh sign of China's commitment to a "strategic partnership" with Pakistan. The pair already have extensive military and diplomatic ties. "China has supported Pakistan since the 80s and it remains the wild card here," Commodore Bhaskar said. "At the time of the Indo-US deal, there were clear indications that Beijing thought if Washington can assist India, China can aid Pakistan." Mr Albright said Chinese assistance was a possibility. "You always worry that some of this is coming from China. Can Pakistan really do all this on its own? You wonder," he said. "That would be very serious." According to the Isis report, construction of the new reactor at Khushab began in March 2000 and could be finished in a few years. "However, nothing suggests that Pakistan is moving quickly to finish this reactor," the report said, suggesting that there may be a bottleneck in the supply of heavy water or in Pakistan's fuel reprocessing capacity. ---- U.S. Says It Knew of Pakistani Reactor Plan Congress Learned of Nation's Nuclear Expansion From Independent Analysts By Joby Warrick Washington Post Staff Writer Tuesday, July 25, 2006; A11 http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/07/24/AR2006072400995_pf.html The Bush administration acknowledged yesterday that it had long known about Pakistan's plans to build a large plutonium-production reactor, but it said the White House was working to dissuade Pakistan from using the plant to expand its nuclear arsenal. "We discourage military use of the facility," White House spokesman Tony Snow said of a powerful heavy-water reactor under construction at Pakistan's Khushab nuclear site in Punjab state. The reactor, which reportedly will be capable of producing enough plutonium for as many as 50 bombs each year, was brought to light on Sunday by independent analysts who spotted the partially completed plant in commercial-satellite photos. Snow said the administration had "known of these plans for some time." The acknowledgment came as arms-control experts and some in Congress expressed alarm about a possible escalation of South Asia's arms race. Some also sharply criticized the administration for failing to disclose the existence of a facility that could influence an upcoming congressional debate over U.S. nuclear policy toward India and Pakistan. "If either India or Pakistan starts increasing its nuclear arsenal, the other side will respond in kind," said Rep. Edward J. Markey (D-Mass.), co-chairman of a House bipartisan task force on nonproliferation. "The Bush administration's proposed nuclear deal with India is making that much more likely." That proposal would allow the United States to share civilian nuclear technology with India. Construction of the reactor in Pakistan began as early as 2000, and the plant is still several years from completion, according to an analysis by the Institute for Science and International Security, a Washington-based nonprofit group that produces technical assessments of nuclear weapons facilities. Based on a study of satellite photos, the group estimated the new reactor to have an operating capacity of 1,000 megawatts thermal and an annual yield of at least 200 kilograms of weapons-grade plutonium. A small reactor already operating at the Khushab site is capable of producing about 10 kilograms of plutonium a year, according to the analysis. The Pakistani Foreign Ministry, reacting to a Washington Post article about the new plant, neither disputed the report nor offered specifics about the reactor. Pakistani officials acknowledged the nation's long-term ambition to expand its nuclear power infrastructure and modernize its nuclear arsenal. Pakistan is thought to possess up to 50 nuclear bombs, all based on designs that use highly enriched uranium and generally are more cumbersome than plutonium devices. "This ought to be no revelation to anyone, because Pakistan is a nuclear-weapons state," Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Tasnim Aslam said at a news conference in Islamabad, according to the Associated Press. Aslam said Pakistan's leaders "do not want an arms race in this region," but she noted that Pakistan was not the first nation in South Asia to test nuclear weapons. Rival India first tested a nuclear device in 1974 and currently has about 30 plutonium-based warheads. Weapons experts worried yesterday that Pakistan's expanded nuclear capabilities would lead countries in the region -- other than India -- to follow suit. "There are makings of a vigorous competition in fissile material production in South Asia -- between India and Pakistan in the first instance but also China as well," said Robert Einhorn, formerly the State Department's chief nonproliferation official and now a senior adviser to the Center for Strategic and International Studies, a Washington think tank. "It would be one thing if we were talking just about well-secured nuclear bombs. A larger concern is the greater amounts of fissile material, which create more opportunities for terrorists to get their hands on it." Henry D. Sokolski, the Defense Department's top nonproliferation official during the George H.W. Bush administration, said he was most surprised by the way news of the reactor in Pakistan became known. "What is baffling is that this information -- which was surely information that our own intelligence agencies had -- was kept from Congress," said Sokolski, now director of the Nonproliferation Policy Education Center. "We lack imagination if we think that this is no big deal." ---- U.S. Says It Knew of Pakistani Reactor Plan Congress Learned of Nation's Nuclear Expansion From Independent Analysts By Joby Warrick Washington Post Staff Writer Tuesday, July 25, 2006; A11 http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/07/24/AR2006072400995_pf.html The Bush administration acknowledged yesterday that it had long known about Pakistan's plans to build a large plutonium-production reactor, but it said the White House was working to dissuade Pakistan from using the plant to expand its nuclear arsenal. "We discourage military use of the facility," White House spokesman Tony Snow said of a powerful heavy-water reactor under construction at Pakistan's Khushab nuclear site in Punjab state. The reactor, which reportedly will be capable of producing enough plutonium for as many as 50 bombs each year, was brought to light on Sunday by independent analysts who spotted the partially completed plant in commercial-satellite photos. Snow said the administration had "known of these plans for some time." The acknowledgment came as arms-control experts and some in Congress expressed alarm about a possible escalation of South Asia's arms race. Some also sharply criticized the administration for failing to disclose the existence of a facility that could influence an upcoming congressional debate over U.S. nuclear policy toward India and Pakistan. "If either India or Pakistan starts increasing its nuclear arsenal, the other side will respond in kind," said Rep. Edward J. Markey (D-Mass.), co-chairman of a House bipartisan task force on nonproliferation. "The Bush administration's proposed nuclear deal with India is making that much more likely." That proposal would allow the United States to share civilian nuclear technology with India. Construction of the reactor in Pakistan began as early as 2000, and the plant is still several years from completion, according to an analysis by the Institute for Science and International Security, a Washington-based nonprofit group that produces technical assessments of nuclear weapons facilities. Based on a study of satellite photos, the group estimated the new reactor to have an operating capacity of 1,000 megawatts thermal and an annual yield of at least 200 kilograms of weapons-grade plutonium. A small reactor already operating at the Khushab site is capable of producing about 10 kilograms of plutonium a year, according to the analysis. The Pakistani Foreign Ministry, reacting to a Washington Post article about the new plant, neither disputed the report nor offered specifics about the