It's Official: Women Will Serve in Combat

Women will soon be able to serve in combat, as things officially changed with the stroke of a pen today at the Pentagon.

At a joint news conference, Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta and Joint Chiefs of Staff Charman Gen. Martin Dempsey signed a memorandum rolling back a 1994 directive prohibiting women from doing so.

"They serve, they're wounded, and they die right next to each other," Panetta said of women and men in the military. "The time has come to recognize that reality.

"If they're willing to put their lives on the line, then we need to recognize that they deserve a chance," Panetta said, noting that he wants his own granddaughters and grandsons to have the same opportunities in their lives and careers.

The change won't be immediate, however. While Panetta announced that thousands of new positions will now be open to women, he has asked the military branches to submit plans by May on how to integrate women into combat operations. He set a January 2016 deadline for branches to implement the changes, giving military services time to seek waivers for certain jobs.

Both Panetta and Dempsey said they believe the move will strengthen the U.S. military force.

Soaring With the First Woman Fighter Jet Commander Watch Video

Florida Judge Puts Debra Lafave Back on Probation After Year Off Watch Video

"Ultimately, we are acting to strengthen the armed forces," Dempsey said. "We will extend opportunities to women in a way that maintains readiness, morale and unit cohesion."

Women have already served in combat in Iraq and Afghanistan, as ABC News' Martha Raddatz and Elizabeth Gorman reported in 2009: Prohibited from serving in roles "whose primary mission is to engage in direct combat on the ground," women in support roles, nonetheless, served in support roles on the frontlines, where they have fought, been wounded and died.

Women have also flown combat missions since 1993 and have served on submarines since 2010.

Panetta noted that 152 women have died serving in the U.S. military in Iraq and Afghanistan. Dempsey said he realized a change was inevitable when he noticed two female turret gunners protecting a senior military officer.

"It's clear to all of us that women are contributing in unprecedented ways to the military's mission of defending the nation," Panetta said. "Women represent 15 percent of the force of over 200,000 [and] are serving in a growing number of critical roles on and off the battlefield.

"I've gone to Bethesda to visit wounded warriors, and I've gone to Arlington to bury our dead. There's no distincton."

Panetta and Dempsey said President Obama supported the move, while warning them to maintain military readiness as they considered the change.

Obama hailed the move in a written statement

"Today, by moving to open more military positions -- including ground combat units -- to women, our armed forces have taken another historic step toward harnessing the talents and skills of all our citizens," he said.

"This milestone reflects the courageous and patriotic service of women through more than two centuries of American history and the indispensable role of women in today's military," Obama said.

Read More..

Benghazi blame-game is useless

Hillary Clinton through the years

Hillary Clinton through the years

Hillary Clinton through the years

Hillary Clinton through the years

Hillary Clinton through the years

Hillary Clinton through the years

Hillary Clinton through the years

Hillary Clinton through the years

Hillary Clinton through the years

Hillary Clinton through the years

Hillary Clinton through the years

Hillary Clinton through the years

Hillary Clinton through the years

Hillary Clinton through the years

Hillary Clinton through the years

Hillary Clinton through the years

Hillary Clinton through the years

Hillary Clinton through the years

Hillary Clinton through the years

Hillary Clinton through the years

Hillary Clinton through the years

Hillary Clinton through the years

Hillary Clinton through the years

Hillary Clinton through the years

Hillary Clinton through the years

Hillary Clinton through the years

Hillary Clinton through the years

Hillary Clinton through the years

Hillary Clinton through the years

Hillary Clinton through the years

Hillary Clinton through the years

Hillary Clinton through the years

Hillary Clinton through the years

Hillary Clinton through the years

Hillary Clinton through the years

Hillary Clinton through the years

Hillary Clinton through the years

Hillary Clinton through the years

Hillary Clinton through the years

Hillary Clinton through the years

Hillary Clinton through the years

Hillary Clinton through the years

Hillary Clinton through the years

Hillary Clinton through the years

Hillary Clinton through the years

Hillary Clinton through the years

Hillary Clinton through the years

Hillary Clinton through the years

Hillary Clinton through the years

Hillary Clinton through the years

Hillary Clinton through the years

Hillary Clinton through the years

<<

<

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

32

33

34

35

36

37

38

39

40

41

42

43

44

45

46

47

48

49

50

51

52

>

>>

STORY HIGHLIGHTS

• Anthony Cordesman: Questions for Hillary Clinton on Benghazi attack inevitable, important


• But political blame game useless, a discouraging message to diplomats, military advisers, he says


• He says in hindsight, warnings, pleas for support mistakenly make crisis seem obvious


• Writer: U.S. must focus forward: encourage, support risk-takers doing crucial work in field

Editor's note: Anthony H. Cordesman holds the Arleigh A. Burke Chair in Strategy at the Center for Strategic and International Studies. Follow CSIS on Twitter.

