B.C. Liberals Masquerading As Harper Tories Destroy Legacy Of Climate Leadership

The week marked when the B.C. Liberals showed their true colours. On Monday, Oct. 20, the party took a page from the Harper Tories playbook and destroyed a legacy of climate leadership in British Columbia.

In what will become known as a defining moment in B.C. history, the B.C. Liberals introduced Bill 2 (Greenhouse Gas Industrial Reporting and Control Act).

Bill 2 represents a shameful betrayal of future generations. It dismantles key elements of former premier Gordon Campbell’s continent-leading climate policies. And it replaces these policies with a made-in-Alberta, Harper government approach that will instead allow for a dramatic increase in greenhouse gas emissions in B.C.

Back in 2008, I had the honour of working with Campbell, his environment minister Barry Penner and the climate action team to outline clear, bold and practical steps that we as a province could take to address global warming.

Together with the government, academics, industry leaders, and First Nations, we developed a suite of policies that has allowed us to reduce our carbon emissions while growing our economy. Six years later, British Columbia’s climate policies were still seen as leading the way in North America. Sadly, this bill now threatens to entirely undermine that success.

Here’s why.

Under the bill, the B.C. government will repeal legislation that would have enabled us to enter a cap and trade framework with other jurisdictions. In its place, we will adopt new legislation that would see us embrace what’s called an “emissions intensity” scheme along the lines of what Alberta and the Harper Tories have done.

Whereas a cap and trade framework would force us to reduce the total amount of carbon we emit into the atmosphere, an emissions intensity scheme would only require businesses to reduce the concentration of carbon produced per tonne of liquefied natural gas. In other words, as we produce more LNG, we will emit more carbon — and this bill would not place any limit on the maximum amount of carbon we emit. That means our overall net carbon emissions can increase significantly despite the “emissions intensity” decreasing.

Here’s the point: Our climate doesn’t care about emissions intensity. Our climate cares about the overall magnitude of emissions. And as far as global warming is concerned, the magnitude of net carbon emissions is the only thing that matters.

So why are we going down this path? Because the government knows that emissions are going to skyrocket if we develop our LNG industry. And an Alberta or Harper government style emissions intensity model will provide the illusion of action on global warming at the same time as our overall magnitude of carbon emissions continue to increase. That’s all this is: The illusion of action.

The simple fact is, if we pass this bill, we may as well say goodbye to all of the progress we have made, for we will be stepping into a new era as one of the most polluting provinces in Canada.

But it is not too late. We can once again be a leader in climate policy in North America. We have the opportunity to come together with other West Coast jurisdictions and live up to our word and our commitments to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. By seizing this opportunity, we will be able to move forward together in a united approach to tackling our emissions.

By looking to other promising sectors in B.C., such as our clean tech sector which tripled in size from 2012 to 2013, we can continue to open up new and vast sectors of our economy with immense economic opportunities for British Columbian businesses.

But we cannot do this if we turn our backs on the progress that has already been made. We cannot do this if we pass this bill.

ALSO ON HUFFPOST:

Dow, S&P 500 end at record highs; BoJ move adds fuel to rally

NEW YORK (Reuters) – The Dow and S&P 500 ended at record highs on Friday and other indexes posted strong gains for a second week after the Bank of Japan’s surprise move to ramp up its stimulus program.



Equity Crowdfunding Is Changing Venture Capitalism in Canada

If you’re considering embarking on the painstakingly tedious process of raising seed capital for your company, you should know that a dismal 98 per cent of business plans pitched to venture capitalists or accredited angel investors are rejected. And in the off chance that your idea is endorsed, the combined expense of raising funds via traditional financing routes can top $250k.

Oscar Jofre knows this story all too well. Two years ago he tried to go public and the process almost bankrupted his company. That experience is part of the reason why he’s one of equity crowdfunding’s most ardent disciples today.

In fact, Jofre, a 25-year entrepreneur and technology innovator, co-founded and is a member of the Equity Crowdfunding Alliance of Canada. Through his company, Koreconx, he has helped thousands of businesses in 44 countries raise capital through equity crowdfunding.

Jofre has published a free e-book to help people understand the exploding crowdfunding phenomenon, which he says is dramatically changing the global financing landscape. In it he describes four basic types of crowdfunding:

1. Donation based, where contributions go to a charitable cause with no financial return to the people putting money in
2. Reward based, (like Kickstarter), where investors get a prescribed reward at a later date, like tickets to a movie being funded or a product being launched
3. Lending based, where investors lend a business money and are repaid with an agreed rate of return and at a specified time
4. Equity crowdfunding, where people invest in a company in exchange for shares in that company.