reactor. Pakistani officials acknowledged the nation's long-term ambition to expand its nuclear power infrastructure and modernize its nuclear arsenal. Pakistan is thought to possess up to 50 nuclear bombs, all based on designs that use highly enriched uranium and generally are more cumbersome than plutonium devices. "This ought to be no revelation to anyone, because Pakistan is a nuclear-weapons state," Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Tasnim Aslam said at a news conference in Islamabad, according to the Associated Press. Aslam said Pakistan's leaders "do not want an arms race in this region," but she noted that Pakistan was not the first nation in South Asia to test nuclear weapons. Rival India first tested a nuclear device in 1974 and currently has about 30 plutonium-based warheads. Weapons experts worried yesterday that Pakistan's expanded nuclear capabilities would lead countries in the region -- other than India -- to follow suit. "There are makings of a vigorous competition in fissile material production in South Asia -- between India and Pakistan in the first instance but also China as well," said Robert Einhorn, formerly the State Department's chief nonproliferation official and now a senior adviser to the Center for Strategic and International Studies, a Washington think tank. "It would be one thing if we were talking just about well-secured nuclear bombs. A larger concern is the greater amounts of fissile material, which create more opportunities for terrorists to get their hands on it." Henry D. Sokolski, the Defense Department's top nonproliferation official during the George H.W. Bush administration, said he was most surprised by the way news of the reactor in Pakistan became known. "What is baffling is that this information -- which was surely information that our own intelligence agencies had -- was kept from Congress," said Sokolski, now director of the Nonproliferation Policy Education Center. "We lack imagination if we think that this is no big deal." ---- Pak gets China's help on reactor Agencies Wednesday July 26, 2006 http://www.centralchronicle.com/20060726/2607192.htm Beijing, July 25: If Pakistan is under the scanner for trying to amass nuclear warheads, the world should also look at China's help to Islamabad in setting up a new nuclear reactor at its Khushab nuclear site, sources said. The Chinese move to assist Islamabad on this issue might stem from repeated requests from Pakistan president Pervez Musharraf and Beijing's own misgivings over the recent Indo-US civil nuclear deal. Beijing is already involved in actively assisting Pakistan in building and maintaining its existing reactors. Besides, Pakistan needs external help and support, both in terms of essential materials and technology, the sources said. China is also the most natural choice for getting nuclear help after the recent shift in US policy that resulted in Washington signing a nuclear deal with India. China and Pakistan recently celebrated half a century of close and continued friendship. China had expressed cautious reservations after the India-US deal, saying India isn't an NPT signatory. "This cooperation must meet the requirements and provisions of the international non-proliferation regime and the obligations undertaken by all countries concerned," Chinese foreign ministry spokesman Qin Gang, said at that time. -------- russia Cabinet Plan Sees $55Bln for Atomic Reactors By Yuriy Humber Staff Writer Tuesday, July 25, 2006 Moscow Times http://www.themoscowtimes.com/stories/2006/07/25/043.html The government will plow $25 billion of federal budget funds into its nuclear reactor construction program over the next nine years and raise another $30 billion from the industry and outside investors, according to a proposal being considered by the Cabinet. According to the program -- being pitched as a way to reduce the country's dependence on hydrocarbons for energy -- a total of $54.4 billion will be required to ensure that 10 new reactors begin operation by 2016. ---- Russia, Kazakhstan Sign Nuclear Deal [July 25, 2006] Moscow Times Via Thomson Dialog NewsEdge http://www.tmcnet.com/usubmit/2006/07/25/1741827.htm Russia and Kazakhstan signed off Tuesday on three joint ventures in the nuclear sector, with a focus on uranium mining and enrichment and on the development of new atomic reactors. The deal marks a compromise between the two sides, lending Russian high-tech know-how to Kazakhstan's nuclear-energy ambitions in return for plugging the deficit in Moscow's uranium needs, experts said. "Dreams of an integrated technology chain like that of Minsredmash" -- the Soviet-era nuclear ministry -- "are now a reality," Sergei Kiriyenko, head of the Federal Atomic Energy Agency, said Tuesday during a working visit to Aktau, a town on Kazakhstan's Caspian Sea. In January, President Vladimir Putin forged a nuclear alliance with counterparts from Ukraine and Kazakhstan. Putin welcomed Uzbekistan into the alliance later that month. Russia aims to boost cooperation with its CIS neighbors to secure access to nuclear facilities that were scattered after the Soviet collapse. Under the newly signed venture memorandums, state nuclear fuel trader Tenex will work with Kazhakstan's state-controlled Kazatomprom to mine the Budyonovskoye uranium deposit. A second joint venture would then process the mined ore, which in enriched form is used as fuel for nuclear reactors. Kazakhstan has 17 percent of the world's uranium reserves, with Kazatomprom holding the world's second-largest reserves, said Mikhail Stiskin, a Troika Dialog analyst. Russia currently mines just 35 percent of its uranium needs, he said. This year mining will also begin at Kazakhstan's Zarechnoye deposit, in which Russia has a 49 percent stake and a $1 billion contract to receive 1,000 tons of uranium per year. The third of the newly created joint ventures will develop a reactor along the lines of the small BVER-300 fast-neutron reactor. "We will be able to build this kind of reactor in Kazakhstan and Russia," and promote it on the global market, Kiriyenko said. "Kazakhstan wants to break into the high-tech club of nations, and a reactor like the BVER-300 would perfectly suit a large country with a small, dispersed population," said Alexander Pikayev, a nuclear expert at the Institute of World Economics and International Relations. -------- u.s. nuc facilities BCG Releases Report on Recycling U.S. Used Nuclear Fuel Tuesday, July 25, 2006 NEI Nuclear Notes http://neinuclearnotes.blogspot.com/2006/07/bcg-releases-report-on-recycling-us.html#links From The Boston Consulting Group: The Boston Consulting Group (BCG) today announced that its study, Economic Assessment of Used Nuclear Fuel Management in the United States, concludes that nuclear fuel recycling, as part of a portfolio strategy in which a large scale integrated recycling plant complements a repository (such as the planned Yucca Mountain repository) could be attractive for solving the long-term used nuclear fuel management requirement of the U.S. nuclear power market. Conducted for Bethesda , Maryland based AREVA, Inc., BCG performed the first extensive study of proprietary operational and financial data from decades of AREVAÂ?s nuclear recycling experience at La Hague and Melox facilities in France . The study shows that the economics of recycling and disposal of high level waste in Yucca Mountain are comparable to the economics of the targeted once-through U.S. fuel cycle, especially considering uncertainties that surround the nuclear fuel cycle, such as capital investment costs and uranium prices. "This study shows that current generation recycling technologies for used nuclear fuel are in an economic range that can be competitive,"? said Dennis Spurgeon, assistant secretary for Nuclear Energy. "?This economic benchmark is useful as we work on advanced recycling technologies that make better use of our energy resources and reduce the space and time needed to store nuclear waste."