With the announcement that President Obama postpones his trip to Jakarta till June 2010, Indonesia was left to decide on its candidate without the prodding presence of President Obama.

Having discussed with someone in the know of the four men and one woman on the Indonesian list we posted here, it seems that Mr. Hassan Wirajud who is now Member of the Advisory Council to President Yudhyono and was the Foreign Minister who led Indonesia’s delegation at the 2007 Bali conference, has the upper hand as he is considered to be a gifted diplomat and that is what Indonesia think it will be most appreciated in New York.

The other most prominent name is Mr. Rachmat Witoelar the continuing Environment minister who was the actual President of Bali’s Conference of the Parties (COP) 13 in 2007.

The strength of both these men is that they hark back to Bali – the pre-Poznan and pre-Copenhagen times – that is when in effect the last real UNFCCC document was forged. We still think that a Brazilian candidate could find much backing also. This could be seen on the other hand as disengagement from the Dutch leadership that was started with Ms. Joke Waller-Hunter, and the look for new ideas as we witnessed in Copenhagen.

=======================================

Issue 132 – March 12 – Search Begins for New Climate Leader Monitor New York, March 12, 2010 - Following the news of Yvo de Boer’s imminent resignation as Executive Secretary of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), two countries have put forth candidates for the post, and others have expressed interest. UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon will be responsible for finding a successor to de Boer, in consultation with the UNFCCC’s administrative bureau. At least three governments have nominated a candidate for the post or expressed interest in doing so. India has nominated Vijai Sharma, a member of its environmental ministry, while Indonesia voiced the intention to put forward a candidate. And on March 7, South Africa nominated its minister of tourism, Marthinus van Schalkwyk. Selection Process The selection of a new Executive Secretary for the UNFCCC reportedly has been initiated by Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon. Ban is expected to consult with the UNFCCC Conference of Parties’ Bureau in identifying a successor. States that have signed the UNFCCC, an international treaty, are known collectively as the Conference of Parties (COP). The COP is supported by a Bureau, made up of delegates from 11 COP member countries, representing the five regions. The Bureau handles administrative and management issues of the negotiation process, advises the President of the COP, and serves to represent each regional bloc and other groupings for negotiation. The current members of the COP Bureau are: Australia, Bahamas, Denmark, South Korea, Mali, Mexico, Saudi Arabia, Slovenia, Solomon Islands, Sudan and Russia. Ban is said to have written to the Bureau about the qualifications sought in candidates. The process will “take some months,” said Ban’s climate adviser Janos Pasztor, but would be completed by July. Qualifications Sought In identifying the qualities needed in a successor, many analysts pointed to de Boer’s strengths. For Greenpeace Denmark, “De Boer’s successor must be equally hard-working, committed and experienced and must be effective in rebuilding trust between countries. He or she must also ensure that the voices of the most vulnerable are not sidelined by the most powerful.” The skills to manage and leader the hundreds of staff of the UNFCCC, along with a collaborative approach, were the qualities stressed by Pasztor. Another UN official expanded on this profile, specifying that the person should be a “political leader with immense diplomatic skills.” Further, he or she needs to be able to move easily between the developed and developing worlds, given the “divide you saw in Copenhagen.” A candidate from a country that “felt excluded” at the December conference, i.e. from the Global South, may be preferable. None of the UNFCCC’s three Executive Secretaries has been from a developing country. The preference or expectation of a developing country candidate was echoed by the Philippines’ representative to the UN, an energy trader in Geneva, and a Canadian environmental spokesperson. An environmental official from Indonesia said, “It is time for developing countries to head the post to help break the deadlock on climate talks.” A climate expert from the non-profit sector in Indonesia echoed the sentiment: “The climate talks need a fresh breakthrough that could come from developing countries.” World Wildlife Fund-Indonesia adds: “It is about time that developing countries come forward and become leaders in this issue, because these countries will face the biggest challenges and impacts from climate change.” A climate news source noted other benefits to having an Executive Secretary from a developing country: “It will give the negotiations new life as developing countries might feel their interests will be given more priority.” Moreover, “Since most developing countries aren’t major sources of emissions, it’s possible that future climate negotiations could find more a balance between talk of adapting to climate and mitigating it. India stands at the nexus of all these issues and having a representative from the country leading the UNFCCC would hopefully shed more light on them.” De Boer himself has supported the idea of a successor from a developing country. However, some have emphasized the diversity within the so-called “developing world.” While the “BASIC” group of large developing countries with growing economies (Brazil, South Africa, India and China) was instrumental in the Copenhagen negotiations, their “hardline” approach reportedly alienated least developed countries – “who stand most to lose from climate change.” A candidate from a BASIC country may not have the full support of the rest of the developing world. Finally, an expert on gender and climate change called for Ban to appoint a woman as Executive Secretary: “If we want to overcome gender inequalities, we need to have women in the climate change decision-making process…. Women like Joke Waller-Hunter [de Boer's predecessor] have guided the process in many positive ways.” Nominations and Potential Candidates Two governments have nominated a candidate for the post, while a third intends to find a candidate. India Nominates Minister India’s environmental minister reportedly wrote to the UN on February 22 to nominate Vijai Sharma for Executive Secretary. Vijai Sharma is a Secretary in India’s Ministry of Environment and Forests. According to several sources, Minister Jairam Ramesh said, “Vijai Sharma is our official candidate for UNFCCC executive secretary. I have written to the United Nations Monday and have also written to BASIC (Brazil, South Africa, India, China) countries seeking their support. We have got support from China already for his candidature and we will get support from other BASIC countries.” Ramesh added that Sharma’s appointment would reflect “India’s importance in climate change negotiations.” The candidate also would “provide a bridge between developing and developed worlds.” However, the United States reportedly “mistrusts” India and China following the Copenhagen Conference, a dynamic that could harm Sharma’s chances. India agreed this week to be listed as a party to the Copenhagen Accord, one of the last major emitters to make the commitment (China followed suit on March 11), although this status is not the same as full association with the Accord. South Africa Nominates Marthinus van Schalkwyk South Africa’s president, Jacob Zuma, nominated minister of tourism Marthinus van Schalkwyk on March 7. Van Schalkwyk was environment minister from 2004-2009. In that capacity he participated in several climate change negotiations leading up to the Copenhagen Conference. Succeeding F.W. de Klerk, South Africa’s leader during apartheid, van Schalkwyk led the New National Party until it dissolved, upon merging with the African National Congress in 2004. President Zuma said that van Schalkwyk had, “positioned South Africa as a true climate champion” during his time as Minister of Environmental Affairs and Tourism. Further, “he commanded significant respect across the developing-developed country divide. This will count greatly in his favour of driving the global climate change negotiations. Given that South Africa will also be hosting the climate change negotiations next year, it would indeed be an honour and privilege for the country to have one of its own to head up this very important UN institution.” In the event that the 2010 conference in Mexico also ends without a legally binding agreement, attention would shift to the 2011 conference in South Africa. In that case, UNFCCC sources believe, “having a South African chief at the helm would give the conference major impetus.” The European Union’s Climate Commissioner, Connie Hedegaard, said in Parliament this week, “remaining differences between parties may delay agreement on this until next year.” According to the UK’s Guardian, “All observers, including … de Boer, are now clear that no such deal will be signed in 2010, with a meeting in South Africa in December 2011 now seen as the earliest date.” Van Schalkwyk’s nomination met with varied reactions. A climate official from an unspecified government said that as a candidate, van Schalkwyk “would be acceptable to most people, so he should definitely be counted as a favourite.” Greenpeace Africa was “pleased to know Minister Van Schalkwyk is being considered and would be very confident that he would be equal to the task of replacing Mr. de Boer…. By all accounts, he has an excellent standing as a negotiator, and has earned a great deal of respect for being very engaged and informed.” Moreover, “if he is appointed, developing countries, in particular, will have better access to him because he’s coming from a developing country.” A very different perspective on van Schalkwyk has been expressed by others, including Patrick Bond of the Centre for Civil Society in South Africa: “The UNFCCC post must be headed by someone of integrity, and that’s not a characteristic associated with Van Schalkwyk, thanks to his chequered career as an apartheid student spy and a man who sold out his political party for a junior cabinet seat.” Bond also questioned the logic of the nomination: if Van Schalkwyk was a world-class climate diplomat, why did Zuma demote him by removing his environment duties last year?” Another article described him as “one of the most unpopular political figures in the new South Africa” and a “former apartheid operative who bartered his way into the black majority government by helping it smear its democratic opposition.” Earthlife Africa referred to van Schalkwyk’s tenure as environment minister, during which he “did not have a good record in cutting carbon emissions.” South Africa itself, though, has more ambitious emissions reduction plans than India or Indonesia, according to Reuters. While the U.S. is said to distrust India, South Africa is “seen as a bridge builder,” perhaps making its candidate more likely to be accepted. Indonesia Expresses Interest After expressing interest in the UNFCCC post during the UNEP meeting of ministers in Bali on February 24-26, the Indonesian foreign ministry said that it had “approached a number of countries to express our interest in the job. We have to come out with the right candidate.” On March 4, the website of the country’s embassy in Rome, Italy featured an article that reported former foreign minister Hassan Wirajuda as the government’s preferred candidate. Potential candidates reportedly include: Liana Bratasida: Assistant to Environment Minister (expert on global environmental affairs and international cooperation); Chair of Subsidiary Body for Implementation at Bonn (2009), which addressed emission-cut targets, financing, mitigation and technology transfers; Former member of the Clean Development Mechanism, approved carbon projects Agus Purnomo: Special Assistant on Climate Change to President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono; Secretary-General of National Council on Climate Change (DNPI) (which represents country at climate change negotiations; Headed 2007 national committee that organized Bali conference; Speculation as to Indonesia’s candidate “has centered around” Purnomo Emil Salim: Member of Advisory Council to President Yudhyono;         Former environment minister Hassan Wirajud: Member of Advisory Council to President Yudhyono;    Former Foreign Minister, led Indonesia’s delegation at the 2007 Bali conference, considered “mastermind behind the success” of that conference; Has “close relations” with UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon, as the two were foreign ministers of their countries during the same years Rachmat Witoelar: Environment minister; President of Bali’s Conference of the Parties (COP) 13 in 2007 According to an Indonesian politician on February 21, the country’s “experience in making the Bali climate change talks a success could be a significant asset in winning the post.” Moreover, “as a country vulnerable to climate change, Indonesia needs a breakthrough to resolve the problems and this can be achieved if Indonesia takes the lead in global talks on climate change.” Costa Rica’s Climate Negotiator is “carbon market’s favorite” Christiana Figueres of Costa Rica is “leading the pack” for potential candidates from the private sector, according to the website “Carbon Finance.” Figueres is Costa Rica’s climate change negotiator, with particular experience on the Clean Development Mechanism, on which she co-Chaired the negotiating group at the Copenhagen Conference. Figueres also advises several governments and private investment companies, and she founded the Center for Sustainable Development in the Americas. UNelections and Appointments in the News ——————————— The UNelections Campaign is a project of the World Federalist Movement – Institute for Global Policy (WFM-IGP), a global membership organisation with headquarters in New York City.  info at UNelections.org WFM-IGP is dedicated to bringing about a just world order through a strengthened and more democratized United Nations. Increasing the accountability and transparency in the leadership of the United Nations is a critical step toward this goal. ——— Other WFM-IGP projects include: Coalition for the International Criminal Court, www.iccnow.org Genocide Prevention Program, www.genocideinfo.org International Coalition for the Responsibility to Protect, www.responsibilitytoprotect.org ReformtheUN.org, www.ReformtheUN.org Together for a Better Peace, www.betterpeace.org If you have questions, please contact the World Federalist Movement  at our International Secretariat in New York. Press Inquiries: WFM-IGP Executive Director, William Pace (646) 465 8531 General Inquiries: Program Officer, Faye Leone (646) 465 8523

