Deal Suggests Bright Solar Future In China

January 15, 2010

This is SCIENCE FRIDAY from NPR News. I’m Ira Flatow.

The Chinese government has promised that by 2020, 15 percent of its energy will come from renewable sources. And to that end, China announced one of the biggest, if not the biggest, solar project in history last week. A solar thermal start up called eSolar from Pasadena landed a contract to build a 2000- megawatt solar thermal complex in China. China will spend five to $6 billion for the project. It sounds like a lot. But my next guest says it’s just a drop in the bucket of - on what China will spend or likely spend over the next few years on renewable energy.

My guest is Bill Gross. He's CEO of eSolar, Incorporated in Pasadena. Thanks for being with us today, Bill.

Mr. BILL GROSS (CEO, eSolar): Thank you very much for having me.

FLATOW: How did you land this deal?

Mr. GROSS: Well, we built a power plant here in Southern California, in Lancaster, California about a year ago. And China started looking aggressively around the world for technology they could bring to China that would be the most cost effective. And they looked at technology from the United States. I think they looked at technology from Israel, from Spain, from all over. They chose this technology because it’s very scalable. It’s very cost effective, and it has the potential to compete with fossil fuels with no subsidies, eventually. And that’s really the endgame, to try and make solar energy actually less expensive than traditional fossil-based energy.

FLATOW: And the plant will be built in China, with Chinese workers.

Mr. GROSS: Absolutely. Well, the great thing about solar projects is they create jobs wherever they’re built. So if you build plants in California, you make jobs here. You build plants in New Mexico, you make jobs there. We’re working on some plants in New Mexico right now.

FLATOW: Mm-hmm.

Mr. GROSS: You build plants in China, you make local jobs. All the plants have to build with local (chinese) labor.

FLATOW: But what I understand about this project is that the control of the solar panels will come from California.

Mr. GROSS: Yes. A unique part of eSolar's solution is that we use a software system to control all the many thousands of mirrors that are tracking the sun, that concentrate the sunlight, and we control that entirely remotely from our headquarters here in Pasadena. We put a lot of effort into making this software solution so we could control plants around the world remotely. And that way, we’ll still be making jobs even here in California for plants all over the world.

FLATOW: What’s interesting about this idea is that the Chinese are going into this knowing that the solar panels, because they don’t have enough sun all the time, will have to be augmented with something else. Right?

Mr. GROSS: Yes. Well, the main problem with all forms of renewable energy to date has been that you only get the energy when the wind blows or when the sun shines.

FLATOW: Right.

Mr. GROSS: And that means you can make sun - you know, make electricity, say, 25 percent of the day, but what about nighttime? What about cloudy days? So far, our energy needs are so great that any contribution from solar is beneficial. But in China, they’re thinking ahead to trying to make dispatchable renewable power that can give round-the-clock energy. So this unique plant that we’re building is a combination of solar, hybrid, biomass plant. So when the sun is not shining, we’ll be burning some, well, wood-husk or some other nonfood remnant biomass to produce the energy to turn the turbine that the sunlight will provide during the day. In that way, we can produce electricity round the clock from a renewable resource.

FLATOW: You know, there was a lot of excitement in California about building these same kind of solar plants in the Mojave Desert, and then these things sort of fell by the wayside because of environmental concerns.

Mr. GROSS: Definitely, if you’re going to build plants where there's good sunshine, the Pristine Desert is a great location. The problem is you impact lots of natural habitat for many different animals. We have chosen different path. We have made our plants smaller, so we don’t need tens of thousands or, you know, hundreds or square miles. We only need 200 acres. We’ve made our plant small enough to be modular(ph) - 200-acre size. And we locate them right – closer to population centers, on private land, already disturbed land, land that has already been farmed or used for something else, so there is no natural habitat to disturb.

And that is our technique and that is a way that I think we can actually build large-scale solar in California and still respect some of the pristine desert and natural habitat we have here in California.

FLATOW: Do you have enough land like that, to try to…

Mr. GROSS: Oh, there’s absolutely enough land like that. Just in the Lancaster, Antelope Valley, there are many, many square miles of private farmland that can be repurposed for this. We can actually power the entire State of California with a square only 23 miles by 23 miles. And it doesn’t have to be all in one spot, so you can break that up and put it all over the Central Valley, or anywhere in California. So there's easily enough land to power not only all of California, but the whole United States, just from California.

FLATOW: But you - it seems like you can do that in China very quickly and it would take who-knows-what to do that in California.

Mr. GROSS: Yeah. Well, it is faster to get things done in China right now. And that’s one thing that I think we should do in the United States, is maybe streamline some of the permitting for renewable energy plants. As one example, you have to go through the entire environmental impact report, study for emissions for a solar power plant, even though there are no emissions. And maybe we need to adjust the rules a little bit so that if there are no emissions, you don’t have to do that stage. That would be an example of some aspect of bureaucracy that I hope we can approve. But I think that’s going to happen. I think that as the price comes down - because I think people are more concerned about price than they are about that - I think we'll be able to speed up the deployment of solar throughout the United States.

FLATOW: And so you think there are enough areas outside of California and in other states where there…

Mr. GROSS: Oh, easily. To power - again, just to give you an example…

FLATOW: Yeah.

Mr. GROSS: …to power the whole country, the entire United States, all of its electricity needs, 91 miles by 91 miles. So you could find patches of land in California, Arizona, New Mexico, Texas. Basically, I’m just using the South West states…

FLATOW: Yeah.

Mr. GROSS: …but you could go everywhere, easily power the whole country with sunshine, taking a negligible, negligible percentage of the total land.

FLATOW: But do we have a grid that could hook all this together?

Mr. GROSS: We would have to build a super grid if we want to power New Hampshire from Texas.

FLATOW: Right.

Mr. GROSS: But to power the South West with the South West, very easy.

FLATOW: And you could find some place in New Hampshire for their own.

Mr. GROSS: Yes.

(Soundbite of laughter)

FLATOW: Or use the offshore area…

Mr. GROSS: Exactly.

FLATOW: …floating, or something like that.

Mr. GROSS: There definitely is renewable energy very widely distributed around the planet. Of all of the natural resources that are on the planet you think of, we have to go get copper from certain mines somewhere. We get diamonds from another place, they're all are very concentrated. Solar energy and wind energy, they're the most distributed national resource on the whole planet. It’s everywhere. So maybe Antarctica, you’re not going to build the solar plant. But other than that, you're going to build solar just about everywhere. So there really is a potential to build it close to the population centers, close to the people who want to use the energy.

FLATOW: But if you talk to people who believe in nuclear power, they’ll say, well, you can’t get - you know, you can’t build enough of them - or quickly enough, that nuclear is the way to go.

