Surprise: Few wars are primarily about oil

The Washington Post recently published Oil wars: Why nations aren’t battling over resources by Emily Meierding. Does this article remove the entire foundation of this blog and the book I made of it?

Pointing at "invasion costs, occupation costs, international costs and investment costs", Emily Meierding says oil wars are just not worth fighting. With reference to The Falklands War (1982), The Iran-Iraq War (1980-1988), the Kuwait war (1990) and other wars, she argues these historical examples were about national pride, territory and Saddam Hussein's survival respectively. Similar alternative explanations for other wars.

So, why am I bookmarking this article? And why didn't I immediately delete my blog and forget about this whole thing?

Firstly, I have always bookmarked the opposing point of view. Go through my history of hundreds of ecowar bookmarks, and you will find plenty. Also see the beginning of chapter 4 (pages 74-) and the Objections part of chapter 6 (pages 123-) of my book, Ecowar - Natural Resources and Conflict.

Secondly, although Emily Meierding's headline says "nations aren't battling over resources", I don't think she really proves this statement in her text. What she does convincingly argue, is that in the cases she mentions, oil wasn't the primary causes of the conflict. To get academic about it, for each war one should list its causes and rate them in primary, secondary and even tertiary. I am guilty of having more or less skipped this discipline. But that doesn't mean conflicts with natural resources as their secondary causes aren't resource conflicts at all. For a very brief discussion of this, see the first chapter of my book or look up the works of some of the leading scholars.

What is also interesting about Emily Meierding's article, is how the discussion has gone full circle. When I first set out researching, claiming most wars were resource wars was taboo. While I wrote up the book, that changed (pages 126-128). Apparently, now it is quite main stream to associate natural resources with conflict. And what have we: An up and coming scholar seeking to prove things to be the other way around. Isn't that what we all want to achieve?

---

Addition to reading list: Club of Rome author writes 2052 prognosis

In the book "2052," Jorgen Randers, one of the co-authors of "Limits to Growth," issues a progress report and makes a forecast for the next forty years. To do this, he asked dozens of experts to weigh in with their best predictions on how our economies, energy supplies, natural resources, climate, food, fisheries, militaries, political divisions, cities, psyches, and more will take shape in the coming decades. He then synthesized those scenarios into a global forecast of life as we will most likely know it in the years ahead.The good news: we will see impressive advances in resource efficiency, and an increasing focus on human well-being rather than on per capita income growth. But this change might not come as we expect. Future growth in population and GDP, for instance, will be constrained in surprising ways-by rapid fertility decline as result of increased urbanization, productivity decline as a result of social unrest, and continuing poverty among the poorest 2 billion world citizens. (Presentation at Google Books)

"We need a system of governance that takes a more long-term view [...] It is unlikely that governments will pass necessary regulation to force the markets to allocate more money into climate friendly solutions, and must not assume that markets will work for the benefit of humankind [...] We already live in a manner that cannot be continued for generations without major change. Humanity has overshot the earth’s resources, and in some cases we will see local collapse before 2052 – we are emitting twice as much greenhouse gas every year as can be absorbed by the world’s forests and oceans." - Jørgen Randers at presentation of the book

"Now, at age 66, I realize my concerns have been wasted. Not because the global future is smooth and rosy. My concern has been in vain, because it has not had much influence on world events during the generations that have elapsed since I began to worry. [...] Although things will be more or less alright until 2052, the world will in 2052 be destined down the road, I really fear, the road to self-reinforcing climate change and climate disasters in the second half of the century. I certainly don't see a world in a well-planned course towards sustainability" - Jørgen Randers to Danish newspaper Information

• 2052: A Global Forecast for the Next Forty Years at Google Books
• The Club of Rome: New Report issues a warning about humanity’s ability to survive without a major change in direction
• Information / Fremtiden: En rodet affære med lavvækst og klimakaos

Jacque Fresco, Venus Project interviewed on Russia Today

"The Venus Project is an attempt to bring world peace and all the nations together. If you don't want war, killing, [?] crime you have to redesign the way society works, you have to declare all the Earth's resources as a common heritage of all the world's people [...]

We don't go to another country to bring democracy, we go there for their resources. Oil, metal, cheap labor. We don't go to bring democracy. We took this land [...] we stole it [...then] we put up a sign: 'Thou Shall Not Steal'."