(CNN) -- Politics are politics, and partisan congressional challenges over the death of Ambassador Chris Stevens and other Americans in Benghazi, Libya, last September were inevitable.

But while some of the questions Secretary of State Hillary Clinton was asked in her appearance before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee bordered on politics at their worst, some represented democracy at its best: A legitimate challenge of how the government works. The fact is, we do need to ask serious questions about the way our diplomats function, how they are deployed and protected.

In her responses, Clinton took responsibility, as the top official in every department always must. The question now, however, is what, if anything, will we really learn from the events that led to the deaths of Stevens and his colleagues?

Anthony H. Cordesman

Do we actually learn something from their courage and sacrifice, and the similar experience of other American diplomats and officers that have faced similar attacks in the past? Or do we go on playing a pointless blame game, creating a climate that discourages our diplomats, U.S. military advisory teams and intelligence officers from taking necessary risks -- and relies even more on fortifying our embassies.

Three lessons here. The first: Virtually every post mortem that relies on the blame game has the same result. There is always someone who asked for more resources and warned of the risk before the event. There are always enough intelligence indicators so that once you go back -- knowing the pattern of actual events -- it becomes possible to predict the past with 20-20 hindsight.

The problem is that the post mortems and hearings tend to be useless. Every prudent security officer has always asked for more; the indicators that could provide warning with 20-20 hindsight will still be buried in a flood of other reporting that warns of crises that don't take place; U.S. officials will still have to deal with what intelligence experts call "noise" -- the vast amount of reporting and other data that make it impossible to sort out the right information until the event actually occurs and the patterns are known. All of this makes it hard to know what request or warning ever matters.

Opinion: Algeria hostage crisis shows jihadists on rise

Yes, intelligence and warning can always be improved if the post mortem is realistic and objective. But the resulting improvements will never be enough. No one will ever assess all the risks correctly, U.S. diplomats and other Americans will be vulnerable when they operate in a hostile environment, and risk-taking will remain inevitable.

The second lesson is that we cannot deal with crises like the political upheavals in the Arab world, or the more direct threats that countries like Iran and North Korea can pose, unless our diplomats and military advisers take risks -- and more casualties -- in the process.

Stevens and those around him did what had to be done. These are the teams that can help lead unstable countries towards democracy and stability. They are the crucial to our counterterrorism efforts in the field and to building up the military security capabilities of developing states. They are key to uniting given factions, creating effective governance, and persuading states to move toward development and greater concern for human rights.

They can only be effective if they are on the scene, work with the leaders and factions involved, and often go into harms way where there are terrorist and military threats. Like Stevens, they cannot wait for perfect security, stay in a safe area, or minimize risks and deal with the realities of Libya, filled with local power struggles, extremist elements and potential threats.

We need risk-takers. We need them in any country that is going through the kind of upheavals taking place in Libya, as well as in countries where our enemies operate, and semi-war zones like Afghanistan, Iraq, Somalia, Syria, and Yemen. We need diplomats, U.S. military advisory teams, and intelligence officers that reach far beyond our embassies and go into high risk zones. We need to reward and honor those risk-takers, not those who shelter in safety and avoid the risks they should take or fear their career will be damaged if anyone is killed or hurt.

Opinion: Algeria crisis is a wakeup call for America

The third lesson is that we do need to steadily strengthen our ability to provide secure mobility, better intelligence, better communications, and better protection for those diplomats, U.S. military advisory teams and intelligence officers. We need to be able to better provide emergency help to those American NGO personnel and businessmen who take similar risks.

We need both an administration and a Congress that look beyond the blame game and understand that some things are worth spending money on. We need them to understand that what we once called the Arab Spring is clearly going to be the Arab Decade, and we face different but equally real risks in the field in Asia, Africa, and Latin America.

It is far better -- and cheaper even, in the medium term -- to fund strong U.S. country teams, military advisers, counterterrorism teams and development efforts than to let nations collapse, to let extremists take over, to lose allies, and see American NGOs and businesses unable to operate.