Mr. GROSS: Well, I think nuclear should be part of the solution, but I do agree you can’t build enough. I’ll give you some specific example on that. If we want to make up the multi-terawatt gap that the planet is going to need over the next 30 years, you pretty much would need to build a one-gigawatt nuclear power plant every other day for the next 30 years. And it typically takes about seven years to permit a nuclear plant. So you’re not going to build one every other day for the next 30 years. It doesn’t mean you shouldn't build as many as you can, because it is completely emission-free if you can make it safe enough. It’s absolutely a great way to contribute to the problem of needing enough energy to power the planet, but it’s not going to do it alone.

FLATOW: Could you build, let’s say, solar plants in that time, seven years, how many - could you get everything up and running much shorter than that?

Mr. GROSS: I believe you could scale solar plants faster because the only materials needed are steel and glass and steam turbines. And you need steam turbines for any kind of plant you make, so those are already made on a large enough scale, GE, Siemens, Alstom, all the big companies who make turbines for existing power plants can also be run off of solar steam. Basically, the only difference is the fuel. Do you make the steam from the sun, or do you make the steam from coal? That’s the only change. So there are enough turbines. There is enough steel and glass to go around. You don’t need to use any uranium. You don’t need to have any of the safety issues around a nuclear power plant. So you can scale it faster.

FLATOW: Well, can you get any of the money that the government's trying to pump back into the - you know, the federal money that’s out there?

Mr. GROSS: Oh, absolutely. There is a lot of incentive for all forms of renewables. There's a 30 percent investment tax credit now for solar plants and wind plants for the next seven years. There are other low-interest loan guarantees from the DOE.

FLATOW: What about – what I’m asking is about the stimulus money. We still have a lot of that in the bank, don’t we?

Mr. GROSS: Yeah. Well, lot of that has not been given out yet.

FLATOW: Yeah.

Mr. GROSS: And I would love to see that get deployed this year. I think the goal is to deploy that this year. I think that will create a lot of jobs and a lot of traction in the renewable space as that gets deployed.

FLATOW: And that's what Eisenhower, President Eisenhower did with the, you know, interstate highway system after World War II. Why can't we create an interstate solar system?

Mr. GROSS: Absolutely. Well, I would love to see those funds help accelerate this, but my real dream for this is solar energy should compete on an absolutely level playing field with fossil fuels.

FLATOW: And you think it can?

Mr. GROSS: I absolutely think it can. The sunshine is so strong, especially in California, that you can make solar electricity for as cheap as you can make natural-gas-fire electricity - in time, and that’s the way it should be. People should not have to pay more for renewable energy. The only stimulus should be to get these projects started so that we can get to scale so we can actually compete on a level playing field.

FLATOW: And considering the state that California is in, you'd think that people would want these things.

Mr. GROSS: Oh, I think people do. I think people do. I think the economy, the economic challenge right now just makes it harder to get the financing to build these things, but that's going to change, and these things are going to get built at very large scale.

FLATOW: And you think the same thing might be happening in the rest of the states.

Mr. GROSS: Definitely, the rest of the states and the rest of the world. I actually think the rest of the world is moving very quickly on this. Hopefully as the various countries get together and set some targets, the whole world will move quickly. But even China is moving very, very fast. I mean, from this - you think of China as not necessarily at the forefront of renewable energy, and yet they are very aggressive on this, and then of course, in all of Europe, and especially in Southern Europe, the Mediterranean, there's great ambition to get completely on renewable energy.

FLATOW: Well, China's making all our light bulbs now. Are they going to be making all of our solar panels?

Mr. GROSS: Well, I don't think they'll be making all our solar panels, but I do think they're going to help drive the industry along to help drive the price down for everybody.

FLATOW: And can we create our own industry here without having to go to China?

Mr. GROSS: Absolutely. Well, we feel we're proving that. Here we are in California. We're using lots of engineering resources from Southern California, from the aerospace firms, from JPL, from Cal Tech. We put together a great team of people. There's a lot of ingenuity in California.

California is a great place for innovation. I don't think this new technology could've been maybe invented anywhere else except California, and I think we can be a great exporter of this to the whole rest of the planet.

FLATOW: And how soon will the system in China be finished?

Mr. GROSS: Well, we finished our plant here in California last year. We're beginning construction on the first 92 megawatts in China later this year, and they'll be coming online in the ensuing years after that. Over 10 years, we'll be building out to full two gigawatts.

FLATOW: And are those two gigawatts going to be distributed in different places, not in one spot?

Mr. GROSS: Yes, they'll be in different places.

FLATOW: That's why you don't need that giant piece of real estate.

Mr. GROSS: Exactly. You want to build the power closer to where the consumers of the electricity will be so you have less transmission losses. You also have some benefits in security by having it distributed, by not having it all in one location.

FLATOW: Any fear that the Chinese may not, you know, cooperate with the software, that they might be trying to sneak into your software where you're controlling it, in California?

Mr. GROSS: I don't believe that we'll have a problem with that. We have very good protection on that front. But also, it's not their expertise. I really feel their expertise is in the rollout construction, the labor force required to build the plants. We feel that our core expertise is the control of the power plant, the manipulation of the mirrors and the ongoing software improvements there.

FLATOW: All right, Bill, good luck to you.

Mr. GROSS: Thank you very much.

FLATOW: Thanks for taking time to be with us today.

Mr. GROSS: My pleasure.

FLATOW: Bill Gross is the CEO of eSolar Incorporated in Pasadena, California. We're going to take a short break and switch gears and talk about race. Census is coming up this year. They're going to be asking you about race on there. Just what do we mean by race? Is it the wrong question? Is it useful? Is it useful in medicine? We'll talk about it, take your calls, 1-800-989-8255. Stay with us.

(Soundbite of music)
Publish Post


FLATOW: I'm Ira Flatow. This is SCIENCE FRIDAY from NPR News.

Soft Statehood?

Posted: 20 Jan 2010 08:12 AM PST

by JanKlabbers

It would be tempting to join Opinio Juris’ discussion on soft law of a few weeks ago, but having written quite a bit on the topic going back to the mid-1990s, I thought I’d pay some attention to a lovely little story that ran in the New York Times about a month or two ago (I forgot to date my clipping… Typical). The story concerned the death of Prince Giorgio, ruler of what the NYTimes referred to as the Principality of Seborga. Prince Giorgio was apparently first elected prince in 1963 and then elected for life in 1995. He went through life as His Tremendousness (wouldn’t we all…), set up a cabinet and a constitution, minted money and stamps and even mobilized a standing army, albeit one consisting of a single individual (then again, Seborga counts only a little over 300 inhabitants). Being surrounded by Italy and close to France, Seborga had found recognition of sorts by some 20 states, mostly in the not-so-formal way of honorary consuls. And so as to underline his royal eccentricity, Prince Giorgio’s most noteworthy legislative act, it appears, was the adoption of a law to stimulate smoking.

