URL

SAN FRANCISCO — A federal judge yesterday temporarily blocked the Bush administration from relaxing rules dictating whether cans of tuna can be labeled "dolphin safe," suggesting new labeling rules could lead to more injuries and deaths among dolphins that swim with tuna.

U.S. District Judge Thelton Henderson, in issuing a preliminary injunction, wrote that the decision to change the dolphin-safe definition appears to have been influenced more by international-trade policies than scientific evidence.

Allegations in a lawsuit filed by Earth Island Institute, Henderson wrote, "raise a serious question as to the integrity of the (Commerce Secretary Donald Evans') decision-making process."

Although Evans "wisely refrained" from mentioning trade-policy concerns as justification for the new label rules, the judge said there is "little doubt" that he faced pressure from Secretary of State Colin Powell to liberalize the rules, as requested by fishing fleets in Mexico, Venezuela and other Latin American countries.

The National Marine Fisheries Service announced in December it was altering the rules at the request of foreign fishing fleets that said they need the dolphin-safe label to compete in the U.S. market and vowed not to use the label on tuna catches that result in known dolphin deaths.

Thursday, April 10, 2003 · Last updated 11:12 p.m. PT By JORGE RUEDA <a href=seattlepi.nwsource.com>ASSOCIATED PRESS WRITER   Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez, right, and journalist Ignacio Ramonet smile, during the opening ceremony of the "world meeting in solidarity with the Bolivarian revolution" at the Teresa Carreno theater in Caracas, Venezuela, Thursday, April 10, 2003. Chavez was surrounded by intellectuals and activists who support his "revolution," as he celebrated his return to power after a short-lived coup one year ago.

CARACAS, Venezuela -- A year after soldiers temporarily ousted President Hugo Chavez, Venezuelans find themselves steeped in economic crisis, bitterly divided - and with Chavez's hold on power stronger than ever.

"I know it's a contradiction, but the coup, and Chavez's return - even if things are worse now - renewed my faith that we can develop our democracy," said Jesus Mendoza, a 45-year-old businessman who says he's opposed to Chavez.

Most Latin American governments condemned the April 12-14, 2002, ouster of Chavez, a leftist former army paratrooper who led a failed 1992 coup, was jailed for two years and then was elected president in 1998 on a platform that criticized Venezuela's corrupt democratic system.

The United States initially blamed Chavez for his own downfall before joining other members of the Organization of American States in condemning the ouster of a democratically elected president.

Chavez was arrested in the early hours of April 12 - military commanders announced he resigned - after 19 people died during an opposition march to the presidential palace on April 11. Videotape shows gunmen firing recklessly into the crowd.

The march came after opposition labor and business leaders called a general strike to denounce what they called Chavez's Cuba-style economic policies. Both pro- and anti-Chavez supporters died that day. But under a Venezuelan justice system subject both to Chavez's influence and its own institutional corruption, no one has been convicted in the slayings.

An interim government led by Pedro Carmona, head of Venezuela's leading business chamber, dissolved Congress, the courts and the constitution - angering hundreds of thousands of Venezuelans, who took to the streets to demand Chavez's return. Cuba, meanwhile, steadfastly insisted that Chavez hadn't resigned.

A loyalist army general sent his troops to a Caribbean island where Chavez was being held and brought him back in triumph to the presidential palace.

"It wasn't a matter of whether you were for or against Chavez, even if I believe we're better off without him," said Carlos Isturiz, a 22-year-old university student. "It was about defending democracy."

Carmona's one-day presidency was marked by persecution of Chavez allies and ruling party members, recalls Desiree Santos, a pro-Chavez legislator who went into hiding during the police manhunt for so-called "Chavistas."

"They chased us down like dogs," Santos said of the raids. "But we were certain the president hadn't resigned."

Once restored, a seemingly chastened Chavez called for reconciliation among Venezuelans. Soon, however, he saw conspiracies everywhere - and moved to crush them. He purged the military of dissidents. He has repeatedly assailed the private sector, opposition political parties, the news media, labor unions and the Catholic Church, repeatedly calling them "terrorists."