This interview is from February 2010. Scandalously no-one has told me about it a long time ago.

Apparently, Mr. Fresco share the notion that access to natural resources is the need behind many conflicts. He also is a bit of a dreamer and extremely critical of western democracy.

---

Free book: "Natural Resources and Conflict in Africa the Tragedy of Endowment" by Abiodun Alao

---

Abiodun Alao Natural Resources and Conflict in Africa the Tragedy of Endowment Rochester Studies in African...
From the conclusion:

"the tendency to see natural resources either as a “curse” or a “blessing,” or the conflicts emanating from them as being rooted in “scarcity” or “abundance,” is inherently flawed" [...] neitherscarcity nor abundance has been a consistent factor as a cause of conflict [...] oil has, to a large extent at least, beena blessing to Libya while many Nigerians consider the same resource as acurse [...] The prevalence of violent conflicts over natural resources in Africa is due largely to the management of these resources.

[...]

despite the euphoria surround-ing the ongoing calls for transparency and good governance in Africa, theseefforts, though commendable in themselves, will not put an end to conflictsover natural resources in the continent. Although some of the conflicts arerooted in corruption and lack of democracy, a far greater percentage of theseconflicts have emerged because these resources are not distributed and man-aged in ways that benefit the population, especially the resource-producingcommunities, even in so-called democratic countries.

[...]

virtually all conflicts over natural resources in Africacan be linked to the governance of the natural resources sector [...] African countries do not have structuresto manage natural resources in ways that can prevent conflicts.

Haven't read it yet but it looks like a thorough overview of natural resource conflicts in Africa up to year 2007 although a bit simplistic in playing down the role of natural resources because other factors appear more important. Also, the Libya argument is kinda outdated...

---

Blood and soil!? Scarcity and conflict re-revisited

Inspired by the growing body of literature linking natural resource scarcity to conflict, dating back at least to the 1960s but gaining momentum in recent years, Norwegian Ole Magnus Theisen published a review of the statistical literature on this link in 2008. In short, his conclusion was that large scale violence was generally not linked to scarcity of natural resources; but in stead to poverty and poor governance.

The literature reviewed have argued resource scarcity was the main cause of the Rwandan genocide, violent local clashes in Kenya, South Africa, Assam, Chiapas, Sudan and elsewhere. With varying significance land degradation, freshwater scarcity, population density (growth), deforestation, youth bulges, deviations in precipitation and similar factors have been shown to increase the risk of violent civil conflict. The problem is: when updating and expanding the datasets of two of the previous studies, Theisen was unable to replicate the statistical results.

Performing a re-computation of two statistical studies Theisen found most links previously found to be significant now fell out of traditional intervals of interest (P<0.1, at least). In the first evaluation high levels of land degradation still set off the alarm bells as it appears to significantly increase the risks of conflict onset. In the second evaluation the existence of oil resources were confirmed to increase conflicts. (The two studies didn't test for the exact same links and did also show links to non-natural resource causes, i.e. political stability.)

Theisen points out some of the problems with the studies he revisit (and with his own): Statistics have problems with investigating complex interactions such as those from natural resource scarcity to conflict, ecological fallacies are easily committed when calculating on national averages, which area is degraded and which is a rich land is sometimes determined by the eye of the beholder.

---

Since 2008...
Much has happened and much has been written in the three years since Theisen published in Journal of Peace Research. He himself have co-authored a chapter, Implications of climate change for armed conflict, in the book Social dimensions of climate change: equity and vulnerability in a warming world, in which he calls the warnings of climate change possibly leading to more conflict "alarmist" (as "exaggerated"). The point is, climate change and/or resource scarcity caused by climate change or other factors are never the primary cause of conflict. But it may add yet another unbearable burden to already struggling societies and through complex social and political pathways it can contribute to conflict risk.

Global warming linked to conflict - not really. Post Cold War dynamics are clearly different. Social dimensions of climate change, page 80.

In climate change related political news (not academic research) the CIA has established a climate change office from which all research is top secret, Russia is expanding with two Arctic brigades of marine infantry and the notion of climate change already causing conflict is spreading. And that's just some recent reports, much more is to be found here at Ecowar.

