Month: September 2012

  • Italian Grand Prix 2012: Lewis Hamilton lets his driving do the talking by taking pole in McLaren on

    Italian Grand Prix 2012: Lewis Hamilton lets his driving do the talking by taking pole in McLaren one-two

    You just can’t keep him out of the headlines. Even at Monza, in Ferrari country, where a red sea of Tifosi congregate each year in the dappled shade of the Parco Reale to cheer on their heroes, it is all about Lewis Hamilton.

    Lewis Hamilton in Monza
    Pole position: Lewis Hamilton finished a week dominated by talk of his future off the track by claiming pole in Monza Photo: Getty

     
    Tom Cary

    By , F1 Correspondent, in Monza

    5:45PM BST 08 Sep 2012

     

    Comments106 Comments

     

    The man whose future has been the subject of such frenzied debate this week, whose every utterance is seen as a potential clue as to his state of mind, has a golden opportunity to recover some much needed ground in the title race today after taking a somewhat fortunate pole at the Italian Grand Prix.

    Hamilton finished a riveting session one tenth ahead of his McLaren team-mate Jenson Button, but just as important as his own performance was the fact that Ferrari’s championship leader Fernando Alonso was only able to go 10th quickest as a result of a mechanical problem.

    The Spaniard, who had gone quickest in both Q1 and Q2, suffered a suspected broken rear anti-rollbar in Q3, meaning he must fight his way through the pack this afternoon in an effort to limit the damage. His advantage currently stands at 63 points over Button and 47 points over Hamilton.

    “It’s a shame because I think it would have been the easiest pole position of the year for us,” Alonso said afterwards.

    A shame for him perhaps, and for the thousands of worshippers at Monza’s Temple of Speed, who came in the expectation of seeing their man claim pole, but not for McLaren, who were desperate for some good news after fighting fires all week.

    The speculation raging over Hamilton’s future threatens to derail McLaren’s entire season, upsetting the harmony within the team just at the crucial moment that they need to stand together.

    If the unthinkable – from McLaren’s point of view – happens, and the 2008 world champion does confirm his intention to join Mercedes next year, it is going to be an extremely awkward run-in for the Woking team.

    One thing that has never been in doubt, though, is Hamilton’s speed, and it was on display again yesterday. It looked as if it was going to be a straight shootout for pole with Alonso, with whom he had been swapping fastest laps in practice, only for the Spaniard to suffer a rare mechanical glitch.

    That is now two weeks running Alonso has had a bit of bad luck following his first corner exit in Belgium last week. Add to that the fact that Red Bull are still not firing on all cylinders in qualifying, with Sebastian Vetel and Mark Webber taking sixth and 11th respectively on the grid before the German rose a place thanks to Paul di Resta’s five-place demotion for a gearbox change, and Kimi Raikkonen starting from seventh today, and it is almost as if someone up there wants this season to go down to the wire.

    Instead of all that lot, it is the beleaguered Felipe Massa who will start the race closest to the McLarens from third on the grid, the Brazilian miraculously finding some form just when he needed it most, at Ferrari’s home race with their immaculately-coiffed president Luca di Montezemolo watching on.

    Hamilton was happy to admit his fortune. “I think practice this morning went a lot better for me,” he said. “But I can’t complain. I managed to get a half-decent lap in and it’s great obviously for the team to have me and Jenson at the front.”

    Hamilton deserves a bit of luck. For all the fuss and drama and indiscreet tweets, he has driven very well this year and qualified brilliantly.

    This was his fifth pole if you include Barcelona, where he was later demoted to the back of the grid through no fault of his own, and the ninth time he has qualified on the front row in 12 races.

    Whether he can complete the job today remains to be seen. Button, back to his best in recent races, may have something to say about it.

    The 32 year-old described himself as “relatively happy” to have qualified second on the grid at a race where he has finished runner-up three years in succession, adding that he would not be taking any chances on the run to the first corner. That would be all McLaren need at the end of the week they have just had.

    “Lewis and I will just be focusing on getting our two cars out of the first corner in front of all the others,” Button promised.

     

    .© Copyright of Telegraph Media Group Limited 2012

  • Farm Use of Antibiotics Defies Scrutiny

    Ellen Weinstein

     

    September 3, 2012
     

    Farm Use of Antibiotics Defies Scrutiny

     

    By 

     

    The numbers released quietly by the federal government this year were alarming. A ferocious germ resistant to many types of antibiotics had increased tenfold on chicken breasts, the most commonly eaten meat on the nation’s dinner tables.

    But instead of a learning from a broad national inquiry into a troubling trend, scientists said they were stymied by a lack of the most basic element of research: solid data.

    Eighty percent of the antibiotics sold in the United States goes to chicken, pigs, cows and other animals that people eat, yet producers of meat and poultry are not required to report how they use the drugs — which ones, on what types of animal, and in what quantities. This dearth of information makes it difficult to document the precise relationship between routine antibiotic use in animals and antibiotic-resistant infections in people, scientists say.

    Advocates contend that there is already overwhelming epidemiological evidence linking the two, something that even the Food and Drug Administration has acknowledged, and that further study, while useful for science, is not essential for decision making. “At some point the available science can be used in making policy decisions,” said Gail Hansen, an epidemiologist who works for Pew Charitable Trusts, which advocates against overuse of antibiotics.

    But scientists say the blank spots in data collection are a serious handicap in taking on powerful producers of poultry and meat who claim the link does not exist.

    “It’s like facing off against a major public health crisis with one hand tied behind our backs,” said Keeve Nachman, an environmental health scientist at the Johns Hopkins Center for a Livable Future, which does research on food systems.

    Antibiotics are considered the crown jewels of modern medicine. They have transformed health by stopping infections since they went into broad use after World War II. But many scientists say that their effectiveness is being eroded by indiscriminate use, both to treat infections in people and to encourage growth in chickens, turkeys, cows and pigs.

    Whatever the cause, resistant bacteria pose significant public health risks. Routine infections once treated with penicillin pills now require hospitalizations and intravenous drip antibiotics, said Cecilia Di Pentima, director of clinical services at the Infectious Diseases Division at Vanderbilt University’s Department of Pediatrics. Infections from such strains of bacteria are believed to cause thousands of deaths a year.

    “The single biggest problem we face in infectious disease today is the rapid growth of resistance to antibiotics,” said Glenn Morris, director of the Emerging Pathogens Institute at the University of Florida. “Human use contributes to that, but use in animals clearly has a part too.”

    The Food and Drug Administration has tried in fits and starts to regulate the use of antibiotics in animals sold for food. Most recently it restricted the use of cephalosporins in animals — the most common antibiotics prescribed to treat pneumoniastrep throat and urinary tract infections in people.

    But advocates say the agency is afraid to use its authority. In 1977, the F.D.A. announced that it would begin banning some agricultural uses of antibiotics. The House and Senate appropriations committees — dominated by agricultural interests — passed resolutions against any such bans, and the agency retreated.

    Antibiotic use in people can be closely monitored through the vast infrastructure of the nation’s health care system, but there is no equivalent for animals, making it harder to track use on farms and ranches, said William Flynn, the deputy director for science policy at the F.D.A. Center for Veterinary Medicine.