We need to see what new methods and investments can protect our people in the field and reduce the risks they should be taking. The answer may be special communications, intelligence system, helicopters and armored vehicles, emergency response teams and new career security personnel to replace contractors and foreign nationals.

What the answer is not is partisan blame, risk avoidance, punishing those who do take risks for the result, and failing to make the improvements in security for risk takers -- while building larger fortress embassies. If you want to honor the Americans lost in the line of duty, focus on the future and not the past.

The opinions expressed in this commentary are solely those of Anthony Cordesman

Read More..

Dreamliner battery probe rules out voltage surge

TOKYO: Officials probing the emergency landing of a Boeing Dreamliner said Thursday they will dismantle its battery pack, after the investigation found no evidence of a sudden surge in voltage.

A fire risk from overheating powerpacks emerged as a major concern after pilots were forced to land the domestic All Nippon Airways flight in western Japan on January 16 due to smoke thought to be linked to the plane's battery.

Investigators later released a picture showing the blackened remains of the battery in the ANA plane.

But on Thursday, they said there were no signs of a battery fire, while data gleaned from the flight's digital data recorder showed the powerpack did not suffer a rapid surge in voltage.

The pack's voltage, in fact, had been at normal levels before it rapidly plunged just before the system alert that forced the emergency landing, a Japan Transport Safety Board (JTSB) official told AFP.

But he said the pack -- made up of eight individual lithium-ion batteries -- would have to be dismantled to inspect each of the units, which are similar to those used in mobile phones and tablet computers.

"It was a very normal level of voltage for a lithium-ion battery (shortly before the emergency landing)," the official said.

"But you still cannot rule out the possibility that some of the individual batteries might have been overcharged."

Officials from the JTSB and US National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) would dissect the pack at the offices of Kyoto-based GS Yuasa, the maker of the next-generation aircraft's batteries, he said.

The powerpack's charger would be sent to its US manufacturer for a closer look, investigators said.

Boeing's fuel-efficient planes suffered a series of problems earlier this month, prompting a global alert from the US Federal Aviation Administration that has seen all 50 operational Dreamliners grounded since last week.

An international team, including engineers from French multinational Thales, which designed the Dreamliner's electrical system, carried out a CT scan of the battery unit at a Japan space agency facility in Tokyo this week.

An NTSB-led investigation is also probing the cause of a fire on a Japan Airlines 787 Dreamliner in Boston on January 7.

That investigation has ruled out battery overheating as the cause, but the powerpack's charger and related components were still being tested.

- AFP/ck

Read More..

Martin: You want black votes, GOP?

Roland Martin says one reason the GOP draws mainly white voters is its leaders' reluctance to reach out and listen to minorities.

STORY HIGHLIGHTS

• Roland Martin: GOP National Committee's Priebus dodges appearing on Martin shows


• He says GOP leaders in general avoid interacting with blacks; they lose black votes this way


• He says GOP leaders seem to think blacks don't have same concerns as all Americans


• Martin: One area where GOP, minority voters might share goals: sentencing reform

Editor's note: Roland Martin is a syndicated columnist and author of "The First: President Barack Obama's Road to the White House." He is a commentator for the TV One cable network and host/managing editor of its Sunday morning news show, "Washington Watch with Roland Martin."

(CNN) -- For more than a year I've tried to get Republican National Committee Chairman Reince Priebus to make an appearance on my Sunday morning news show on TV One, the nation's second-largest black cable network.

He has also been invited to appear on my daily segment on "The Tom Joyner Morning Show," with 8 million listeners.

Although Priebus did tell me "yes" a year ago, on the day of the GOP primary debate in South Carolina, he has yet to show up and talk GOP politics to either of these audiences.

This is no shock to me, because most white Republicans I've invited appear to be deathly afraid to accept invites to appear on both shows. In fact, it has been tough even getting a callback or an e-mail from GOP staffers.

Since the debut of my show, "Washington Watch," in September 2009, we have had an open invitation for any member of the GOP House or Senate Conference to appear on the show. In four years, only four -- Reps. Tom Price (twice), Allen West, Steve King, and Pete Olson -- have appeared on the show.

Roland Martin

None was verbally attacked. None was called a bigot or a racist. None was prevented from talking. We had polite, but firm, discourse on multiple issues. Any of them would tell you I was more than fair, providing them with a forum to discuss their policy differences with President Barack Obama and Democrats.