The intriguing question the story represents is why few of us think of Seborga as an independent, sovereign state, whereas we have no problem in thinking of Canada, or Brazil, or even Luxembourg, as an independent state. Luxembourg is not much bigger than Seborga; Brazil is, arguably, far younger than Seborga (which, according to the NYTimes, has been a principality since at least the year 1079); and it is arguable that Canada does not, unlike Seborga, have its own head of state. So where does the difference stem from? It all seems rather arbitrary, really. The obvious formal answer would be to refer to recognition by other states, but this too seems to remain rather arbitrary: there seems to be no self-evident reason why the rest of the world should have recognized Luxembourg but not Seborga. In other words: even the category of statehood, much like many other international law categories, may be seen as somehow fluid.

With this in mind, shouldn’t we come to conceptualize statehood in gradations? This would allow us to come to terms with an entity such as Kosovo: not wishing to be part of Serbia, but not yet fully to be regarded as ‘hard state’ either. It would help us classify and categorize entities such as Somalia as a ’soft state’ - surely, this sounds much nicer than ‘failed state’ while conveying much the same message. It would make some sense of the Holy See, the one entity where the population cannot reproduce itself. And wouldn’t Belgium be better off divided into two, three or four soft states rather than one fragile hard state with a hopelessly complicated constitutional set-up the only thing preventing it from breaking up completely?

When writing about soft law in the mid-1990s I aimed to ridicule the concept of soft law by suggesting that surely, we would never come to speak of soft responsibility to be determined by soft tribunals, yet this is precisely what has happened in the intervening years: non-compliance procedures are established in order to assist states with ‘compliance problems’. With this in mind, recognition of the concept of soft statehood can only be a matter of time…

the rankings of the stickiest law professor blogs

The Stickiest LawProf Blogs

Posted: 20 Jan 2010 05:20 AM PST

by Roger Alford

Paul Caron at Tax Prof Blog has just published the annual rankings for law professor blogs. There is some very useful information, including overall traffic numbers and details on which blogs are growing and declining in numbers. (Opinio Juris is now ranked 16th overall and is among the top ten in percentage annual increases).

As I have reported before, it is one thing to have good traffic numbers and another to be well read. Here are the rankings of the stickiest law professor blogs (with Caron’s rankings in parenthesis):

1. 3:30 Althouse (3)
2. 3:10 Jack Bog’s Blog (9)
3. 2:40 Antitrust & Competition Policy Blog (34)
4. 2:35 Election Law Blog (33)
5. 2:27 Mirror of Justice (28)
6. 2:25 The Right Coast (19)
7. 2:23 Sentencing Law & Policy (11)
8. 2:21 Religion Clause (24)
9. 2:17 Sports Law Blog (25)
10. 2:15 Legal History Blog (27)
11. 2:13 Dissenting Justice (26)
12. 2:10 Prawfsblawg (13)
13. 2:05 Faculty Lounge (15)
14. 2:01 Opinio Juris (16)
15. 2:00 Balkinization (14)
16. 1:49 Patently-O (7)
17. 1:46 The Conglomerate (22)
18. 1:41 Immigration Prof Blog (23)
19. 1:40 White Collar Crime Prof Blog (20)
20. 1:40 Workplace Prof Blog (17)
21. 1:36 Legal Profession Blog (31)
22. 1:29 Wills, Trusts & Estates Prof Blog (21)
23. 1:22 Concurring Opinions (11)
24. 1:16 Legal Writing Prof Blog (30)
25. 1:15 CrimProf Blog (32)
26. 1:13 Leiter Law School Reports (12)
27. 1:07 Ideoblog (29)
28. 1:06 Discourse.net (18)
29. 1:04 Leiter Reports: Philosophy (6)
30. 0:32 Hugh Hewitt (4)
30. 0:32 Tax Prof Blog (5)
32. 0:31 Volokh Conspiracy (2)
33. 0:23 Legal Insurrection (8)
34. 0:00 Instapundit (1)

Deals to Restrain Generic Drugs Face a Ban in Health Care Bill

New York Times (NY)
January 13, 2010
Deals to Restrain Generic Drugs Face a Ban in Health Care Bill

NATASHA SINGER

A group of House lawmakers and the head of the Federal Trade Commission want Congress to include a provision in the health care legislation that they say could save American consumers several billion dollars a year on prescription drugs.

The group plans to ask Congress on Wednesday to block business deals in which they say makers of name-brand drugs directly or indirectly pay generic makers to delay competition from cheaper generic alternatives.

The House bill already includes such a ban. The Congressional Budget Office, considering only federal drug spending, has estimated that the House provision could save the government $1.8 billion in health costs over the next 10 years.

The Senate version does not include such a prohibition. But a group of nine Democrats, led by Herb Kohl of Wisconsin, signed a letter late last month to the majority leader, Harry Reid, urging that a ban be included in the final legislation.

An aide to Mr. Reid declined to comment. The Senate does not return from its holiday break until next week.

In recent years, critics say, deals between name-brand makers and generic makers have delayed the introduction of a range of generics including cancer drugs, antidepressants and prescription-strength antacids. The F.T.C. has estimated that such deals currently cost American consumers $3.5 billion a year.

''These are collusive, price-fixing deals,'' said Representative Chris Van Hollen, Democrat of Maryland, who is one of those urging Congress to ban the arrangements. ''It means the consumer pays a lot more for their pharmaceuticals.''

Opponents of the generic agreements -- maligned as ''pay for delay'' deals -- say they are standard industry practice and help prop up monopoly pricing.

Generics account for only about 22 percent of prescription drug spending in this country, although they represent nearly three-quarters of the prescriptions written, according to the research firm IMS Health. That means 78 percent of the nation's drug bill goes toward the 25 percent of prescriptions written for name-brand medicines.

But representatives of branded drug and generic makers said that settlements were a legitimate and expedient way to resolve expensive and time-consuming patent litigation.

Moreover, Kathleen Jaeger, the president of the Generic Pharmaceutical Association, an industry trade group, contested the term ''pay for delay.''

Settlements, she said, typically award the generic challenger the right to enter the market before a brand's patent is due to expire, giving consumers earlier access to affordable drugs. And compensation, she said, is often for legitimate side deals, like the generic company's supplying ingredients to the name-brand maker.

''You can't sweep all the good, the pro-competitive, pro-consumer settlements out with the bad,'' Ms. Jaeger said in an interview on Monday.