    Many drugs are sold freely over the counter through feed suppliers, something the agency is trying to curb. In April, it proposed eliminating the use of certain antibiotics to stimulate growth in animals, and requiring meat and poultry producers to obtain a prescription before giving certain antibiotics to their animals. The agency just finished taking public comments to update the requirement. The scale of the problem became clear in 2010 when the F.D.A. began publishing total pharmaceutical company sales of antibiotics for use in animals raised for human consumption. It turned out that an overwhelming majority of antibiotics produced went to animals, not people. But there is still a glaring lack of information about how the drugs are used, scientists say.

    The one set of data that is regularly released — a measure of antibiotic-resistant bacteria carried by meat and poultry — contains such small samples that most scientists say they are reluctant to rely on it.

    The dramatic rise in the presence of salmonella on chicken breasts that was resistant to five or more classes of antibiotics, for example, was based on samples from just 171 breasts, an infinitesimal fraction of the more than eight billion birds raised and sold as food in the United States every year.

    Another problem is that regulatory responsibility is fractured. The F.D.A. regulates drugs, but agriculture is the purview of the federal Department of Agriculture. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention also has a role.

    “There’s nobody in charge,” said Dr. Morris, who worked in the agriculture department during the Clinton administration. “And when no one’s in charge, it doesn’t get done.”

    John Glisson, the director of research programs at the U.S. Poultry and Egg Association, an industry group, said in an e-mail reply to questions that poultry feed mills “keep detailed records of antibiotic usage in the feed they manufacture.” The F.D.A. “has the authority to inspect and audit these records,” he said, adding that the agency “can have access to these records anytime.”

    But regulators say that in reality, access is not easy. While they may have authority to look at the records from any food manufacturer, they cannot collect or publish the data.

    Indeed, in July the National Pork Producers Council argued that its members should not be required to report on antibiotic prescriptions for their animals because it would add complexity.

    Regulators say it is difficult even to check for compliance with existing rules. They have to look for the residue of misused or banned drugs in samples of meat from slaughterhouses and grocery stores, rather than directly monitoring use of antibiotics on farms. “We have all these producers saying, ‘Yes, of course we are following the law,’ but we have no way to verify that,” said Dr. Hansen, of Pew Charitable Trusts.

    Dr. Flynn, the F.D.A. official, said the agency was moving as fast as it could to make sure antibiotics are used judiciously in farm animals. He called the plan to require animal producers to get prescriptions for certain antibiotics “an important shift.”

     

    Copyright. 2012. The New York Times Company. All Rights Reserved

  • Elephants Dying in Epic Frenzy as Ivory Fuels Wars and Profits

     

    The Ivory Wars: Heavily armed platoons of rangers at Garamba National Park in the Democratic Republic of Congo wage war against elephant poachers.

     

    Multimedia

    Illegal Ivory Trade

     

    September 3, 2012
     

    Elephants Dying in Epic Frenzy as Ivory Fuels Wars and Profits

     

    By 

     

    GARAMBA NATIONAL PARK, Democratic Republic of Congo — In 30 years of fighting poachers, Paul Onyango had never seen anything like this. Twenty-two dead elephants, including several very young ones, clumped together on the open savanna, many killed by a single bullet to the top of the head.

    There were no tracks leading away, no sign that the poachers had stalked their prey from the ground. The tusks had been hacked away, but none of the meat — and subsistence poachers almost always carve themselves a little meat for the long walk home.

    Several days later, in early April, the Garamba National Park guards spotted a Ugandan military helicopter flying very low over the park, on an unauthorized flight, but they said it abruptly turned around after being detected. Park officials, scientists and the Congolese authorities now believe that the Ugandan military — one of the Pentagon’s closest partners in Africa — killed the 22 elephants from a helicopter and spirited away more than a million dollars’ worth of ivory.

    “They were good shots, very good shots,” said Mr. Onyango, Garamba’s chief ranger. “They even shot the babies. Why? It was like they came here to destroy everything.”

    Africa is in the midst of an epic elephant slaughter. Conservation groups say poachers are wiping out tens of thousands of elephants a year, more than at any time in the previous two decades, with the underground ivory trade becoming increasingly militarized.

    Like blood diamonds from Sierra Leone or plundered minerals from Congo, ivory, it seems, is the latest conflict resource in Africa, dragged out of remote battle zones, easily converted into cash and now fueling conflicts across the continent.

    Some of Africa’s most notorious armed groups, including the Lord’s Resistance Army, the Shabab and Darfur’s janjaweed, are hunting down elephants and using the tusks to buy weapons and sustain their mayhem. Organized crime syndicates are linking up with them to move the ivory around the world, exploiting turbulent states, porous borders and corrupt officials from sub-Saharan Africa to China, law enforcement officials say.

    But it is not just outlaws cashing in. Members of some of the African armies that the American government trains and supports with millions of taxpayer dollars — like the Ugandan military, the Congolese Army and newly independent South Sudan’s military — have been implicated in poaching elephants and dealing in ivory.

    Congolese soldiers are often arrested for it. South Sudanese forces frequently battle wildlife rangers. Interpol, the international police network, is now helping to investigate the mass elephant killings in the Garamba park, trying to match DNA samples from the animals’ skulls to a large shipment of tusks, marked “household goods,” recently seized at a Ugandan airport.

    The vast majority of the illegal ivory — experts say as much as 70 percent — is flowing to China, and though the Chinese have coveted ivory for centuries, never before have so many of them been able to afford it. China’s economic boom has created a vast middle class, pushing the price of ivory to a stratospheric $1,000 per pound on the streets of Beijing.

    High-ranking officers in the People’s Liberation Army have a fondness for ivory trinkets as gifts. Chinese online forums offer a thriving, and essentially unregulated, market for ivory chopsticks, bookmarks, rings, cups and combs, along with helpful tips on how to smuggle them (wrap the ivory in tinfoil, says one Web site, to throw off X-ray machines).

    Last year, more than 150 Chinese citizens were arrested across Africa, from Kenya to Nigeria, for smuggling ivory. And there is growing evidence that poaching increases in elephant-rich areas where Chinese construction workers are building roads.

    “China is the epicenter of demand,” said Robert Hormats, a senior State Department official. “Without the demand from China, this would all but dry up.”

    He said that Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton, who condemned conflict minerals from Congo a few years ago, was pushing the ivory issue with the Chinese “at the highest levels” and that she was “going to spend a considerable amount of time and effort to address this, in a very bold way.”

    Foreigners have been decimating African elephants for generations. “White gold” was one of the primary reasons King Leopold II of Belgium turned Congo into his own personal fief in the late 19th century, leading to the brutal excesses of the upriver ivory stations thinly fictionalized in Joseph Conrad’s novel “Heart of Darkness” and planting the seeds for Congo’s free fall today.

    Ivory Coast got its name from the teeming elephant herds that used to frolic in its forests. Today, after decades of carnage, there is almost no ivory left.

    The demand for ivory has surged to the point that the tusks of a single adult elephant can be worth more than 10 times the average annual income in many African countries. In Tanzania, impoverished villagers are poisoning pumpkins and rolling them into the road for elephants to eat. In Gabon, subsistence hunters deep in the rain forest are being enlisted to kill elephants and hand over the tusks, sometimes for as little as a sack of salt.