In November, his government agreed to talks with the opposition, mediated by the Organization of American States. In principle, the two sides have agreed that a popular referendum on Chavez's presidency may be held halfway into his current term, which ends in 2007. But no formal pacts have been reached, and no single opposition candidate has emerged.

In December and January, Chavez weathered a devastating two-month general strike, one called by business and labor to demand that he resign. The strike failed, though it briefly crippled Venezuela's crucial oil industry and left the economy in ruins.

The economy shrank 9 percent last year and may contract by as much as 40 percent this year. The bolivar currency lost more than 30 percent of its value against the U.S. dollar before Chavez suspended dollar sales in this import-dependent nation. Annualized inflation surpassed 30 percent. Poverty is persistent, afflicting at least 70 percent of Venezuela's 24 million people.

Many analysts and citizens wearily cite Venezuela's paradox: A state of permanent conflict under Chavez that has rendered the nation virtually ungovernable - and a lack of immediate alternatives to his populist, authoritarian tendencies.

"Chavez only knows how to talk about projects that never materialize while we suffer increasing poverty, unemployment and fear," said Amarilis Soto, a 68-year-old retired accountant.

Lefigaro.fr (Reuters.) Eric de La Chesnais [11 avril 2003]

L'Organisation des pays exportateurs de pétrole paraît aujourd'hui placée le dos au mur. L'unité affichée depuis le 29 mars 2000 est à nouveau mise à rude épreuve. Alors que la guerre en Irak s'achemine vers une victoire américaine, la réalité de la situation d'un marché pétrolier surapprovisionné éclate aujourd'hui au grand jour. «Les pays de l'Opep produisent actuellement plus de 2 millions de barils/jour au-dessus de leur quota officiel de 24,5 millions de barils par jour», expliquait hier le président de l'Opep, le Qatarien Abdallah Ben Hamad al-Attiya, lors du quatrième sommet pétrolier international à Paris. La prime de guerre, en maintenant les prix à niveau élevé, couvrait jusqu'à présent le déséquilibre. «Cette prime atteignait même jusqu'à 8 dollars sur le prix du baril», selon Nordine Aït-Laoussine, l'ancien ministre algérien du Pétrole.

Avec l'accélération des événements en Irak, la donne a changé. Le risque d'approvisionnement lié à la guerre s'est éloigné. «Le pays ne produit plus que pour ses besoins intérieurs, soit entre 300 et 400 000 barils par jour», selon un expert. «Le Venezuela produit 70% de ses capacités (2,4 mbj) et la situation s'est stabilisée au Nigeria», ajoute-t-il.

Cette situation pourrait même s'aggraver. «Le surplus pourrait atteindre 4 millions si le Nigeria et l'Irak reviennent à leur pleine capacité de production de pétrole», explique Abdallah Ben Hamad al-Attiya.

La traduction de cet état de fait sur les cours du brut ne s'est pas fait attendre. Ils sont repassés en dessous de 30 dollars. Hier, en milieu d'après-midi à Londres, le brent cotait 24,88 dollars le baril en baisse de 44 cents. A New York, en soirée, le WTI reculait de 1,39% à 27,46 dollars.

Sans réactions de l'Opep, la chute des cours risque de se poursuivre. «Si le cartel ne fait rien, les prix du baril tomberont en dessous des 22-28 dollars, la fourchette de prix jugée «raisonnable» par l'Opep, ajoute Abdallah Ben Hamad al-Attiya. Il y aurait donc urgence. «Les pays membres de l'Opep doivent prendre des mesures radicales et rapides pour enrayer la surproduction actuelle et la chute des cours qui en découle. Il n'y a certes pas de risques d'implosion de l'Opep. L'Organisation a déjà survécu à des crises où le baril valait 8 à 9 dollars. Mais de sérieuses discussions auront lieu pour éviter que le scénario de 1998 ne se reproduise», assure Nordine Aït-Laoussine.