Nevertheless Jon Leibowitz, the chairman of the Federal Trade Commission, argues that many settlement deals violate antitrust laws when they restrict generic entry and also involve compensation from the name-brand company to the generic maker.

''These sweetheart deals are being done on the backs of consumers,'' Mr. Leibowitz said in an interview. ''From the perspective of the Federal Trade Commission, these deals are one of the worst abuses across the board in health care and should be stopped.''

But, since 2005, several appellate courts have upheld some of the agreements, ruling that such settlements do not violate antitrust laws when they let the generic drug enter the market before the name-brand maker's patent is due to expire.

As a result, the F.T.C. is appealing to Congress to ban the compensated settlements altogether.

The settlement deals are an outgrowth of the Hatch-Waxman Act, a 1984 law intended to promote drug price competition by encouraging generic companies to challenge the patents on name-brand drugs.

Some name-brand drug patents, like those on the active pharmaceutical ingredient in a medication, may be strong and not vulnerable to challenge. But other patents, like those on the ingredient formula, may be weaker and more inviting to a generic challenger.

Under Hatch-Waxman, the first generic to challenge a name-brand drug's patent gains the exclusive right to sell its generic version for six months before other generic makers can enter the market. But Hatch-Waxman also gives drug makers who sue generic infringers an automatic 30-month stay of generic market entry so that litigation can proceed.

Rather than litigate cases to the end, though, many drug makers choose to settle with generic challengers. Sometimes, the parties negotiate an earlier market entry date for the generic, without the generic maker's receiving additional compensation.

But other agreements, the F.T.C. says, have restricted generic market entry and have involved compensation from drug makers to generic companies, either in the form of direct payments or in side deals in which drug makers agreed to pay generics to provide goods or services. The agency has sued some companies for such deals.

Even now, the F.T.C. is suing the drug company Cephalon, claiming that it illegally induced generic challengers to delay marketing generic versions of the stay-awake drug Provigil to protect the product, which had sales in the United States of about $925 million in 2008.

According to the F.T.C., in late 2005 and early 2006 the company reached settlements with four generic makers that had challenged a Provigil patent.

The generic companies agreed not to market a generic form of the drug until 2012, and Cephalon agreed to pay the challengers at least $238 million for 13 side deals involving services like ingredient supply, the F.T.C. said.

Gerald J. Pappert, Cephalon's general counsel, said on Tuesday that the company strongly disagreed with the F.T.C.'s characterizations of its agreements with generic makers. He said Cephalon had structured the settlements to be in full compliance with the law. Moreover, the agreements allowed generics to enter the market in 2012, three years earlier than the Provigil patent was due to expire, he said.

Drug companies entered into 19 settlement agreements in fiscal year 2009 that involved both delaying generic entry and compensation from the brand to the generic compared to no such agreements in fiscal year 2004, according to an F.T.C. report to be published on Wednesday. Settlement deals in which generic makers received compensation typically kept generics off the market for 17 months longer than deals without payments, the report says.

Not everyone outside the drug industry agrees that restricting the compensated generic settlements would necessarily benefit consumers.

Senator Orrin Hatch, the Utah Republican who was an author of the Hatch-Waxman law, has raised the possibility that, without the option of negotiated patent settlements, generic companies might be less likely to challenge drug patents, thus delaying generic availability.

In a letter last September to Senator Kohl, who had sponsored a stand-alone bill last year prohibiting the deals, Mr. Hatch wrote: ''Any generic entry prior to patent expiration gives consumers the choice of using generic drugs earlier than can be anticipated and provides savings to the health care system -- whether by agreement or final court decision.''


Is China The Next Enron?

New York Times (NY)
January 13, 2010
Is China The Next Enron?

THOMAS L. FRIEDMAN
Taipei, Taiwan
Reading The Herald Tribune over breakfast in Hong Kong harbor last week, my eye went to the front-page story about how James Chanos -- reportedly one of America's most successful short-sellers, the man who bet that Enron was a fraud and made a fortune when that proved true and its stock collapsed -- is now warning that China is ''Dubai times 1,000 -- or worse'' and looking for ways to short that country's economy before its bubbles burst.

China's markets may be full of bubbles ripe for a short-seller, and if Mr. Chanos can find a way to make money shorting them, God bless him. But after visiting Hong Kong and Taiwan this past week and talking to many people who work and invest their own money in China, I'd offer Mr. Chanos two notes of caution.

First, a simple rule of investing that has always served me well: Never short a country with $2 trillion in foreign currency reserves.

Second, it is easy to look at China today and see its enormous problems and things that it is not getting right. For instance, low interest rates, easy credit, an undervalued currency and hot money flowing in from abroad have led to what the Chinese government Sunday called ''excessively rising house prices'' in major cities, or what some might call a speculative bubble ripe for the shorting. In the last few days, though, China's central bank has started edging up interest rates and raising the proportion of deposits that banks must set aside as reserves -- precisely to head off inflation and take some air out of any asset bubbles.

And that's the point. I am reluctant to sell China short, not because I think it has no problems or corruption or bubbles, but because I think it has all those problems in spades -- and some will blow up along the way (the most dangerous being pollution). But it also has a political class focused on addressing its real problems, as well as a mountain of savings with which to do so (unlike us).

And here is the other thing to keep in mind. Think about all the hype, all the words, that have been written about China's economic development since 1979. It's a lot, right? What if I told you this: ''It may be that we haven't seen anything yet.''

Why do I say that? All the long-term investments that China has made over the last two decades are just blossoming and could really propel the Chinese economy into the 21st-century knowledge age, starting with its massive investment in infrastructure. Ten years ago, China had a lot bridges and roads to nowhere. Well, many of them are now connected. It is also on a crash program of building subways in major cities and high-speed trains to interconnect them. China also now has 400 million Internet users, and 200 million of them have broadband. Check into a motel in any major city and you'll have broadband access. America has about 80 million broadband users.

Now take all this infrastructure and mix it together with 27 million students in technical colleges and universities -- the most in the world. With just the normal distribution of brains, that's going to bring a lot of brainpower to the market, or, as Bill Gates once said to me: ''In China, when you're one-in-a-million, there are 1,300 other people just like you.''

Equally important, more and more Chinese students educated abroad are returning home to work and start new businesses. I had lunch with a group of professors at the Hong Kong University of Science and Technology, or HKUST, who told me that this year they will be offering some 50 full scholarships for graduate students in science and technology. Major U.S. universities are sharply cutting back.

Tony Chan, a Hong Kong-born mathematician, recently returned from America after 20 years to become the new president of HKUST. What was his last job in America? Assistant director of the U.S. National Science Foundation in charge of the mathematical and physical sciences. He's one of many coming home.