    Last year, poaching levels in Africa were at their highest since international monitors began keeping detailed records in 2002. And 2011 broke the record for the amount of illegal ivory seized worldwide, at 38.8 tons (equaling the tusks from more than 4,000 dead elephants). Law enforcement officials say the sharp increase in large seizures is a clear sign that organized crime has slipped into the ivory underworld, because only a well-oiled criminal machine — with the help of corrupt officials — could move hundreds of pounds of tusks thousands of miles across the globe, often using specially made shipping containers with secret compartments.

    The smugglers are “Africa-based, Asian-run crime syndicates,” said Tom Milliken, director of the Elephant Trade Information System, an international ivory monitoring project, and “highly adaptive to law enforcement interventions, constantly changing trade routes and modus operandi.”

    Conservationists say the mass kill-offs taking place across Africa may be as bad as, or worse than, those in the 1980s, when poachers killed more than half of Africa’s elephants before an international ban on the commercial ivory trade was put in place.

    “We’re experiencing what is likely to be the greatest percentage loss of elephants in history,” said Richard G. Ruggiero, an official with the United States Fish and Wildlife Service.

    Some experts say the survival of the species is at stake, especially when many members of the African security services entrusted with protecting the animals are currently killing them.

    “The huge populations in West Africa have disappeared, and those in the center and east are going rapidly,” said Andrew Dobson, an ecologist at Princeton. “The question is: Do you want your children to grow up in a world without elephants?”

    ‘We Shoot First’

    Garamba National Park is a big, beautiful sheet of green, 1,900 square miles, tucked in the northeastern corner of Congo. Picture a sea of chest-high elephant grass, swirling brown rivers, ribbons of papyrus and the occasional black-and-white secretary bird swooping elegantly through rose-colored skies. Founded in 1938, Garamba is widely considered one of Africa’s most stunning parks, a naturalist’s dream.

    But today, it is a battlefield, with an arms race playing out across the savanna. Every morning, platoons of Garamba’s 140 wildlife rangers suit up with assault rifles, machine guns and rocket-propelled grenades. Luis Arranz, the park manager, wants to get surveillance drones, and the nonprofit organization that runs the park is considering buying night-vision goggles, flak jackets and pickup trucks with mounted machine guns.

    “We don’t negotiate, we don’t give any warning, we shoot first,” said Mr. Onyango, the chief ranger, who worked as a game warden in Kenya for more than 20 years. He rose to a high rank but lost his job after a poaching suspect died in his custody after being whipped.

    “Out here, it’s not michezo,” Mr. Onyango said, using the Swahili word for games.

    In June, he heard a burst of gunfire. His rangers did a “leopard crawl” on their bellies for hours through the scratchy elephant grass until they spied poachers hacking several elephants. The instant his squad shot at the poachers, the whole bush came alive with crackling gunfire.

    “They opened up on us with PKMs, AKs, G-3s, and FNs,” he said. “Most poachers are conservative with their ammo, but these guys were shooting like they were in Iraq. All of a sudden, we were outgunned and outnumbered.”

    Both of the rangers’ old belt-fed machine guns jammed that day, and they narrowly escaped (11 have been killed since 2008 and some of the rangers’ children have even been kidnapped). Later investigation showed that the poachers were members of the Lord’s Resistance Army, a brutal rebel outfit that circulates in central Africa, killing villagers and enslaving children. American Special Operations troops are helping several African armies hunt down the group’s phantom of a leader, Joseph Kony, who is believed to be hiding in a remote corner of the Central African Republic.

    Ivory may be Mr. Kony’s new lifeline.

    Several recent escapees from the L.R.A. said that Mr. Kony had ordered his fighters to kill as many elephants as possible and send him the tusks.

    “Kony wants ivory,” said a young woman who was kidnapped earlier this year near Garamba and did not want to be identified because she was still terrified. “I heard the other rebels say it many times: ‘We need to get ivory and send it to Kony.’ ”

    She said that in her four months in captivity, before she ran away one night when the rebels got drunk, she saw them kill 10 elephants, wrap the tusks in cloth sacks and send them to Mr. Kony at his hiding place.

    Other recent escapees said that the group had killed at least 29 elephants since May, buying guns, ammunition and radios with the proceeds. Mr. Kony may be working with Sudanese ivory traders. One ivory retailer in Omdurman, Sudan, who openly sells ivory bracelets, prayer beads and carved tusks, said the Lord’s Resistance Army was one source of the ivory he saw.

    “The L.R.A. works in this, too; that’s how they buy their weapons,” the shopkeeper said matter-of-factly. That made sense, American officials said, given Mr. Kony’s few sources of income.

    Several Sudanese ivory traders said the ivory from Congo and the Central African Republic moved overland across Sudan’s vast western desert region of Darfur and then up to Omdurman, all with the help of corrupt Sudanese officials. There is a well-worn practice in Sudan called “buying time,” in which smugglers pay police officers and border guards for a specified amount of time to let a convoy of illegal goods slip through checkpoints.

    But there are many routes. On Africa’s east coast, Kenya’s port city of Mombasa is a major transshipment center. A relatively small percentage of containers in Mombasa is inspected, and ivory has been concealed in shipments of everything from avocados to anchovies. Sometimes it is wrapped in chili peppers, to throw off the sniffer dogs.

    On the west coast, in the Gulf of Guinea, “there is a relatively recent phenomenon of well-armed, sophisticated poachers who load their ivory onto Chinese fishing ships,” one senior American official said.

    Chinese officials declined to discuss any aspect of the ivory trade, with one representative of the Forestry Ministry, which handles ivory issues, saying, “This is a very sensitive topic right now.”

    Several Sudanese ivory traders and Western officials said that the infamous janjaweed militias of Darfur were also major poachers. Large groups of janjaweed — the word means horseback raider — were blamed for killing thousands of civilians in the early 2000s, when Darfur erupted in ethnic conflict. International law enforcement officials say that horseback raiders from Darfur wiped out thousands of elephants in central Africa in the 1980s. Now they suspect that hundreds of janjaweed militiamen rode more than 600 miles from Sudan and were the ones who slaughtered at least 300 elephants in Bouba Ndjida National Park in Cameroon this past January, one of the worst episodes of elephant slaughter recently discovered.

    In 2010, Ugandan soldiers, searching for Mr. Kony in the forests of the Central African Republic, ran into a janjaweed ivory caravan. “These guys had 400 men, pack mules, a major camp, lots of weapons,” a Western official said. A battle erupted and more than 10 Ugandans were killed.

    “It just shows you the power of poaching, how much money you can make stacking up the game,” the official said.

    Businessmen are clearly bankrolling these enormous ivory expeditions, both feeding off and fueling conflict, Western officials and researchers say.

    “This is not just freelance stuff,” said Mr. Hormats, the State Department official. “This is organized crime.”

    Paul Elkan, a director at the Wildlife Conservation Society, said that the janjaweed sweeping across central Africa on ambitious elephant hunts “goes much deeper than a bunch of guys coming in on horses. It has to do with insecurity and lawlessness.”