Futures of the Obama Administration:

Dan Rather says the President must show resolve and steel. This was echoed by Helene Cooper (He must start showing his accomplishments) and Joe Klein (people want to see him crack the whip). Despite this 11 said he must play to the center and only one said he must play to the left.

There is no contradiction here – all agreed that the Democratic base is a varied coalition while the Republican base is the Republican idiosyncratic right (a much less flattering word was used).

So what do the Democrats need now? The answer in the TV and Internet age is that you must be authentic and have a conversation with the broad constituency that is the country.

——–

Helene Cooper reminded us that in Foreign countries Obama did very well – now he will have a huge welcome in Indonesia and the Tea Party folks will say that this proves he is not from here. But they may overplay because again the President will show he can raise in the world the essence of an ideal. Indonesia is a poor country in recession and a probable breeding ground for Al Qaeda with a war going on in nearby Philippines.

Joe Klein kept repeating that even in the US people rank Obama’s foreign policy much more then his economic policy – so some will say that when he goes overseas to take of the news the needed US internal economic policy – he does not face the economy.

But above is not correct – he actually goes to the energy markets – Indonesia, then India, and probably after that South Africa. This follows the trip he made to China. So there is a pattern here.

Also – we were reminded that Iran has an operation to extract Uranium in a remote location in Venezuela – and yes – there is now a daily flight from Tehran to Caracas while there is only a weekly flight from Caracas to Bogota. AHA – is this not what we say all the time since Copenhagen? Obama needs to have in the White House a clear Western Hemisphere desk in order to be able to do all these other needed activities that are mainly Asia oriented.

We learned that Rahm Emanuel – the White House pragmatist – said all the time – the futures are ENERGY and JOBS. That should have been the laser guided policy from day one.

On the Israeli Palestinian issue, with the latest misery for all to see and a consensus building that the killing in Dubai and the slap to Vice President Biden, were “botched-on-purpose” events. Simply – they are so botched that they must have been on purpose and the purpose was that Israel wanted the world to know that they are ready to take responsibility for their future because they do not want to have to pay for complicated world policies that may treat them as collateral.

The two issues with most impact on the Middle East are clearly the global look into the maze of State-to State energy policies and what seems to emerge – a border set between Israel and the West Bank run by the Palestinian Authority. This as a “what-can-be-done” approach to get us out of this impasse. With the AIPAC meeting coming up in Washington – March 21-23, 2010, President Obama out of town, and Vice President Biden having been pushed aside by the Israelis, it remains now for Secretary Hillary Clinton to try to build such an approach for the only two direct factors in the dispute, and the Arab States the US has friendly relationship with. If this is not accepted by the two sides, the best the US can do is to drop this topic from its agenda all together, and wait the sides come back begging for new mediation.

Karl Rove is making the rounds of the TV stations in order to sell his book “Courage and Consequences.” It is him, former VP Cheney, the daughter Liz Cheney (Chris Matthews Calls Liz Cheney ‘Daughter of Dracula’), and pundist Bill Krystal that try to reinvent history. Of interest to US foreign policy is the mention now that the mismanagement of the war in Iraq under the Bush-Cheney Administration was the fault of Turkey – because of their reluctance to allow NATO overflights. Quite true – but did not one look into such things when planning a war?

Gillian Tett of the Financial Times, declared that  US President Obama is liked in the world but not feared. Russia and China are not going to allow greater restrictions on Iran. She also said that Israel is probably not as fearful of Iran as it is assumed because had they had Iran in mind they would not have turned against the US and the UK the way they did. She thinks the events in Dubai were a clear provocation to the UK. France and the UK will go along with the US grudgingly on Iran but others at the UN Security Council, like Lebanon and Brazil will not.

Candy Crowley’s program was underlined with the idea that the gridlock in Washington on health-care has signaled to the world that it also carries no power overseasand that Obama will now stress in his relations to Congress what he already said: “Ignore the Washington Eco Chamber!”

————-

Pakistan turns into a US Administration’s Show-case: At least something that showed some changes for the better.

On Farred Zakaria with Ambassador Richard Holbrooke – “Pakistan is looking up – A victory for Obama. It helped by dangling of showers of aid – so the Hakami faction of the Taliban that was previously tolerated by the military is now being attacked.

Holbrooke finds that the Afghans in Khandahar and Marja in general, want a conservative society but no corruption. They want education including for girls and are mad at the Taliban. The district leader in Marja is an Afghan who returned from Germany. There are returnees and the US encourages also afghans in the US to return and participate in the rebuilding.

———–

With Fareed – The Jeffrey Sachs, Amity Schlaes (conservative formerly with The Wall Street Journal and presently Council of Foreign Relations specialist), and Christa Freeland (global editor-at-large, The Financial Times – middle of the road, right leaning):

The underlying Jeff Sachs dictum: “EVERY DECENT SOCIETY ENSURES CITIZENS HAVE ACCESS TO HEALTH-CARE.” Without reforms of the health-care delivery system we will get nowhere – this was really not discussed yet he said.

The problem is that we have no cost controls so we use four times more Cat-Scans then Switzerland or France.

Freeland concurred  and said THE SYSTEM ENCOURAGES DOCTORS TO DO TOO MUCH! She had found that in the American system you have to fight excessive treatment more then anywhere else. She herself gave birth in Toronto, Paris, New York and the US was worse. She asked why all those Cesarean treatments for first birth in the US? She concluded that it was not only a problem of greed – which it is – but also a problem of the legal system, the high insurance of the profession, that makes doctors more worried and pushes them to prescribe unnecessary treatments. SO – WE ARE BACK TO THE INSURANCE AND TO THE HEALTH-CARE IMPASSE. She also pointed out that 80% of the health-care cost is in the last years of life and this should be something to be looked at also.

The two seemed to agree that with 10% unemployment it is wrong to tie-in health-care to a job – and Freeland suggested HELP RATHER PEOPLE TO BUY AN INSURANCE.

Talking about the economy at large, Jeff Sachs said we were in a panic situation last year – that was removed – but we are out of control with the budget and a burdened debt consumer is no consumer. We risk a downward spiral as for two and a half years we really did nothing on the economy. He predicts that the US is out for a double recession.

Amity Schlaes in all of this was a parody of the Wall Street Journal – “A person who gets a job – not the happy consumer that goes to the mall – is who saves the economy. Which she is obviously right but nowhere in the discussion did we see an indication of how to get there. Cut spending? From where? She brings up Indiana State tax cuts as an example, but Professor Sachs cuts her short by saying the US is already the lowest taxed country in the developed world and we are paralyzed because we cannot do what a civilized country must do. Can we have a value added tax Fareed asks Schlaes and she gives a clear NO!. We read her stuff in the WSJ many times and wonder now what she can do for the Council on Foreign Relations. We thank Fareed Zakaria for having brought her in to the panel so we understand better what US institutions of long-standing have done to split America.