According to Oscar Jofre, equity crowdfunding is the Holy Grail of the crowdfunding phenomenon that is sweeping the globe. Unlike the other types of crowdfunding, equity financing is highly regulated. It has to be, to prevent widespread fraud. But don’t let that put you off: it is still far more accessible, less expensive, and more transparent than raising money through traditional routes.

The premise is simple, according to Jofre: “you go to the crowd, tell your story, and let the crowd decide if they want to invest, all at very minimal cost.”

Obviously you still need to be prepared with all due diligence information, the nature of which is determined by the country, state, or province involved. (There are many online platforms to assist you in complying with necessary requirements for the specific portal you are applying to. Jofre’s company, Koreconx, is one such company, providing the eco-system infrastructure platform needed by a business to go through the entire process, front and back end.)

Once you are approved, it’s critical to engage all possible social networking tools — Facebook, Twitter, Pinterest, Google+ — to get your story out. Social media is essentially what makes crowdfunding work; if you can create an active, engaged community of supporters, they will do the promotion for you.

One of the cool things about equity crowdfunding is that businesses are able to raise varying amounts of money, from as little $200k, to in the many millions. And as long as you are a good citizen and deliver what you promise, there is no limit to how many times you can go back to the crowd.

However, if you don’t deliver on your promises, you can bet on the crowd nipping your fund raising efforts in the bud forever.

In summary, here are some of the benefits to equity crowdfunding from the business perspective:

– More choice for raising funds as there are no third party barriers to your deal being financed — the only entity you need to convince of the value of your deal is the crowd
– No limit to how much money you can go to the crowd for or how many times you go to the crowd for money
– Eliminate much of the expense involved in traditional fund raising
– You have a vastly larger base of potential investors to tap into
– Investors become supporters become evangelists for your deal; some will even become advisors

From the investor point of view, equity crowdfunding provides an equally impressive list of benefits:

– An opportunity to get in on the ground floor of a new business.
– Total transparency — at the portal you see everything you need to make a decision about whether you invest, and in one, easy click
– Immediate and direct online access to the company you’ve invested in
– Liquidity – third party exchanges exist now to provide a market for your investments

But there’s more. Equity crowdfunding is good for the economy as a whole, because allowing for easier access to funding for companies should promote new business development, which includes more job creation. Some proponents believe that it also encourages innovation, and that’s good for everyone.

Jofre says that it’s been tricky estimating the potential growth for the equity crowdfunding market. Four months ago experts were forecasting that the market for 2014 would be $5 billion, but in the time since the actual market value has ballooned to over $30 billion. Experts are now saying that by 2020 we will see an equity crowdfunding market worth $3.8 trillion. Expect that number to swell.

Needless to say, stock exchanges are a little skittish about the equity crowdfunding movement, because they stand to lose revenue from company listings. We’ve heard claims from exchange executives that crowdfunding isn’t legal in Canada (it most definitely is, there are two portals operating now and several slated to start operating in the next year), and that it’s an invitation for fraud (fraud happens in listed companies too – see Bre-x). Desperate times call for desperate statements…

I’ll tell you what: if I’m a junior entity looking to raise some capital, forget the bigshots. I’m going to the crowd.

What the Bank of Japan’s stimulus shocker means for the global economy

OTTAWA — Yes, the Bank of Japan’s move to crank up its already-massive stimulus program took the markets — and economists — by surprise. And yes, it could have the desired effect of lifting the country’s economy out of a decades-long doldrum and keep deflation at bay.

But the impact on the global economy, overall, is likely to be minimal.
Canada will continue to rely on stronger U.S. growth to underpin output in this country. And the European Central Bank will do whatever it takes, as usual, to fend off recession and the sinking any more members of the 18-nation eurozone.
“Now is a critical moment for Japan to emerge from deflation,” Bank of Japan governor Haruhiko Kuroda told reporters Friday, adding that signs of economic recovery have been clouded by global uncertainty, falling oil prices and weak household spending.

“There was a risk that despite having made steady progress, we could face a delay in eradicating the public’s deflation mindset.”