    Perhaps no country in Africa is as lawless as Somalia, which has languished for more than 20 years without a functioning central government, spawning Islamist militants, gunrunners, human traffickers and modern-day pirates. Ivory has entered this illicit mix.

    Several Somali elders said that the Shabab, the militant Islamist group that has pledged allegiance to Al Qaeda, recently began training fighters to infiltrate neighboring Kenya and kill elephants for ivory to raise money.

    One former Shabab associate said that the Shabab were promising to “facilitate the marketing” of ivory and have encouraged villagers along the Kenya-Somalia border to bring them tusks, which are then shipped out through the port of Kismayo, a notorious smuggling hub and the last major town the Shabab still control.

    “The business is a risk,” said Hassan Majengo, a Kismayo resident with knowledge of the ivory trade, “but it has an exceptional profit.”

    ‘Easy Money’

    That profit is not lost on government soldiers in central Africa, who often get paid as little as $100 a month, if they get paid at all.

    In Garamba, the park rangers have arrested many Congolese government soldiers, including some caught with tusks, slabs of elephant meat and the red berets often worn by the elite presidential guard.

    “An element of our army is involved,” acknowledged Maj. Jean-Pierrot Mulaku, a Congolese military prosecutor. “It’s easy money.”

    Congolese soldiers have a long history of raping and killing civilians and pilfering resources. According to a report written in 2010 by John Hart, an American scientist and one of the top elephant researchers in Congo, the “Congolese military are implicated in almost all elephant poaching,” making the military “the main perpetrator of illegal elephant killing in D.R.C.”

    The Garamba rangers and a Congolese government intelligence officer said that they also routinely battled soldiers from the Sudan People’s Liberation Army, the military of South Sudan. A South Sudanese military spokesman denied that, saying that the soldiers “didn’t have time” for poaching.

    The American government has provided $250 million in nonlethal military assistance to South Sudan during the past several years. In May, the Garamba rangers said they had opened fire on four South Sudanese soldiers who had poached six elephant tusks. The rangers said they killed one soldier, though they did not seem to think too much about it.

    “I’ve killed too many people to count,” said Alexi Tamoasi, a veteran ranger.

    But the suspected helicopter poaching is something new.

    Mr. Onyango said the strange way the elephant carcasses were found, clumped in circles, with the calves in the middle for protection, was yet another sign that a helicopter had corralled them together because elephants usually scatter at the first shot.

    African Parks, the South Africa-based conservation organization that manages Garamba, has photographs of an Mi-17 military transport helicopter flying low over the park in April and said it had traced the chopper’s registration number to the Ugandan military.

    Col. Felix Kulayigye, a spokesman for the Ugandan military, acknowledged that the helicopter was one of its aircraft. But he said that the poaching allegation was a “baseless rumor” and that he knew “for sure” that Lord’s Resistance Army members were “well known” poachers in that area.

    John Sidle, an American from Nebraska who works as a pilot at Garamba, said, “What bothers me is that it’s probably American taxpayer money paying for the jet fuel for the helicopter.”

    The United States has paid tens of millions of dollars in recent years for fuel and transport services for the Ugandan Army to hunt down Mr. Kony in central Africa, while training Congolese and South Sudanese to help. But the State Department said it had no evidence that the Ugandan military was responsible for the Garamba killings, nor knowledge that any of the African soldiers involved in the Kony hunt had engaged in poaching. It did not address the broader history of poaching by American-supported militaries.

    In June, 36 tusks were seized at the Entebbe airport in Uganda. Eighteen of the 22 elephants killed in Garamba in March were adults that had their ivory hacked out, which would usually mean 36 tusks. The little stubs of ivory on the dead calves had been left untouched.

    In 1989, the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species passed a moratorium on the international commercial trade of African elephant ivory, except under a few rare circumstances. No one knows how many elephants are being poached each year, but many leading conservationists agree that “tens of thousands” is a safe number and that 2012 is likely to be worse than 2011.

    The total elephant population in Africa is a bit of a mystery, too. The International Union for Conservation of Nature, a global conservation network, estimates from 472,269 to 689,671. But that is based on information from 2006. Poaching has dramatically increased since then, all across the continent.

    Some of the recently poached elephants had been sexually mutilated, with their genitals or nipples cut off, possibly for sale — something researchers said they had not encountered before.

    “It’s very disturbing,” said Iain Douglas-Hamilton, the founder of Save the Elephants, who recently testified at a Senate hearing on ivory and insecurity.

    ‘Like the Drug War’

    Mr. Arranz, Garamba’s director, has an exhausted look in his eyes. History is against him. Garamba was founded more than 70 years ago, in part to protect the rare northern white rhinoceros, which used to number more than 1,000 here. But many people in Asia believe that ground rhino horn is a cure for cancer and other ills, and it fetches nearly $30,000 a pound, more than gold. In the past few decades, as Congo has descended into chaos, rhino poachers have moved into Garamba. The park’s northern white rhinos were among the last ones in the wild anywhere, but rangers have not seen any for the past five years.

    Garamba faces a seemingly endless number of challenges, many connected to the utter state failure of Congo itself. Some of the rangers are poachers themselves, killing the animals they are entrusted to protect, saying their salaries are too low to live on.

    “I was hungry,” explained Anabuda Bakuli, a ranger jailed for killing a waterbuck.

    It does not help that many Garamba rangers are, by their own admission, alcoholics and run up debts at the bar not far from park headquarters. Mr. Onyango, the chief, is known to drink several liters of beer in a single sitting. He talks about “the stress.”

    Poaching rates are now the highest here in central Africa, a belt of some of the most troubled countries in the world. In Chad, heavily armed horsemen, who many conservationists say were janjaweed, recently killed 3,000 elephants in just a few years.

    Garamba once had more than 20,000 elephants. Last year, there were around 2,800. This year, maybe 2,400.

    Every morning, if the skies are clear, Mr. Arranz flies above Garamba in a small two-seat plane, the equivalent of a Mazda Miata with wings. The emerald green savanna stretches out below him, a breathtaking sight at dawn.

    But the other day, he saw something that furrowed his brow: vultures.

    The next day, after a hike through the tall grass, the stench grew unbearable and the air reverberated with the sizzle of thousands of flies. “Poached,” Mr. Arranz said, as he discovered a dead elephant, its face cut off.

    Nearby were the ashes of a small campfire.

    “These guys were out here for a while,” he said. “If they were willing to do this for one elephant. …” His voice trailed off.

    “It’s like the drug war,” he said later. “If people keep buying and paying for ivory, it’s impossible to stop it.”

     

    Isma’il Kushkush contributed reporting from Omdurman, Sudan; Mia Li from Beijing; and a Somali journalist from Mogadishu, Somalia.

     

    Copyright. 2012. The New York Times Company. All Rights Reserved

  • Fears Rising, Spaniards Pull Out Their Cash and Get Out of Spain

    Warrick Page for The New York Times

    Julio Vildosola at his family’s new home in Buckden, England. “The macro situation in Spain is getting worse and worse,” he said.

     

    Warrick Page for The New York Times

    Julio and Eva Vildosola and one of their two children. Mr. Vildosola will join a small software company in Cambridge.