With a 10% of GNP budget gap while the entitlement amount to a total of 15% for Social Security and existing Health-Care, there is just no way that the US can cut itself out of the coming recession without falling back into the ranks of a third world country – whatever the meaning of that term which we clearly do not accept as part of our own parlance. Clearly – Presidential leadership is needed here and plain conversation with the electorate is the way to honestly explain the situation to the public. Do not expect the media to be able to do this public relations job.

David Axelrod on all channels, kept saying that Illinois got 60% insurance increases this year and the President will speak in Ohio where a woman wrote to him that she had to chose between health insurance and her home – so she stopped her insurance. Then when cancer struck – now she will lose her home. This is the biggest driving force of the economy that the Federal Government must take into consideration first. We say power to him.

Further, on Fareed Zakaria’s program, we learned that March 9th was a year since the Wall Street Dow Index hit bottom from which it climbs up again. Banks have recapitalized with new $150 billion to a safe position, managers make fabulous pay again, Timothy Geithner who took the country on a middle road has shown success, refusing to nationalize the banks, but what did this do to the person on main street who will be voting in November?

———-

Intricacies of the Arab and Islamic world:

On the Amanpour program we started with Sheikh Dr. Tahir Ul-Qadri – an Islamic Theologian from London who started the JIHAD-AGAINST-JIHAD movement. He was a former special advisor on Islamic Law to the Pakistani Supreme Court.

He says – No ifs – No buts – Terrorism is Terrorism. Any good intentions cannot allow terrorism.

A terrorist does not reach Shihada (martyrdom) or in lay language – he does not go to heaven – he rather goes to hell!

He was questioned about “Khawarij” in the “Hadit” – the words of the Prophet as reported by men that wrote them down – “whoever fights against the people (that is the believers) has more rights to Allah then others.”

Sheikh Ul Qadri answered that the ideology that says those that are not Muslims – their blood is allowed – he does no accept. He fights for peace and when asked if his life is in danger he said he is not afraid “one has to live for truth and die for truth” – he is thus a jihadist-against jihad.

Elias Khouri is an Arab lawyer living on the West Bank near Jerusalem. Both – his father and his son were killed by other Palestinians as part of their war against Jews. The father back in the pre-Israel days, the son, George Khouri, who went to the Hebrew University in Jerusalem, in March 2004, when he was mistaken for a Jew.

Elias Khouri paid from his money for the translation into Arabic of the book “A Tale of Love and Darkness” by the famed Israeli author Amos Oz, and had it published in Beiruth so that Arab readers can learn something about the Israelis. This bereaved person wants to help remove prevailing stereotypes in the Middle East.

Amos Oz who can be defined as an Israeli who clearly wants to live in a Middle East mixed environment, depicted in this book the non-heroic ways of the first settlers who lead to the foundation of the State. Elias Khouri says that knowledge is needed to be able to understand if we want to fight them or go along. Since the offer to translate the book, the two families – the Khouri and the Oz families became close friends and visit each other. Amos Oz says that he tried always to put himself in the other’s shoes. Anyone in the Arab world who reads the book will understand the historical events better. Oz says – Imaging the other is a moral thing.

Ihsanoglu calls for direct relations between the OIC General Secretariat and OIC Funds

The Secretary General of the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC) Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu expressed his satisfaction over the OIC Funds’ oriented action, which has made a tangible impact, and hoped for direct relations between the Funds and the OIC General Secretariat at the level of the Islamic Conference Humanitarian Affairs Department (ICHAD) and other related departments. Ihsanoglu, in his statement at the 3rd meeting of the OIC Funds in Doha, Qatar, on 9 March 2010, urged the Funds to work under the supervision of the OIC General Secretariat’s Finance and Administration Department using the new “financial system under which the Funds will operate in line with the OIC Financial rules and regulations, hence, rendering more transparency to their operations, which will also benefit the Funds.” Taking into consideration the various constraints the Funds may have faced, he assured them of mobilizing all OIC resources to launch a “strong campaign to secure more financial resources for the Funds’ activities.” The Secretary General concluded his statement by thanking His Highness Sheikh Abdul Aziz Al-Thani, Chairman of the Council of Funds, and the various donors, especially the State of Qatar for the tremendous efforts and dedication to convene the meeting.

OIC Chief commends the results of the Third Conference of Humanitarian Organizations

OIC Secretary General Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu stated that the positive results of the Third Conference of Humanitarian Organizations held in Doha, Qatar, on 8 March 2010, will have a clear effect on the promotion of cooperative relations between the OIC and humanitarian organizations in the OIC Member States. This will help elaborate clear policies to address disasters and development issues in the Islamic world. Ihsanoglu made this statement at the closing session of the two-day Conference attended by over seventy relief organizations from around the Islamic world. The Secretary General emphasized that these results testify to the importance of the resolution adopted by the Third Extraordinary Islamic Summit Conference held in Makkah Al-Mukarramah at the initiative of the Custodian of the Two Holy Mosques, King Abdullah Bin Abdulaziz Al-Saud, which called for the promotion of cooperation and coordination relations between the General Secretariat and NGOs as a central development partner. Ihsanoglu added that over forty OIC Member States suffer today from different disasters and conflicts, especially with the aggravation of climate change and its various negative implications. He maintained that these phenomena led to the defragmentation of societies and to the deterioration of relief services and development infrastructures in many parts of the Islamic world. The Secretary General called for a new approach to address development and humanitarian assistance issues based on the coordination of efforts among governments, NGOs and the private sector. He highlighted the fact that supporting this tripartite process is a necessity at this critical stage in order to build peace and accelerate the development movement in our countries. The Secretary General concluded his address stating that work in this field will be carried out in close coordination and cooperation with all international organizations and institutions working in the field of humanitarian development, in particular UN institutions which are doing an important work in the Islamic world.

from: Prof. Jinyue Yan

The International Conference on Applied Energy (ICAE) looks set to become a truly integrated forum on research, development and application of energy technology and policy. ICAE2010 aims to facilitate debate on a wide range of topics under the theme, “Energy Solutions for a Sustainable World”. Besides the usual technical presentations and posters, the Conference will feature a number of keynote lectures and special focused sessions incorporating panel discussions and Q and A sessions.

We invite specialists from all over the world to come and share experiences and contribute towards building the framework for sustainable development in the 21st century.

As authors proceed to develop the full papers for the conference, I wish to inform all that a selection of the papers presented at ICAE2010 will be reviewed for publication in a special issue of Applied Energy and a number of other international peer-reviewed journals. In addition, best paper awards will be presented at the Conference.

International Conference on Applied Energy, April 21-23, 2010, Singapore

CONFERENCE TOPICS

Renewable and Green Energy Resources and Technologies
-Biomass, wind and solar energy resources and technologies
-Alternative fuels
- Fuel cells and hydrogen energy
- Energy storage technologies
- Biomass Gasification

Energy Conservation in Buildings
-Green and “zero energy” buildings
- Green building envelopes
- Energy efficient heating and cooling systems
- Heat pump, thermal storage and energy recovery systems

Advanced Energy Technologies
- Micro- and nano-technology applied to energy systems
- Carbon capture and storage systems
- Combustion and engine technology
- Novel and advanced energy conversion systems

Energy Systems for Power Generation
- Energy efficiency and management
- Energy process and system modeling and optimization
- Advanced power generation, transmission and automation
- Distributed energy systems
- Poly-generation systems

Energy, Environment and Sustainable Development
- Greenhouse gas and climate change mitigation
- Pollutant emission control and abatement
- Energy efficiency in transportation
- Energy Efficiency in water production
- Energy and sustainable development
- Energy policy, economics, and planning
- Low Carbon Society and Sustainable Cities

Please visit at www.icae2010.org for your registration to attend the conference.

Professor J. Yan
Royal Institute of Technology (KTH) and Malardalen University (MDU), Sweden

Editor-in-Chief of Elsevier Int. Journal, Applied Energy
 http://ees.elsevier.com/apen/

Applied Energy 35th Anniversary
 http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/P08.cws…

International Conference on Applied Energy, Singapore April 21-23, 2010
  Permalink | |  Email This Article
Posted in Archives, Copenhagen COP15, Future Events, Singapore, United Kingdom

Discuss this article

“THE WINTER OF THEIR DISCONTENT: PYONGYANG ATTACKS THE MARKET.”

That was the title of a lunch event at The Korea Society Forum on Wedneday, January 27, 2010, and the speaker was Mr. Marcus Noland, Deputy Director at the Peterson Institute for International Economics in Washington DC, and  Senior Fellow at the East-West Institute.He has held academic positions at Yale, Johns Hopkins, USC, Tokyo U, Saitama U, The U. of Ghana, and the Korea Development Institute. He was also a senior economist at the Council of Economic Advisers to the President of the USA.

The event was chaired by Mr. Evans Revere, President and CEO of the Korea Society. Both of them also old hands of the US Department of State – former Ambassadors with deep knowledge of Korea.