Think about that: Even GOP backbenchers who rarely get called to appear on a national TV or radio show seem afraid to show up.

You would think they'd welcome a chance to share their policies with a constituency that routinely doesn't vote for them. But Republicans routinely pass it up, and then wonder why they don't get the votes of blacks and other minorities.

What I'm describing points up a much larger problem with the GOP and its inability to speak to issues that all voters care about.

That's why I find it interesting that at the GOP retreat this past weekend in Virginia, there was a session entitled, "Coalitions-Discussion on Successful Comms w/ Minorities & Women."

Comms stands for "communications."

If Republicans want to understand how to successfully communicate with minorities and women, it sure would help to actually go to the forums where minorities and women read, listen and watch.

When Michael Steele was chairman of the RNC, he appeared on my TV show and radio segments on many occasions. I could call him on his cell phone or at home and book him on a moment's notice. See, Steele understood that if you want to communicate a policy to black people, it helps to talk to them. Maybe his being black is the reason.

The mental block that keeps the GOP from engaging black folks and others could have something to do with its perception of the issues we care about.

For instance, a prominent black Republican in Illinois told me about a presentation a few years ago with party elders about how they could attract black voters. When it was all done, this Republican said, the first comment from the floor was, "We are not going to support welfare."

The group of black Republicans was puzzled: "We didn't even bring up welfare. What are you talking about?"

The GOP apparently has the idea that minorities don't care about education, taxes, entrepreneurship, homeownership, and a litany of other issues.

When Republicans speak to black folks and the main thing they have to say is that the GOP is the party of Lincoln and he freed the slaves, then you have a problem.

Yes, Republicans played a critical role in civil rights legislation during the 1950s and 1960s while Southern Democrats were obstructionists -- but it's the GOP's concern for blacks and minorities in the last four decades that has been troubling and problematic.

Republican consultants will say that cultivating minority voters is a waste of time. That's a short-term view. I would think that allowing the opposition party to get 90% of a group's vote without lifting a finger -- because your own ineptitude prevents you from making your case -- means trouble long-term.

Republicans could compete for minority votes if they were actually interested in listening to the concerns of said voters. But if they just want to talk to minority voters and not listen, they cannot compete.

I know a bunch of African-Americans who don't self-identify as Democrats. They, and I am one of them, have voted for both Republicans and Democrats. The issues that we care about vary. It's not about ideology or party; it's about what you can do to be of help to those in need.

If the GOP wants to learn how to communicate with minorities, it must listen to and work with the numerous minority Republicans who have been shouting this from the rooftop for years.

You want to hear evidence from a couple of white guys? Pick up the phone and call former U.S. Sen. George Voinovich of Ohio. He enjoyed sizable black support because when he was mayor of Cleveland, he didn't avoid minorities and treat them as outcasts. He sat down with them, shared their concerns, and worked on public policy -- together.

Give Mike Huckabee a ring. When he was governor of Arkansas, he earned a lot of black votes for the same reason as Voinovich. He has urged the GOP to reach out.

One issue where Republicans are finding themselves working with black civil rights leaders and pastors is in the area of sentencing reform. African-Americans see a legal system that has turned into a moneymaking machine for private prisons. GOP governors see state budgets out of control.

A major civil rights leader told me he has found more success working with GOP governors than Democratic governors on sentencing reform.

This is an example of what happens when individuals sit down, talk, share their concerns, and find common ground.

But as long as the GOP is scared to even sit down with black folks and other minorities, it can expect to keep getting dusted at the ballot box. And don't look to blame anyone else but yourselves, when you were given the chance and your own ignorance prevented you from reaching across the divide to talk.

Follow us on Twitter @CNNOpinion.

Join us on Facebook/CNNOpinion.

The opinions expressed in this commentary are solely those of Roland Martin.

Read More..

Romney to be honored Friday at D.C. luncheon

Mitt Romney will make it to Washington, D.C. for inauguration week after all.

The 2012 GOP presidential nominee and his wife Ann are scheduled to attend a luncheon in their honor Friday at Washington's J.W. Marriott hotel, National Journal reported this afternoon. The reception will be hosted by two of Romney's biggest campaign fundraisers: Virginia philanthropist Catherine Reynolds and hotel tycoon Bill Marriott, Jr.

Romney, a longtime friend to the Marriott family, serves on Marriott International's board of directors. While on the trail, he and his traveling staff stayed almost exclusively at Marriott hotels.