     

    September 3, 2012
     

    Fears Rising, Spaniards Pull Out Their Cash and Get Out of Spain

     

    By 

     

    LONDON — It is, Julio Vildosola concedes, a very big bet.

    After working six years as a senior executive for a multinational payroll-processing company in Barcelona, Spain, Mr. Vildosola is cutting his professional and financial ties with his troubled homeland. He has moved his family to a village near Cambridge, England, where he will take the reins at a small software company, and he has transferred his savings from Spanish banks to British banks.

    “The macro situation in Spain is getting worse and worse,” Mr. Vildosola, 38, said last week just hours before boarding a plane to London with his wife and two small children. “There is just too much risk. Spain is going to be next after Greece, and I just don’t want to end up holding devalued pesetas.”

    Mr. Vildosola is among many who worry that Spain’s economic tailspin could eventually force the country’s withdrawal from the euro and a return to its former currency, the peseta. That dire outcome is still considered a long shot, even if Spain might eventually require a Greek-style bailout. But there is no doubt that many of those in a position to do so are taking their money — and in some cases themselves — out of Spain.

    In July, Spaniards withdrew a record 75 billion euros, or $94 billion, from their banks — an amount equal to 7 percent of the country’s overall economic output — as doubts grew about the durability of Spain’s financial system.

    The deposit outflow in Spain reflects a broader capital flight problem that is by far the most serious in the euro zone. According to a recent research note from Nomura, capital departing the country equaled a startling 50 percent of gross domestic product over the past three months — driven largely by foreigners unloading stocks and bonds but also by Spaniards transferring their savings to foreign banks.

    The withdrawals accelerated a trend that began in the middle of last year, and came despite a European commitment to pump up to 100 billion euros into the Spanish banking system. Analysts will be watching to see whether the August data, when available, shows an even faster rate of capital flight.

    More disturbing for Spain is that the flight is starting to include members of its educated and entrepreneurial elite who are fed up with the lack of job opportunities in a country where the unemployment rate touches 25 percent.

    According to official statistics, 30,000 Spaniards registered to work in Britain in the last year, and analysts say that this figure would be many multiples higher if workers without documents were counted. That is a 25 percent increase from a year earlier.

    “No doubt there is a little bit of panic,” said José García Montalvo, an economist at Pompeu Fabra University in Barcelona. “The wealthy people have already taken their money out. Now it’s the professionals and midrange people who are moving their money to Germany and London. The mood is very, very bad.”

    It is possible that the outlook could improve if the European Central Bank’s governing council, which meets Thursday, signals a plan to help shore up the finances of Spain and other euro zone laggards by intervening in the bond markets.

    But right now, if anything, Spain’s picture is growing dimmer.

    On Friday, the government’s bank rescue fund said it would need to pump up to 5 billion euros into the failed mortgage-lending giant Bankia, which the state seized in May. And on Monday,Andalusia became the latest of Spain’s semiautonomous regions to ask the central government for rescue money.

    The wider prospects for the euro zone are also still bleak. Moody’s Investors Service said on Monday that it had changed its outlook on the AAA rating of the European Union to negative, and that it might downgrade the rating if it decides to cut the ratings on the union’s four largest budget contributors.

    Spain’s gathering gloom comes despite a gradual return of capital to banks in Greece and the relative stability of deposits in those other euro zone trouble spots, Italy, Ireland and Portugal.

    The continued exodus of money and people from Spain could be a warning to European policy makers that bailing out the country — a step now widely expected — may not stem the panic as long as the Spanish economy remains in a funk.

    It was a lesson learned in Greece, where despite successive European bailouts, about a third of deposits have been withdrawn from its banks since 2009, as the public worried that Athens might have to return to the drachma.

    Spain is still a far cry from a nearly bankrupt Greece: it has a much larger and more diverse economy, lower levels of debt and a bond market that is still functioning.

    It might be more accurate to say that money is leaving Spanish banks at more of a jog than anything close to a sprint.

    Although retail and corporate deposits are down 10 percent compared with those of July 2011, the country remains relatively rich in savings, with 2.3 trillion euros in overall deposits, according to data from Morgan Stanley.

    But once under way, the flight of bank deposits can easily overwhelm rational facts and analysis.

    Setting off the flight was the failure of Bankia, which came as a shock to Spanish savers who had been assured by government officials that the bank was in good shape.

    Instead of calming fears, the state takeover prompted comparisons to Argentina in 2001, when peso bank accounts denominated in dollars were frozen in order to stem the flight of deposits.

    The corralito, or corral, as the Argentine action is known, has become part of the public conversation in Spain. The million-plus Argentines who have since immigrated to Spain have provided ample and gory stories of desperate legal battles and wiped-out savings.

    Eduardo Pérez, a Spaniard who was working in Argentina during that period, remembers the events all too well. He said he lost four-fifths of the money he had kept in an Argentine savings account, though he declined to say how much money was involved.

    “Some of my friends lost everything,” Mr. Pérez said. “So yes, everyone in Spain knows about the corralito.”

    Recently, Mr. Pérez, who lives in the northern city of Bilbao, removed about a third of his euros from his Spanish savings account and sent them to Singapore, converting them to Singapore dollars.

    Having lost his job at a multinational company a few months ago, Mr. Pérez, 48, is trying to make ends meet by focusing on his travel Web site and blog, which aggregate Spanish-language travel videos.

    But as the job outlook worsens, he is contemplating following in the path of his savings and starting a new life in Singapore with his wife.

    “Two years ago, we never would have thought of this, but now I have real fears that there will be a breakup with the euro,” he said. “And when you keep hearing people saying, ‘Don’t worry, it’s not going to happen’ — well, that is when you have to start worrying.”

    Analysts said that the record-high outflow from Spain in July was probably spurred in part by July’s being a taxpaying month for many corporations, which prompted them to withdraw cash from deposit accounts.

    Also playing a role were investment funds that moved cash reserves to foreign banks in light of the credit downgrades at Spanish banks.

    Still, as the examples of Mr. Vildosola and Mr. Pérez show, individual deposit flight is becoming more pronounced.

    Some people are willing to fly to London for the day just to open an account there, as most banks in the city require such transactions to be made in person.

    Spanish bankers working for British financial institutions say they have been hit with a barrage of questions about how to open savings accounts in London.

    “It seems as if everyone I know in Spain is getting on an easyJet to come to London and open a bank account,” said one such banker, who spoke on condition of anonymity, citing his company’s policy.

    That is what Mr. Vildosola did before he took the more drastic step of moving his family to England.

    “It’s sad,” he said. “But I just don’t think there is a future for me in Spain right now.”

     

    Copyright. 2012. The New York Times Company. All Rights Reserved

  • Facebook Moves to Aid Its Shares. Zuckerberg Vows to Hold His Options for One Year

    Tomohiro Ohsumi/Bloomberg News

    Mark Zuckerberg, Facebook’s chief executive and largest shareholder, will hold on to his options for at least another year.

     

    September 4, 2012
     

    Facebook Moves to Aid Its Shares

     

    By 

     

    SAN FRANCISCO — “Stay focused and keep shipping” may be the motto Facebook has sought to follow since its flubbed public offering three months ago. But on Tuesday, the company seemed focused mostly on how to stabilize its hemorrhaging stock.

