Saturday, 20 October 2012

Robert Amsterdam on Vladimir Putin: "A man who has stolen this much does not have the luxury of very many retirement hiding places"

This man "who has ruled for this long and stolen this much does not have the luxury of very many retirement hiding places".

Vladimir Putin is tightening his authoritarian grip on power. The Putin regime's mask is beginning to slip off  and Putin is beginning to place less and less importance on appearance and tokens of legitimacy. 

Robert Amsterdam's analysis is well worth reading. 
Here is an excerpt: 

"As for the reputation hit outside of Russia, Putin seems to care less and less.  Although he recently bought £15 million mansion in Spain, it seems unlikely he will ever be able to spend any time there.  A man who has ruled for this long and stolen this much does not have the luxury of very many retirement hiding places". 

The U.S. should not waste money on ineffective wind energy - There is more than enough of shale gas

The question Americans should now ask themselves: Why waste money and resources on inefficient, expensive, bird and bat killing, landscape destroying wind energy - when there is more than enough of cheap and clean shale gas available? (And solar power is in many ways comparable to wind energy).

There's been plenty of debate over the Marcellus Shale natural gas field, but new research adds a twist that could impact political and environmental battles. Two independent financial firms say the Marcellus isn't just the biggest natural gas field in the country — it's the cheapest place for energy companies to drill.
One of the reports adds that the Marcellus reserves that lie below parts of Pennsylvania, West Virginia, Ohio and New York are far larger than recent government estimates, while another said the powerful combination of resource, cost and location is altering natural gas prices and market trends across the nation.
The Marcellus could contain "almost half of the current proven natural gas reserves in the U.S," a report from Standard & Poor's issued this week said.
Another recent report from ITG Investment Research, a worldwide financial firm based in New York, found that a detailed analysis of Marcellus well production data suggested that federal government estimates of its reserves "are grossly understated," according
The new information increases the likelihood that natural gas will be used for more and more energy needs, such as city buses, industrial use, and electric power generation, according to Manuj Nikhanj, the head of Energy Research at ITG. And though low wholesale prices have squeezed drilling companies' revenue, the S&P report says the Marcellus has the lowest production cost of any natural gas field in the nation, adding to the likelihood of a continued boom.
"The amount of resource that's available at relatively low cost is fairly enormous," Nikhanj said.
The Marcellus is a gas-rich formation thousands of feet below much of the four states, but current production is centered in Pennsylvania and West Virginia.
Earlier this year, the federal Energy Information Administration sharply lowered its estimates of Marcellus reserves, from 410 trillion cubic feet down to 141 trillion cubic feet. That adjustment was widely reported, including by The Associated Press.
But that lowered estimate doesn't correspond with actual well production, said Nikhanj. He said their analysis shows that the Marcellus contains about 330 trillion cubic feet of gas, more than double the size of the next largest field in the nation, the Eagle Ford in south Texas.
Some financial firms and critics of gas drilling had suggested that the EIA estimates supported theories that Marcellus production might decline more rapidly than expected, and thus be far less profitable for energy companies. But Nikhanj said a review of actual Marcellus well data shows that on average they're producing more gas than expected, not less.
Read the entire article here

Karl Lagerfeld tells the truth about Francoise Hollande

A proud idiot?
This week's prize for the best European political statement goes to Paris/based German fashion designer Karl Lagerfeld, who was not afraid to speak out in an interview with the Spanish edition of Marie-Claire
This is what Lagerfeld had to say about president Francois Hollande, who has decided to punish those with an income exceeding one million euros with a 75% tax:

"This idiot will be as disastrous as Zapatero," Lagerfeld said, referring to Spanish former prime minister Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero whose term witnessed the country's economic bust.
"Hollande hates the rich. That is disastrous. He wants to punish them and obviously they will flee and no one will invest."
Lagerfeld, the quirky creative director of French fashion house Chanel, also took a swipe at French products, saying they were not marketable.
"Apart from fashion, jewellery, perfumes and wine France is not competitive," he said.
"The other products do not sell. Who buys French cars? Not me," he added.

Lagerfeld's characterisation of the socialist Hollande immediately was condemned by the president's former companion - and former unsuccesful socialist presidential candidate - Segolene Royal, who demanded that the designer must apologize immediately (which he of course will not do).