The market exuberance over Friday’s announcement by Mr. Kuroda that the central bank will plow more money into purchases of Japanese bonds — up to 30-trillion yen to an annual rate of 80-trillion yen (US$723.4-billion) — wasn’t limited to Asia.

European stocks also jumped on the decision to up the ante on Japan’s quantitative easing program and a separate statement from Tokyo that the Government Pension Investment Fund —the world’s largest — would double its holding of foreign stocks to 25%.

North American also soared Friday, with the S&P/TSX composite index in Toronto closing up 154.63 points to 14,613.32. The Dow Jones industrial average ended up 195.10 points, ending Friday at a record high 17,390.52. The Nasdaq composite finished at 4,630.74, a gain of 64.60 points.

“Stocks are loving it because the [accompanying] depreciation in the yen will increase foreign currency translation effects on earnings from abroad,” said Scotiabank chief economist Derek Holt.

“But stock markets are not always the best gauge of ultimate policy success. The effects on consumers and international trade competitiveness are much more uncertain.”

The Bank of Japan’s admission that additional QE is needed could be seen as a failure for Mr. Kuroda, who only 18 months ago launched an ambitious round of spending stimulus that promises to jump start the economic recover and halt the 15-year slide in prices.

“Given the way inflation slowed in recent months, and given also that politicians seem keen to introduce another hike in the consumption tax next year, at some point the BoJ was going to have to provide more stimulus to make sure the economy doesn’t fall back into deflation again,” said Charles St-Arnaud, an economist at Japan-based Nomura Securities.

“It’s not that the confidence [in the economy] is not there. I think it’s more of a bold move from the Bank of Japan, saying ‘We are serious when we tell you that we want inflation at target by the end of fiscal year 2015-16’.”

Friday’s announcement from the world’s third-biggest economy — after the United States and China — comes just days after the U.S. Federal Reserve announced an end to its own lengthy QE program that saw US$3.6-trillion in purchases of government bonds and other securities over a six-year period.

The European Central Bank has so far avoided full-throttle QE programs, which would include government bond, focusing instead on other forms of asset purchases.

A new round of QE in Japan was “clearly a big surprise, given [Mr.] Kuroda’s repeated insistence that policy was on track and assorted politicians have been warning about the negative side of a weak yen currency,” Sean Callow, senior strategist at Westpac, told Reuters.

“We salute the BoJ for admitting that they weren’t going to reach their goals on inflation or GDP. . .  This perspective does raise the question of just how much impact monetary policy is having.”

Douglas Porter, chief economist at BMO Capital Markets, said that “while an extra dose of QE from the Bank of Japan is a nice bonus, the real news was the plan by the massive Government Pension Investment Fund to shift out of [Japanese government bonds] and into Japanese and global equities.”

“This will see an eventual enormous shift into stocks starting next April. For example, we estimate that roughly $7.6 -billion [Canadian] will find its way into Canadian equities, and about 13 times as much into U.S. stocks.”
As for the overall impact of Japan’s move on North America, Nomura’s Mr. St-Arnaud, said: “For Canada, probably nothing.”

“It kind of depends on what the Canada-yen [rate] does. The Canadian dollar is appreciating against the yen. So, if you buy a Japanese car, it might be slightly than less expensive,” he said.

“For the U.S., probably not that much also. [But] at some point, strong U.S. demand should start to feed through in terms of Canadian exports.”
Twitter.com/gisfeld

Jumbo Ski Resort Threatens Grizzly Bears From Southern B.C. Into U.S.: Scientists

Grizzly bears in the Central Purcell Mountains are more vulnerable than shown in 15-year-old research being used by proponents of Jumbo Glacier Resort, says one of Canada’s leading grizzly bear experts. And he adds that if the resort is built, it could threaten grizzly populations through southern B.C and into the U.S.

Michael Proctor has studied grizzly bears in the Purcell and Selkirk mountain ranges in southeastern B.C. for almost 20 years and his work is regularly published in scientific journals. He recently completed two ecological analyses of the Purcell grizzly population and found –based on data-driven population surveys — that bear populations are about 50 per cent smaller than previous estimates.

In 1999, government scientists estimated the area to be at 93 per cent of carrying capacity for grizzlies, but Proctor’s research, completed more than a decade later, found grizzly capacity to be at 54 per cent. The capacity is the population an environment can sustain.