The paper that was presented was co-authored by Mr. Noland with Stephan Haggard with whom he also co-authored a book titled:  “Famine in North Korea: Markets, Aid, and Reform.” Other books he wrote are “Pacific Basin Developing Countries: Prospects for the Future and Korea after Kim Jong-il,” and he edited “Economic Integration of the Korean Peninsula.” His book “Avoiding the Apocalypse: the future of the Two Koreas,” won the Ohira Memorial prize.

The reason for having this meeting was the North Korea’s recent currency reform of November 30, 2009, that literally threw North Korea back to Stalinistic Days of unbelievable economy these days of the 21st century.

North Korea also declared a ban on the use of foreign currencies on top of having declared useless their own National currency account. The net result was a clear blow o the market – so there is literally no market – thus no real economy – only a barter system.

History: In the last 15-20 years there was a bottom up marketization of the North Korean economy. It started with households and local government offices. It somehow evolved in the 1990s into a highly distorted market economy and the State was not comfortable with this because of the private origin of this up-swell – it was outside the State Control. There was also some intrusion of foreign companies – such as an Egyptian Telecoms that provided for individuals and businesses a cellphone network. The recent currency reform is simply the outcome – a clamp down on private initiative – and as there are no civil society institutions there is also no way to channel the peoples unhappiness. What we have now said Noland – is a revival of the Stalinist economy of the 1950s.

There have been conventional currency reforms in many countries – Turkey, Romania, Ghana … usually you cut off three zeros from the currency and you get it exchanged – but not in North Korea. Here, on November 30, 2009, North Korea announced a reform to replace all currency in circulation with new bills and coins. You had to declare all what you have and you could only exchange a small part of what you had – so the rest became useless paper. It was thus a confiscatory measure. Businesses operated in cash – so this destroyed the financial basis of the economy that operated outside the government controlled system. Call it the return to State socialism for those that tried to make a living for themselves. The Chinese never entered this North Korean world – they just do not operate in this sort of environment anymore.

The inflation was spiralling out of control before this sort of reform, now people did not even know how to price their products – it did not make sense to obtain this new currency – so how do you run a market under these conditions?

Things even sound worse when you realize that most North Koreans are government employees. – People join the government system so they can participate in the corruption cycle. If you ask in North Korea someone -Have you ever been detained? Most likely the answer will be yes. Even in this case – the currency exchange law – it was several days before it happened and you felt there was a dollarization of the system. Many knew it is coming and did buy dollars for their soon to be devalued money.

Some information became available when mid January a North Korean defected from the Embassy in Ethiopia.

Look at the difference between North Korea and Vietnam. Both were hit by withdrawal of Soviet assistance in the 1980s. While Vietnam changed and took off – North Korea stagnated and rolled back.

China started its reforms in the 1970s – Vietnam in the 1980s – both started from a high agriculture society. They had parades of improvement and everybody participated and took advantage of the changes. THey did freeze State Planning and people improved. Now North Korea did the opposite – they froze the market and demonetized the economy and the society. There is no lending – there is no banking – nothing. NORTH KOREA IS A FAILED STATE! What about the nukes? {as we shall see this was only the last question and came from a Japanese Government official.}

Before November 30, 2009, if you had some drive – you did push yourself up, or you left for China. What now? If there is no market you cannot sell even if you make something.

It amounts to a militarized workers party regime. Being a conscript in the lower ranks of the army is no big deal – but then the further down the ladder you go in North Korea – the more sensible the people are! The closer you are to Pyongyang – the more ideological and worse people get.

Interesting – the word nuclear was not uttered by the speaker or by people asking questions – this until the last question that came from a Japanese Consulate person. Mr. Noland pointed out that he was already hoping, against his expectations, that nobody will touch upon this. Then he stressed that development assistance is important – but you must make sure that like food assistance, it goes for good purpose to the right people. Such efforts are fungible and might produce no results if you are not careful.

———–

At the end of the Forum, I stayed around to discuss issues with some of the people present – it was a roomful – maybe 40 people. My cklear question was about reunification of the Koreas and I got quite a few skeptical answers. It is obvious they thought that a united Korea will be nuclear and the Japanese official just had no interest in this. Others just did not trust the North Korean leadership of being ready to give up the reins for an unsafe future – that is as if today their future is safe.

What about the real huge internal market that would open up by reunification? Why not do it in such a way that some leadership position is left in the hands of the present leaders of the North, in the hope that an Angela Merkel type will emerge from among them also? It will be no big thing to award penssions and guarantee the condition of those that will have to give up power? No tribunals please – just future well behavior can be the link. Part of this generation will be non-productive, but the young people from the North will show talents that can help all of Korea.

BAN KI-MOON
U.N. Looks for Diplomatic Breakthroughs: U.N. looks for diplomatic breakthroughs in 2010.
Posted By Colum Lynch   Tuesday, February 2, 2010
Ban Ki-moon and his diplomatic envoys have been scouring the globe this week in search of a promising peace settlement for 2010, pursuing talks with Kim Jong Il’s government in North Korea, Afghanistan’s Taliban, and Turkish and Greek Cypriot leaders.

These latest diplomatic initiatives follow a year that brought few breakthroughs on the mediation front as the U.N. strained to advance democracy in Burma, head off mass rights abuses in Sri Lanka, and manage a crisis that threatens to trigger a resumption of civil war in Sudan.

U.N. officials say the proliferation of new initiatives is largely coincidental, the product of months, if not years, of preparation, but that it provides the U.N. with an opportunity to show that it can achieve some diplomatic wins. “There’s no grand strategy here,” said one official. Here’s a survey of key U.N. diplomatic initiatives for 2010 and their prospects for success {cynics at the UN say that this is propelled by the wish to secure a reappointment for a seconf term at the UN - www.SustainabiliTank.info editor}:

1. Cyprus. Ban traveled to Cyprus this weekend to nudge Demetris Christofias and Mehmet Ali Talat, the parties representing the ethnic Greek and Turkish sides of the island, into a breakthrough in a conflict that has lasted more than 35 years despite repeated efforts at mediation. Ban said that he is confident that a political settlement “is within reach.” But the two Cypriot leaders appeared more downbeat about the prospects for a deal. Cyprus has been split since 1974. Talks between the two sides during the past 17 months have produced some results, including an agreement to open a pedestrian crossing in Nicosia, the divided capital. But there is concern that April elections in the Turkish section may bring a hard-liner to power. “Time is not on the side of settlement,” the two leaders acknowledged in a joint statement Monday.

2. North Korea. Ban, a former South Korean diplomat, has been seeking a role in the North Korea crisis since he first took office in January 2007. A confidential U.N. policy paper, produced on April 25, 2007, called for “intensifying and expanding engagement” with Pyongyang, and possibly for the appointment a special North Korea coordinator. But initial attempts to start talks faltered after North Korea launched its missile test and detonated its second nuclear explosive last April and May. On Sunday, Ban announced that he would send his top political advisor, B. Lynn Pascoe, a former U.S. diplomat, to Pyongyang to restart high level U.N. talks later this month. He will be joined by Ban’s top Korean aide, Kim Won-soo. Can Ban be far behind?

3. Afghanistan. The U.N.’s outgoing special representative, Kai Eide, held secret talks with members of the Taliban sometime last year. Eide has been pursuing such contacts with the Taliban since he first started his job. U.N. sources described those talks as highly preliminary, and said that they do not have the approval of the Taliban leadership, which claims that its movement is not negotiating with the U.N. But an official close to the talks confirmed that they had in fact taken place and that Eide’s successor, Staffan di Mistura, would likely continue pursuing those contacts. While these discussions offer little hope of providing a breakthrough, they could provide a useful back channel over the long haul.

4. Sudan. The U.N. faces perhaps its greatest diplomatic challenge in Sudan, which is preparing for presidential elections this year and a referendum in 2011 that will determine whether the country remains unified or whether Sudan’s southerners decide to vote for independence. Ban has said Sudan will be one of his top priorities in 2010, and he has just assigned his two top Africa specialists, Ibrahim Gambari and Haile Menkerios, to manage U.N. operations on the ground. Success in Sudan will largely be measured by the U.N.’s ability to stop the referendum from triggering a renewed civil war. “Partitioning the country without violence: that will be a miracle,” said one Security Council diplomat. “I don’t know how they are going to do it.”

5. Burma. U.N. diplomatic efforts in Burma have pretty much run aground. Ban has reassigned his top Burma envoy, Gambari, to Sudan, and made his chief of staff, Vijay Nambiar of India, his temporary point man on Burma. The Burmese military junta recently rebuffed a U.N. request to invite Gambari back to the country for a final visit. U.N. diplomats say that Burma has little interest in meeting with the U.N.’s diplomatic placeholders, particularly now that the Americans are looking to engage the regime directly.

Jews, Muslims can defeat common enemies.

by Rabbi Marc Schneier and Imam Shamsi Ali
January 25, 2010
 http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/onfai…

American Jews and Muslims can defeat a common enemy by working together. That common enemy is prejudice – and if one needed statistical evidence for it, stark proof was revealed this week.

A Gallup poll found that 43 percent of Americans admit to at least “a little” prejudice against Muslims, and that such self-reported feelings are strongly linked to the respondent’s views on Jews. Remarkably, those who say they feel “a great deal” of prejudice toward Jews are about 32 times more likely to report feeling a “great deal” of prejudice toward Muslims, according to the polling company.