    It announced what amounted to a repurchase of several million shares; said its largest shareholder and chief executive, Mark Zuckerberg, would not sell his shares or options for at least another year; and moved up when some employees could start selling their shares.

    The moves appeared aimed at instilling confidence into Wall Street, analysts said.

    The company’s stock has lost more than half its value from the public offering in mid-May, closing at $17.73 a share Tuesday. But after-hours trading seemed to bring a bit of cheer to the world’s largest social network: The share price rose nearly 2 percent.

    Still, analysts were skeptical whether these moves, announced in filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission, will have any appreciable bearing on the stock.

    Facebook employees and early investors will be able to sell hundreds of millions of shares at the end of October, which could reduce prices. The first lock-up, as this is known, will expire on Oct. 29, the company announced, moving up the date slightly. At that point, employees will be allowed to cash in approximately 220 million shares.

    Another window will open in mid-November, when employees will be able to cash in approximately 780 million shares, followed by a third in December, and a final one in May 2013.

    “While it’s great that Mark isn’t selling, you’re still saddled with significant selling pressure on the stock,” said Richard Greenfield, an analyst with BTIG Research. “The lock-up monkey on their back isn’t going away because Mark isn’t selling.”

    Facebook said Tuesday that it would withhold about 101 million shares to cover tax bills. That is not an uncommon move when companies go public. For Facebook, it would have an additional benefit: In effect, it is like a stock buyback, reducing the number of total shares on the public market, “thereby reducing our shares outstanding used to calculate earnings per share,” the filing said.

    Early investors have been allowed to sell already, and their exits have vexed many public shareholders.

    Peter Thiel, one of its first angel backers, has already dumped most of his shares in the company. The venture firm, Accel Partners, has sold millions of its shares.

    In the filing, Facebook said its board members Marc Andreessen and Donald Graham also plan to sell shares as soon as they are able to, to pay their tax bills.

    In a separate filing late Tuesday, Dustin Moskovitz, one of Facebook’s co-founders, who has since gone on to start his own company, reported that he sold 450,000 shares over the last week.

    In its filing, Facebook made clear that Mr. Zuckerberg, its co-founder, had no plans to sell his options or shares for the next 12 months.

    “I don’t interpret this as an investment thesis change in the stock one way or another,” said a Citibank analyst, Mark Mahaney. “It’s a slightly positive trading piece of news for a stock that hasn’t had any since its I.P.O.”

    Rick Summer, an analyst with Morningstar, the investment research firm, said Tuesday’s tweaks were “not material to our view of the investment merits of the stock.”

    Facebook went public in May at an exceedingly ambitious valuation of more than $100 billion, or $38 a share. Since then, its sales growth has slowed, and the anticipation of more employee shares flooding the market has helped to reduce its value on Wall Street.

    Facebook has sought to portray itself as a company that shrugs off the vicissitudes of the market and remains dedicated to its social mission. Right after the ballyhooed public offering, a poster went up on its campus urging employees to remain hard at work. “Stay focused and keep shipping,” it read.

    <nyt_correction_bottom>

    This article has been revised to reflect the following correction:

    Correction: September 4, 2012

     

    An earlier version of this article incorrectly said that Dustin Moskovitz, a co-founder of Facebook, had sold 450 million shares of stock.  The correct figure is 450,000.

     

     

    Copyright. 2012. The New York Times Company. All Rights Reserved

  • The Man Behind Facebook’s I.P.O. Debacle

    I.P.O./OFFERINGS | DEALBOOK COLUMN SEPTEMBER 3, 2012, 9:03 PM

    The Man Behind Facebook’s I.P.O. Debacle

    BY ANDREW ROSS SORKIN

    It is David Ebersman’s fault. There is just no way around it.

    Mr. Ebersman is Facebook’s well-liked, boyish-looking 42-year-old chief financial officer. He’s not as well known as Mark Zuckerberg, Facebook’s founder and chief executive, or Sheryl Sandberg, its chief operating officer and recently appointed director.

    But when it came to Facebook’s catastrophe of an initial public offering — the stock reached a new low on Friday, closing at $18.06 — it was Mr. Ebersman, not Mr. Zuckerberg or Ms. Sandberg, who was ultimately the one pulling the strings.

     

    Now, three months after the offering, the company has lost more than $50 billion in market value. Let me say that again for emphasis: Facebook’s market value has dropped more than $50 billion in 90 days.

    To put that in perspective, that’s more market value than Lehman Brothers gave up in the entire year before it filed for bankruptcy.

    A lot of ink has been spilled over Facebook’s I.P.O., with investors and pundits mostly pointing the finger at the Wall Street banks, particularly Morgan Stanley, which led the offering, and at Nasdaq, whose numerous computer glitches on Facebook’s first day of trading undermined confidence in the stock. They clearly deserve blame.

    David Ebersman, Facebook's chief financial officer.Paul Sakuma/Associated PressDavid Ebersman, Facebook’s chief financial officer.

    Mr. Ebersman’s name, however, is mentioned only occasionally, usually in passing and typically only among Silicon Valley’s cognoscenti.

    And yet if there is one single individual more responsible than any other for the staggering mispricing of Facebook’s I.P.O., it is Mr. Ebersman. He signed off on the ever-increasing offer price, which ended up at $38 after the company had originally planned a price range of $28 to $35.

    He — almost alone — pushed to flood the market with 25 percent more shares than originally planned in the final days before the offering. And since then, as the point person for investors, he has done little to articulate how or why the company’s strategy will lift the stock price any time soon.

    At a time when investors are looking for some semblance of accountability on Wall Street and in corporate America, it is remarkable that nobody — no bankers, no one at Nasdaq, no one at Facebook — has been fired for botching the offering.

    Mr. Zuckerberg reportedly told his employees after the I.P.O., “So, you’ve heard we’re firing David?” But it was only a joke.

    Facebook’s falling stock price is not just a problem for investors; it is quickly creating real questions inside the company about its ability to retain and attract talented engineers, the lifeblood of any technology company.

    Employees who joined the company starting in 2010, for example, are now holding onto restricted shares that were granted at a higher price — $24.10 — than the current trading price. (It should be noted that these are restricted stock units, not underwater stock options, so they do still have real value, but not nearly what the employees had expected.)

    Employees with some two billion shares will have the opportunity to begin selling them this fall, which is one reason Facebook shares have been depressed lately.

    A spokesman for Facebook, Elliot Schrage, declined to comment and would not make Mr. Ebersman available.

    Mr. Ebersman appears to have badly misjudged the demand for Facebook’s I.P.O. He was aided by errant advice from a cadre of banking advisers, who all had an incentive to sell as many shares as possible at the highest price possible. Morgan Stanley liked $38 a share, JPMorgan Chase thought the shares could be sold for even more, while Goldman Sachs thought they should be sold for slightly less — but all of them quickly jumped on board when Mr. Ebersman made his final decision.