Meanwhile, French high-earners have began voting with their feet. In the UK, Prime Minister David Cameron and London mayor Boris are rolling out the red carpet for the departing French:
Francois Hollande, the French president, faced significant criticism last week for his plans to hike taxes further on the so-called "super-rich." In protest, a number of high-profile French high-earners have announced that they will move abroad to avoid the new punitive rates.
As the French deficit ballooned in recent years, the question of how to balance the budget has taken center stage in French politics. Hollande's proposed 2013 budget includes a 75 percent tax rate for anyone earning over 1 million Euros ($1.6 million) a year. In addition, Hollande is also planning to raise the annual wealth tax and the capital-gains rate, as well.

How attractive will these eye-watering tax hikes make the French economy? Are they more a reflection of a deeper hostility towards personal initiative and wealth creation than a viable solution for the deficit?
As the budget winds its way through the French parliament, high-earners have already begun voting with their feet. Successful business people, musicians, comedians and athletes have given up life in the City of Lights in favor of the fiscal stability of neighboring countries such as Switzerland. Even Britain has gotten into the game, with Prime Minister David Cameron offering to roll out a red carpet for those departing French looking for a new home, and London's idiosyncratic mayor, Boris Johnson, announcing that he was keen to welcome any talented French people who wanted to settle in his city. In office only five months, Hollande is facing challenges on all sides. After campaigning on the platform of returning a "normal" presidency to France after the manic years of his predecessor, Nicolas Sarkozy, Hollande quickly began experimenting with far-left policies soon after his arrival in the Elysee Palace.

Friday, 19 October 2012

The SchuBarRom trio will pick up the Nobel Peace Prize

The SchuBarRom trio with two soloists and a silent singer

The European Union has again showed its extraordinary ability to arrive at a common position on important issues: 

The EU has choreographed an elaborate solution to the conundrum of who should pick up its Nobel peace prize.
Under the plan, agreed in the margins of an EU summit in Brussels on Thursday (18 October), European Commission chief Jose Manuel Barroso and EU Council head Herman Van Rompuy will accept the gong and make speeches at the gala in Oslo in December.
European Parliament chief Martin Schulz will go with them but will not speak.
For Van Rompuy it must have been a major concession to allow Barroso to accompany him in Oslo - and vice versa. And for both of the unelected "presidents" it must haven been an ultimate concession to allow Martin Schulz to accompany them. However, they were at least able to keep the only democratically elected representative quiet - very much in keeping with best EU traditions. 
And isn't it nice that Haiku Herman has tweeted about how welcome the EU Heads of State and Governments are as applauding audience!
To mark this joyful occasion I hope all EU Heads of State or Government will be able to join celebrations in Oslo in December 

Donna Laframboise: " IPCC is filled with environmental activists"

Alarmist mainstream media continue to portrait the IPCC as a body made up of the world's top scientists and experts. Donna Lafromboise, the Toronto based investigative journalist, has found out that the reality looks somewhat different:

So what did Laframbois find? Yes, “a number of talented and experienced scientists have indeed helped to write IPCC reports over the years. The problem is that many other IPCC authors don’t come close to being leading scientists at the top of their profession,” said Laframbois to the crowd made up of many geologists, geophysicists and astrophysicists.
On the screen, Laframbois flashed the photos of three “20-somethings,” who were lead authors and even co-ordinating lead authors of entire chapters of the IPCC Climate Bible that directs the governments of 185 countries into actions like raising gasoline prices, imposing carbon taxes and the like.
Richard Klein, for instance, was 23 in 1992 when he completed his master’s degree in geography and worked as a Greenpeace campaigner. Two years later, he was a lead author for the IPCC. Since 1994, he has been a lead author for six IPCC reports, and beginning in 1997, he was promoted to co-ordinating lead author — the IPCC’s most senior author role — at the age of 28. “That’s six years prior to him completing his PhD. Neither his youth nor his thin academic credentials prevented the IPCC from regarding him as one of the world’s top experts,” she said.
Laurens Bouwer was a lead author for the IPCC in 1999-2000, BEFORE earning his master’s degree in 2001.
The most egregious example is Sari Kovats. In 1994, Kovats was one of 21 people “in the entire world selected to work on the first IPCC chapter” looking into the affects of climate change on human health.
But she wasn’t anywhere near being one of the world’s top scientists or experts in her field. Indeed, she didn’t publish her first academic paper until three years after she acted as an “expert” and she didn’t earn her PhD until 2010 — a whopping 16 years after being tagged as one of the top 21 experts in the world.
And it gets worse. The IPCC is filled with environmental activists, not objective scientists measuring data and coming to conclusions.
Among a list of people she cites, Laframbois notes that Jennifer Morgan spent several years as the World Wildlife Fund’s chief spokesperson on climate change and then in 2010 the IPCC appointed her “to work on a report it describes as objective, rigorous and balanced.”
Indeed, two-thirds of the chapters of the IPCC’s Assessment Report 4 included at least one WWF affiliated scientist. Two-thirds! Laframbois calls that a “full-scale invasion.”