Having opted to spend Inauguration Day at his home in La Jolla, Calif., on Monday, Romney became the first presidential nominee since Michael Dukakis in 1989 to not attend the ceremonial event. But he's made at least one appearance in the nation's capital since the election: Several weeks following his loss, he enjoyed a lunch of white turkey chili with President Obama at the White House.

Read More..

Pentagon to Allow Women in Combat

Defense Secretary Leon Panetta will lift a longstanding ban on women serving in combat, according to senior defense officials.

The services have until this May to come up with a plan to implement the change, according to a Defense Department official.

That means the changes could come into effect as early as May, though the services will have until January 2016 to complete the implementation of the changes.

"We certainly want to see this executed responsibly but in a reasonable time frame, so I would hope that this doesn't get dragged out," said former Marine Capt. Zoe Bedell, who joined a recent lawsuit aimed at getting women on the battlefield.

The military services also will have until January 2016 to seek waivers for certain jobs -- but those waivers will require a personal approval from the secretary of defense and will have to be based on rationales other than the direct combat exclusion rule.

The move to allow women in combat, first reported by the Associated Press, was not expected this week, although there has been a concerted effort by the Obama administration to further open up the armed forces to women.

The Joint Chiefs of Staff unanimously recommended in January to Secretary Panetta that the direct combat exclusion rule should be lifted.

"I can confirm media reports that the secretary and the chairman are expected to announce the lifting of the direct combat exclusion rule for women in the military," said a senior Defense Department official. "This policy change will initiate a process whereby the services will develop plans to implement this decision, which was made by the secretary of defense upon the recommendation of the Joint Chiefs of Staff."

Chairman of the Joint Chiefs Gen. Martin Dempsey sent Panetta a memo earlier this month entitled, "Women in Service Implementation Plan."

Adek Berry/AFP/Getty Images

Soaring With the First Woman Fighter Jet Commander Watch Video

Instant Index: Divers Save Dolphin; Orangutans Play With iPads Watch Video

Extreme Cold Takes Its Toll on Freezing Nation Watch Video

"The time has come to rescind the direct combat exclusion rule for women and to eliminate all unnecessary gender-based barriers to service," the memo read.

"To implement these initiatives successfully and without sacrificing our warfighting capability or the trust of the American people, we will need time to get it right," he said in the memo, referring to the 2016 horizon.

Women have been officially prohibited from serving in combat since a 1994 rule that barred them from serving in ground combat units. That does not mean they have been immune from danger or from combat.

As Martha Raddatz reported in 2009, women have served in support positions on and off the frontlines in Iraq and Afghanistan, where war is waged on street corners and in markets, putting them at equal risk. Hundreds of thousands of women deployed with the military to those two war zones over the past decade. Hundreds have died.

READ MORE: Female Warriors Engage in Combat in Iraq, Afghanistan

"The reality of the battlefield has changed really since the Vietnam era to where it is today," said Rep. Tammy Duckworth, D-Ill., a former military helicopter pilot who lost both her legs in combat. "Those distinctions on what is combat and what is not really are falling aside. So I think that after having seen women, men, folks who -- cooks, clerks, truck drivers -- serve in combat conditions, the reality is women are already in combat."

Woman have been able to fly combat sorties since 1993. In 2010, the Navy allowed them on submarines. But lifting restrictions on service in frontline ground combat units will break a key barrier in the military.

READ MORE: Smooth Sailing for First Women to Serve on Navy Submarines

READ MORE: Female Fighter Pilot Breaks Gender Barriers

Panetta's decision will set a January 2016 deadline for the military service branches to argue that there are military roles that should remain closed to women.

In February 2012 the Defense Department opened up 14,500 positions to women that had previously been limited to men and lifted a rule that prohibited women from living with combat units.

Panetta also directed the services to examine ways to open more combat roles to women.

However, the ban on direct combat positions has remained in place.

Read More..

2013 could be 'climate game-changer'

An ice sculpture entitled 'Minimum Monument' by Brazilian artist Nele Azevedo outside Berlin's Concert Hall, September 2, 2009.

STORY HIGHLIGHTS

• The "neglected" risk of climate change seems to be rising to the top of leaders' agendas


• Extreme weather events are costing the global economy billions of dollars each year


• Gas can be an important bridge to a lower carbon future but it's not the answer


• More investment in renewable energy is needed, with fewer risks

Editor's note: Andrew Steer is President and CEO of the World Resources Institute, a think tank that works with governments, businesses and civil society to find sustainable solutions to environmental and development challenges.

