The United Nations refugee agency today warned more than 2,000 Congolese sheltering in Burundi against returning to their homes in conflict-ridden eastern Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC).

Inspectors from the United Nations International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) will visit a newly disclosed uranium enrichment facility in Iran on 25 October, the world body said.

An independent United Nations human rights expert today criticized the recent election of judges to the Supreme Court in Guatemala, saying the process was rushed and lacked transparency and objectivity.

An independent United Nations human rights expert today criticized the recent election of judges to the Supreme Court in Guatemala, saying the process was rushed and lacked transparency and objectivity.

Information and communication technologies are vital to tackling climate change, Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon told a global forum that kicked off today in Geneva, urging participants to think of creative ways to use the latest technology to usher in a green economy.

A great canard has been exploded. Jew hater Mahmoud Ahmadinejad  has no Jewish roots it seems, contradicting an earlier story (see Ahmadinejad Jewish? )

Farmers in Mauritania will receive financial help to turn milk into butter and cheese, to clean and package the vegetables they grow and to add value to other raw products under a $12 million programme unveiled by the United Nations agency tasked with eradicating rural poverty.

The blog is likely to go quiet for a few days as we head up to Manchester for the Conservative Party Conference. Should be an interesting few days, especially with our fringe event on what the Tories should do about Europe scheduled for Wednesday.

For our take on what they should do about the referendum/Lisbon mess, see here for the ‘third way’ option:
http://conservativehome.blogs.com/platform/2009/09/lorraine-mullally-.html

Would welcome your comments here!

Turning the carbon screws on businesses so they lobby Congress for cap and trade.

‘In recent years, many Americans have had cause to wonder whether decisions made at EPA were guided by science and the law, or whether those principles had been trumped by politics,” declared Lisa Jackson in San Francisco last week. The Environmental Protection Agency chief can’t stop kicking the Bush Administration, but the irony is that the Obama EPA is far more “political” than the Bush team ever was.
How else to explain the coordinated release on Wednesday of the EPA’s new rules that make carbon a dangerous pollutant and John Kerry’s cap-and-trade bill? Ms. Jackson is issuing a political ultimatum to business, as well as to Midwestern and rural Democrats: Support the Kerry-Obama climate tax agenda—or we’ll punish your utilities and consumers without your vote.
The EPA has now formally made an “endangerment finding” on CO2, which will impose the command-and-control regulations of the Clean Air Act across the entire economy. Because this law was never written to apply to carbon, the costs will far exceed those of a straight carbon tax or even cap and trade—though judging by the bills Democrats are stitching together, perhaps not by much. In any case, the point of this reckless “endangerment” is to force industry and politicians wary of raising taxes to concede, lest companies have to endure even worse economic and bureaucratic destruction from the EPA.
Ms. Jackson made a show of saying her new rules would only apply to some 10,000 facilities that emit more than 25,000 tons of carbon dioxide each year, as if that were a concession. These are the businesses—utilities, refineries, heavy manufacturers and so forth—that have the most to lose and are therefore most sensitive to political coercion.

The idea is to get Exelon and other utilities to lobby Congress to pass a cap-and-trade bill that gives them compensating emissions allowances that they can sell to offset the cost of the new regulations. White House green czar Carol Browner was explicit on the coercion point last week, telling a forum hosted by the Atlantic Monthly that the EPA move would “obviously encourage the business community to raise their voices in Congress.” In Sicily and parts of New Jersey, they call that an offer you can’t refuse.
Yet one not-so-minor legal problem is that the Clean Air Act’s statutory language states unequivocally that the EPA must regulate any “major source” that emits more than 250 tons of a pollutant annually, not 25,000. The EPA’s Ms. Jackson made up the higher number out of whole cloth because the lower legal threshold—which was intended to cover traditional pollutants, not ubiquitous carbon—would sweep up farms, restaurants, hospitals, schools, churches and other businesses. Sources that would be required to install pricey “best available control technology” would increase to 41,000 per year, up from 300 today, while those subject to the EPA’s construction permitting would jump to 6.1 million from 14,000.
That’s not our calculation. It comes from the EPA itself, which also calls it “an unprecedented increase” that would harm “an extraordinarily large number of sources.” The agency goes on to predict years of delay and bureaucratic backlog that “would impede economic growth by precluding any type of source—whether it emits GHGs or not—from constructing or modifying for years after its business plan contemplates.” We pointed this out earlier this year, only to have Ms. Jackson and the anticarbon lobby deny it.
Usually it takes an act of Congress to change an act of Congress, but Team Obama isn’t about to let democratic—or even Democratic—consent interfere with its carbon extortion racket. To avoid the political firestorm of regulating the neighborhood coffee shop, the EPA is justifying its invented rule on the basis of what it calls the “absurd results” doctrine. That’s not a bad moniker for this whole exercise.
The EPA admits that it is “departing from the literal application of statutory provisions.” But it says the courts will accept its revision because literal application will produce results that are “so illogical or contrary to sensible policy as to be beyond anything that Congress could reasonably have intended.”
Well, well. Shouldn’t the same “absurd results” theory pertain to shoehorning carbon into rules that were written in the 1970s and whose primary drafter—Michigan Democrat John Dingell—says were never intended to apply? Just asking. Either way, this will be a feeble legal excuse when the greens sue to claim that the EPA’s limits are inadequate, in order to punish whatever carbon-heavy business they’re campaigning against that week.
Obviously President Obama is hellbent on punishing carbon use—no matter how costly or illogical. And of course, there’s no politics involved, none at all.