? For a summary, click here (PDF). Click here (PDF) for the full report. U.S. Senator Pete Domenici had some comments: "This report uses real economic figures to validate the position that it is time for the United States to embrace recycling of commercial spent fuel to maximize our energy use and minimize the amount of nuclear waste that must be stored,"? Domenici said. "A single-minded focus on burying waste is not in our best interest, or that the world. Recycling spent fuel to power new nuclear power plants here makes sense. A new focus on recycling would be beneficial to the rebirth of U.S. nuclear power and to the international goals we'?ve set with the Global Nuclear Energy Partnership,"? he said. Domenici's statement also added that the Senate Energy and Water Appropriations Subcommittee will hold a hearing in September on the report, as well GNEP and related initiatives. -------- MILITARY -------- arms British arms exports to Israel double in a year Richard Norton-Taylor Tuesday July 25, 2006 The Guardian http://www.guardian.co.uk/israel/Story/0,,1828246,00.html Britain has almost doubled the value of arms exports to Israel, according to official figures released yesterday. Arms exports to Israel approved by the government totalled £22.5m last year, almost twice the amount in 2004, according the latest annual report on strategic export controls published by four government departments. The report was released as the Liberal Democrat Leader, Sir Menzies Campbell, yesterday urged Tony Blair to suspend any further arms exports to Israel. "In light of disproportionate military action by Israel in Lebanon and Gaza the UK government must suspend any further arms exports to Israel," Sir Menzies wrote to the prime minister. He said the government was right to ensure there were no arms transfers, either direct or indirect, from Britain to Syria, Iran "or illegal armed groups such as the military wing of Hizbullah". He added: "The government must now comply with its own arms export rules and institute an immediate suspension of all UK arms exports to Israel." Licences approved for Israel last year included components for combat helicopters, aircraft radars, air-to-surface missiles and airborne electronic warfare equipment. Special licences were also approved for the sale to Israel of components for military training aircraft, naval radars, naval communications equipment, and optical sensors for unmanned air vehicles. These do not include components made by British companies in US Apache helicopters and F-16 bombers sold to Israel. The government provoked a storm of protest in 2002 by introducing new guidelines on the sale of military components. It cleared the way for head-up display units (HUDs, for presenting data without blocking view) - made by BAE Systems, Britain's largest arms company - to be sold to the US for use in F-16 planes. Ministers said the move was dictated by the interests of British arms companies. British equipment used in American Apache helicopters supplied to Israel includes missile trigger systems. Saferworld, an independent London-based thinktank campaigning against the arms trade said yesterday that the Foreign Office's human rights report states: "The UK opposes the Israeli policy of targeted killings, which are illegal under international law". Paul Eavis, director of Saferworld, said yesterday: "The government must assert a coherent policy towards countries that display a disregard for human rights". Lebanon's president accused Israel on Monday of using phosphorous bombs in its attacks, Reuters news agency reported from Paris. "According to the Geneva Convention, when they use phosphorous bombs and laser bombs, is that allowed against civilians and children?" President Emile Lahoud asked on France's RFI radio. An Israeli military spokeswoman said: "Everything the Israeli defence forces are using is legitimate". -------- israel / palestine Human Rights Watch: Israel Dropping Cluster Bombs on Lebanese Civilians Tuesday, July 25th, 2006 Democracy Now! http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=06/07/25/1442232 Human Rights Watch says Israel is firing cluster munitions at Lebanese residential neighborhoods in possible violation of international law. We speak with HRW's Peter Bouckaert in Beirut. [includes rush transcript] The United Nations has launched an emergency appeal for the international community to help the people of Lebanon. Emergency Relief Coordinator Jan Egeland said $150 million is needed urgently. A total of about 800,000 people have been forced to flee their homes. Food, water, fuel and medical supplies are running out in parts of the country. The UN says entire communities have been cut off because Israel has systemtically destroyed the country's networks of roads and bridges. Meanwhile, questions are being raised as to whether Israel is violating international law. On Sunday, UN High Commissioner Louise Arbour told CNN Israel’s actions in Lebanon could lead to the prosecution of its military commanders. Meanwhile, Human Rights Watch says Israel is shelling civilian areas with cluster bombs. On Monday, Democracy Now reached Peter Bouckaert. He's the emergencies director for Human Rights Watch, currently in Beirut. He talked about the humanitarian situation on the ground, as well as the situation for Lebanon's hundreds of thousands of refugees. * Peter Bouckaert-Emergencies Director for Human Rights Watch RUSH TRANSCRIPT AMY GOODMAN: On Monday, Democracy Now! reached Peter Bouckaert. He is the Emergencies Director for Human Rights Watch, currently in Beirut. He began by talking about the humanitarian situation on the ground. PETER BOUCKAERT: Well, I’ve been working in war zones for Human Rights Watch for the last decade almost, from Kosovo to Afghanistan and Iraq and Chechnya and Sierra Leone, and in terms of the dangers that we face out on the road, this definitely qualifies as one of the most dangerous places in the world right now. It’s very difficult to deliver humanitarian aid to the south, and villages throughout the south continue to suffer from heavy bombardment. We document case after case of civilian homes which have been hit in the south, where entire families have been wiped out. I mean, one of the issues I’ve been absolutely shocked about in terms of this conflict is the number of children who have been killed, because in almost all of the cases that we’re documenting, we’re talking about a civilian home which is hit, and the parents are killed, along with four, five, sometimes six children, some as young as one year old. The youngest casualty that we’ve documented so far is two months old. It’s very difficult to deliver aid to those villages in the south and in the Bekaa Valley, which are subject to the bombardment that we see. It’s almost impossible for the humanitarian community to get the kind of safe passage guarantee that they need to be able to work down there and to get their trucks down there to deliver humanitarian supplies, and even ambulances have been hit in the south in the last few days. On the other side of the coin, it’s also very difficult for villagers who are stuck in these villages in the south to leave their homes, even though Israel has ordered the immediate evacuation of all villages south of the Litani. We’re talking about tens of thousands of people who are effectively stuck in this very active war zone, who are unable to flee because they are too afraid to travel on the road. Just yesterday -- well, on Sunday we documented more than ten cases of civilian cars, which were hit in the south; more than forty people were wounded, and eight or nine people were killed, simply for trying to flee to safety. So it really is a very, very desperate situation throughout Lebanon these days. Just a few days ago we documented an attack, which took place last Wednesday, on the village of Blida, in which the Israelis used cluster munitions. Human Rights Watch has been very critical of the use of cluster and munitions by the U.S. military, because these are indiscriminate weapons. Basically what they are is one big shell, which opens up and drops a number of smaller bomblets over