One of the biggest problems for China's manufacturing and financial sectors has been finding capable middle managers. The reverse-brain drain is eliminating that problem as well.

Finally, as Liu Chao-shiuan, Taiwan's former prime minister, pointed out to me: when Taiwan moved up the value chain from low-end, labor-intensive manufacturing to higher, value-added work, its factories moved to China or Vietnam. It lost them. In China, low-end manufacturing moves from coastal China to the less developed Western part of the country and becomes an engine for development there. In Taiwan, factories go up and out. In China, they go East to West.

''China knows it has problems,'' said Liu. ''But this is the first time it has a chance to actually solve them.'' Taiwanese entrepreneurs now have more than 70,000 factories in China. They know the place. So I asked several Taiwanese businessmen whether they would ''short'' China. They vigorously shook their heads no as if I'd asked if they'd go one on one with LeBron James.

But, hey, some people said the same about Enron. Still, I'd rather bet against the euro. Shorting China today? Well, good luck with that, Mr. Chanos. Let us know how it works out for you.

Crops in India and China face climate-change risk

International Herald Tribune
Copyright 2010 The New York Times
January 13, 2010

Crops in India and China face climate-change risk
In the Blogs: Green Inc.

John Collins Rudolf

China and India, which make up about 37 percent of the global population, face a future of sharply lower crop yields as a consequence of climate change, leading scientists in both nations warned recently.

Yields from rain-irrigated wheat could drop by 44 percent by 2050 under warmer conditions forecast by climate models, the Indian farm scientist M.S. Swaminathan told reporters during the 97th Indian Science Congress last week.

Mr. Swaminathan is considered the architect of India's "Green Revolution" for his work in the 1960s developing high-yield grain varieties that ended decades of severe famine.

India continues to suffer from high inflation in food prices and widespread chronic hunger. Such problems will be vastly worse if global temperatures continue to rise, Mr. Swaminathan said.

"For every one degree Celsius rise in mean temperature, the wheat loss is estimated to be of the order of six million tons per year," he said, according to The Hindu newspaper.

India's total wheat production was about 75 million metric tons in 2009.

China could face a similar climate-induced grain crisis, Zheng Guoguang, director of the China Meteorological Administration, the official weather forecasting agency in China, warned in a December essay in an influential Communist Party journal. Yields of rice, wheat and corn could fall as much as 37 percent by 2050 because of increased drought conditions and other climate impacts, Mr. Zheng estimated. Citing Mr. Zheng's essay, a statement by the Chinese Meteorological Association urged the country's leaders to focus on adapting to, rather than mitigating, climate change.

"Since climate change is an objective fact, it is more realistic and urgent for China, a big developing country, to adapt to than mitigate climate change," the statement said. "So China should put adaptation as top strategy of addressing climate change and put enhancing grain production and ensuring food security as first task."

Global-warming emissions from China and India continue to rise and will account for about 34 percent of global emissions by 2030 — up from just 13 percent in 1990, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration.

India and China will be crucial for any global treaty to restrain emissions; the recent Copenhagen accord, which both countries endorsed, urges, but does not require, steep cuts in emissions.

California Panel Considers Money From Climate Rules

New York Times (NY)
January 13, 2010
California Panel Considers Money From Climate Rules
JESSE McKINLEY
SAN FRANCISCO
Offering an early glimpse of how California might manage a central element of its ambitious greenhouse-gas law, a state committee has recommended that residents receive cash or tax breaks resulting from auctions of emission allowances to industries and other polluters.

Under the proposal, described by the committee as a ''household friendly'' approach, Californianswould receive 75 percent of the proceeds from emissions auctions, either in tax decreases or checks sent directly to residents.

The proposal was one of several released on Monday in a final report from the 16-member Economic and Allocation Advisory Committee, which is charged with advising the state's Air Resources Board on a cap-and-trade system. Such a system has become a central element of enacting the landmark California law enacted in 2006 to limit emissions of greenhouse gases in the state.

The report was met with a measured response from state officials, including Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, a Republican who has championed his environmental record as a bright spot in a second term marred by continual budget crises and cutbacks.

''I continue to believe the best program will be one that returns value to the people through tax cuts, rebates or dividends,'' the governor said in a statement. ''And I applaud the committee for recognizing those options.''

In cap-and-trade systems, individual polluters are given allowances to pollute to a certain level, with the total number of permissible emissions slowly reduced year by year. In California, the emissions law, AB 32, requires that emissions of heat-trapping gases statewide be reduced to 1990 levels by 2020.

In some cases, the allowances have been offered to polluters without charge to soften the economic impact or to win the confidence of businesses, which will bear higher costs to reduce emissions and which can sell unused allowances. The cap-and-trade legislation passed by the United States House last summer had some free allowances, as does much of the legislation being considered in the Senate.

Under the California committee's recommendation, however, allowances would be auctioned, and the bulk of the proceeds returned to the state's residents. It says auctions ''would be more transparent and provide additional advantages including price discovery and market liquidity.''

Cap-and-trade policies, which have been used to fight acid rain and other types of pollution, can be controversial, and their fate in the Senate is uncertain.

Robert Stavins, the director of the Harvard Environmental Economics Program, said the California proposal faced uncertain political prospects and that such a plan could eventually put California at odds with a national cap-and-trade program.

''The political question,'' Mr. Stavins said, ''is whether the approach of compensating sectors and geographic areas through free allocation'' -- the approach in the House bill -- ''turns out to be more politically effective than the populist approach of trying to win the support of the population directly with checks in the mail.''

The California Chamber of Commerce responded warily to the proposal, saying in a letter to Mary Nichols, chairwoman of the resources board, that ''auctioning of allowances must be kept at de minimus levels'' to avoid higher costs to businesses, and in turn, consumers.

A board spokesman, Stanley Young, said members would consider all the committee's recommendations and issue draft regulations for the cap-and-trade program this spring. The board has until next January to adopt such a program, which is required to be in place by 2012.

Iran: Time for tougher sanctions

Section: The Economist 09 Jan 2010

Iran: Time for tougher sanctions

Iran misses another diplomatic deadline. Sanctions should now follow

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has had his last chance

THE six countries trying to talk Iran out of its dangerous nuclear ambitions--America, Britain, France, Germany, Russia and China--face an unappetising choice. Iran continues to produce stocks of enriched uranium that it claims are intended for a civilian nuclear programme (although it has no nuclear-powered reactor that could use the stuff), but which could make a bomb.

Iran’s president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, was offered a deal by which Russia and France would have taken much of his stock of low-enriched uranium and turned it--safely outside the country--into special higher-enriched fuel for a Tehran-based research reactor. By diminishing Iran’s stockpile, if only for a few months, the deal could have opened the door a crack to confidence-building talks with the six. But the deadline for taking up that offer was the end of 2009, and the hand that Barack Obama has extended to the regime has therefore been spurned.