    Determining the price of an I.P.O. is as much an art as a science. After a company’s roadshow presentations, investors indicate how many shares they plan to buy. They typically ask for more shares than they expect to receive, sometimes twice as many. But in the case of Facebook, investors, anticipating huge demand, put in requests for triple or quadruple the number of shares they expected to get.

    The bankers — and Mr. Ebersman — did not seem to appreciate what was happening. They seem to have believed their own hype and took those orders as real, giving them the misplaced confidence to push the I.P.O. to the highest possible price and issue more shares.

    But this wasn’t a traditional I.P.O. and should never have been priced that way. (People close to Mr. Ebersman say that he decided to issue additional shares with the goal of steadying the price this fall when the lockup on employee share sales expired. Consider that another miscalculation.)

    Another issue that weighed on Mr. Ebersman, as well as the bank underwriters, was the example set by LinkedIn. Its shares rose 110 percent on its first day of trading. That might sound good, but it meant that the company mispriced the shares so badly that it effectively gave investors a gift of nearly $350 million. Mr. Ebersman was intent on making sure Facebook didn’t “leave money on the table,” according to several people close to him. But by leaving investors with little upside, he may have created additional pressure on the stock.

    Both LinkedIn’s and Facebook’s I.P.O.’s should be considered failures — they were extreme examples of what could happen on the upside and the downside. The ideal offering lands somewhere in the middle. Still, there is no question that investors would prefer another LinkedIn over a Facebook, and they have every incentive to make an example of the company — and Mr. Ebersman — so that other companies don’t try to wipe out that first-day “pop.”

    None of this is meant to suggest that Mr. Ebersman is dumb or unqualified. A graduate of Brown who was the chief financial officer of Genentech when he was just 34, Mr. Ebersman is bright, perhaps even brilliant. He was recruited to Facebook by Ms. Sandberg, a hire that was considered quite a coup at the time. He should clearly be given credit for negotiating favorable and extraordinarily large credit lines — $8 billion worth — with Wall Street banks, which could provide the company with an important lifeline should the economy and the company’s fortunes suffer.

    The disclosures in the company’s I.P.O. prospectus — which were Mr. Ebersman’s responsibility — were, for the most part, pretty transparent, giving investors a good sense of the business, despite all the hype. And the I.P.O., for all its failures, filled Facebook’s coffers with some $10 billion.

    Still, Mr. Ebersman has his work cut out for him as he tries to regain the trust of shareholders. He recently came to New York to meet with big investors, including hedge funds and institutional investors. Some invitations for meetings were oddly, and somewhat imperiously, sent out on Thursday night for meetings on Friday. Given that it was summer, some investors sent their junior analysts.

    When Facebook’s I.P.O. first started to appear troubled back in May, I purposely avoided weighing in. Frankly, I thought it was too soon to judge.

    But we have passed the pivotal three-month mark.

    Statistically, the three-month mark is a much better predictor of a company’s future share price than any of the closing prices in the first week or two. According to Richard Peterson of Capital IQ, 67 percent of technology companies whose shares lagged their I.P.O. price after 90 days were still laggards after a year. Until Facebook’s stock rebounds, Mr. Ebersman will be feeling the pressure.


    This post has been revised to reflect the following correction:

    Correction: September 5, 2012

    The DealBook column on Tuesday, about the role that David Ebersman, Facebook’s chief financial officer, played in the company’s initial public offering, misstated the price range for that offering. It was $28 to $35, not $29 to $34. The column also misstated Mr. Ebersman’s age. He is 42, not 41.

     

    Copyright. 2012. The New York Times Company. All Rights Reserved

  • A Chinese City Moves to Limit New Cars

    Chang W. Lee/The New York Times

    Heavy congestion in Guangzhou, China, where officials are imposing restrictions on new licenses to reduce traffic and pollution.

     

    September 4, 2012
     

    A Chinese City Moves to Limit New Cars

     

    By KEITH BRADSHER

     

    GUANGZHOU, China — It is as startling as if Detroit or Los Angeles restricted car ownership.

    The municipal government of Guangzhou, a sprawling metropolis that is one of China’s biggest auto manufacturing centers, introduced license plate auctions and lotteries last week that will roughly halve the number of new cars on the streets.

    The crackdown by China’s third-largest city is the most restrictive in a series of moves by big Chinese cities that are putting quality-of-life issues ahead of short-term economic growth, something the central government has struggled to do on a national scale.

    The measures have the potential to help clean up China’s notoriously dirty air and water, reduce long-term health care costs and improve the long-term quality of Chinese growth. But they are also imposing short-term costs, economists say, at a time when policy makers in Beijing and around the world are already concerned about a sharp economic slowdown in China.

    “Of course from the government’s point of view, we give up some growth, but to achieve better health for all citizens, it is definitely worth it,” said Chen Haotian, the vice director of Guangzhou’s top planning agency.

    Nanjing and Hangzhou in east-central China are moving to require cleaner gas and diesel. Cities near the coast, from Dongguan and Shenzhen in southeastern China to Wuxi and Suzhou in the middle and Beijing in the north, are pushing out polluting factories. And Xi’an and Urumqi in northwestern China are banning and scrapping cars built before 2005, when automotive emissions rules were less stringent.

    “There’s a recognition finally that growth at all costs is not sustainable,” said Ben Simpfendorfer, the managing director of Silk Road Associates, a Hong Kong consulting firm.

    Facing public pressure to address traffic jams and pollution, municipal governments from across China have been sending delegations to Guangzhou. But the national government in Beijing is pushing back against further car restrictions because of worries about the huge auto industry, said An Feng, a senior adviser in Beijing to transportation policy makers.

    “This has really become a battle,” Mr. An said.

    Beijing’s municipal government started limiting new license plates at the start of last year when the economy was in danger of overheating, but Guangzhou is the first city to act during the current slowdown. Faced with public dissatisfaction over traffic, Guangzhou has also built an extensive subway system in the last few years, along with large parks and a renowned opera house.

    The local government initiatives are not the main cause of the Chinese economy’s difficulties. The government clamped down on credit a year ago in a successful bid to rein in inflation, but starved many small and medium-size businesses of credit in the process.

    Other broad economic problems have been building for years. These include industrial overcapacity and the monopolistic grip of many state-owned enterprises, as well as the inefficient allocation of loans.

    But for now, the growing regulatory burden on business is reinforcing a trend toward slower growth, economists say.

    “That’s why I think the slowdown is likely to be a trend, instead of just a short-term cycle,” said Xiao Geng, the research director at the Fung Global Institute in Hong Kong.

    Polluting factories being pushed out of increasingly affluent cities in southeastern China are being turned away by poorer cities in western and northern China unless they install costly, extensive equipment to control emissions, said Stanley Lau, the deputy chairman of the Hong Kong Federation of Industries, a trade group representing manufacturers that employ nearly 10 million workers in mainland China.

    “There is no hint that these costs will be lowered because of the market slowdown,” he said.

    Some executives in China complain about rising regulatory costs, particularly as new rules at the local level coincide with rising wages. Critics in the business community say that an economic slowdown may not be the best time for China to turn away from the largely unrestrained dash for prosperity of the last three decades.