a very large area. Many of these bomblets don’t explode, so they effectively turn into mines. In this one attack that we documented one elderly woman was killed and twelve people were wounded from one family, including seven children. The husband of the family lost both of his legs, and I interviewed him in the hospital two days ago. So we’re very concerned that Israel is using these indiscriminate weapons, cluster bombs, in populated areas. It’s simply not acceptable and is a violation of the Geneva Conventions, because these are indiscriminate and very, very dangerous weapons. AMY GOODMAN: Peter Bouckaert of Human Rights Watch also talked about the plight of Lebanon's refugees. PETER BOUCKAERT: The United Nations has estimated that there is up to 500,000 displaced people in Lebanon today. That’s almost a quarter of the population of Lebanon, and I think those numbers are quite accurate. There’s more than a hundred schools in Beirut alone, who have been packed with refugees. Yesterday, we visited an underground parking lot of a major shopping center, where refugees are sleeping on two separate levels of the parking lot. And we go around on a daily basis to school after school after school, where every classroom has been taken over by multiple families. And they’re not just people fleeing from the south. There are also those from Beirut itself, especially from the southern suburbs, who have lost their homes in this very fierce bombardment of the southern suburbs, the Shia-dominated suburbs of Lebanon. I can’t emphasize just how vast the destruction is in the southern suburbs. Walking around there is just a stunning experience. You know, you’re walking around and looking at these fourteen-story apartment buildings who have just been completely taken down, and you wonder what the military purpose Israel is hopes to achieve by taking down these civilian apartment buildings. Certainly there were in some of these neighborhoods some minor Hezbollah offices. For example, in one neighborhood we visited, there was a coop run by Hezbollah and a political office, but we don’t think it justifies the kind of massive destruction that Israel is causing in these civilian neighborhoods of South Beirut. I think it’s time for the international community to step in and to stop this onslaught on the civilian population of Lebanon. This is totally different from the kind of bombardment that we saw in Iraq and Afghanistan. Certainly we documented a lot of civilian casualties in Iraq and Afghanistan when we worked there, but at least in most of those cases we were able to determine what the specific military objective was that the U.S. hoped to achieve by these military strikes. In the case of Lebanon it’s very, very difficult for us to see, at Human Rights Watch, what specific military objectives Israel is trying to achieve by bombarding these civilian homes in the south and the civilian neighborhoods of Southern Beirut. It certainly seems very far removed from fighting a war directly with Hezbollah. AMY GOODMAN: Peter Bouckaert is Emergencies Director from Human Rights Watch. He was speaking to us from Beirut. ---- Lebanese President Accuses Israel of Using White Phosphorus Bombs in Lebanon Tuesday, July 25th, 2006 http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=06/07/25/1442242 Independent journalist Dahr Jamail, who exposed how the U.S. used white phosphorus bombs in Iraq, says Israel is using the same tactic in Lebanon. We speak to him in Beirut. While Human Rights Watch is accusing Israel of using cluster bombs, the Lebanese president Emile Lahoud says Israel is also using white phosphorus. Lebanese doctors have reported witnessing the effects of white phosphorus on their patients. Independent journalist is in Beirut and has spoken to some of those doctors. We reached him earlier today. * Dahr Jamail -Independent journalist. Dahr Jamail spent the last week on the Syria-Lebanon border and the last several days in Beirut. RUSH TRANSCRIPT AMY GOODMAN: Independent journalist Dahr Jamail is in Beirut and has spoken to some of those doctors. We reached him earlier today. DAHR JAMAIL: Yesterday, I went to the Beirut University Hospital. It's one of the larger hospitals in Beirut, and I was speaking with the assistant director there. His name is Bilal Masri. And he told me -- first off, we were talking about the casualty situation, and then this led into the white phosphorus situation in Southern Lebanon. And first off, he said that they were receiving very many casualties there, mostly from the south, being brought into them by the Red Crescent and Lebanese Red Cross, and that 55% of all the casualties in Beirut, according to Mr. Masri, were children 15 years or younger. He then said another startling statistic, that 30% of all the casualties are dying. And this was an extremely high casualty rate, far higher than anything they saw during the Lebanese Civil War, meaning that of every one hit, 30% of the people are dying outright. And I asked him why, and he said that it's because the Israelis are using these bombs that can penetrate through bomb shelters, that there’s been so many refugees seeking shelter in basements or in bomb shelters, and the Israelis are bombing the bomb shelters. Warplanes are bombing the bomb shelters where refugees are hiding. And also there was such a disproportionate number of children being killed and wounded, because children, he said, were the least able to really escape when the bombings began. Children were the least able to really effectively run away and get to safety themselves. While we were talking, he said that it was actually confirmed by the Ministry of the Interior in Lebanon that the minister himself did confirm that the Israelis have dropped white phosphorus in Southern Lebanon, and interestingly, just before I had gone to this hospital, I was at a refugee camp in a city park in downtown Beirut, and I interviewed an old man, a 76-year-old baker, who had told me that they fled Nabatiya down in Southern Lebanon, which is the city where it is suspected that this white phosphorus has been used and where it was confirmed by the Minister of the Interior, and this old man told me that they left because when the bombings there began -- this was within the first few days of the attack, within the first week, that is, I’m sorry -- that he left because his family was so afraid, because nearby where they lived, homes were being bombed, and inside the buildings and outside the buildings, they were glowing, as he described it. He said, “There were fires, that -- of course, we know what regular fire looks like, but this was not that -- that the buildings were glowing. We were all very afraid. We didn't want to get anywhere near it. And they kept bombing, and so we decided to leave.” But without a doubt, I think the most important thing that people need to understand right now is that the Israelis are using white phosphorus in Southern Lebanon, and also it's been unconfirmed, but the Lebanese Army is reporting that they are using -- dropping cluster bombs from warplanes, as well, and other illegal munitions also. But that, as of yet, to be confirmed by an independent source. AMY GOODMAN: Independent journalist Dahr Jamail, speaking to us from Beirut. -------- un Bolton Lied by Gordon Prather July 25, 2006 Antiwar.com http://www.antiwar.com/prather/?articleid=9399 On July 13, John Bolton – our unconfirmed ambassador to the United Nations – vetoed a proposed Security Council resolution that would have demanded Israel halt its military offensive into the Gaza Strip. The resolution, "Condemning military assault being carried out by Israel, the occupying power, in the Gaza Strip, which has caused the killing and injury of dozens of Palestinian civilians, and the destruction of Palestinian property and civilian infrastructure, notably Gaza's main power station, and condemning also the detention of democratically elected Palestinian and other officials," called upon Israel "to halt its military operations and its disproportionate use of force that endanger the