Human encroachment likely cause of drop in grizzly population

Using DNA analysis from hair snagging, Proctor found the Purcell grizzly populations are depressed, bringing them “close to or below the threatened population threshold.” The reason for the lower than expected numbers is most probably more roads into the backcountry and human-caused mortality associated with the activity that roads bring.

Work needs to be done on helping the population recover before efforts to mitigate the negative effects of the proposed resort come into play, he said.

“To improve the status of the Purcell grizzly it will likely be necessary to improve the balance of human use and wildlife habitat needs. The Jumbo Glacier Resort would challenge our ability to accomplish that goal,” Proctor said in a 2010 letter to the provincial government.

Purcell/Selkirk grizzlies act as anchor population

An even more important issue, Proctor said in an interview, is that the proposed resort will likely fragment the approximately 600-strong Purcell/Selkirk grizzly population and compromise its ability to act as a core anchor for beleaguered and already-fragmented smaller units to the south. Keeping that population intact is probably essential to maintaining international grizzly bear populations extending south into the U.S.

“Those small, fragmented populations just to the south are too small to survive long-term without the larger Purcell/Selkirk regional core population to act as a long-term source of immigrants,” Proctor said.

It is an argument that has been emphasized by Wildsight, a non-profit group fighting approval of the proposed resort.

“This is the last stop. There’s small bits of populations to the south and in the U.S and, if we cut them off they are hooped,” said Wildsight spokesperson Robyn Duncan.

Although Glacier Resorts spokespeople say there are few grizzlies in the area that would be used for year-round glacier skiing, there are numerous anecdotes about resort proponents ignoring grizzlies that appear almost in front of them.

Bob Campsall, a long-time Jumbo Creek Conservation Society board member, recalls one of the first meetings about the planned resort.

“I asked about grizzly bears and they said they had studied the grizzly bear population and there were not enough to be concerned about. I had hiked up there the previous weekend and saw four grizzly bears,” he said.

Most up-to-date grizzly research not considered by B.C. government

Proctor said that, as Jumbo is in the central spine of the Purcell Range, it is in the area where the bears are generally going to travel.

“Ski areas are not generally bad for grizzly bears; it’s the location of this one,” he said.

However, Proctor’s latest research appears to have been ignored by the provincial government. The Environmental Assessment Office is currently considering whether the environmental assessment certificate, first granted in 2004 and renewed in 2009, should be made permanent.

“They haven’t incorporated the new information I have given them,” Proctor said. “They said the research was too late.”

That is a disappointment, according to Proctor, who has a reputation as an independent research scientist, whose only agenda is science.

“It is a shame not to use the latest science,” he said.

Gerry Wilkie, a director of the Regional District of East Kootenay, is angry that Proctor’s research is not being taken into account and believes it illustrates how poorly the Jumbo decision is being handled by the government.

“It’s a debacle,” he said, describing the project as a white elephant.

“The fact that Mike Proctor’s work on population dynamics and fragmentation of habitat of the southern interior grizzly was disregarded is of critical importance.”

The Environmental Assessment Office determined that the 1999 report, conducted for Glacier Resorts by Axys Environmental Consulting (PDF), satisfied the requirement for a pre-construction inventory of grizzly bears in the study area, said an Environment Ministry spokesman.

The project is in compliance with five conditions related to grizzly bears, but future work is required, the spokesman said.

“Jumbo Glacier Resorts is currently developing plans for the next steps in monitoring for potential impacts of the project on the grizzly bear population.”

Proctor is not the only one to conclude the resort would be bad news for grizzlies

Alton Harestad, former co-chair of the provincial Grizzly Bear Scientific Advisory Committee, concluded the development would adversely affect the grizzly population in the South Purcells.

“The size and nature of the development will result, eventually, in the loss of bears locally and will diminish the viability of the regional population of grizzly bears,” Harestad wrote in a report.

“There are no examples in North America where grizzly bears have coexisted successfully with large human development over the long term.”

The Jumbo Glacier Resort Master Plan, approved by the province, relies heavily on mitigation efforts, ranging from Bear Smart programs to establishing partnerships with government and local forest tenure holders to improve grizzly habitat in and around the almost 6,000 hectares of controlled recreation area — Crown land that the company will lease from the province.

Ktunaxa spirituality not up for grabs

However, members of the Ktunaxa Nation, like other critics, say categorically that mitigation is not possible.