(CNN) -- As leaders gather for the World Economic Forum in Davos, signs of economic hope are upon us. The global economy is on the mend. Worldwide, the middle class is expanding by an estimated 100 million per year. And the quality of life for millions in Asia and Africa is growing at an unprecedented pace.

Threats abound, of course. One neglected risk -- climate change -- appears to at last be rising to the top of agendas in business and political circles. When the World Economic Forum recently asked 1,000 leaders from industry, government, academia, and civil society to rank risks over the coming decade for the Global Risks 2013 report, climate change was in the top three. And in his second inaugural address, President Obama identified climate change as a major priority for his Administration.

Andrew Steer

For good reason: last year was the hottest year on record for the continental United States, and records for extreme weather events were broken around the world. We are seeing more droughts, wildfires, and rising seas. The current U.S. drought will wipe out approximately 1% of the U.S. GDP and is on course to be the costliest natural disaster in U.S. history. Damage from Hurricane Sandy will cost another 0.5% of GDP. And a recent study found that the cost of climate change is about $1.2 trillion per year globally, or 1.6% of global GDP.

Shifting to low-carbon energy sources is critical to mitigating climate change's impacts. Today's global energy mix is changing rapidly, but is it heading in the right direction?

Coal is the greatest driver of carbon dioxide emissions from energy, accounting for more than 40% of the total worldwide. Although coal demand is falling in the United States -- with 55 coal-powered plants closed in the past year -- it's growing globally. The World Resources Institute (WRI) recently identified 1,200 proposed new coal plants around the world. And last year, the United States hit a record-high level of coal exports—arguably transferring U.S. emissions abroad.

Meanwhile, shale gas is booming. Production in the United States has increased nearly tenfold since 2005, and China, India, Argentina, and many others have huge potential reserves. This development can be an economic blessing in many regions, and, because carbon emissions of shale gas are roughly half those of coal, it can help us get onto a lower carbon growth path.

However, while gas is an important bridge to a low carbon future—and can be a component of such a future—it can't get us fully to where we need to be. Greenhouse gas emissions in industrial countries need to fall by 80-90% by 2050 to prevent climate change's most disastrous impacts. And there is evidence that gas is crowding out renewables.

Renewable energy -- especially solar and wind power -- are clear winners when it comes to reducing emissions. Unfortunately, despite falling prices, the financial markets remain largely risk-averse. Many investors are less willing to finance renewable power. As a result of this mindset, along with policy uncertainty and the proliferation of low-cost gas, renewable energy investment dropped 11%, to $268 billion, last year.

What do we need to get on track?

Incentivizing renewable energy investment

Currently, more than 100 countries have renewable energy targets, more than 40 developing nations have introduced feed-in tariffs, and countries from Saudi Arabia to South Africa are making big bets on renewables as a growth market. Many countries are also exploring carbon-trading markets, including the EU, South Korea, and Australia. This year, China launched pilot trading projects in five cities and two provinces, with a goal of a national program by 2015.

Removing market barriers

Despite growing demand for renewable energy from many companies, this demand often remains unmet due to numerous regulatory, financial, and psychological barriers in the marketplace.

In an effort to address these, WRI just launched the Green Power Market Development Group in India, bringing together industry, government, and NGOs to build critical support for renewable energy markets. A dozen major companies from a variety of sectors—like Infosys, ACC, Cognizant, IBM, WIPRO, and others— have joined the initiative. This type of government-industry-utility partnership, built upon highly successful models elsewhere, can spur expanded clean energy development. It will be highlighted in Davos this week at meetings of the Green Growth Action Alliance (G2A2).

De-risking investments

For technical, policy, and financial reasons, risks are often higher for renewables than fossil-based energy. Addressing these risks is the big remaining task to bring about the needed energy transformation. Some new funding mechanisms are emerging that can help reduce risk and thus leverage large sums of financing. For example, the Green Climate Fund could, if well-designed, be an important venue to raise funds and drive additional investments from capital markets. Likewise, multi-lateral development banks' recent $175 billion commitment to sustainable transport could help leverage more funds from the private and public sectors.

Some forward-looking companies are seeking to create internal incentives for green investments. For example, companies like Unilever, Johnson & Johnson, and UPS have been taking actions to reduce internal hurdle rates and shift strategic thinking to the longer-term horizons that many green strategies need.