Such numbers should serve as a call to action for both the Jewish and Muslim communities: We must work together as individuals on the grass-roots level to promote tolerance and reduce anti-Semitism and Islamophobia. Barriers start to crumble when rabbis, imams and the members of their houses of worship take the time to learn about each other — and then show the rest of the country that they share a common value system.

Of course, Jews and Muslims don’t agree on everything, but there are many more areas of agreement. Gallup also noted this week that compared with other religious groups in the United States, Muslim Americans and Jewish Americans are most similar in terms of political ideology, education and political party identification, according to previous research. And a poll of Israelis earlier this month found a plurality of voters in Israel would oppose a ban on the construction of minarets on mosques built in Israel. The poll was taken after Swiss voters approved a resolution banning the construction of minarets late last year.

Jews and Muslims can use such common interests to forge and strengthen relationships and build an agenda that works for the betterment of a society as a whole. Sharing common roots as children of Abraham, Jews and Muslims can talk about their similarities in theology, as well as the times during history when their two peoples co-existed successfully. And they can forge bonds by talking about their similar interests in such issues as saving the environment, fighting poverty and reforming the U.S. immigration system.

For example, last November, Jews and Muslims in Buffalo turned those views into action. Doctors and dentists worked together to provide joint health screenings for people without health insurance in their community, and the success of that program has encouraged other mosques and synagogues to put similar programs together. Such a project not only builds relationships among Jews and Muslims, but also shows those who may still harbor some bias toward the two faiths that our similarities override our differences.

That project arose out of the second annual Weekend of Twinning of Mosques and Synagogues, which brought together more than 100 synagogues and 100 mosques who held similar programs to the one in Buffalo in communities across the United States, Canada and Europe.

Coming just days after the horror of extremist violence at Fort Hood, the Weekend of Twinning was heartening evidence that most Muslims are moderates, and that majorities in both the Muslim and Jewish communities seek better relations. As a member of the Muslim Community Center in Silver Spring, Md. told the Washington Jewish Week newspaper, the Fort Hood tragedy actually made it easier to attract his fellow mosquegoers, because “it made people more willing to come out and say, ‘We need to meet each other.’”

But we can’t let such traumatic events guide our actions. Jews and Muslims must be consistently engaged in such projects – whether it is programs that educate each other on their respective religious practices or partnering to provide help for the most disadvantaged among us.

That’s the best way to form the trust and friendships necessary to help Jews and Muslims fight anti-Semitism and Islamophobia. As Gallup has shown, hatred of Jews and Muslims is linked, and therefore Jews and Muslims must be linked in our responsibility to fight it.

Imam Mohammad Shamsi Ali is the spiritual leader of the Islamic Cultural Center of New York. Rabbi Marc Schneier is the founding rabbi of The New York Synagogue and president of The Foundation for Ethnic Understanding.

 http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/tech…

U.S. Secretary of State Clinton urges China to probe Google case.
U.S. Secretary of State calls for consequences and condemnation of those who carry out cyberattacks.

Robert Burns, Washington — The Associated Press, Published on Thursday, Jan. 21, 2010 in Globe and Mail of Canada.

Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton on Thursday urged China to investigate cyber intrusions that led Google Inc. GOOG-Q to threaten to pull out of that country – and challenged Beijing to openly publish its findings.

“Countries that restrict free access to information or violate the basic rights of Internet users risk walling themselves off from the progress of the next century,” she said, adding that the U.S. and China “have different views on this issue, and we intend to address those differences candidly and consistently.”

She cited China as among a number of countries where there has been “a spike in threats to the free flow of information” over the past year. She also named Tunisia, Uzbekistan, Egypt and Vietnam.

Ms. Clinton made her remarks in a wide-ranging speech about Internet freedom and its place in U.S. foreign policy.

“Some countries have erected electronic barriers that prevent their people from accessing portions of the world’s networks,” she said.

“They have expunged words, names and phrases from search engine results,” Ms. Clinton said. “They have violated the privacy of citizens who engage in nonviolent political speech.”

State Department officials have said they intend soon to lodge a formal complaint with Chinese officials over the Google matter, which a senior Chinese government official said Thursday should not affect U.S.-China relations.

Vice-Foreign Minister He Yafei said in Beijing, “The Google case should not be linked with relations between the two governments and countries; otherwise, it’s an over-interpretation,” according to the official Xinhua News Agency. The Xinhua report did not mention censorship, instead referring to Google’s “disagreements with government policies.”

In a passage of her speech before she explicitly mentioned the Google matter, Ms. Clinton spoke broadly about the connection between information freedom and international business.

“Countries that censor news and information must recognize that, from an economic standpoint, there is no distinction between censoring political speech and commercial speech,” she said. “If businesses in your nation are denied access to either type of information, it will inevitably reduce growth.”

“Increasingly, U.S. companies are making the issue of information freedom a greater consideration in their business decisions,” she added. “I hope that their competitors and foreign governments will pay close attention to this trend.”

She then raised the Google case.

“We look to Chinese authorities to conduct a thorough review of the cyber intrusions that led Google to make its announcement,” she said, referring to Google’s recent statement that it is reconsidering its business operations in China. “We also look for that investigation and its results to be transparent.”

—————-

Further - Ms. Clinton wants to see INTERNET FREEDOM AS A PLANK OF AMERICAN FOREIGN POLICY – she says that an attack on one Nation’s computer network should be seen, what it really is, an attack on all!

Censorship should not be accepted by any company, and American companies must take a principled stand she further said.

The US will place a “demarche” with China – a diplomatic move of protest showing its displeasure with the way China treated Google. The US is not ready to accept that this is a mere business squabble. We follow this logic and think the US should also express its displeasure the way certain well placed UN Department of Public Information officials use their positions to intefere with the dissemination of news at the UN. One outside the UN New York Times investigative reporter had looked into this three years ago, but her worldwide distributed article had no impact on the UN, neither did we see the US making a “demarche” to Mr. Ban Ki-moon. Could the State Department under the Hillary Clinton baton have a look there too?

Published: Wednesday January 13, 2010, The Star online.

Sarawak govt says coal is ‘renewable’ energy.
By STEPHEN THEN

 stephenthen at thestar.com.my

MIRI: The Borneo Resources Institute has strongly critised the move by the Sarawak government to classify the exploitation and mining of 1.156 billion tonnes of coal reserves as part of its “renewable energy” projects.

The institute, a Sarawak-based environmental watchdog group with global links, wants the ministries involved in environmental management at state and national levels to explain to the Malaysian public how the mining of coal could be categorised as “renewable.”

Institute executive director Mark Bujang said the state government had already included the mining of coal as part of the multibillion-ringgit projects to be carried out under the Sarawak Corridor of Renewable Energy (SCORE) initiatives.

“We object to the move to categorise such an environmentally-hostile project as a renewable energy project because it is very misleading. Coal is a mineral that is exhaustible. It cannot be regenerated.

“The mining of coal is one of the most environmentally-damaging and polluting projects on Earth. The burning of coal in power-generating plants produces huge volume of green-house gas and have caused tremendous climatic changes all over the world.

“The extraction of coal from the ground and from underground mines have caused irrepairable environmental damages. These woes have been seen all over the world, especially in coal-producing countries.

“How is it possible then for Sarawak to classify coal-mining and the use of coal for power-generation as one of the projects approved under the renewable energy corridor?” he told The Star on Wednesday.

On Monday, Sarawak secured a US$11bil (RM38.5bil) investment from China to carry out three hydro-dam construction projects and other energy-intensive projects in the SCORE region spanning a 340km belt between Mukah district in central Sarawak and Similajau district in Bintulu Division in northern Sarawak.

Prime Minister Datuk Seri Mohd Najib Tun Razak and Sarawak Chief Minister Tan Sri Abdul Taib Mahmud witnessed the inking of the deal between 1Malaysia Development Bhd and China State Grid Corporation in Kuala Lumpur.

Taib, upon his return to Sarawak, elaborated that the China consortium will handle the building of three hydro-electric dams and also look into the possibility of mining 400 million tonnes of coal deposits in Merit Pila in Kapit Division in central Sarawak.

This move to mine the 400 million tonnes of coal in Kapit is just the tip of the iceberg, claimed Bujang.

“Sarawak has more than a billion tonnes of coal and already, there are numerous mining projects being carried out, especially in the Mukah-Balingain region, which is part of the SCORE territory.

“In fact, a coal plant in Mukah has already been constructed and it is almost about to be completed. This (RM903mil) plant will use the coal as raw materials to produce electricity.

“This development is very worrying indeed because we (the institute) have never heard of any Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) study being done or any Social Impact Assessment (SIA) survey being carried out for that project, yet that Mukah coal plant is about to be completed,” he said.

Singapore Pares Emission Cut Plans After Copenhagen.

Reuters,  12-Jan-10.
Author: Nopporn Wong-Anan

SINGAPORE – Singapore said on Monday it will go ahead with existing plans to reduce greenhouse gas emissions but further pledged reductions will depend on a successful agreement in global climate talks.

Environment Minister Yaacob Ibrahim told parliament Singapore would start implementing energy efficiency measures announced last year that would cut emissions by 7-11 percent on business as usual levels by 2020.