Read the entire article here

Thursday, 18 October 2012

Obama's "reset" policy with dictator Putin's Russia is a huge failure

In a long line of Obama presidency failures, the "reset" policy with dictator Putin's empire is beginning to stand out. "A pale of repression" is settling over Russia and "although the crackdown is wrapped in legislative garb", "the iron grip of authoritarianism is unmistakable" according to Ariel Cohen, Senior Research Fellow at the Heritage Foundation:

Vladimir Putin’s tightening of the screws is a part of a broader pattern, which includes a return to confrontation with the United States and NATO. The United States must specifically recognize that its “reset” policy of see no evil, hear no evil has contributed to the trampling of human rights in Russia.

Moscow is cozying up to China, supporting the Assad regime in Syria and ignoring the Iranian nuclear race. The Kremlin is hard at work to create a sphere of influence along its periphery and a “pole” in the multipolar world that would stand up to Washington.
Recent developments have an unmistakably flavor of the 1920s and 1930s, when the Soviets sent people the Gulag simply for who they were, not for what they did. For example, the Cheka — the grandfather of Russia’s security service, the F.S.B — preventively arrested those of noble descent or with relatives abroad.

The recent legislative developments have severe geopolitical implications. Putin is implementing a “Fortress Russia” policy, which is based on repression at home and confrontation abroad. It is used to justify a $700 billion military buildup.

The Obama administration “reset” needs a serious reassessment, and so does the overall relationship with Russia. America should pursue its national interests in relations with Moscow, instead of chasing a feel-good mirage.
Washington should work to advance individual rights, democracy and free media through public diplomacy and pinpointed support of worthy causes. Washington should cooperate with those along the Russian periphery and in Europe who are concerned about the growth of Russia’s sphere of influence. Finally, the United States and its allies should engage international organizations, expert communities, mass and social media to counter the crackdown in Russia.
It is preferable to engage now, before the specter of a more authoritarian Russia once again haunts Europe — and the world.
Read the entire New York Times article here
Cohen is of course right about Putin's Russia. However, it is not likely that Barack Obama has the courage to change his failed "reset" policy. The only chance to reset the "reset" is to refuse him a second term. 

Wednesday, 17 October 2012

How the Obama team got some help from moderator Crowley

Barack Obama clearly got some help from moderator Candy Crowley during last night's debate:
In response to a question about the assault, Obama said he had called it an "act of terror" during remarks the next day in the Rose Garden, and Crowley vouched for him.
Romney was visibly surprised by the president's answer and appeared to believe he'd caught the president in a lie.
“You said in the Rose Garden, the day after the attack it was an act of terror? It was not a spontaneous demonstration? Is that what you're saying?” Romney said. “I want to make sure we get that for the record, because it took the president 14 days before he called the attack in Benghazi an act of terror.”
"Get the transcript," Obama replied.
Crowley then broke in, saying: “He did in fact, sir. So let me — let me call it an act of terror …”
“Can you say that a little louder, Candy?” Obama shouted.
“He — he did call it an act of terror," Crowley said as some in the audience applauded. "It did as well take — it did as well take two weeks or so for the whole idea there being a riot out there about this tape to come out. You are correct about that,” Crowley said.
The transcript of the president's speech from the day after the attack in Libya shows that Obama used the phrase "act of terror" during his remarks, albeit indirectly. 
At least to this viewer, Crowley's instant confirmation of what Obama said was somewhat surprising. 
Here is probably why she responded so quickly, without any hesitation and why the president also immediately spoke about the transcript and urged Crowley to "say it a little louder":
The Obama team knew that Romney would raise the Libya question during the debate, which is why they most likely sent a copy of the Rose Garden transcript to Crowley before the debate.  