The Ktunaxa, who are appealing a B.C. Supreme Court decision turning down an application for a judicial review of the province’s approval of the resort, know the area as Qat’muk, the place where the Grizzly Bear Spirit was born, goes to heal itself and returns to the spirit world.

The heart of the nation’s spirituality is not up for grabs, says Kathryn Teneese, chair of the Ktunaxa Nation Council.

It is easy to understand why the Jumbo Valley is so special in First Nations culture, Duncan said.

“It’s where grizzly bear science and spirituality come together. It’s not a coincidence that the Ktunaxa knew from living on the land that this is a core area — that this is an area we don’t touch,” she said.

– By Judith Lavoie, DeSmog Canada

ALSO ON HUFFPOST:

The granddaddy of all Canadian-U.S. trade disputes is about to rear its ugly head again

A recent dispute over “country of origin labelling” for meat products underscores the fact that Canada and the U.S. still have their share of trade disputes.

Yet lurking in the background is a massive trade issue that you haven’t heard about for a while: softwood lumber, the granddaddy of all Canadian-U.S. trade disputes. Canada exported $7.4-billion worth of lumber in 2013, the highest amount since 2006. The United States is the destination for the bulk of that wood, and U.S. lumber producers have for decades demanded the U.S. government collect tariffs on Canadian lumber. After decades of dispute, Canada and the U.S. agreed to a nine-year truce in 2006. Under the agreement, the U.S. agreed to return more than $5-billion in duties collected from Canadian lumber companies, and a ceasefire in trade litigation.

If you thought we’ve achieved lumber peace in our time, you might be premature. We’ve now entered the final year of that truce, which is set to expire on Oct. 12, 2015. There are signs this historic trade grievance is set to return with a vengeance. U.S. housing starts are heating up. As U.S. construction grows, demand for Canadian lumber increases, something that will inevitably antagonize U.S. lumber producers who have long argued that Canada’s industry is unfairly subsidized.

“The dragon is never slain. It just goes to sleep sometimes for a while,” Paul Lalonde, a trade lawyer with Dentons Canada LLP in Toronto, said of the dispute.
Next year’s expiry date will come at a crucial time. U.S. new home construction, which peaked at 2.1 million units in 2005, collapsed to 554,000 units in 2009 with the financial crisis. Demand for Canadian lumber tanked right along with it, along with lumber prices. Things changed in 2013, when lumber prices rebounded as U.S. housing starts gathered momentum.

“For the first time in years, we actually see new housing starts in the United States past the one-million mark,” said William Polushun, an international business expert and lecturer at the Desautels faculty of management at McGill University.

Lumber prices are critical to trade peace. The 2006 trade deal is a managed agreement that imposes tariffs on U.S.-bound Canadian lumber when prices are less than US$355 per thousand board feet. It hasn’t pleased everyone. Some Quebec producers think their province should now be exempt from the agreement because it has changed the way it collects stumpage fees. But there is a general sense in Canada that the deal has worked. Canadian industry officials would like to see both countries sign a clone of the current agreement that extends the lumber peace until 2022, or with another optional extension, to 2024.

“We just think the existing agreement, with all its periods, dots and clauses, should just be extended,” said James Gorman, president and chief executive of the B.C. Lumber Trade Council. British Columbia is Canada’s largest lumber producer and biggest provincial exporter of wood to the United States.

André Tremblay, president and general manager of the Quebec Forest Industry Council, said most of his group’s members support renewal because they’ve enjoyed the litigation peace. “I would say that a majority of the Quebec industry thinks this. Some companies in Quebec want to have a renewal without any conditions. It’s not a unanimous position in Quebec, but it’s a large majority.”

Don’t expect the same enthusiasm from U.S. industry officials, some experts caution. “The preponderance of the betting is that there won’t be an extension,” said Mr. Lalonde of Dentons Canada. “If there is to be a new deal, it will be on different terms. There’s just too much unhappiness with the deal on the U.S. side. … No one can see a political dynamic in which the deal as it is now could be continued.”

Indeed, Canadian-U.S. relations could be better. In recent years, Canada and the U.S. have locked horns over tomatoes, pork, steel, dairy products, and “Buy American” provisions in funding for infrastructure projects and government procurement. Then there’s the fate of Keystone XL. Canada desperately wants to see the oil pipeline approved, but President Barack Obama seems to be in no hurry to green light the project.

Time is ticking on the 2006 deal. There is at least one safety value. While the deal is set to expire next October, a provision imposes a 12-month standstill on trade litigation. That gives both sides about 24 months to get a new deal in place.