This would be below a 16 percent cut that Singapore pledged just ahead of U.N. climate talks in Copenhagen last month, which aimed to agree on a global pact but instead ended with a non-binding accord far short of its original goals.

“When a global agreement on climate change is reached we will implement the additional measures to achieve the full 16 percent reduction below business as usual in 2020,” he said.

Environmentalists said they hoped countries would not lower voluntary targets to cut back emissions given the absence of a global accord, which negotiators are still aiming to reach in another round of talks scheduled for November 2010 in Mexico.

“We find it disappointing that countries are going to step back and lower their ambition,” WWF project coordinator Diane McFadzien told Reuters.

“I haven’t seen evidence of it becoming a trend yet, but I hope it will not become a trend.”

Wealthy city-state Singapore, with one of the world’s best living standards in terms of GDP per capita, has come under fire from environmentalists who point to its energy-intensive economy and high per-capita emissions.

Singapore aims to spur economic growth by increasing its population and attracting further manufacturing investment, which will make cutting absolute emissions difficult, a problem faced by many developing nations unwilling to sign up to legally binding cuts.

As part of the Copenhagen accord, developing nations need to put their voluntary national pledges on a global list by the end of January.

Economics of Adaptation to Climate Change Study:
The Global Report
 hpage at worldbank.org by Friday January 8, 2010

UN Stumbles by Degrees in Nopenhagen, Stealing the Deal?

By Matthew Russell Lee of the Inner City Press.

UNITED NATIONS, December 17 — In the months leading to the Copenhagen climate talks, UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon veered back and forth between reading out specific statements on how the deal should be sealed and saying it is up to member states, the UN is just the venue.

Then he and his advisors including Janos Pasztor and top humanitarian John Holmes announced that $10 billion for adaptation — or reparations — to developing countries would be enough, or “a good start.”

Inner City Press asked each of these three about the African Union’s much higher figure and threat to walk out. Each was to varying degrees dismissive.

Now with the Danish police pepper spraying demonstrators in the street, along with a crowd of UN accredited but excluded reporters, representatives of non governmental organizations and even some UN personnel, the mainstream media coverage turns negative and Ban urges poor countries to stop pointing fingers.

He also, at least according to them, has inappropriately accepted not only the developed countries’ $10 billion figure, but now their two degree Celsius temperature rise cap, versus the 1.5 degree figure.

UN’s Ban at Bella Center, excluded and pepper spray and 0.5 degrees not shown

In New York, Inner City Press has asked Ban’s spokesman about each of these. On December 15, Inner City Press asked

Inner City Press: I just want to follow up on Copenhagen. Do you have any, a large number of us have received the complaints of people who were there, who went yesterday and were unable, both journalists and NGOs [non-governmental organizations] and even some UN staff, were unable to get into the building. And they seemed to say that the UN accredited 45,000 people, even though only 15,000 could fit in the building. If that’s true, why would the UN have done that?

Spokesperson Nesirky: Two things, the figure I’ve heard is not 45,000 but 34,000. That’s still a lot of people, absolutely.

Inner City Press: The same question.

Spokesperson: Yes, the same question. As I understand it, and as we’ve heard from Copenhagen, they have a system to try to rotate the number of people going into the building, because, obviously, they’re over capacity. Part of it is also, it’s not just NGOs, it’s journalists as well. There are large numbers. And as I’ve said here before, it clearly demonstrates the considerable interest there is in this event and in having access to this event. As for why there was an over-accreditation, I would refer you to the organizers, actually the UNFCCC [United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change], who are actually on the ground organizing this, and they have a media team there who I’m sure could help you with that.

On December 16, Ban’s spokesman Martin Nesirky answered

I was asked yesterday about the delays in accessing the Bella Centre in Copenhagen, that’s obviously where the UN Conference on Climate Change is taking place. The United Nations regrets the long delays today for people wishing to gain access or pick up accreditation, and is doing all it can to alleviate further delays.

And more than 45,000 people did indeed apply to attend the Conference. And an overwhelming number of those who applied actually arrived on Monday. This is what caused the congestion in the area outside the UN venue, which is under the control of the Danish police, and also long delays at the UN accreditation counters.

The access to the venue for NGOs will continue to be controlled by the quota system that I mentioned to allow balanced access by various NGO groups. And the NGO representatives are given over half of the capacity of the Bella Centre, and that’s more than ever for a climate change conference. As of tomorrow, only NGO organizations that have the secondary badges will be able to enter the Bella Centre. And the Danish Government and the Danish NGO Network are organizing an alternative venue for NGOs who can’t get into the Bella Centre over the next two days.

Inner City Press asked two more questions:

Inner City Press: I want to ask you about two things that the Secretary-General said in Copenhagen; maybe you can clarify them. One was, he said that the goal is to cap temperature rise at 2° C, and small island States and other participants, Member States of the United Nations, had set their goal at 1.5° C. So, I guess they’re wondering where he came up with the 2° C number. Maybe you can clarify if that really is what he thinks should happen? And also he was quoted as saying that Kenya should lobby to make UNEP [the United Nations Environment Programme] in Nairobi the global environmental agency. You, know, France has a separate proposal that created a new agency. I’m wondering, does that indicate that he doesn’t support France’s proposal or what does it indicate?

Spokesperson Nesirky: Okay, on the first one, on the temperature rise, he’s made public comments on this, which we distributed this morning. The bottom line is that he has said if it’s possible to get to 1.5° C, that’s great. But if it’s not, then it’s important to have a deal that everybody can sign up to. That’s what he’s said. But I would refer you to his remarks so that you could read them in detail. On the UNEP idea, I will need to follow up on that.

Inner City Press: Just one follow-up on that, because in his press conference before he went on the trip, I think he was asked, somebody said, “What ideas are you taking to Copenhagen?” And he said that’s not his role. It’s up to the Member States to negotiate. So, I’m just wondering, I think that’s why people have this question about coming out with a 2° C number. It seems like more than leaving it up to Member States. Do you see what I’m saying? That seems to be inconsistent with what he said before he left.

Spokesperson: I don’t see any inconsistency there. He’s been consistent in saying that, yes, he has an honest broker role, but he also has firm convictions, strong convictions, about what is happening with climate change and his role in ensuring that everybody can come to the table and sign a deal. I would refer you to the remarks he made this morning, which are fairly explicit about the numbers.

And and Ban’s number is now two degrees Celsius, a figure never agreed to by developing countries. They think the UN is or is supposed to be their venue. But not anymore, it seems.

————————–

As UN Flies 700 Staff to Copenhagen, Coup Leader Set to Speak, Major Emitter Excluded.

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, December 10 — In the run up to the Copenhagen climate change conference, Inner City Press on December 4 asked UN climateer Janos Pasztor how many UN system staff, officials and consultants would be traveling to Denmark, with what carbon footprint. Pasztor said it wouldn’t be known until the conference began.

On December 10, UN spokesman Martin Nesirky finally answered the question, or part of it. He said that the Copenhagen conference has among its participants 477 people from the UN Secretariat and 309 from 19 specialized agencies and related organizations. That is, 786 people from the UN. But does this include consultants? And what is the carbon footprint and will it be offset?

Nesirky did however answer two questions Inner City Press asked on December 10, after an ill attended noon briefing held at the same time as a media stakeout by U.S. Ambassador Susan Rice. Inner City Press asked if Ban Ki-moon is aware of the request that the coup leader of Madagascar not be allowed to participate in the Copenhagen conference, just as he was barred from speaking before the General Assembly in September.

Nesirky answered, “As for Madagascar, it is scheduled to speak on next Wednesday 16 December, sometime after 6 p.m., so they seem to have been invited.” But what about the request that, as at the UN General Debate in September, they be disinvited?

On December 8, Inner City Press asked Ban Ki-moon

Inner City Press: Has Ethiopia’s Prime Minister Meles Zenawi, has he indicated to you – we’ve heard that you’ve spoken to him weekly by videoconference – he represents the African Union. Is the $10 billion enough? They threatened to walk out if not sufficient funds were committed. What’s you stance on how that issue’s going to play out?

SG: As you know I, together with Prime Minister [Lars Løkke] Rasmussen [of Denmark], have been engaging in weekly videoconferences with major stakeholders on climate change – particularly the representatives of the most vulnerable countries, including the African Union and small island developing countries. We are going to continue to do that, as we did in Trinidad and Tobago. Now the idea of short-term fast-track financial support is supported by developing countries. We had a very in-depth discussion on this issue during our Commonwealth summit meeting in Trinidad and Tobago. As you know the 53-Member State Commonwealth adopted a consensus declaration where this financial support – fast-track support – was agreed by all the Member States, including a provision that 10% of this $10 billion will be provided to small island developing countries.

So the Commonweath agreed — but has the African Union? Inner City Press asked Ban’s top humanitarian John Holmes on December 10, but he said he hadn’t been involved in setting the $10 billion figure. So who was?

UN’s Ban pre-signs Deal, coup leader coming, major emitter not shown

Inner City Press also asking about the block on participation by Taiwan, which is a major industrial emitter. Nesirky answered only that “Taiwan is not a party to the UNFCCC.” But why not? Would the UN want a major source of emission like Taiwan to participate?