La réunion extraordinaire des membres de l'Opep, prévue à Vienne pour la fin avril ou début mai, sera donc décisive. Tous les scénarios seront passés en revue pour éliminer le surplus de pétrole. «Nous avons deux options : réduire la production ou respecter les quotas. Ce sont toutes les options ouvertes que nous avons pour stabiliser le marché et essayer d'éliminer le surplus», affirme le président de l'Opep qui se dit favorable à un baril à 25 dollars. «L'Opep a atteint une certaine maturité, agissant assez vite et arrivant à gérer le marché de manière satisfaisante», confie pour sa part Pierre Terzian de Pétrostratégies.

Reuters, 04.11.03, 1:23 AM ET NEW YORK, April 11 (Reuters) - Baker Hughes Inc, the world's third-largest oilfield-services company, on Friday forecast a first-quarter profit shortfall due to business interruptions from civil unrest in Nigeria and war-related delays in the Middle East. The Houston-based company said it expects to post a quarterly profit from continuing operations of between 13 cents and 14 cents a share. According to research firm Thomson First Call, Baker Hughes was forecast to report, on average, a first-quarter profit of 19 cents a share, on estimates ranging from 17 cents to 22 cents a share. A year ago, Baker Hughes reported a first-quarter profit of 22 cents a share. The company also cited the impact of ongoing weakness in activity in the U.S. Gulf of Mexico and the North Sea, incremental pressure on pricing and slower than expected resumption of industry activity in Venezuela. Baker Hughes shares closed up 78 cent, or 2.63 percent, at $30.39 on the New York Stock Exchange on Thursday

URL Home Improvement Betsy Schiffman

Even though oil prices fell to below $28 a barrel on April 10, off of a high in late February of nearly $40, Americans are more energy conscious this spring than they have been in years. On the heels of the "my SUV is bigger than yours" years, recent high gas prices have been painful reminders of how much it can cost to heat one's home and fill one's tank.

Once again--or at least until prices at the pumps dip low enough--public attention is focusing on the cost of energy. As it does every time prices go up, there are growing murmurs about alternative fuel sources, ending dependency on Mideast oil, conservation, etc., etc. In the past these murmurs tended to subside with the return of low gas prices--but there could be a genuine hope that the current war might inspire more long-term changes on both a national and a personal basis.

Even if the war in Iraq is wrapped up quickly, experts maintain that it could be as much as several years before its oil network is brought back online. Moreover, continued political uncertainty in Venezuela and civil unrest in Nigeria have contributed to a depletion of global oil reserves and prices--so there's no guarantee that prices will stay down indefinitely. (There never is.)

So it's not a bad idea to start saving money on fuel at home now. Unfortunately, many at-home energy conservation solutions involve expensive or complicated equipment that most Americans don't need--or know what to do with. In many instances such devices may not pay for themselves in energy savings for years. However, there are many ways of conserving fuel that don't cost homeowners thousands of dollars.

Washington might be able to provide some help too. Last month Illinois Republican Rep. Jerry Weller introduced legislation called the "Save America's Valuable Energy Resources Act of 2003" that proposes allowing home builders/owners to obtain tax credits for building energy-efficient properties or improving energy efficiencies of existing structures.

We asked several experts for low-cost tips to conserve fuel at home and we found that you don't have to go into debt to reduce your energy costs. After all, it's hard to justify spending thousands of dollars (and in some cases, tens of thousands of dollars) to save what may be a negligible amount of money in energy savings.

High-end energy-efficient appliances, for example, are environmentally friendly--and they may actually pay for themselves over the long-term, but they're not for everyone. They're often the most expensive models on the market and, depending on each household's energy usage, they could take years to pay for themselves. There are, however, some inexpensive easy things that everyone can do. Here are some low-budget tips that could save you money.

Windows There's no way of avoiding the fact that windows simply aren't energy efficient. Cold air leaks through in the winter and heat comes in during the summer. Even window replacements--considered a highly efficient way to insulate the home, thus cuttting down heating costs--don't always pay for themselves. Remodel Magazine's 2002 Cost Vs. Value report (an annual study that looks at the average cost of remodeling jobs and the percentage of costs that may be recouped) found that on a national average, homeowners that replaced ten 3-by-5-foot double-hung windows spent on average $15,502 for an upscale job--and 77% of that cost was recouped in the resale value of the home. (Although, if one were to throw energy savings in the mix, the percentage of costs recouped could climb up slightly.)