The Obama administration continues to appease dictator Vladimir Putin

"Now all that is in the past. The Moscow bureau no longer exists. But we have carried out our mission; for all these years we have talked about another Russia, about events that often passed the official media by, and we have occupied a human rights niche that would otherwise have been empty. We were different from everyone else and will be remembered for it."

Journalist Mumin Shakirov recounting the day she was fired after 18 years of working for Radio Liberty

No wonder de facto dictator Vladimir Putin has openly voiced his support for Barack Obama. In September the Obama administration announced that it will comply with Putin’s request that the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) end operations in Russia effective Oct. 1. Now Obama has done another service to his "reset" partner Putin: Radio Free Europe's Radio Liberty is shutting down its Russian broadcasts after six successful decades:

The official excuse, as the Washington Free Beacon reported Monday, is a new law endorsed by Putin barring foreign media from the AM dial.
But there can be no hiding this as another component of President Obama's naive "Russian reset" — which has included Obama appeasing Putin less than eight months after taking office by going back on our commitment to include Poland and the Czech Republic in our anti-ballistic missile defense system. Obama also has allowed Moscow to dwarf the U.S. in its number of tactical nuclear weapons.
Just weeks after Obama became president in 2009, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton presented her Russian counterpart with a little red gimmick "reset" button for the two of them to press together. It turned out not say the Russian for "reset" but for "overload."
Earlier this year, Obama was caught on an open mike telling Putin's puppet, then-President Dmitri Medvedev, that "it's important for him to give me space" because "after my election I have more flexibility." To which Medvedev assured Obama, "I will transmit this information to Vladimir."
There is no doubt that Radio Liberty helped topple the USSR. Boris Yeltsin could not have survived climbing on that Red Army tank in Moscow in the summer of 1991 had the Russian people, including members of the military, not been told about freedom for so many years in their native tongue over the airwaves.
At the Democratic convention, Obama mocked Mitt Romney's hard stance against Putin. "After all," the president said, "you don't call Russia our No. 1 enemy — not al-Qaida; Russia — unless you're still stuck in a Cold War mind warp."

Tuesday, 16 October 2012

Nigel Farage: NATO has kept peace in Europe - "not a bunch of overpaid bureaucrats"

The New Yorker's piece on Nigel Farage - who recently attended a reception in New York - is a must read:

“I’m not anti-European at all. I’m married to a German, for goodness’ sake, so I know the dangers of a German-dominated household.” But, he said, “The idea that we should take all these different countries in Europe, force them together against their democratic will, and put them under the control of people like Herman Van Rompuy is, frankly, beyond belief.

These are very, very dangerous, bad people,” he went on. “They want to stop nation-state democracy.” The consequence, in his view, will likely be violent revolution and political extremism. (A few days later, after hearing that the E.U. had won the Nobel, he said, “I thought it was a joke. I thought it must be April the 1st. The timing is absolutely bizarre. And, anyway, what has kept the peace in Europe since 1945 is not a bunch of overpaid bureaucrats but, rather, nato, with no small contribution by the United States.”)

“Did you see Merkel today?” he asked. Angela Merkel had visited Greece, prompting demonstrations and riots. “I mean, how insensitive. Is it any wonder they all turned out wearing swastikas on their arms and giving Nazi salutes? This project, which was supposed to make the countries of Europe love each other, is actually making the countries of Europe hate each other.”

He described a meeting he had with Merkel last year, in which he suggested that everyone would be happier if the Greeks left the euro—the Greeks would be free to default on their debts, re-adopt the drachma, and escape “the economic prison” of the euro zone; and the Germans would no longer have to contemplate bailing them out, in perpetuity. Merkel (who, he said, “outside of the public glare, is a completely different person from the one you see on the TV: she is even more miserable in private”) explained that if the Greeks pulled out, other countries would, too, and that would doom “our European dream.”

“What Merkel is saying,” Farage went on, “is that if the whole of Greece goes bankrupt, if everybody in Greece is starving, if they’re all homeless, that doesn’t matter, we have to preserve our dream. In pursuing something that is clearly a failed economic model, we’re doing just what the Communists did in Soviet Russia.”

Read the entire article here

Goodbye electric cars! - Welcome to natural gas powered vehicles!