The stakes are all the higher because this issue is a severe test of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT). That grand bargain enables countries to make electricity, but not weapons, with nuclear fission. It is up for review this year. If the months tick by with Iran demonstrating to all the world just how easy it is to break the treaty’s rules with impunity, the NPT will finally be done for. The time has therefore come for harsher measures. There are only two options for the six countries: tougher sanctions or military action.

No government--not even that in Israel, whose security is most directly threatened by Mr Ahmadinejad--wants to use force (see "Israel and Iran: The gathering storm"). Military strikes could interrupt Iran’s nuclear effort, but the gains are as uncertain as the costs. They might take out officially declared sites, but intelligence agencies know that there are others too, like the weapons-sized uranium-enrichment plant being built secretly in a mountainside on a well-guarded compound near Qom whose existence was revealed only four months ago. And even if an attack succeeded in penetrating all of Iran’s underground sites--a big if--it could do no more than set back Iran’s ambitions temporarily. After Israel bombed Iraq’s Osirak reactor in 1981, Saddam Hussein redoubled his efforts to get a bomb. Military strikes would also risk provoking a wider conflict in a region that is already worryingly unstable.

More painful sanctions, then, are the only sensible alternative to leaving Iran to enrich its way to the dangerous point where it can declare it has a bomb. But Russia and China--especially China, which has piled money into Iran’s oil and gas industries as Western companies have withdrawn--are reluctant to get tough.

Self-interest is not the only reason to oppose sanctions. Those who favour military strikes and those who would do nothing both complain that sanctions won’t work. Others believe that they would work, but would do more harm than good by encouraging Iranians to rally around the government at a time when the protest movement looks as though it might just bring about change.

But Iran’s protest movement is too little understood to place much weight on such judgments. There is virtually no independent reporting of what is happening inside the country, the demonstrators have no obvious leader and the movement’s fate will greatly depend on splits inside a closed clerical elite. Nor, in places where the facts are clearer, have the consequences of sanctions been predictable. Against Saddam’s government in Iraq, they encouraged the regime to dig in. Against apartheid in South Africa and an embryonic nuclear programme in Libya, they seem to have encouraged change.

If sanctions were used only when their consequences were certain, then they would never be used at all; and uncertainty is no excuse for doing nothing, because that could be just as dangerous.

Damned if you do? Damned if you don’t

Hence the case for policies that punish the regime and spare the people. Existing sanctions have frustrated some illicit imports for its nuclear and missile programmes. Routine searches of Iranian ships and planes at foreign ports and airfields would catch more--and sting too. Banking restrictions have earned the president the ire of merchants and MPs. These can be tightened and extended.
America’s Congress favours slapping a ban on gasoline imports which, given Iran’s shortage of refining capacity, could bring the economy to its knees. But that would allow Mr Ahmadinejad to blame outsiders just as he is about to incur the people’s wrath by cutting petrol subsidies. A bar on investment in the oil and gas industry and on weapons imports would be smarter.

Getting agreement for such sanctions will be hard, and not just because of China and Russia. Some officials in Mr Obama’s team have hinted that further patience could yet be wise. Keeping the door open to talks, should Mr Ahmadinejad have a change of heart, is a good idea. But putting off harsher measures will only encourage him to press on. Despite the uncertainty of action, the price for inaction is higher.

SOURCE: The Economist
have frustrated some illicit imports for its nuclear and missile programmes. of Iranian ships and planes at foreign ports and airfields would catch more--and sting too.

That 1937 Feeling


The New York Times

HEADLINE: That 1937 Feeling

BYLINE: By PAUL KRUGMAN

BODY:


Here's what's coming in economic news: The next employment report could show the economy adding jobs for the first time in two years. The next G.D.P. report is likely to show solid growth in late 2009. There will be lots of bullish commentary -- and the calls we're already hearing for an end to stimulus, for reversing the steps the government and the Federal Reserve took to prop up the economy, will grow even louder.

But if those calls are heeded, we'll be repeating the great mistake of 1937, when the Fed and the Roosevelt administration decided that the Great Depression was over, that it was time for the economy to throw away its crutches. Spending was cut back, monetary policy was tightened -- and the economy promptly plunged back into the depths.

This shouldn't be happening. Both Ben Bernanke, the Fed chairman, and Christina Romer, who heads President Obama's Council of Economic Advisers, are scholars of the Great Depression. Ms. Romer has warned explicitly against re-enacting the events of 1937. But those who remember the past sometimes repeat it anyway.

As you read the economic news, it will be important to remember, first of all, that blips -- occasional good numbers, signifying nothing -- are common even when the economy is, in fact, mired in a prolonged slump. In early 2002, for example, initial reports showed the economy growing at a 5.8 percent annual rate. But the unemployment rate kept rising for another year.

And in early 1996 preliminary reports showed the Japanese economy growing at an annual rate of more than 12 percent, leading to triumphant proclamations that ''the economy has finally entered a phase of self-propelled recovery.'' In fact, Japan was only halfway through its lost decade.

Such blips are often, in part, statistical illusions. But even more important, they're usually caused by an ''inventory bounce.'' When the economy slumps, companies typically find themselves with large stocks of unsold goods. To work off their excess inventories, they slash production; once the excess has been disposed of, they raise production again, which shows up as a burst of growth in G.D.P. Unfortunately, growth caused by an inventory bounce is a one-shot affair unless underlying sources of demand, such as consumer spending and long-term investment, pick up.

Which brings us to the still grim fundamentals of the economic situation.

During the good years of the last decade, such as they were, growth was driven by a housing boom and a consumer spending surge. Neither is coming back. There can't be a new housing boom while the nation is still strewn with vacant houses and apartments left behind by the previous boom, and consumers -- who are $11 trillion poorer than they were before the housing bust -- are in no position to return to the buy-now-save-never habits of yore.

What's left? A boom in business investment would be really helpful right now. But it's hard to see where such a boom would come from: industry is awash in excess capacity, and commercial rents are plunging in the face of a huge oversupply of office space.

Can exports come to the rescue? For a while, a falling U.S. trade deficit helped cushion the economic slump. But the deficit is widening again, in part because China and other surplus countries are refusing to let their currencies adjust.

So the odds are that any good economic news you hear in the near future will be a blip, not an indication that we're on our way to sustained recovery. But will policy makers misinterpret the news and repeat the mistakes of 1937? Actually, they already are.