The answer, of course, in China, a senior diplomat of which told Inner City Press a good joke on Thursday. He noted that U.S.’ Susan Rice had been harsh against Iran in that morning’s Council meeting. She has to play to the electorate, he said, just as Iran’s teetered regime tries to strengthen its power by being ever more hard-line. The Chinese diplomat said, “This is the problem with democracy.” And then he laughed.

From Martin Khor, Executive Director, the Intergovernmental body of the g-77 – the South Centre  <south@southcentre.org>  – the proposal that the group wants to see a rededication to the Kyoto Protocol as main ingredient of a Copenhagen outcome.

We believe that without some form of commitment from the member States of that group, there will be no operative decision in Copenhagen, and we post the mailing we got to make sure that the delineations of stands of what is considered extreme are available to the negotiators that must find the point in-between. No – Kyoto can not continue as is – this because it produced no results whatsoever.

Geneva, 30 November 2009

Dear Pincas Jawetz,

The Copenhagen climate conference will face many challenges and even a possible crisis.   Will it deliver what the world expects?

This issue of South Bulletin gives you the background to one of the most important issues – the attempt by developing countries to “save the Kyoto Protocol.”

The fate of Kyoto became probably the biggest issues in the last two UNFCCC sessions before Copenhagen – held at Bangkok (October) and Barcelona (November).

These articles present the highlights of the two sessions, focusing on the developing countries’ positions on why the Kyoto Protocol must be saved from the attempts to discard it and replace it with an “inferior” agreement.

We hope you benefit from this issue and send us any comments you may have. You can write to us  atsouth at southcentre.org .

Geneva, 30 November 2009

The Copenhagen climate conference will face many challenges and even a possible crisis.   Will it deliver what the world expects?

This issue of South Bulletin gives you the background to one of the most important issues – the attempt by developing countries to “save the Kyoto Protocol.”

The fate of Kyoto became probably the biggest issues in the last two UNFCCC sessions before Copenhagen – held at Bangkok (October) and Barcelona (November).

These articles present the highlights of the two sessions, focusing on the developing countries’ positions on why the Kyoto Protocol must be saved from the attempts to discard it and replace it with an “inferior” agreement.

We hope you benefit from this issue and send us any comments you may have. You can write to us at  south at southcentre.org .

Read the whole issue and individual articles at:
 http://www.southcentre.org/index.php?opt…

Articles in this Issue:

http://www.southcentre.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1118&Itemid=1

Articles in this Issue:

• Race to Save Kyoto Protocol — and Copenhagen

• Divisions Remain Deep as Copenhagen Nears

• G77 and China’s Final Statement at Barcelona

• The Imperative to Continue Kyoto Protocol as Key Part of Copenhagen Outcome

• Poor Nations Issue ‘Save Kyoto Protocol’ Plea in Lead-Up to Copenhagen

• The Train to Copenhagen is in Peril, Don’t Derail It – China’s Speech at Climate Talks

• “Let’s Not Go Round In Circles” – India Spells Out Factors for Copenhagen Success

• Africa Demands Progress on Kyoto

• “Progress in making no progress” in KP talks

• Why We Need to Save the Kyoto Protocol

• Emission Targets of Developed Countries Far Too Low

Our title sounds crazy – we know it – but so were Lula’s embrace,  and the Cuban, Venezuelan, and Malaysian votes at the IAEA. When world leaders tell us that enhancing nuclear will have to be part of the energy mix of the future, they just allow for these phenomena.
IRAN DEFENDS SEIZING NOBEL LAUREATE’S ASSETS
27 November 2009, From The SanFranciscoSentinel.com
BY NAZILA FATHI
The New York Times

Iran on Friday denounced charges by the Norwegian government that it had illegally confiscated a Nobel Peace Prize winner’s medal and frozen her bank account, the IRNA news agency reported. Iran called the action an interference into its internal affairs and said the winner, Shirin Ebadi, owed money to the government in taxes.

“We are surprised that Norwegian officials can make such hasty and biased comments and disregard the laws and regulations of other countries,” a Foreign Ministry spokesman, Ramin Mehmanparast, was quoted as saying, adding that Ms. Ebadi, a human rights lawyer, had refused to pay taxes on her prize.

Nobel Laureate Dr. Shirin Ebadi

Mr. Mehmanparast denied that Ms. Ebadi’s medal, which she won in 2003, had been confiscated, but his comments indicated that her assets had been frozen.

“We do not understand how Norwegian officials are trying to justify people’s negligence to pay tax,” he said.

The Norwegian Foreign Ministry said Thursday that Iran had confiscated Ms. Ebadi’s Nobel medal and her diploma from a bank box and confiscated her account. It summoned Iran’s chargé d’affaires to protest the confiscation and expressed “grave concern” about the treatment of Ms. Ebadi’s husband, Javad Tavassolian, who it said had been arrested and severely beaten in Tehran.

Iran has demanded about $400,000 in taxes on Ms. Ebadi’s prize money, which amounted to $1.3 million. Ms. Ebadi has said that under Iranian law, there are no taxes on such prizes.

The measure appears to be an effort by the government to pressure Ms. Ebadi, 62, who is an outspoken critic of the government and human rights violations.

She left Iran shortly before the disputed June 12 election won by President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, which set off the largest protests in the country since the 1979 revolution.

Mohammad Ali Dadkhah, a lawyer in Tehran and a founding member of Ms. Ebadi’s human rights group, said Ms. Ebadi’s prize money was used to help prisoners of conscience and their families, according to Agence France-Presse.

“The account has been blocked by the officials and they do not allow withdrawals,” Mr. Dadkhah said. “This is illegal as blocking and confiscation should be the decision of a court where evidence is presented for such an act. It is politicized.”

South East Asia and climate change.
Climate change is a critical and pressing issue we are faced with today. In Southeast Asia we are increasingly exposed to the results of climate change, such as the latest typhoons and floods in the region, causing loss of lives and damage to property as well as displacing familes and increasing the spread of tropical diseases.

Simon Tay, Chairman, Singapore Institute of International Affairs (SIIA) and former chairman of Singapore National Energy Agency
26/11/2009
 http://en.cop15.dk/blogs/view+blog?blogi…

There is also the risk of rising sea level and increasing temperatures. A recently released report from the Asian Developing Bank (ADB) shows that South East Asia is likely to suffer more from climate change than elsewhere in the world. There will be considerable economic costs too, with a projected 7-8 per cent lost in GDP, unless climate change is addressed.

It is an issue, on which developed and developing countries should come together. Yet differences and suspicions remain.

The date for COP15 in Copenhagen is rapidly approaching and nations worldwide are going to great lengths to reach a consensus on a new climate agreement. However, after the Barcelona meetings earlier this month, it seems that the negotiations have not progressed so far that a new legal framework will be ready for Copenhagen. A realistic outcome will probably be a political framework which can form the basis for future negotiations on the post-Kyoto treaty.

South East Asian countries, including Singapore, need to think about their position on the international stage. We all see the need to bring together the US, India, China and south-east Asia, and mediators can help bring these nations together. Singapore and other countries in the region could very well play that role. South East Asia and Singapore should engage and have an active role.

If we do not, we risk having larger and more powerful countries coming to agreements alone and the decisions risk being made without our full attention and participation.

Singapore, along with the rest of the world is also looking at alternative sources of energy. It is clear that some countries are more able and capable to deploy energy saving mechanisms such as windmills and water/tidal turbines. Solar energy, though a good solution, is still very expensive and presently is not optimal for Singapore due to our small land size and cloud cover. But we can participate in helping develop the technology and know how and benefit.

Singapore drew up a sustainable blueprint earlier this year which stressed issues such as increasing energy efficiency. Singapore also has an excellent past record in many areas of environmental proection as a green city. But we, and all other nations, should also be committed to the global effort to address climate change.

Singapore has good engineering and technology and export environmental services like water treatment and recycling. We pride ourselves on our development despite the lack of natural resources. We should regard carbon emissions as a constraint, like the shortage of water, land and clean air. By doing this, we would find innovative ways to minimise such emissions. The world is moving towards being carbon neutral. Carbon markets are thriving in places like London and China. Singapore should have a slice of the cake too. Singapore is after all an energy hub and one of the world’s leading future trading hubs.

Without the big nations on board, it may be understandable that other nations approach Copenhagen cautiously. A solitary commitment by any single nation cannot solve this global challenge.

But I hope that all governments will leave Copenhagen energized and with greater political commitment. In the post-Copenhagen scenario, many Singaporeans will hope and expect Singapore to play its role.

Indonesia deports journalists covering Greenpeace.
 http://us.asiancorrespondent.com/breakin…

Nov. 19 2009 – AP
Indonesia has deported two foreign journalists covering a Greenpeace demonstration against forest destruction on the western island of Sumatra  bringing to 15 the number of people kicked out of the country over the protest.

Kumkum Dasgupta, an editor for the Hindustan Times, and Raimondo Bultrini, an Italian reporter from the L’Espresso weekly newspaper, were questioned for hours after visiting a Greenpeace camp near land owned by PT Riau Andalan Pulp and Paper, one of Indonesia’s largest paper companies.
The two journalists had received their visas from the central government, but had not sought permission from local officials to travel in the area, said Jumintar Lubis, the head of immigration in Riau Province.