    But while the local measures may limit short-term growth, they are part of a broader transition. China is no longer just a developing economy that has pursued a particularly raw form of capitalism, while remaining Communist in name. It is becoming a modern, industrialized economy whose leaders increasingly listen to public opinion and seek to balance the environment, social welfare and many other issues against economic growth.

    The question is how much short-term pain will China endure, in the form of slower growth and higher costs, to achieve a more balanced and sustainable economy.

    Ma Jun, the director of the Institute of Public and Environmental Affairs, an environmental group in Beijing, said that local officials had become more interested in the environment in the last year after large street demonstrations against polluting factories in cities like Dalian, Shifang and Qidong. In each case, local officials agreed to halt construction of the projects or close them after becoming the targets of local and national ridicule.

    Bernadette Brennan, a senior lawyer in the Beijing office of the Natural Resources Defense Council, said that after three decades of experience in China, she had seen change in the last year. Instead of resisting pressure to address pollution, she said, municipal officials have begun contacting her office to seek advice on how to improve.

    Measuring the environmental benefits of the changed policies is difficult.

    A series of typhoons makes it hard to compare air quality data in China this summer with previous years, said Alexis Lau, the director of the atmospheric research center at the Hong Kong University of Science and Technology. In Guangzhou, emissions of a wide range of pollutants peaked in 2007 and 2008 and receded in 2009 and 2010 because of weaker economic growth. Emissions started to rise in 2011 as growth returned, but did not match 2008 levels.

    Pollution per dollar of economic output has clearly declined, Mr. Lau said. Emissions of sulfur dioxide, a top priority in China in recent years because of its role in acid rain, have declined across China but particularly in Guangzhou, a city of 15 million people, including migrants.

    The financial dependence of local governments on the sale of land leases to new developments may limit the extent to which some cities confront businesses. But city governments also own many of the businesses within their borders, making these businesses think twice about challenging policies like license plate restrictions.

    “The car companies are owned by the government,”said Mr. Chen, who drives a Toyota Camry built in Guangzhou. “The car companies must obey the government.”

    He added, “What do we need gross domestic product for if we don’t have health?”

     

    Copyright. 2012. The New York Times Company. All Rights Reserved

     

     

  • Race – Button wins after first-corner carnage at Spa02 Sep 2012

    Race – Button wins after first-corner carnage at Spa02 Sep 2012

    Jenson Button (GBR) McLaren MP4-27 leads as Romain Grosjean (FRA) Lotus E20, Fernando Alonso (ESP) Ferrari F2012 and Lewis Hamilton (GBR) McLaren MP4-27 crash out at the start of the race. Formula One World Championship, Rd12, Belgian Grand Prix, Preparations, Spa-Francorchamps, Belgium, Sunday, 2 September 2012Nico Hulkenberg (GER) Force India F1 VJM05. Formula One World Championship, Rd12, Belgian Grand Prix, Preparations, Spa-Francorchamps, Belgium, Sunday, 2 September 2012A huge lock-up from Michael Schumacher on Lap 20. He cuts across the nose of Sebastian Vettel's Red Bull to make a very late entry into the pits from second placeDrama in the pits as Heikki Kovalainen is released into the path of Narain Karthikeyan's HRT Red Bull are to be investigated by the stewards for a possible unsafe release as Webber has a near miss with Massa in the pitsJenson Button (GBR) McLaren MP4-27. Formula One World Championship, Rd12, Belgian Grand Prix, Preparations, Spa-Francorchamps, Belgium, Sunday, 2 September 2012Race winner Jenson Button (GBR) McLaren celebrates on the podium. Formula One World Championship, Rd12, Belgian Grand Prix, Preparations, Spa-Francorchamps, Belgium, Sunday, 2 September 2012

    Jenson Button salvaged McLaren’s day after an explosive start to the Belgian race saw team mate Lewis Hamilton eliminated along with championship points leader Fernando Alonso, Sauber’s Sergio Perez and Lotus’s Romain Grosjean.

    After debris from their collision was cleared away, and the safety car went back in, Button owned the race and sped home to a 13.6s victory – his first at Spa – over Sebastian Vettel who drove with great commitment and a clever strategy to take a supremely valuable second for Red Bull. 

    Behind them, car problems kept Lotus’s Kimi Raikkkonen from launching his expected challenge, but the Finn also took home valuable points on a day when Alonso’s lead suddenly began to look vulnerable. His team mate Grosjean was subsequently handed a one-race ban and a 50,000 Euro fine for triggering the first-corner mayhem. 

    Nico Hulkenberg drove a beautiful race for Force India and was always in the hunt for good points. He battled and beat Raikkonen and Mercedes’ Michael Schumacher in the early stages to run second, but ultimately had to settle for an honourable fourth.

    Felipe Massa salvaged a little for Ferrari (after Alonso’s exit) with a hard-fought fifth ahead of Red Bull’s Mark Webber, while Schumacher faded to seventh after a late tyre stop and the loss of sixth gear on his Mercedes.

    Jean-Eric Vergne came through from a fantastic race-long battle with Toro Rosso team mate Daniel Ricciardo, Paul di Resta in the second Force India, and Bruno Senna, who also had to make a late tyre stop after looking a likely points contender for a long time.

    Sauber’s promising race fell apart at the start when Kamui Kobayashi’s car showed signs of overheating on the grid and was then hit by the flying Hamilton and Alonso; he recovered, but could not better a hugely disappointing 13th. Vitaly Petrov was Caterham’s leader in 14th after Heikki Kovalainen, who was initially 10th after the first-corner melee, spun once and later spun again to finish 17th.

    Between the green cars, the Marussia drivers staged a hard battle in the team’s 50th race. Eventually Timo Glock hunted down team mate Charles Pic, to finish 15.5s ahead. Pedro de la Rosa was the final finisher after HRT team mate Narain Karthikeyan’s span off backwards into the tyre wall late in the race.

    Besides Grosjean, Hamilton, Alonso and Perez, the other non-finisher was Pastor Maldonado who damaged his Williams in a brush with Glock on the restart on Lap five. The Venezuelan was handed a five-place grid penalty by the stewards for the next race in Monza for that incident, and received another five-place grid penalty for Italy for jumping the start.

    The FIA also investigated two pit-lane incidents. The first came when Caterham unsafely released Kovalainen and he struck an incoming Karthikeyan, and the second when Webber just managed to avoid an incoming Massa after Red Bull appeared to let him go prematurely. They took no further action against Red Bull but fined Caterham 10,000 Euros for their misdemeanor.

    The stewards also investigated an incident on the 19th lap when Schumacher, on the left-hand side of the road as Vettel dived inside him at the Bus Stop chicane, then cut across the Red Bull’s bows as the older German headed for the pits. They decided to take no further action. 

    In the championship stakes, Alonso still leads with 164 points, but Vettel is now second on 140 from Webber on 132 and Raikkonen on 131. Hamilton is fifth with 117, while Button’s first victory at Spa leaves him sixth on 101.

    For the teams, Red Bull continues to lead with 272 to McLaren’s 218, Lotus’s 207 and Ferrari’s 199.

    For tickets and travel to 2012 FORMULA 1 races, click here.For FORMULA 1 and F1 team merchandise, click here.

     

    Copyright. 2012.F1.com All Rights Reserved