Early 2011 the risk of riots was statistically linked to food prices. A food price spike in 2008 led to many food riots which in turn inspired increased "land grabs" - multinational corporations or corporations from non-poor countries buying up land in poor countries with the intention of growing food products (and biofuel) for the world market. In fact, since 2008 areas about seven times the size of Germany have been scooped up. In Guatemala hundreds of indigenous villagers have been chased from their rural homes, their huts burned as the military clear the area for richer farmers or agricultural businesses. In Nigeria, some villages have just clashed over disputed lands. Again, just some recent news.

I suspect Theisen's 2008 study would come out a bit different if done today just three years later?

---

Magnus Theisen, O. (2008). Blood and Soil? Resource Scarcity and Internal Armed Conflict Revisited Journal of Peace Research, 45 (6), 801-818 DOI: 10.1177/0022343308096157

"Rebel access to [natural] resources crucially shapes armed civil conflict"

How does rebel access to natural resources affect conflict? "How". Not "if". That is the question investigated by Päivi Lujala of the Norwegian University of Science and Technology, recently published in the Journal of Peace Research.

Or rather: Where previous research has either suggested a link or sought to explain it by an indirect effect through resource abundance tending to corrupt weak governments Lujala sets out to look closer at the influence of the more exact locations of the resources (something I believe for example Le Billon did already).

Lujala is confident enough to state in the introduction that "new data on localities of hydrocarbon fields throughout the world, shows that crude oil and natural gas directly affect rebel movements [...] easily extractable resources, such as gemstones, have an effect on rebel groups." The relationship is quantified - for example:

• "If resources are located inside the actual conflict zone, the duration of conflict is doubled." And...
• "oil and gas reserves have this effect on duration regardless of whether there has been production or not."
  
• Regarding the initiation of rebellion "onshore [not offshore] oil production increases the risk of conflict onset by 50%."
  
• And "secondary diamond production increases the risk of conflict onset by more than 40%."

One of the things I have been pondering is the simple distinguishing of states of societies in just two categories: in peace or in war. It is insufficient for intelligent discussion. Lujala is adding words to this argument: "natural resources, especially those that are easily exploited, provide motivation and means for rebel uprisings." In other words, rebellions may just be organized crime with political agendas attached. Of course, even more or less "legitimate" rebel groups could be driven to resource exploitation if their financial resources are exhausted in a prolonged conflict.

Hydrocarbons have traditionally been categorized as non-lootable as production usually requires substantial international industrial activities. But Lujala finds oil reserves even not in production does have effects and explains it by rebels potentially being "willing to engage in a long conflict [...] if the future price is large enough". While regarding reserves in production exceptions are seen in Nigeria where large scale looting occurs and in Columbia where rebels extort oil companies. However, note that regarding gas "production has no effect on conflict onset." Gas probably appears too hard to loot?


A look at the statistical analysis reveals how the data set was checked for influences other than profitable natural resources. The same tests are run for presence of mountainous regions, forest cover, language differences and difficult weather. It is worth noting that separatist conflicts (over territory rather than government power) and conflicts with one or more sides being democratic tends to last longer, while countries suffering from poverty and overpopulation are more prone to conflict onset.





Lujala, P. (2010). The spoils of nature: Armed civil conflict and rebel access to natural resources Journal of Peace Research, 47 (1), 15-28 DOI: 10.1177/0022343309350015


Also see Ross, 2004 which is mentioned by Lujala several times.

Obama won't charge Blackwater with violation of Sudan sanctions

So, Yahoo! News focus on the fact that the Obama administration is "negotiating a multimillion-dollar fine". It's suspicious, true, but into the article you'll learn how Blackwater aka Xe Services is headed by a evangelical Christian and tried to get paid in Sudan's natural resources, not cash. Not exactly war for resources - but selective security for resources then.

The story of Blackwater's efforts in Sudan is a tale of mixed motives that echo an earlier era of overseas empires, of evangelical Christians who offered to help defend Christian and animist Southern Sudan from the Muslim Arab military dictatorship in the north, but also sought to exploit the region's oil and mineral wealth.

According to two former senior U.S. officials, the firm headed by Prince, who's long been active in evangelical groups, at one point proposed a broad defense package that would have required the south to pledge as much as half its mineral wealth to pay for Blackwater's services.

[...]

After negotiating a $2 million draft contract to train Kiir's personal security detail, Blackwater in early 2007 drafted a detailed second proposal, valued at more than $100 million , to equip and train the south's army. Because the south lacked ready cash, Blackwater sought 50 percent of the south's untapped mineral wealth, a former senior U.S. official said.