Palestinian civilian population and to withdraw its forces to their original positions outside the Gaza Strip." Why did Bolton veto the resolution proposed by Qatar? Well, the assaults carried out by the Israelis against the Gaza Strip (supposedly in retaliation for cross-border assaults by Islamic jihadists, allegedly associated with Hamas, the ruling Palestinian political party) had by then been eclipsed by Israeli assaults against Lebanon (supposedly in retaliation for cross-border assaults by another Islamic jihadist group, Hezbollah). Bolton also claimed, "The draft resolution before the Council was unbalanced. It placed demands on one side in the Middle East conflict but not the other. This draft resolution would have exacerbated tensions in the region and would have undermined our vision of two democratic states, Israel and Palestine, living side-by-side in peace and security. "Passage would also have undermined the credibility of the Security Council, which itself must be seen by both sides as an honest broker in the Middle East conflict. In this regard, public statements of UN officials must also accurately reflect positions agreed by member governments. "Establishing the foundations for a lasting peace, however, will require us to focus our attention not just on Hamas, but on the state sponsors of terror who back them – particularly Syria and Iran. Let us be clear that without the financial and material support of Damascus and Tehran, Hamas would be severely crippled in carrying out its terrorist operations. "We call upon Syria and Iran to end their role as state sponsors of terror and unequivocally condemn the actions of Hamas, including this kidnapping. "We yet again call upon Syria to arrest the Hamas ringleader, Khaled Meshal, who currently resides in Damascus. "We stress again our condemnation of Syrian and Iranian support of Hezbollah, which has claimed responsibility for the other kidnappings along the Blue Line between Israel and Lebanon." Places demands on Israel, but not on Lebanon? Or Syria? Or Iran? Well, Bolton, welcome to fourth-generation war. As William Lind puts it, "With Hezbollah's entry into the war between Israel and Hamas, Fourth Generation war has taken another developmental step forward. For the first time, a non-state entity has gone to war with a state, not by waging an insurgency against a state invader, but across an international boundary." Bolton was never confirmed by the Senate largely because of the opposition of Sen. George Voinovich (R-Ohio). But a week after Bolton vetoed the proposed UNSC resolution condemning Israel, Voinovich changed his tune. "Ambassador Bolton's appointment expires this fall when the Senate officially recesses. "Should the president send his renomination to the Senate, I will vote to confirm him, and I call on my Democratic colleagues to keep in mind the current situation in the Middle East and the rest of the world should the Senate have an opportunity to vote. "I do not believe the United States, at this dangerous time, can afford to have a UN ambassador who does not have Congress's full support. "For the good of our country, the United Nations and the free world, we must end any ambiguity about whether John Bolton speaks for the United States so that he can work to support our interests at the United Nations during this critical time." In case you've forgotten, "diplomat" Bolton attempted to strong-arm the Security Council into – in contravention of procedures set out in Chapter VII of the UN Charter – invoking sanctions on Iran (for refusing to suspend legal uranium-enrichment activities) and on North Korea (for refusing to suspend legal ballistic missile tests). In both cases, the Security Council did not invoke Chapter VII. Did not conclude that Iran's or North Korea's legal activities constituted a "threat to the peace." Did not impose or threaten to impose sanctions. In both cases, Bolton told you that the Security Council effectively had. He lied. -------- us U.S. Broadcast Exclusive: Star Wars in Iraq: Is the U.S. Using New Experimental Tactical High Energy Laser Weapons in Iraq? Tuesday, July 25th, 2006 Democracy Now! http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=06/07/25/1442252 In November, a documentary from Italy’s RAI Television accusing the United States of illegally white phosphorus during its attack on Fallujah. A new documentary says the United States is now using experimental laser weapons against Iraqi civilians. We play an excerpt. [includes rush transcript] From illegal weapons in Lebanon we turn to Iraq. In November, Democracy Now aired a documentary from accusing the United States of illegally white phosphorus during its attack on Fallujah. The Pentagon was forced to admit to the charge after more than a week of denials. The same Italian team has produced a new documentary. It says the United States is now using experimental laser weapons against Iraqi civilians. Today, in another U.S. broadcast exclusive, we bring you an excerpt. It’s called “Star Wars in Iraq”, produced by Maurizio Torrealta and Sigfrido Ranucci for RAI Television. * "Star Wars in Iraq"-documents US use of experimental weapons in Iraq, produced by Maurizio Torrealta and Sigfrido Rannuci for Italy's RAI TV RUSH TRANSCRIPT AMY GOODMAN: Today, in another U.S. broadcast exclusive, we bring you an excerpt. It's called Star Wars in Iraq, produced by Maurizio Torrealta and Sigfrido Ranucci for RAI Television. MAJID AL GHEZALI: They used incredible weapons, absolutely. PATRICK DILLON: Experimental weapons? MAJID AL GHEZALI: Yes. Yes, I think. Yeah, they shoot the bus. We saw the bus like a cloth, like a wet cloth. It seems like a Volkswagen, a big bus like a Volkswagen. NARRATOR: This testimony was reported to American filmmaker Patrick Dillon a few weeks after the battle for the airport. The person interviewed, Majid al Ghezali, is a well-known and respected man in Baghdad, who is the first violinist in the city orchestra. In addition to describing the battle, Majid al Ghezali wanted to show Patrick Dillon the site near the airport where the mysterious weapon was used, along with the traces of fused metal still visible, and the irregularly sized ditches where the bodies were buried before they were exhumed. We sought out Majid al Ghezali to hear more details of his story. We met up with him in Amman, and he pointed out some inexplicable peculiarities on the bodies of the victims of the battle for the airport. MAJID AL GHEZALI: Just the head was burnt, and the other parts of the bodies wasn’t anything happened on it. NARRATOR: Al Ghezali reported that he had seen three passengers in a car, all dead, with their faces and teeth burnt, the body intact, and no sign of projectiles. MAJID AL GHEZALI: There wasn’t any bullet. I saw the teeth, just the teeth and no eyes, all of them. With the body, nothing for the bodies. Just the teeth, and all the -- I mean, the heads were burnt. NARRATOR: There were other inexplicable aspects. The terrain where the battle took place was dug up by the American military and replaced with other fresh earth. The bodies that were not hit by projectiles had shrunk to just slightly more than one meter in height. MAJID AL GHEZALI: Except the bodies killed by the bullets, most of them became very small. I mean, it’s like that. Something like that. NARRATOR: We asked Majid what weapon he imagined had been used. MAJID AL GHEZALI: One year later, we heard that this is updated technology they used, a unique one. It’s like lasers. NARRATOR: We found another disturbing document on the use of mysterious weapons in Iraq, which referred to episodes taking place almost at the same time as those described by Majid al Ghezali. SAAD AL FALLUJI: Twenty-six in the bus. About twenty of them, some of them have no head. They had been cut. Some of them, the arms, the legs. The only one who didn’t injure was the driver, and really I don’t know how he reached our hospital, because one hand, one arm was in his lap, one head beside him. It was a very, very strange, horrible thing. In the roof of the car there