The Obama fiscal stimulus plan is expected to have its peak effect on G.D.P. and jobs around the middle of this year, then start fading out. That's far too early: why withdraw support in the face of continuing mass unemployment? Congress should have enacted a second round of stimulus months ago, when it became clear that the slump was going to be deeper and longer than originally expected. But nothing was done -- and the illusory good numbers we're about to see will probably head off any further possibility of action.

Meanwhile, all the talk at the Fed is about the need for an ''exit strategy'' from its efforts to support the economy. One of those efforts, purchases of long-term U.S. government debt, has already come to an end. It's widely expected that another, purchases of mortgage-backed securities, will end in a few months. This amounts to a monetary tightening, even if the Fed doesn't raise interest rates directly -- and there's a lot of pressure on Mr. Bernanke to do that too.

Will the Fed realize, before it's too late, that the job of fighting the slump isn't finished? Will Congress do the same? If they don't, 2010 will be a year that began in false economic hope and ended in grief.

URL: http://www.nytimes.com

LOAD-DATE: January 4, 2010

Growth in offshore wind projects

The International Herald Tribune

January 5, 2010 Tuesday

HEADLINE: Growth in offshore wind projects;
In the Blogs: Green Inc.

BYLINE: Sindya N. Bhanoo

FULL TEXT

A report published in December by Emerging Energy Research, a consulting firm that tracks emerging technologies in global energy markets, predicted that the offshore wind energy market would surge to $30 billion over the next decade from its current $10 billion.

The estimate was based on assessments of current projects, planned projects, and international interest in projects.

Offshore wind projects are considerably more costly to build than onshore wind farms and have been aggressively pursued in only a few countries - principally Britain and Denmark. But offshore wind installations were now cropping up across Europe, said Keith Hays, the research director of wind energy at Emerging Energy Research.

''Offshore is coming of age in Europe and is going to be a key part of the next generation of wind energy,'' Mr. Hays said. ''We're seeing projects in unlikelier countries - Germany and Belgium.''

The report predicts that in the next five years, Sweden, Germany, the Netherlands and Belgium will be prime markets. Then, from 2014 to 2020, the United States, China and Korea will follow.

''Europe's aggressiveness with renewable energy targets provides a lot of opportunity for European firms,'' he said. ''But we will see more and more demand in the U.S.''

In the United States, offshore wind energy will be embraced once policy makers realize how powerful it is, Mr. Hays said. A 500- to 1,000-megawatt project can support thousands of homes, Mr. Hays said.

Several weeks ago, at the United Nations climate talks in Copenhagen, Michael R. Bloomberg, New York City's mayor, showed interest.

''It's very impressive,'' Mr. Bloomberg told Green Inc. as he stood on an offshore rig in Denmark. ''It gives you a feeling for what it will be, I hope, off the Long Island shore.''

Mr. Bloomberg is hoping to encourage plans for a large-scale wind farm 13 miles, or 20 kilometers, off the shores of New York City in 2010.

LOAD-DATE: January 4, 2010

how to track Santa, for your kids

.
Since 1955 NORAD (and its predecessor CONAD) has tracked Santa’s each Christmas Eve and has answered questions for boys and girls about his progress. NORAD’s Santa tracking service uses interactive maps updated every few minutes at http://www.noradsanta.org. As Santa stops in each location, you can click an icon to learn more about that part of the world. There is also a 3D option using Google Earth. Moreover, there are links to update clips being posted on YouTube.


And you can also call NORAD and speak to someone there at 1-877-Hi-NORAD (1-877-446-6723) or e-mail the staff at noradtrackssanta [at] gmail [dot] com and get a return e-mail listing Santa’s most recent location. There are now Facebook and Twitter options as well, along with updates that can be sent directly to your mobile phone.

.

nina simone


NPR All Things Considered, August 12, 2008, Music Picks From Obama, McCain
ROBERT SIEGEL, host:
Well, if you choose your president based on musical tastes, then the new issue of Blender is for you.
MELISSA BLOCK, host:

The magazine asked the candidates for their top 10 favorite songs. Here’s some snippets. See if you can guess which is which. Here’s candidate one.

(Soundbite of song, “I’ve Got You Under My Skin”)

Mr. FRANK SINATRA (Singer): (Singing) I’ve got you under my skin.

(Soundbite of song, “What a Wonderful World”)

Mr. LOUIS ARMSTRONG (Singer): (Singing) I see skies of blue…

(Soundbite of song, “Good Vibrations”)

THE BEACH BOYS (Rock Band): (Singing) I’m picking up good vibrations. She’s giving me excitations.

(Soundbite of song, “As Time Goes By”)

Mr. DOOLEY WILSON (Singer): (Singing) As time goes by.

(Soundbite of song, “If We Make it Through December”)

Mr. MERLE HAGGARD (Singer, Songwriter): (Singing) If we make it through December…

(Soundbite of song, “Take a Chance on Me”)

ABBA (Pop Band): (Singing) Honey, I’m still free. Take a chance on me.

(Soundbite of song, “Blue Bayou”)

Mr. ROY ORBISON (Singer, Songwriter): (Singing) I’m going back some day, come what may, to Blue Bayou.

(Soundbite of song, “Dancing Queen”)

ABBA: (Singing) You are the dancing queen…

BLOCK: Some ABBA, Orbison, a little Louis Armstrong. Now, candidate number two.

(Soundbite of song, “Yes We Can”)

WILL.I.AM (Rapper): (Rapping) Yes we can.

(Soundbite of song, “City of Blinding Lights”)

BONO (Lead Singer, U2): (Singing) In the city of blinding lights.

(Soundbite of song, “Think”)

Ms. ARETHA FRANKLIN (Singer): (Singing) You gotta think.

Unidentified Group: (Singing) Think.

Ms. FRANKLIN: (Singing) Think about what you’re trying…

(Soundbite of song, “You’d be So Easy to Love”)

Mr. SINATRA: (Singing) You’d be so easy to love.

(Soundbite of song, “Touch the Sky”)

Mr. KANYE WEST (Rapper): (Rapping) For the day I die, I’m ‘a touch the sky.

(Soundbite of song, “Sinnerman”)

Ms. NINA SIMONE (Singer, Pianist): (Singing) Sinnerman, you ought to be praying.

(Soundbite of song, “Gimme Shelter”)

Mr. MICK JAGGER (Lead Singer, The Rolling Stones): (Singing) Gimme, gimme shelter.

(Soundbite of song, “I’m on Fire”)

Mr. BRUCE SPRINGSTEEN (Singer, Songwriter): (Singing) At night I wake up with the sheets soaking wet and a freight train running through the middle of my head.

(Soundbite of song, “What’s Going On”)

Mr. MARVIN GAYE (Singer): (Singing) What’s going on?

Unidentified Group: (Singing) What’s going on?

Mr. GAYE: (Singing) Yeah, what’s going on?