By STEPHEN POWER
The flurry of companies quitting the U.S. Chamber of Commerce is highlighting how the climate-change issue is straining traditional alliances in Washington, as some businesses seek to profit from overhauling the energy market and others try to cut deals to head off tougher regulation.
Some companies and industry groups that have in the past worked with Republicans to fight efforts to curb the use of fossil fuels — such as Detroit’s auto makers — are now expressing support for action on climate change. Some support legislation to put a price on the carbon-dioxide emissions that contribute to global warming, while others support preserving the Environmental Protection Agency’s authority to regulate such greenhouse gases.
The Chamber of Commerce says it supports efforts to fight climate change through federal investments and incentives for power that can be produced without emitting carbon dioxide. But the group has opposed proposals to require companies to pay for the right to emit carbon.
The Chamber, which says it represents three million businesses, says its positions are “mainstream, common-sense views” approved by a majority of more than 100 business leaders who sit on its board of directors.
Some companies — such as Peabody Energy and ConocoPhillips — have spoken out against climate legislation passed by the House of Representatives. Others — such as General Electric Co. and Duke Energy Corp. — have expressed support for it.
Many companies backing action on climate change stand to gain if the U.S. requires corporations to pay for the right to emit carbon dioxide.
In the past two weeks, three utilities — Exelon Corp., PG&E Corp. and PNM Resources Inc. — have quit the Chamber, citing the group’s opposition to climate bills. A fourth company, Nike Inc., said Wednesday that it was resigning from the Chamber’s board because the group “has not represented the diversity of perspective” held by the board’s members on climate change.
GE, which has built a marketing campaign around the clean-energy technology it sells, intends to remain a member despite differences with the Chamber on specific legislation, a spokesman says.
Exelon, the nation’s biggest nuclear-plant operator by output, says it sees an annual upside to its revenue of about $1.1 billion if climate legislation approved by the House in June is enacted. Because nuclear plants don’t spew carbon dioxide, their operators wouldn’t have to pay for the right to emit such gases, giving them an edge over competitors that burn fossil fuels.
Exelon notes that it has spent billions of dollars over the years to reduce its carbon footprint, by investing in nuclear power, and that it decided years ago to sell most of its coal-powered plants.
Last month, the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers — which includes General Motors Co., Ford Motor Co. and Toyota Motor Corp. — joined the Obama administration and environmentalists in opposing an effort to bar the EPA for one year from attempting to regulate greenhouse-gas emissions for power plants and other large sources.
The group says it opposed the measure because it prefers a single, nationwide set of rules rather than a patchwork of regulations by states. It says it feared the one-year prohibition would have delayed the EPA from finalizing an agency proposal to regulate automobile greenhouse-gas emissions, potentially exposing its members to regulation by states.
“It’s not a big surprise that the auto industry, which was just bailed out by the administration, would come to their defense,” says a spokesman for Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R., Alaska), who wrote the proposal. He notes that the measure said that “mobile” sources, such as cars, could still be regulated by the EPA.
An alliance spokesman says that the group was “sympathetic to the thrust” of Ms. Murkowski’s proposal but that eliminating the “inconsistency created by conflicting and overlapping” regulations at the state and federal level has been “the main priority of all auto makers” since 2002.
Environmentalists have cheered the recent defections from the Chamber, hoping they might weaken one of the best-funded opponents of the climate legislation.
The Chamber, in a statement after Exelon’s resignation, said legislation capping U.S. emissions and passed by the House “is neither comprehensive nor international,” and would spur retaliation from U.S. trading partners.—Jonathan Rockoff and Paul Glader contributed to this article.
Write to Stephen Power at stephen.power@wsj.com