“If there is to be a new deal, I would think both countries should be hard at it right now,” Mr. Lalonde said.

Some political speed bumps are getting in the way. The U.S. government isn’t really in a position to negotiate a detailed agreement right now because Washington is waiting to see whether mid-term elections in November change the balance of legislative power in Congress. Meanwhile, Canada is a year away from a federal election that would leave little, if any, time for Parliament to ratify a deal prior to the swearing in of the next government.

“Politically, I don’t think it’s an ideal moment for either country,” Mr. Polushun said.

Yet there is some hope. The economic environment could pave the way for some sort of deal. Wood prices have been so strong that lumber has actually been crossing the border tariff-free for more than a year. In fact, lumber prices have dipped under the US$355 per thousand feet threshold in only three of the past 23 months.

Good economics make for good trade relations, Mr. Polushun noted. “When economics are good, you tend to see more willingness to bend with each other.”

Prices have risen thanks to the rebound in the U.S. housing market. In the mid-2000s, the U.S. real estate bubble resulted in a surge of construction that boosted prices on strong demand for Canadian lumber. The market for U.S.-bound lumber exports collapsed when the U.S. housing bubble popped. Hard though it was, Canadian producers believe the Great Recession helped calm the U.S. rage against Canadian lumber. In 2004, 81.1% of all Canadian forest product exports went to U.S. By 2010, that had dropped to 58.7%.

Canadian producers believe the existing deal has helped U.S. producers boost their market share. Canadians, in return, have benefited from the ceasefire in trade disputes.

“Our position is that the Softwood Lumber Agreement has worked,” said Mr. Gorman, the B.C. industry official. “Our position is that both countries have benefited from managed trade. We think there’s far greater certainty for producers on both sides of the border.

The U.S. slowdown forced Canadian producers to diversify and seek new export markets. For years, B.C., Canada’s largest lumber producer and exporter, has tried to interest China in its exports. In 2005, B.C. sent less than a 120-million board feet to China. In 2013, that number jumped to 3.35-billion board feet. For all of Canada, Canadian exports of wood products to China were worth $1.4-billion in 2012, a 2,285% increase from 2002. Access to the U.S. market is still mission-critical for Canada’s lumber exporters, but at least it’s not the only game in town.

“The markets we’ve developed off shore are real and we continue to be committed to those markets,” Mr. Gorman said.

Market conditions aside, the Canadian industry faces the same problem that has always plagued the lumber trade file: the fundamental difference between the industries in the two countries. Canadian producers tend to log on publicly owned lands, then compensate the government with a royalty or “stumpage” fee when they chop down the trees. The U.S. producers tend to log on private lands or tree farms.

The U.S. producers believe Canadian provinces charge too little in stumpage, thereby subsidizing the Canadian industry. Canadian producers argue that Crown stumpage fees are market-based and that, if anything, they actually pay more for their logs than U.S. producers.

“As soon as you tell Americans that our industry takes place on government land, they think there’s something going on,” said Harry Nelson, an assistant professor in the department of forest resources management at the University of British Columbia.

Some things have changed. In one of the most interesting developments, a Canadian company, Interfor, this year bought Preston, Ga.-based Tolleson Lumber Co., whose chief executive and president, Rusty Wood, served as chairman of the U.S. Lumber Coalition, the U.S. industry group that is a persistent critic of the Canadian industry.

Indeed, three Canadian companies now own at least 12% of U.S. lumber production in the southeast U.S.
Yet these moves are unlikely to alter the dynamics of a trade dispute that dates back decades. If history is any guide, it’s unlikely the U.S. business will let sleeping logs lie. As the expiry of the agreement ticks closer, it becomes more likely softwood lumber will return as one of the biggest cross-border trade irritants.

“I’ve worked on Softwood Lumber intermittently since the 1990s. The size and longevity of the dispute is amazing,” Mr. Nelson said. “Things flare up with tomatoes, pork, or meat labeling. But this one, with the persistence and longevity, is unique.”

Twitter.com/ vonhasselbach

Airbus in talks with China Aircraft Leasing for 100-plane order -Figaro

PARIS, Oct 31 (Reuters) – Airbus is in talks with China Aircraft Leasing Group Holdings Ltd (CALG) for a potential $9-11 billion order of about 100 A320 jetliners, French daily Le Figaro said.