was parts of the bodies: omentum, intestines, brains, all parts of the body. It was miserable. Very, very, very, very miserable. GEERT VAN MOORTER: Do you have idea with what kind of weapons they attacked that bus? SAAD AL FALLUJI: This bus, we didn’t know what kind of weapon hit. Really what we saw cut arms, cut legs, cut head, abdomen, open abdomen, viscera outside. DOCTOR NO. 2: It seems to be a new weapon. SAAD AL FALLUJI: Yes, a new weapon. DOCTOR NO. 2: They are trying to do experiments on our civilians. Nobody can identify what the type of this weapon. NARRATOR: We went to Belgium to find the filmmaker of this sequence, Geert Van Moorter, a doctor working as a volunteer in Iraq. GEERT VAN MOORTER: Here in this footage is taken in the hospital, the General Teaching Hospital in Hilla, which is about 100 kilometers from Baghdad and close to the historical site of Babylon. Here, we had a talk with the colleague doctor Saad al Falluji, which is the chief surgeon in that hospital. Doctor al Falluji said me that from the survivors that he operated, that they said they did not hear any noise. So there was no explosion to hear, no metal fragments or shrapnels or bullets in the bodies, so they themselves were thinking of some strange kinds of weapon, which they did not know. NARRATOR: Let’s hear Dr. Saad al Falluji’s story about this more in detail. SAAD AL FALLUJI: This bus was very crowded. They went from Hilla to Kifil to see their families, but before they reached the checkpoint of American checkpoint, they returned back. They said to them, “Please return.” The villagers, they said to them, “Return back. Return back.” When he tried to return back, they shoot him from the checkpoint. GEERT VAN MOORTER: No gunshot wounds? SAAD AL FALLUJI: No, no, I don’t know what it was. We are here, ten surgeons. We couldn’t decide what was the weapon which hit this car. GEERT VAN MOORTER: But inside the bodies, you did not discover ordinary bullets? SAAD AL FALLUJI: All of them being -- we didn’t find bullets. We didn’t find bullets. But most of the passenger people been dead, so they took them immediately to the refrigerator. We couldn’t dissect and see. But those who were alive, we couldn’t find any kind of shells. We didn’t find shells inside their bodies. DOCTOR NO. 2: Something cutting organs, cutting limbs, attacking the neck, attacking the abdomen, it goes out. NARRATOR: Dr. Falluji also ended up speaking about a laser weapon. SAAD AL FALLUJI: But I don’t think the bombing and the cluster bombs and the laser weapons could bring democracy to our country. NARRATOR: As in any war, the war in Iraq left us a dreadful gallery of horror, images of mutilations that not even doctors can explain. The witnesses referred to laser weapons, arms with mysterious effects. We do not know what kind of weapons could produce such terrible effects. We tried to learn more about it by asking for interviews to members of companies manufacturing laser and microwave weapons, yet the U.S. Defense Department prevented any information from being released to us. They also did not answer, up to the time the film was edited, the questions we had sent them in order to know whether or not experimental weapons had been tested in Iraq and Afghanistan. We tracked down the Pentagon press conferences from before the beginning of the second Gulf war to see if they spoke about any new weapons being tested. The words of the Secretary of Defense and General Myers indicate a willingness to try weapons that had never been used before. And the questions from the press about direct energy and microwave weapons made them visibly uncomfortable. JOURNALIST: Mr. Secretary, can I ask you a question about some of the technology that you're developing to fight the war on terrorists, specifically directed energy and high-powered microwave technology? Do you -- when do you envision that you can weaponize that type of technology? DONALD RUMSFELD: Goodness, it is in -- for the most part, the kinds of things you're talking about are in varying early stages. Do you want to -- do you have anything you would add? GEN. RICHARD MYERS: I don't think I would add much. I think they are in early stages and probably not ready for employment at this point. DONALD RUMSFELD: In the normal order of things, when you invest in research and development and begin a developmental project, you don't have any intention or expectations that one would use it. On the other hand, the real world intervenes from time to time, and you reach in there and take something out that is still in a developmental stage, and you might use it. So the -- your question's not answerable. It is -- it depends on what happens in the future and how well things move along the track and whether or not someone feels it's appropriate to reach into a development stage and see if something might be useful, as was the case with the unmanned aerial vehicles. JOURNALIST: But you sound like you're willing to experiment with it. GEN. RICHARD MYERS: Yeah, I think that's the point. And I think -- and it's -- we have, I think, from the beginning of this conflict -- I think General Franks has been very open to looking at new things, if there are new things available, and has been willing to put them into the fight, even before they've been fully wrung out. And I think that's -- not referring to these particular cases of directed energy or high-powered microwave, but sure. And we will continue to do that. NARRATOR: But what is meant by direct-energy microwave weapons? We went to ask ex-colonel John Alexander, former program director in one of the most important military research laboratories in the U.S., Los Alamos National Laboratory. COL. JOHN B. ALEXANDER: The research and certainly the concepts for direct-energy weapons go back many decades. What is happening is that the technology has now advanced sufficiently that we’re starting to see the weapons come into fruition. In other words, they’re becoming real. There are several types of directed-energy weapons, and basically what they do is they’re known as “speed of light,” because they shoot electrons very fast over very long distances. Lasers, of course, are in the light range. Then there’s microwave weapons that are operating at other frequencies, but basically they’re beam weapons, in which nothing physical goes out. The electrons move, but the kinetic weapons we talk about, you’re shooting big bullets to go out and physically hit and destroy something. These work because the energy is deposed on the target and causes some effect. NARRATOR: These images document one of the THEL tests. THEL stands for Tactical High Energy Laser. In the sequence, you can see the laser beam hit and destroy missiles and mortar rounds as they are about to hit the objective. In this other test, we see the laser beam identify and destroy two missiles at the same time. GEERT VAN MOORTER: They don’t make any noise, and they are invisible? COL. JOHN B. ALEXANDER: Some are visible, some are just outside. You have, you know, in the infrared range, what’s emerging now are laser weapons where the effect is that that of the laser. And they can be hole-burners, what we call very high energy lasers, because with the concentrated energy you can literally drill holes, you know, in a target. NARRATOR: Former Pentagon analyst William Arkin, who presently works as a journalist for the Washington Post, also confirms this revolutionary change from kinetic weapons to energy weapons. WILLIAM ARKIN: For thousands of years, the way in which you’ve killed someone is you have hit them with a sword, a sphere, an arrow, a bullet, a bomb. It’s kinetic. You’re killing them by hitting them. And now, all of a sudden, out of nowhere, you have a completely new physical principle being applied in killing people, in which they don’t know that they’re being killed because their skin and body is being heated by high power microwaves or they are being shot at by a laser which would have an instantaneous effect. NARRATOR: There are other types of weapons made with lasers, such as the device we can see