In addition to its well-known oil and natural gas reserves, Southern Sudan has vast untapped reserves of gold, iron and diamonds.

A long article, dive in!

Ecowar movies: Edutainment suggestions

Noticing the clamour over the new animated movie Battle for Terra (or just Terra) and it's interesting theme I put it on my Must See list - right next to Blood Diamond which is way over due. Then the logical idea came: make a list of movies for Ecowar!

Only four movies made it onto the list so far. But I would love to get recommendations for more! Please spam.

Battle for Terra

"A peaceful alien planet faces annihilation, as the homeless remainder of the human race sets its eyes on Terra. Mala, a rebellious Terrian teenager, will do everything she can to stop it." - IMDb plot

US Republican reviewers are all up in arms about this one. They say it's "Bush Bashing". I don't know what to think about that - especially since I haven't watched it yet. But in an interview with the writer he explained the rationale for the story as him not buying into the premise of War of the Worlds - that an entire species should be "evil". Seems very reasonable to me! Thus far in human history new territory has been considered something to exploit. Why not an inhabited planet? We might be in need of some planetary migration before we know it.

The Happening

"A strange, horrible and unprecedented crisis begins in Central Park. A high school science teacher, his wife and a young girl do what they can to survive it." - IMDb plot

Many would argue the science in this one is about as far out as the science in The Matrix. I don't think it is, although it's taken to quite a cinematic extreme. It's Gaia Theory. Somehow the human population pressure provokes a seriously negative feedback. It's not a very good movie due to various factors but it has it's moments. Like this line:

Nursery Owner: "You know plants have the ability to target specific threats. Tobacco plants when attacked by heliothis caterpillars will send out a chemical attracting wasps to kill just those caterpillars. We don't know how plants obtain these abilities, they just evolve very rapidly."

There Will Be Blood

A story about family, greed, religion, and oil, centered around a turn-of-the-century prospector in the early days of the business." - IMDb plot

No way I could omit this masterpiece although the conflict is largely explained in metaphorical measures and business rivalry.

Blood Diamond

A fisherman, a smuggler, and a syndicate of businessmen match wits over the possession of a priceless diamond. - IMDb plot

My final choice is also the least fictional - I suppose because as I mentioned I haven't watched it. Yet! Said to be a bit "tough" to watch.

Of course, there are movies about some of the wars that I have blogged about here. But I have a hard time thinking of any that really touches upon the ecowar issue. Also, I have excluded The Matrix trilogy - because blocking the sun is simply so stupid no one would ever consider it (think twice) and because the science in it isn't always that educational (human batteries?).

Reports: Nature's riches fought over - and over again

Two recent reports confirms the role of natural resources in armed conflict. One UN, one academic. From UN's report on the importance of the environment in conflict and peacebuilding:

Since the end of the Cold War, at least eighteen violent conflicts have been driven by the exploitation of natural resources. While political and military issues remain critical, conceptions of security and conflict have broadened, with environmental degradation now seen as a significant contributing factor to conflict. [...] Natural resources and the environment can be involved in all phases of the conflict cycle: from contributing to the outbreak and perpetuation of conflict and to spoiling the prospects for peace. The way that natural resources and the environment are governed has a determining influence on peace and security. - Consequently, it is clear that investing in environmental management and the governance of natural resources is an investment in conflict prevention. - Moreover, cooperation over the management of natural resources and the environment provide new opportunities for peacebuilding that should be pursued.

UNEP / From Conflict to Peacebuilding – the Role of Natural Resources and the Environment

Perhaps I'll grab a copy of the Conservation Biology article some time but for now we'll have to do with second hand accounts. Such as this from Conservation International / The Hottest Spots: Conservation in War Zones:

More than 80 percent of the world’s major armed conflicts during the last half century have taken place in some of the most biologically diverse and threatened places on Earth, according to a study published by the scientific journal Conservation Biology. The new paper entitled “Warfare in Biodiversity Hotspots” calls for conservation activities to remain strong during conflicts to ensure that local people will have the natural resources they need to survive and rebuild healthy communities post war. [...] A total of 23 biodiversity hotspots experienced significant violent conflict in which more than 1,000 people died between 1950 and 2000, and many suffered repeated episodes of violence. [...] War has devastating impacts on wildlife and other natural resources. Refugees are in no position to consider the environmental consequences of their actions. They hunt, gather firewood or build encampments to survive.