Unidentified Group: (Singing) What’s going on?

(Soundbite of song, “Ready or Not”)

Ms. LAURYN HILL (Singer, The Fugees): (Singing) Ready or not, here I come. You can’t hide. Gonna find you and take it slowly.

SIEGEL: Well, the Rolling Stones, Kanye West, U2 - if you haven’t guessed, the giveaway on this list is probably “Yes We Can,” a song celebrating Barack Obama.

BLOCK: Unlikely that would turn up on John McCain’s favorites. There is a glimmer of musical bipartisanship here, Robert. Both claim a fondness for Sinatra.

SIEGEL: Mm-hmm. Sinatra. And as for their number one picks, if you didn’t recognize the snippets, Barack Obama went for “Ready or Not” by the Fugees, and John McCain’s number one: the ABBA classic “Dancing Queen.”

------------------------------------------------------------------



April 6, 2008, Why?’: Remembering Nina Simone’s Tribute to Martin Luther King Jr.
LYNN NEARY, host:
American cities were burning 40 years ago following the assassination of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. He had preached non-violence and racial equality, but his murder provoked both pain and anger on the streets. On April 7th, 1968, three days after Dr. King was killed, singer and pianist Nina Simone gave a concert at the Westbury Music Fair on Long Island, New York.
Active in the civil rights movement, Simone was known for songs like “Mississippi Goddam,” which pulled no political punches. The concert was a cathartic event. Simone was at the height of her powers and filled with anguish. The king is dead, she said into the microphone, the king of love is dead.

That night, Simone and her band performed a new song.

(Soundbite of archived audio)

Ms. NINA SIMONE (Late Singer): We want to do a tune written for today, for this hour, for Dr. Martin Luther King.

NEARY: The name of the song was “Why?” It went on for 13 minutes. Nina Simone sang and played and sermonized and asked the questions no one on that day could answer.

The song was written by her bass player, Gene Taylor. Simone’s brother, organist Samuel Wayman, was on stage with her that day.

Mr. SAMUEL WAYMAN (Brother of Nina Simone): We learned that song that day. We didn’t have a chance to really, like, have two or three days of rehearsal. But when you’re feeling compassion and outrage and wanting to express what you know the world is feeling - we did it because that’s what we felt.

(Soundbite of song “Why?”)

Ms. SIMONE: (Singing) Because he’d seen the mountaintop and he knew he could not stop. Always living with a threat of death ahead. Folks, you’d better stop and think because we’re heading for the brink. What will happen now that he is dead? He was for equality for all people, you and me, full of love and goodwill, hate was not his way…

Mr. WAYMAN: Yeah, she didn’t know what she wanted to do. She didn’t know whether she could do it. Through the tears, the hurt, confusion, what do you do at a moment like that?

(Soundbite of song, “Why?”)

Ms. SIMONE: (Singing) For the murders never cease, are they men or are they beast? What do they ever hope, ever hope to gain? Will my country fall or stand up or is it too late for us all? And did Martin Luther King just die in vain?

NEARY: So many questions she had - so many questions that song has.

Mr. WAYMAN: Yeah, yes, yes.

(Soundbite of humming)

Mr. WAYMAN: You just touched a nerve.

NEARY: Do you remember what that felt like as you were listening to her?

Mr. WAYMAN: Yes. Just like I’m feeling right this minute: pretty emotional. The questions in the song are the questions that are still being asked today about hatred and justice, discrimination, lack of peace around the world that’s going on today. This song is timeless.

(Soundbite of song, “Why?”)

Ms. SIMONE: (Singing) He has seen mountaintops and he knew he could not stop, always living with a threat a step ahead. Come on, Sam. Folks, you’d better stop and think because we’re almost to the brink. What will happen now that the king of love is dead?

(Soundbite of applause)

NEARY: Nina Simone in a tribute to Martin Luther King Jr. She was performing 40 years ago, three days after King’s assassination in 1968. We heard memories of the concert from her brother, organist Samuel Wayman. He was on stage with Nina Simone that day at the Westbury Music Fair on Long Island.

-----------------------------------------------


April 22, 2003, Profile: Singer and pianist Nina Simone
BOB EDWARDS, host:
Singer and pianist Nina Simone died yesterday at her home in France. She was 70 years old. To many she was the voice of the civil rights era and yet her recordings resonate with timeless relevancy. Ashley Kahn filed this appreciation.

(Soundbite of music)

Ms. NINA SIMONE: (Singing) I love you, Porgy.

ASHLEY KAHN reporting:

The world first became aware of Eunice Kathleen Waymon, best known by her stage name NinaSimone, in 1959 when she hit with the Broadway tune, "I Loves You, Porgy." But in a few short years, Simone's music began to reflect the increasing activism around her. A growing number of listeners who wanted more from their music, depth and meaning and soul, embraced her songs, which were proud to speak out in anger.

(Soundbite of music)

Ms. SIMONE: (Singing) Alabama has got me so upset. Tennessee made me lose my rest. And everybody knows about Mississippi ...(unintelligible).

KAHN: As powerful as her protest songs were, Simone's recordings could also be intimate and suggestive, as she pointed out herself in a 2001 NPR interview.

(Soundbite of 2001 NPR interview)

Ms. SIMONE: Well, I sing "Sugar in my Bowl" and the audience loves it. Bessie Smith, baby, who's talking about sex and love.

(Singing) I want a little sugar in my bowl. I want a little sweetness down in my soul.

KAHN: Simone's musical appetite knew no bounds. She covered jazz standards, the gospel songs of her youth and was one of the first black singers to record tunes by Bob Dylan, eventually incorporating rock and soul music into her sound.

(Soundbite of music)

Ms. SIMONE: (Singing) There's a million boys and girls who are young, hip (unintelligible) and that's a fact.

KAHN: There's no doubt that she could be difficult and demanding. She admitted it herself to Newsweek magazine in 1963, saying, `I am no more mean or evil or temperamental than anybody else. The only thing is I'm more obvious. I do it in public.'

In 1973, Nina Simone left America, leaving behind a recorded legacy that still burns with the rage of her convictions. She died yesterday in self-imposed exile in Europe after a long illness. As singer and songwriter Oscar Brown Jr. recently put it, `Nina's music was not a fad. The art she made in the 1960s is as valid today as it was then.'

(Soundbite of music)

Ms. SIMONE: (Singing) But I'm just a soul whose intentions are good.

EDWARDS: Ashley Kahn is author of the liner notes to "Four Women: The Nina Simone Philips Recordings," a four-CD collection to be released next month.

(Soundbite of music)

Ms. SIMONE: (Singing) You know, sometimes...

EDWARDS: The time is 29 minutes past the hour.


---------------------------------------------------------