in this sequence. The target is not hit by a projectile, but rather by an impulse of energy that manages to bore through the armor of a tank. Apart from acoustic weapons, so far the only sign of the use of energy weapons in a war scenario is a laser device known as Zeus. According to official Pentagon sources, military vehicles equipped with this laser device have been used in Afghanistan to explode mines or IEDs. According to two reliable military information sites, Defense Tech and Defense Daily, at least three such vehicles are being used in Iraq, as well, and some people report having seen them. GEERT VAN MOORTER: When you showed me the pictures of what you described that is a laser weapon, it reminds me that I was with some American soldiers talking in August 2003, and there was some kind of box on their tank with a blue light like this. I recall it very well, not because of the soldiers told me what it was used for, but because I was teasing a translator, which was a female Iraqi translator, by telling, “Look, this is some kind of thing where they can look through and see somebody without clothes.” That’s why I remind it, but this kind of thing I have seen for sure on that tank. NARRATOR: William Arkin is one of the American experts who follows the Pentagon activity most closely. So what does Arkin think about the possibility of the use of direct-energy weapons in battle in Iraq? WILLIAM ARKIN: I can imagine that there could be some, what we call, “black use” of these weapons, but not in any significant way and certainly not in such a way that one would conclude that they’ve had any impact. NARRATOR: But let’s look at the Pentagon budget figures to see how important the outlay is for direct-energy weapons. WILLIAM ARKIN: So, right now you have about $50 million a year being spent on non-lethal weapons. You have about another $200 million or so being spent on high power microwaves, active denial-type systems. You’ve got probably another $100 to 200 million being spent on secret black laser programs. And then you’ve got the big lasers, the high energy laser of the Air Force and the other tactical lasers. So probably, when you add all of that up, you know, the United States is probably spending a half of a billion dollars a year right now on directed-energy weapons, you know, probably somewhere in the order of 300-400 million euros. So this is a significant amount of money. This is the size of the defense budgets of some countries in Europe. AMY GOODMAN: That was William Arkin in the documentary, Star Wars in Iraq, produced by RAI Italian television. It was produced by Maurizio Torrealta and Sigfrido Ranucci. -------- ENERGY -------- alternative energy Texas Tops in Wind Energy Production July 25, 2006 — By Steve Quinn, Associated Press http://www.enn.com/today.html?id=10931 DALLAS — Long known as a top oil- and natural gas-producing state, Texas has gained new energy acclaim by becoming the nation's top producer of wind energy. Texas capacity stands at 2,370 megawatts, enough to power 600,000 average-sized homes a year, according to a midyear report released Tuesday by the American Wind Energy Association. That puts Texas slightly ahead of California, the nation's leader since 1981. California has 2,323 megawatts of capacity. The total U.S. capacity is 9,971 megawatts. So far this year, Texas has added 375 megawatts, or 46 percent of the total 822 megawatts brought online nationwide. Last year, wind energy generation grew 35 percent nationwide, adding 2,431 megawatts, but that fell short of the projected 2,500. The wind association believes it can add 3,000 megawatts nationwide this year, even if that means another 2,178 megawatts by year's end. "There are substantially more developments in the pipeline," said Randall Swisher, the association's executive director. "We are just about where we thought we would be in terms of appearing to be on course for another industry record for the year." Texas had slowly been creeping up on California the past few years, so taking the top spot was inevitable, wind energy consultants said. A favorable business and permitting climate along with plentiful land have attracted investments from as far away as Ireland. Mike Sloan, president of Austin-based Virtus Energy Research Associates, estimates about $2 billion will be invested in wind energy development statewide this year and about $4.5 billion nationwide. "Wind energy is a prudent hedging vehicle," Sloan said. "So many policy leaders around the country see the importance of energy diversity and how homegrown renewables make a lot of sense." Next, Texas wants to be home to more than just the place with the most wind energy generation capacity, said Jerry Patterson, the state's land commissioner. Patterson said he believes Texas can be an industry hub, just as it has been for oil and natural gas. In addition to significant statewide developments, Texas has signed two agreements since last fall with developers to build offshore wind farms along the Gulf Coast. Wind energy, however, still has a long way to go before it's considered conventional rather than an alternative. It makes up about 1 percent of the nation's electricity. To become an attractive investment, wind farm developers often rely on federal tax credits. For the next 18 months, projects coming online receive these credits of 1.9 cents per kilowatt hour. Those incentives are good for 10 years thereafter. But there is no guarantee that any projects completed after 2007 will receive those tax credits and that discourages long-term development, energy officials said. Energy consultant Bruce Bailey is confident some kind of subsidy will be available after 2007. Bailey, who is president of AWS Truewind LLC in Albany, N.Y., said federal lawmakers are becoming increasingly more bullish on this renewable energy and won't likely let it expire without an extension. ---- One Man's Long Battle To Get U.S. to Kick Oil By Steven Mufson Washington Post Staff Writer Tuesday, July 25, 2006; D01 http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/07/24/AR2006072400976_pf.html OLD SNOWMASS, Colo. In 1976, Gerald Ford was president, Americans flocked to see "Rocky" (the first one), oil was $13 a barrel, and Amory B. Lovins wrote a massive piece in Foreign Affairs magazine declaring that the United States stood at a crossroads on energy policy. The first path, he wrote, led to ever greater output of coal, oil and nuclear, a capital-intensive strategy dubbed "strength through exhaustion." The second path relied primarily on greater efficiency as well as the development of such alternative energy sources as wind, solar power and biofuels. Thirty years later, the price of oil -- even after adjusting for inflation -- is almost twice as high and what President Bush has called the nation's "addiction" to oil has grown more dire. But the answer according to Lovins is pretty much the same: It's a lot cheaper, easier and faster to save energy than it is to buy or produce it. "Churchill said that you could count on the Americans to do the right thing once they had exhausted all other possibilities," Lovins said, recalling the British leader's eagerness for the United States to enter the fight against Germany in World War II. "You could say the same about energy policy." One thing that anyone listening to Lovins won't lack is a sense of possibility. "He's like a Johnny Appleseed of ideas," said Gregory Kats, a former employee of Lovins's, who now helps run the energy-consulting firm Capital E. With his reformulation of the energy issue, Lovins has been hailed as one of the country's most influential thinkers. As head of a nonprofit consulting and design group, the Rocky Mountain Institute, Lovins says new technologies would not only ease the oil crisis but could help bring the end of the oil era. Sitting in the dining room of his home, which doubles as an office for the institute, the balding, mustachioed Lovins, 58, sounds like the Oxford University don he once was -- before Oxford decided that studying energy wasn't a serious academic pursuit. He