“The electric technology just isn’t advanced, it’s not there, and there’s so much innovation that’s required to make it viable”
Peter Grady 
Vice President, Chrysler

"The current capabilities of electric vehicles do not meet society's needs, whether it may be the distance the cars can run, or the costs, or how it takes a long time to charge,"  
Takeshi Uchiyamada 
Vice chairman, Toyota

"The U.S. now has a 100-year supply of natural gas. I'd make a bet it's the next big transportation fuel. The price is so much lower than gasoline - people will find a way to use it."
Mustafa Mohatarem
Chief economist, General Motors

It is time to say goodbye to one of the favorites of the greenies - the uneconomical and expensive electric car. Instead there is every reason to welcome a new phase of the American led shale gas revolution - vehicles  powered by natural gas. As Mustafa Mohatarem, Chief economist at General Motors says, natural gas is "the next big transportation fuel". 
First, the critical infrastructure component is grinding forward. According to the industry group Natural Gas Vehicle Association (NGVAmerica), more than 1,000 CNG/LNG fueling stations currently operate in the U.S. — and that number is growing. Royal Dutch Shell has partnered with TravelCenters of America 
to sell LNG at 100 sites in the U.S. Shell has ambitious plans to build out LNG fueling infrastructure in Canada as well.
At the same time, T. Boone Pickens-sponsored Clean Energy Fuels has formed an alliance with Pilot-Flying J — the nation’s largest truck-stop operator — to bring CNG to its 550 locations. While this is hardly registers among the estimated 145,000 gas stations across the nation, it’s a positive development. Analysts estimate that by 2019, more than 2,000 stations will offer CNG/LNG.
Secondly, CNG/LNG vehicle adoption is growing as well. About 40% of garbage trucks sold in the U.S. last year were natural gas-powered, according to NGVAmerica. More recently, a coalition of 22 U.S. governors announced that their respective states will buy at least 10,000 CNG cars and trucks annually.
The hope is that their collective buying power and giving the automotive industry a guaranteed market will cause the cost of CNG vehicles to drop. Currently, CNG vehicles can cost up to $10,000 more than their gasoline-powered counterparts. That higher cost is attributed to internal combustion retrofits. However, if those vehicles came off the assembly line set up for natural gas, the cost would drop considerably.
Cleantech analytics firm Pike Research expects natural gas-fueled trucks to see 10% compound annual growth in between 2012 and 2019, based on lower purchasing costs. That translates from roughly 3,250 natural gas trucks expected to sell this year to almost double that by 2019.
Read the entire article here
Natural gas is strongly on its way also to cars and other privately used vehicles. Chrysler is to be congratulated for offering a new natural gas-powered pick up:

Chrysler Group LLC, the automaker controlled by is making its natural gas-powered Ram pickup available for sale to retail buyers, according to the head of the company’s dealership network.
Chrysler began allowing all dealers to order the Ram 2500 Heavy Duty CNG pickup in September, Peter Grady, vice president of network development and fleet, said in an interview. Chrysler, which initially made the truck available only to fleet buyers, joins Honda Motor Co. as the only automakers selling compressed natural gas vehicles to U.S. retail consumers.
“The dealers have been asking for it, they’ve been clamoring, particularly in the natural gas states and in some of these places where you’re starting to get infrastructure,” Grady said in an interview at his office in Auburn Hills, Michigan, where Chrysler is based. States where the fuel and infrastructure are most available include California, Oklahoma, Louisiana, Texas, Ohio and Pennsylvania, he said.
Sergio Marchionne, chief executive officer of Chrysler and Turin, Italy-based Fiat, has argued that natural gas engines are cheaper and more viable than plug-in hybrid and electric cars.
Under U.S. fuel-economy standards released Aug. 28, natural gas-powered vehicles were made eligible for credits aimed at reducing emissions. Chrysler testified to the Senate’s Energy and Natural Resources Committee in July and advocated for parity between natural gas-powered cars and trucks and other alternative-fuel vehicles.
Read the entire article here 

Merkel's renewable energy policy driving up electricity bills by 50%

Germany's switch to renewable energy is getting expensive

German consumers are beginning to feel the impact of chancellor Angela Merkel's failed energy transition policy:

Germany's switch to renewable energies is driving up electricity bills across the country, with a green technology surcharge set to rise by nearly 50 percent next year. With frustration over the high price tag, it promises to become a key issue in next year's election campaign.

Germany's four leading electrical grid operators -- RWE, E.ON, Vattenfall and EnBW -- announced on Monday that they would be hiking by 47 percent the charge to consumers that goes into financing subsidies for producers of renewable energy. For the time being, solar, wind and biomass power make up a quarter of the country's electricity supply but are set to account for 80 percent by 2050.