Davos is exactly the type of venue for finding solutions to such issues, which requires leadership and coalition-building from the private and public sectors. For example, the the G2A2, an alliance of CEOs committed to addressing climate and environmental risks, will launch the Green Investment Report with precisely the goal of "unlocking finance for green growth".

Depending on what happens at Davos—and other forums and meetings like it throughout the year—2013 could just be a game-changer.

Follow us on Twitter@CNNOpinion.

Join us on Facebook/CNNOpinion.

The opinions expressed in this commentary are solely those of Andrew Steer.

Read More..

Malaysia citizenship-for-votes probe stirs outrage

KUALA LUMPUR: For years, charges have swirled that a secret Malaysian scheme gave citizenship to huge numbers of illegal migrants in a politically important state in exchange for votes for the ruling coalition.

Now, an inquiry is finally airing detailed allegations that have the government on the defensive ahead of elections that pose the greatest threat yet faced by the ruling bloc that has controlled Malaysia for 56 years.

A Royal Commission of Inquiry opened last week with ex-officials admitting they gave citizenship to Filipinos and Indonesians in resource-rich Sabah, one of two Malaysian states on Borneo island.

One former official said some 100,000 identity cards (ICs) were handed out in 1993 ahead of a crucial state election, Malaysian news reports said. Another admitted signing hundreds of thousands of ICs in the 1990s.

The testimony has revived accusations of treason against former prime minister Mahathir Mohamad, who is alleged to have masterminded the scheme to shore up support for his government.

As head of the ruling Barisan Nasional (BN) coalition, Mahathir dominated Malaysia for 22 years until he resigned in 2003.

Current prime minister Najib Razak is now battling to rally support for the BN ahead of polls he is expected to call within months, in an era when the coalition's power grip has slipped.

But outrage over "Project IC", as the alleged scheme is widely known, is undercutting his claims that the national electoral roll is free of fraud.

The opposition and election-reform advocates allege massive fraud in voter rolls nationwide and have seized on the testimony as proof of government vote-tampering.

"What we are concerned about is that this is still going on. That's what we want to stop," Ambiga Sreenevasan, head of the clean-elections activist coalition known as "Bersih", or "Clean", told a press conference on Tuesday.

The outlines of "Project IC" have been whispered about for three decades and have bolstered the view of Sabah as a reliable "fixed deposit" of votes for the BN to help it weather challenges elsewhere.

The government allegedly targeted Muslims from neighbouring Indonesia and the predominantly Muslim southern Philippines.

More than half of Malaysia's 29 million people are Muslim ethnic Malays, but indigenous tribes, many of them Christian, predominate in Sabah.

They have bridled at the foreigners, blaming them for crime, drug abuse and economic competition, and alleging their homeland was being stolen.

Najib last June gave in to calls for an inquiry, but the move could backfire, said Ibrahim Suffian, head of independent polling firm Merdeka Centre, calling the revelations "explosive".

"It probably will create a wave of resentment and dissatisfaction among native Sabah voters. This confirms their worst fears," he said.

The population of Sabah, a region of rugged mountains and powerful rainforest rivers that is about the size of Ireland, has surged from some 600,000 citizens in 1970 to more than three million -- more than double the national growth rate.

Malaysia's opposition alleges some 700,000 may have illegally received ICs. A one-time battleground state, Sabah has been pro-BN since the mid-1990s.

The once all-powerful BN suffered a shock setback in 2008 national elections, and analysts predict a close fight with a formidable opposition led by Anwar Ibrahim, a former deputy premier, raising fears that government fraud could play a role.

Najib insists the national electoral system is clean and has highlighted recent reforms such as plans to use indelible ink to prevent multiple voting.

"Let the commission do its work and find out," Najib was quoted as saying by state media, warning against a rush to judgement in Sabah.

Mahathir, still a vocal and influential conservative figure, has denied the existence of "Project IC," but admitted at a press conference last week that foreigners in Sabah were given citizenship, saying no laws were broken.

No one has yet directly implicated him before the commission, but witnesses said last week they were directed by officials close to Mahathir. There has been no testimony yet suggesting "Project IC" was still active.

Hearings will continue for weeks, with some 170 witnesses expected to testify. The commission has until late March to investigate.

The commission's final recommendations are not legally binding, but could lead to pressure for a crackdown on illegals.

- AFP/xq

Read More..