"There's no doubt that new windows or storm windows will save energy," says Larry Spielvogel, a consulting engineer for trade group American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning Engineers. "The concern becomes the amount of money saved relative to the cost of installation. Windows tend to be expensive to begin with and they are expensive to install."

Spielvogel also says that, in general, windows are massive energy suckers. Even the most efficient windows lose about ten times as much heat as a wall. So apart from removing all the windows in one's house, how can the average homeowner lessen window-related energy losses? Try weather-stripping all doors and windows. Weather-strip or weatherseal tape closes up cracks and crevices where cold air could be leaking in. Although it's not a permanent solution--it should be replaced every few years--it is very inexpensive to do, even if you hire a contractor to do it, and helps insulate the house. In fact, one package of ten feet of foam weather-strip should only cost a couple of dollars.

Air-Conditioning/Heating System Perhaps the easiest, least expensive and most effective thing homeowners in cold climates can do is replace their heater/air-conditioner thermostat. A basic thermostat can cost as little as $20 and a fancy programmable thermostat only costs $100. A thermostat may last up to 20 years--and could deliver up to 35% in annual energy savings. A high-end thermostat allows homeowners to program the thermostat to start and stop at certain times and, depending upon your heater and home, if you can install zone valves, you might be able to zone off the parts of the house that aren't being used and don't require heat/air-conditioning. Although wood stoves seem like an attractive alternative, they're hardly environmentally friendly--and for folks living in Western states, they may even be banned or there may be restrictions for usage.

Seeing how air-conditioners often account for 20% of energy usage, it's an important appliance to draw efficiencies from. An older air-conditioner can be made more efficient without being replaced. About 70% of all air-conditioning systems are retrofitted--that is, people upgrade existing systems rather than replace an entire system, according to Eric Evans, the vice president of air-conditioning at Copeland Corporation, a division of St. Louis, Mo.-based Emerson Climate Technologies (nyse: EMR - news - people ). An old air-conditioner may not be retrofitted for everything, however: For example, it may not be possible to upgrade an older air-conditioning system for zoning (zoning off different parts of the house at different temperatures).

The important thing to consider when looking at new air-conditioning systems is the compressor. Although a compressor can be replaced, they tend to be expensive. An efficient air-conditioner compressor, however, could reduce energy usage by 15%. One thing most air-conditioning users might do, if they can, according to Scott Ceasar, vice president at engineering firm Cosentini Associates, is install a $300-to-$400 air-conditioner soft starter (which limits the voltage used by starting the motor in a softer, slower mode). It could pay for itself in energy savings quite quickly--depending, of course, on whether one lives in a warm climate and how often the air-conditioner is used. Spielvogel also recommends insulating air-conditioning ducts or heating pipes to prevent energy from being lost

Water Heater One of the biggest energy suckers in the home is the water heater. On average, it accounts for between 15% and 25% of household fuel costs. If an annual fuel bill, for example, is $1,000, the water heater is responsible for between $150 to $250 of that. Replacing an existing water heater with something substantially more expensive (several thousand dollars) may cut down fuel usage, but it could take a long time before the energy savings cover the premium cost. What one can do, however, to reduce water-heating costs is install water-efficient fixtures, such as low-flow showerheads, which only spray 2.5 gallons per minute as opposed to the four gallons per minute. Also, Spielvogel suggests buying a water-heater jacket--which should only cost about $15 to $20--to insulate the heater and prevent energy losses.

Also, if the homeowner lives in a warm climate where the swimming pool is a central part of the home, a solar pool heater could pay for itself quite quickly. One homeowner told us, anecdotally, that while living in Florida he spent about $200 a month heating his pool and Jacuzzi. He took the plunge and bought a solar pool heater for several thousand dollars--and after two years it paid for itself.