If in no mood for lengthy reports or academic lingo there are journalistic short versions - how I found the above documents anyway ;-) Check out New York Times's Dot Earth / Conflict Over, and in the Midst of, Nature’s Assets or AFP / 8 in 10 conflicts in environmental 'hotspots': study.

Natural resources and civil war

My third research blogging post takes a real quick look at What Do We Know about Natural Resources and Civil War? by Michael Ross, year 2004. It is a review of several other studies; work by Paul Collier, Anke Hoeffler and James Fearon seems to have been among the most influential and the work of Le Billon - which I blogged about this March - is reviewed too.

The studies vary widely in scope and methodology: Covering from 27 to 262 civil wars, spanning various intervals from 1945 to 2000 and approaching issues such as missing data in entirely different ways. But a set of common issues and conclusions are identified.

Issues

Ross discusses causality issues that any investigation on environment-conflict links should pay attention to. I.e. "reverse causality": Years of unrest could drive off manufacturing businesses in turn leading to a higher dependence on exporting natural resources. Which then in turn could fuel outright conflict. Also, we are reminded how both resource dependence and war can be caused by a third variable. Or several variables. Many states dependent on the export of some local commodity have several other issues: poverty, corruption, harsh government etc. All of which could inspire conflict.

Some of the studies reviewed are criticized for using a very broad variable; "primary commodities". Other studies produce more significant correlations using finer definitions; oil, gems etc.

Common conclusions

One conclusion from a Collier & Hoeffler study seems a bit math-naive (which may be why I tend to pay attention):

[...] data suggest that resource dependence has a non-linear effect: it increases the likelihood of conflict until the resource exports-to-GDP ratio is 32%; beyond this point it diminishes the likelihood of conflict.

• Oil increases the likelihood of conflict, particularly separatist.


• Lootable commodities such as gems and drugs tend to lengthen existing conflicts.


• There is no link between legal agriculture and civil war. (Despite most wars being fought in countries with large agricultural sectors.)

In some cases though, it appears diamonds have shortened wars by facilitating military victories.

Ross, M.L. (2004). What Do We Know about Natural Resources and Civil War?. Journal of Peace Research, 41(3), 337-356. DOI: 10.1177/0022343304043773

(pause) by kevindooley

Ecowar: The political ecology of war

So far this blogging project has been characterized by the Google News Alert I set up way back when I first got the idea and whatever inspiration I got studying for my bachelor's and master's degrees in horticulture, a natural science. But I just did a search using both regular Google (doh!) and Scholar using all fields of science not just the exact ones. There is a lot of texts out there exploring links between conflict and natural resource. A lot. Peer reviewed stuff too.

So, I'm going to seek out the best and put down a couple of notes on it. The first article I feel like mentioning is The political ecology of war: natural resources and armed conflicts by Le Billon - because the author put it on his university server as a file named "ecowar.pdf" (hope I'm not exposing some copyright violation here?). How could I not spend a link on that? On the other hand, it means you don't have to trust me - you can read the original yourself even without a subscription on Poltical Geography.

For me to do a meaningful comment on the paper is limited by the fact that it aims at the very core of my subject. Thus, no borderline discrepancies stick out immediately. So much the more important it doesn't prove me wrong, I guess. Le Billon doesn't waste time like me though: First postulate is that natural resources have motivated, financed and shaped conflicts. Next sentence the main objective is defined: examine theories of relationships between resources and armed conflicts. Within this scope the paper highlights resource dependence, globalisation and peace promotion rather than abundance, scarcity and lootability which must be themes more commonly discussed in political sciences (I don't know).