Tapper talks Benghazi and his book

on your computer or on the CNN Apps for iPhone® and iPad®.

iPhone, iPad and Mac are trademarks of Apple Inc., registered in the U.S. and other countries. App Store is a service mark of Apple Inc.

If you get CNN and HLN at home, you can watch them online and on the go for no additional chargeStart watching

Read More..

Netanyahu likely clings to job in Israel election

JERUSALEM Israel's parliamentary election ended Wednesday in a stunning deadlock between Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's hard-line bloc and center-left rivals, forcing the badly weakened Israeli leader to scramble to cobble together a coalition of parties from both camps, despite dramatically different views on Mideast peacemaking and other polarizing issues.

Israeli media said that with 99.8 percent of votes counted on Wednesday morning, each bloc had 60 of parliament's 120 seats. Commentators said Netanyahu, who called early elections expecting easy victory, would be tapped to form the next government because the rival camp drew 12 of its 60 seats from Arab parties who've never joined a coalition.

A startlingly strong showing by a political newcomer, the centrist Yesh Atid party, turned pre-election forecasts on their heads and dealt Netanyahu his surprise setback.

Yesh Atid, or There is a Future, a party headed by political newcomer Yair Lapid, is now Netanyahu's most likely partner. Lapid has said he would only join a government committed to sweeping economic changes and a resumption of peace talks with the Palestinians.

Addressing his supporters early Wednesday, Netanyahu vowed to form as broad a coalition as possible. He said the next government would be built on principles that include reforming the contentious system of granting draft exemptions to ultra-Orthodox Jewish men and the pursuit of a "genuine peace" with the Palestinians. He did not elaborate, but the message seemed aimed at Lapid.

Shortly after the results were announced, Netanyahu called Lapid and offered to work together. "We have the opportunity to do great things together," Netanyahu was quoted as saying by Likud officials.

Netanyahu's Likud-Yisrael Beitenu alliance was set to capture about 31 of the 120 seats, significantly fewer than the 42 it held in the outgoing parliament and below the forecasts of recent polls.

With his traditional allies of nationalist and religious parties, Netanyahu could put together a shaky majority of 61 seats, results showed. But it would be virtually impossible to keep such a narrow coalition intact, though it was possible he could take an additional seat or two as numbers trickled in throughout the night.

The results capped a lackluster campaign in which peacemaking with the Palestinians, traditionally the dominant issue in Israeli politics, was pushed aside. Netanyahu portrayed himself as the only candidate capable of leading Israel at a turbulent time, while the fragmented opposition targeted him on domestic economic issues.

Israeli actor, journalist and author Yair Lapid, leader of the Yesh Atid party, speaks to supporters, Jan. 23, 2013 at his party headquarters in Tel Aviv.

/

Getty

Netanyahu's goal of a broader coalition will force him to make some difficult decisions. Concessions to Lapid, for instance, will alienate his religious allies. In an interview last week with The Associated Press, Lapid said he would not be a "fig leaf" for a hard-line, extremist agenda.

Lapid's performance was the biggest surprise of the election. The one-time TV talk show host and son of a former Cabinet minister was poised to win 19 seats, giving him the second-largest faction in parliament.

Presenting himself as the defender of the middle class, Lapid vowed to take on Israel's high cost of living and to end the contentious system of subsidies and draft exemptions granted to ultra-Orthodox Jews while they pursue religious studies. The expensive system has bred widespread resentment among the Israeli mainstream.

Thanks to his strong performance, Lapid is now in a position to serve as the kingmaker of the next government. He will likely seek a senior Cabinet post and other concessions.

Yaakov Peri, a member of Lapid's party, said it would not join unless the government pledges to begin drafting the ultra-Orthodox into the military, lowers the country's high cost of living and returns to peace talks. "We have red lines. We won't cross those red lines, even if it will cost us sitting in the opposition," Peri told Channel 2 TV.

Addressing his supporters, a beaming Lapid was noncommittal, calling only for a broad government with moderates from left and right. "Israelis said no to the politics of fear and hatred," he said. "And they said no to extremism and anti-democracy."

There was even a distant possibility of Lapid and more dovish parties teaming up to block Netanyahu from forming a majority.

"It could be that this evening is the beginning for a big chance to create an alternative government to the Netanyahu government," said Shelly Yachimovich, leader of the Labor Party, which won 15 seats on a platform pledging to narrow the gaps between rich and poor.

Although that seemed unlikely, Netanyahu clearly emerged from the election in a weakened state.

1/2

Read More..