tosses out ideas on everything from more efficient military vehicles to commercial trucks, from decentralizing Iraq's utility sector to installing wind turbines in Britain, from making commercial buildings more energy efficient to improving automobile fuel mileage by using lighter materials for metal interior elements. And he offers piles of studies, fistfuls of newsletters and a helmet made of light, carbon-nylon fiber. "Our energy future is choice, not fate," says one of his studies, "Winning the Oil Endgame," which has glowing introductions by the likes of former secretary of state George P. Shultz and former Royal Dutch/Shell Group chairman Mark Moody-Stuart. "Oil dependence is a problem we need no longer have -- and it's cheaper not to. U.S. oil dependence can be eliminated by proven and attractive technologies that create wealth, enhance choice, and strengthen common security." Back in 1976, Lovins, who had dropped out of Harvard to study and then teach at Oxford, was the British representative of Friends of the Earth. Since 1982 he has been at the Rocky Mountain Institute, which has a $5.2 million budget and peddles its ideas to more than 80 of the country's biggest corporations, such as Wal-Mart Stores Inc., Coca-Cola Co., Texas Instruments Inc. and Royal Dutch Shell. One company, Rio Tinto Group, which was pressured into canceling a copper and gold mining project in Wales in the 1970s after Lovins wrote a book with photos on what he called the area's spectacular "Mountains of Longing," is now a client studying how to save money at an Arctic diamond mine. Sources familiar with his institute say that Lovins can command daily consulting fees of up to $15,000 to $20,000, a far cry from his days as an environmentalist. "He's been fantastic," said Andy Ruben, vice president for strategic planning and sustainability at Wal-Mart. Lovins suggested that Wal-Mart get its truck drivers to stop using the main engine to air-condition their cabs while parked. Instead, he proposed using small, more efficient engines installed behind the fuel tank. Ruben says the change will save 10 million gallons a year for Wal-Mart, which operates 7,200 trucks, the second-largest private fleet in the nation. Ruben said Lovins also introduced him to the idea of "phantom loads," electricity used by televisions, microwaves and other appliances while turned off. Wal-Mart may ask suppliers to redesign such devices. Lovins and his colleagues at RMI, Ruben said, are "big thinkers and have got a different lens they see things through." Lovins said he likes working with a company that can make decisions quickly and is big enough to have a real impact. But if Lovins has gone the corporate route to push his ideas, his living environment is very different. His 4,000-foot house-cum-office, perched at an altitude of 7,100 feet in a valley here in the Rocky Mountains, is a working model of what he sees as possible. Though temperatures can drop to minus-47 degrees Fahrenheit and frost can form most of the year, the house runs on the amount of energy it takes to fuel one conventional light bulb, largely because of a good insulation and a central, sun-filled atrium, which is stocked year-round with tropical plants and fish. (Lovins says he's harvested 28 banana crops inside the atrium.) Some well-placed fans, vents and ducts circulate the air and distribute heat. Solar cells on the roof supplement the house's energy needs, which are modest, thanks to compact fluorescent light bulbs and energy-efficient appliances, so eerily quiet that Lovins installed a small waterfall fountain for a little background noise. (True, the house did seem a bit dimly lighted as his interview-lecture lasted longer than the daylight.) He used to share the house with his wife, co-author and partner L. Hunter Lovins, but the two split up in 2002. His current partner is Judy Hill, a landscape photographer. His entryway is full of stuffed toy orangutans, though he has no children. Less energy demand from houses like his is part of Lovins's push for a future with fewer big, capital-intensive power plants and more localized power-generating facilities. "The power sector is now a black hole for capital," he said. There's a security dimension, too. More than 20 years ago he wrote an Atlantic Monthly article about how "microgeneration" would help make the United States less vulnerable to sabotage. Now, with the post-Sept. 11 obsession with terrorism, Lovins finds himself getting renewed interest from national security experts on the conservative end of the political spectrum. R. James Woolsey, a former CIA director long interested in Lovins's ideas, co-authored a piece with Lovins on security in 2002. Lovins testified before Congress in March on energy independence. He says that the United States has saved three units of energy for every new one produced since the mid-1970s. "The most comprehensive threat to our national energy security is our current national energy policy," he says. Unlike some environmentalists, Lovins remains adamantly opposed to nuclear power, which he says doesn't make economic or nonproliferation sense. New U.S. subsidies in last year's Energy Policy Act, he notes, "are equal to the entire capital cost of the next six reactors . . . but is similar to defibrillating a corpse: it will jump but not revive." He opposes the accord before Congress that would enable U.S. companies to help India's civilian nuclear power sector. India, he says, was the world's third-largest installer of wind-power generation last year (after Germany and Spain). It would do better by promoting efficiency, he said, than by sinking money into nuclear plants, which will account for only 4 percent of the country's energy needs. "We're going to blow up what's left of the nonproliferation regimes to promote a sector that doesn't make sense," Lovins said. Automobile efficiency is a key element in Lovins's vision for ending America's oil dependency. For years he promoted a light, aero-dynamic "Hypercar" that he helped design, which he said got more than 100 miles per gallon. Ultimately, he said, it would run on a fuel cell powered by tanks of compressed gaseous hydrogen fuel. General Motors Corp. talked to Lovins but ultimately did not adopt it. Some colleagues say Lovins was unrealistic about Detroit. His company, Hypercar Inc., has morphed into FiberForge, a private company that makes ultra-light composite products for bike helmets, skateboards and laptop cases. The goal is still to alter the automobile industry by making parts for lighter, more fuel-efficient cars without sacrificing safety. The Rocky Mountain Institute owns a fifth of FiberForge. After 30 years, Lovins can seem quixotic in his quest for new energy policies and practices. As Lovins concedes, good ideas often lie fallow. "He'll say you can do this in six years and in theory you could -- if there were no such thing as reality," said a person who has worked with Lovins and spoke on condition of anonymity to preserve their relationship. "There are interests, and you need to net in half of what he says for starters, maybe. If you're a CEO, you'll bring him in, listen and wean out the ones you can do." But maybe his time is arriving. Even the Pentagon has talked to him about ways to save fuel. And then there's Cary Bullock, chief executive of GreenFuel Technologies Corp., which is researching technology that would use sunlight and algae to convert carbon dioxide byproducts at power plants or factories into usable transportation fuel. In 1976, Bullock was working at a company that specialized in optical character recognition. After reading the Lovins article in Foreign Affairs, Bullock quit and went into the energy business. "It was a visionary article," Bullock said. "Every now and then someone wanders into a field and starts talking and has a dramatic impact." -------- -------- energy -------- -------- OTHER -------- environment -------- -------- genetics -------- -------- health -------- -------- imf / world bank / wto (economics) -------- poverty -------- ACTIVISTS -------- --------