The introduction mentions a shift from natural resources playing a role in conflicts as a means of financing the conflict to simply inspiring the conflict. A significant increase in importance. Also, an interesting term is mentioned: the resource curse (hello new tag):

most empirical evidence suggests that countries economically dependent on the export of primary commodities are at a higher risk of political instability and armed conflict

Some other authors are criticized for insufficiently taking into account countries with or without resources that have developed peacefully (Norway, Japan etc) and reminds us the parts of nature we call resources are probably resources just because of our cultural ideas. An extremely obvious observation that I haven't really thought of so far - probably why I have managed to completely miss out on conflicts related to diamonds. Also, the influence of the type of resource on the type of conflict is discussed (ie. fights over extracted resources focus on territory control whereas fights over produced resources focus on trade control) - interesting because the influence verifies the link. Table 1, page 573 classifies a number of conflicts in four different categories based on the type of resource as well as it's relative location. A bit interesting how both the Iraq vs Iran and the Iraq vs Kuwait conflicts are put in the coup d'etat (proximate/point) category and are tagged 'oil' - fortunately the article is too old to be politically incorrect by including the USA vs Iraq war. The other three categories of Billon's typology are rebellion/rioting (proximate/diffuse; ie. Israel vs Palestine about freshwater), secession (distant/point; ie. Morocco vs West Sahara about phosphate) and warlordism (distant/diffuse; ie. Afghan quagmire about opium).

Billon claims the literature has had a tendency towards looking at only rebellion/rioting type conflicts as resource conflicts. While probably true it is curious how Zhang found best climate-conflict correlations when looking at rebellions only. Perhaps it's just that governments are better at "wrapping it"? (Another example of this might be the US government and the Iraq war; see Study: False Statements Preceded War.) More likely it's just that the better correlation inspires the more political theories? Scientists of non-exact fields are subject to the underlying mathematical patterns, they just don't really describe these in their texts it seems. While having zero P<0.5 observations, examples are aplenty in Billon's text.

Let me finish with a couple of important reminders from the conclusion:

While it would be an error to reduce armed conflicts to greed-driven resource wars, as political and identity factors remain key, the control of local resources influence the agendas and strategies of belligerents.

Beyond motivating or financing conflicts, the level of dependence, conflictuality, and lootability of a resource can also increase the vulnerability of societies to, and the risk of armed conflict. Yet, there is no environmentally deterministic relation at hand.

Le Billon, P. (2001). The political ecology of war: natural resources and armed conflicts. Political Geography, 20(5), 561-584. DOI: 10.1016/S0962-6298(01)00015-4

Finally, let me just mention really quick (now that Billon didn't) that Norway was invaded by Nazi Germany while Denmark was considered a stepping stone only (Norway has iron and other resources, Denmark has farmers supplying Germany) and that Japan were among the very first civilized nations to enforce environmental protection laws namely to sustain their forestry.

"We Will Abolish War"

This writer discusses the nature of organized violence and how to have less of it.

As far back as anthropologists have peered into human history and pre-history, they have found evidence of group bloodshed. [But] History offers many other examples of warlike societies that became peaceful very rapidly.

A key section is about Jared Diamond's latest book:

In his book, Collapse, the anthropologist Jared Diamond argues that many wars, both ancient and modern, spring from mismanagement of environmental resources. He notes, for example, that ethnic conflicts are only the proximate causes of the conflicts that have ravaged Rwanda, Somalia, and other African nations in the last decade. The ultimate cause is that overpopulation has led to deforestation, overgrazing and soil depletion and, hence, a Hobbesian struggle over dwindling resources.

Obviously there are some examples of wars not directly sparked by a fight over a natural resource. But Jared Diamond's book Collapse [Google Books] is about much more than that and I really don't know how to recommend it thoroughly enough. Watch this 74 minute lecture on it. If you in any way find the contents of this blog interesting, you will worship Jared Diamond's books. This isn't the first nor the last time I have linked to an article mentioning Diamond - try clicking the tag below. After reading John Horgan optimistic anti-war piece.

Nature: Is this what the world's coming to?

With climate change placing increasing pressure on environmental resources, it is now being viewed as a threat to national security.

History is littered with lessons from once-budding civilizations that crashed from their peak of prosperity. From the Anasazi of the southwestern United States to the Mayans of Mesoamerica1 and the ancient dynasties of eastern China2, environmental change has sounded the death knell throughout time for once-thriving civilizations already stressed by factors including high population growth, overexploitation of resources and excessive reliance on external trade. In many cases, severe drought or extreme cold has been enough to push societies to the brink of civil unrest, mass migration and warfare.

Meta note: Although I check out Nature.com every now and then (continuously with RSS, of course) Dr. Saleem H. Ali got to it first and indirectly notified me by posting it to his blog at Newsvine.com which I also subscribe to. Web 2.0 galore.