The steep rise in the surcharge is likely to trigger debate about the cost to consumers of Berlin's energy revolution, a drastic energy policy reversal triggered by the 2011 Fukushima nuclear plant disaster in Japan.
Known as the Energiewende, the shift to a sustainable energy supply based on renewable energies and the phasing out of nuclear energy by 2022 has evolved into one of the top priorities of Chancellor Angela Merkel's government.
With costs associated with that energy revolution now spiralling, however, it is likely to become a central issue ahead of next fall's general elections. According to a recent poll conducted by Emnid, Germans are more interested in affordable electricity than in the nuclear phase-out. Now faced with the bill for the switchover, consumers may start to withdraw their support.
Last week, Environment Minister Peter Altmaier unveiled a complex roadmap aimed at holding costs in check. But according to the German Federal Association for Energy and Water Management (BDEW), further expenses are still in store for consumers.

Read the entire article here


The problem with Germany is that no major political party offers a serious alternative to Merkel's senseless energy transition policy. That means that the outlook for Germany - the longtime powerhouse of the European economy - is less than excellent. 

Monday, 15 October 2012

Obama's Department of the Interior is "forging ahead with several initiatives related to climate change and global warming"

The Summit Voice reports that "Climate change may not be front and center in the current presidential campaign, but behind the scenes, the Obama administration has been forging ahead with several initiatives related to climate science and global warming."
"Most recently, Secretary of the Interior Ken Salazar announced his department’s regional Climate Science Centers will award more than $10 million in funding to universities and other partners. The research will guide managers of parks, refuges and other resources in planning how to help species and ecosystems adapt to climate change."

Among the 69 projects so generously funded by the Department of the Interior's network of eight regional Climate Science Centers here is one, just to give you an example: 

Inter-Tribal Workshops on Climate Variability and Change
Principal Investigator: Laurel Smith, University of Oklahoma
Cooperators & Partners: Renee McPherson, South Central Climate Science Center; Randy Peppler, Cooperative Institute for Mesoscale Meteorological Studies; Rachel Riley, Southern Climate Impacts Planning Program; Wayne Kellogg, Chickasaw Nation, U.S. Department of Environment Health and Safety; Dana McDaniel Bonham, Choctaw Nation of Oklahoma; Kim Winton, U.S. Geological Survey Oklahoma Water Science Center; Filoteo Gómez, Private Consultant   

New partnerships among tribal nations and members of the climate science and conservation communities call for multicultural conversations about climate change, risk, and variability. To contribute to the goal of mutual understanding, this project will develop and implement a series of workshops that will (1) educate tribal representatives across the region about climate science and climate adaptation practices, (2) document climate impacts on the tribal nations and their peoples, lands, resources, and economies, and (3) extend, enhance, and foster dialogue among tribal representatives, climate scientists, and conservation leadership. By blending educational outreach with preliminary research on how tribal members know and conceptualize weather and climate, as well as how they have historically struggled with adapting to new climate conditions, this project will facilitate the design of products that tribal decision makers can use, help monitor climate 
change in the field, and provide lessons about adaptation that are useful for both tribal and non-tribal communities and businesses.

The workshops cited above are not the first of their kind. Here is an excerpt from the summary of the "Oklahoma Inter-Tribal Meeting on Climate Variability and Change, December 12, 2011":

"One participant noted that some of his tribal members in Oklahoma are responsible for growing and delivering heirloom seeds 
to their members in Georgia, but the recent fall harvest  produced very low yields. The members 

were unable to get much corn, beans, or squash to germinate due to the drought. One participant 
also said that two weeks prior to the meeting he was unable to find a specific medicinal plant his 
tribe uses, and he suspected the climate over the past year was to blame. Another participant said 
they could not find any sand plums, which they use for their ceremonies. Water is used for some 
ceremonies, so it can be problematic when there is not much at the tribe’s disposal. Heat has been a 
problem during ceremonies since the older citizens could not go into the non-air conditioned lodge. 
Instead, they stayed outside in the shade. Heat was also a problem for another tribe. One 
participant said that they held their ceremonies a week or two earlier than normal to avoid the 
worse heat. Unfortunately it was still very hot and a couple of dancers succumbed to the heat."


Of course US indian tribes should be treated well, but shouldn't the scarce resources be used to something more productive and useful than "Inter-Tribal meetings on Climate Variability and Change"?