Greenpeace had sought to draw attention to destruction of forests ahead of a key U.N. climate conference in Denmark. Indonesia’s once abundant jungle is being torn down at an alarming rate, threatening endangered tigers, elephants and orangutans.

Slash-and-burn land clearing is used to make way for oil palm plantations, mines and commercial development, making Indonesia the third-largest emitter of carbon in the world after the United States and China.

The journalists were among four foreigners deported Wednesday for allegedly violating visa terms, said Maroloan Barimbing, an immigration spokesman.

Thirteen foreign Greenpeace activists have been deported this week over the protest, including 11 over the weekend, the environmental group said. Indonesian police also detained 44 Indonesian activists and charged 21 with allegedly trespassing on private property.

Restricting the media’s movements is out of step with Indonesia’s improved press freedom since late dictator Suharto was swept from power more than a decade ago, the Committee to Protect Journalists said in a statement.

“The expulsion of foreign journalists harks back to the country’s authoritarian past, not its democratic present,” the statement said.

Italy denounced the expulsion of Bultrini and an Italian Greenpeace activist at the Indonesian Embassy in Rome. The Foreign Ministry requested that their rights be guaranteed by Indonesian authorities.

-Associated Press

————————————

Environmental Media Alliance Worldwide is the Global ej-Forum on
World Environmental Journalists an reaching 4418 EJ professionals
over 174 countries.This EGroup was founded 6th February,2000
and is managed by Dharman Wickremaratne
Secretary /CEO, Asia Pacific forum of Environmental Journalists(APFEJ)
Sri Lanka Environmental Journalists Forum(SLEJF)
PO Box 26, 434/3 Sri Jayawardenapura -SRI LANKA.
 http://www.environmentaljournalists.org

Email<ejournalists@gmail.com>

Hatoyama outlines East Asia bloc -  key concepts include regional prosperity, environmental cooperation.

SINGAPORE (Kyodo) Monday, Nov. 16, 2009, Prime Minister Yukio Hatoyama on Sunday highlighted four key areas of cooperation in his concept for an East Asian community — regional prosperity, the environment, protecting human life and maritime safety.

Hatoyama indicated the U.S. is a potential member of his envisaged regional grouping, saying in a speech in Singapore, “The presence of the United States has been playing and will continue to play an important role in ensuring the peace and prosperity of Asia, including Japan.”

Hatoyama said Japan will speed up negotiations for economic partnership agreements with South Korea, India and Australia, and study the possibilities of talks with other countries as a means to pursuing prosperity in the region.

Hatoyama proposed expanding maritime cooperation in Southeast Asia, such as anti-piracy operations in the Strait of Malacca, to other regions as part of efforts to build a “sea of ‘yu-ai’ (fraternity),” noting that “most regional commerce depends on sea routes.”

“The concept behind my initiative for an East Asian community stems from the philosophy of yu-ai,” he said. “Within yu-ai, people respect the freedom and human dignity of others just as they respect their own freedom and human dignity. In other words, yu-ai means not only the independence of people but also their coexistence.

“I set this goal because reconciliation in the real sense of the word is not necessarily believed to have been achieved in the region,” said Hatoyama, whose two-month-old government attaches great importance to Asian diplomacy.

“This is the current situation, although more than 60 years have passed since Japan caused tremendous damage and suffering to the people of many countries, particularly on the people of Asian nations.”

Hatoyama expressed hope that developing countries will take advantage of advanced energy-saving technologies, water purification techniques and other environment-focused technologies owned by Japanese companies as they aim to reduce greenhouse gas emissionswhile pursuing sustainable growth to achieve a “green Asia.”

He stressed that countries need to ensure the success of the key U.N. climate change meeting next month in Copenhagen, where the world will try to strike a deal on a successor to the Kyoto Protocol.

Hatoyama said Japan will make a “proactive contribution” to encourage governments and other institutions to register their human and material assets for disaster relief, which would allow the region to conduct more prompt and effective rescue and relief activities in response to disasters.

Along with the four areas, Hatoyama cited nuclear disarmament, nuclear nonproliferation, urban issues, social security and cultural exchange as potential fields of regional cooperation.

“There may also be an opportunity for us to discuss possible political cooperation in the future,” he said.

“It may be possible that countries with the will and the capabilities to cooperate in a particular field may choose to participate in projects initially, and as their efforts bear fruit, other countries could join later.”

While welcoming Washington’s commitment to Asia as stated in President Barack Obama’s speech in Tokyo on Saturday, Hatoyama carefully avoided speaking about Washington becoming a member of his envisaged East Asian community.

As a framework of future regional cooperation, China envisions a grouping of 13 countries — Japan, China and South Korea plus the 10 Association of Southeast Asian Nations members of Brunei, Cambodia, Indonesia, Laos, Malaysia, Myanmar, the Philippines, Singapore, Thailand and Vietnam.

Japan envisages a wider grouping including Australia, India, New Zealand and possibly the United States.

No to two-isle plan
SINGAPORE (Kyodo) Prime Minister Yukio Hatoyama told Russian counterpart Dmitry Medvedev on Sunday that he will not accept the idea of settling the sovereignty dispute over four Russian-controlled islands off Hokkaido by settling for the return of the two smaller islands.

“The (Japanese) public and us (the government) cannot understand (the idea of) returning two islands. I would like you to show a nonstereotypical approach that goes beyond such an idea,” Hatoyama quoted himself as saying at the meeting the Russian president in Singapore.

Medvedev told Hatoyama that Russia truly hopes to advance negotiations on the territorial row while Hatoyama is in office, a Japanese delegation source said.

Hatoyama quoted Medvedev as telling him that Moscow wants to seek a “pragmatic” solution to the dispute without employing an approach based on the thinking of the Cold War era.

THE NYT FRONT PAGE ARTICLES DEEMED BY THE PAPER AS TOP STORIES.

————–

“High Costs Weigh on Troop Debate for Afghan War.”
By CHRISTOPHER DREW
The budget implications of President Obama’s decision about sending more troops to Afghanistan are adding pressure to limit the commitment, senior administration officials say.
 http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/15/us/pol…

—-

“Tangle of Clues on Fort Hood Suspect.”
From Washington DC – By SCOTT SHANE and JAMES DAO

Investigators are trying to determine whether Maj. Nidal
Malik Hasan was a terrorist driven by extremism, a troubled
loner, or both.
 http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/15/us/15h…

—-

“China’s Role as U.S. Lender Alters Dynamics for Obama.”
Finalized In-House in New York City and signed  by HELENE COOPER, MICHAEL WINES and DAVID E. SANGER – “President Obama will likely spend more time reassuring Beijing than pushing reform.”
 http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/15/world/…

————————————————–

FRONT PAGE, NOT INCLUDED IN TOP STORIES, AUTHORED AWAY FROM NEW YORK, BUT USED AS QUOTE OF THE DAY.

—–
 http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/15/us/pol…

Robert Pear – from Washington DC – “In House Record, Many Spoke With One Voice: The Lobbyists.”

A terrific article about how US Congress works.

- QUOTATION OF THE DAY -

“We were approached by the lobbyist, who asked if we would be willing to enter a statement in the Congressional Record. I asked him for a draft. I tweaked a couple of words. There’s not much reason to reinvent the wheel on a Congressional Record entry.”
- STANLEY V. WHITE, chief of staff for Representative Robert A. Brady of Pennsylvania, one of dozens of lawmakers who used speeches ghostwritten by a biotechnology company during the health-care debate in the House.

—–

FRONT PAGE, NOT INCLUDED IN TOP STORIES, AUTHORED AWAY FROM NEW YORK.
 http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/15/us/15k…

Mark Mazzetti – from Washington DC – “Portrait of 9/11 ‘Jackal’ Emerges As He Awaits Stage in New York.”

Not long after he was rousted from bed and seized in a predawn raid in Pakistan in March 2003, Khalid Shaikh Mohammed gave his captors two demands: He wanted a lawyer, and he wanted to be taken to New York. So, he will get his wish.

——————————-

Page 6 of the paper – first page INTERNATIONAL – WORLD on the web:

—

“Leaders Agree to Delay a Deal on Climate Change.”
From Singapore – By HELENE COOPER
“President Obama and other world leaders have decided to put off the difficult task of reaching a climate change agreement at a global climate conference scheduled for next month.”
 http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/15/world/…

…

“Forest People May Lose Home in Kenyan Plan.”
From Marashoni, Kenya – By JEFFREY GETTLEMAN
Officials are gearing up to evict tens of thousands from the Mau Forest, in a government conservation effort that has raised suspicion about less-altruistic motives.
 http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/15/world/…

…

“Broaching Birth Control With Afghan Mullahs.”
From Mazar – I – Sharif, Afghanistan – By SABRINA TAVERNISE
Afghan religious leaders attended a workshop on birth
control, birth spacing and breast-feeding last month.
 http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/15/world/…

………………

NOT ON “WORLD” LIST and on page 8 of The New York Times:

Isabel Kirschner from Jerusalem – “Unusual Partners Study Divisive Jerusalem Site.”
 http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/15/world/…

The article ends with: “Mr. Nusseibeh, the president of Al-Quds University, takes an equally unconventional stance. He speaks of mutual denial, including Israeli-led archaeological excavations near the mount that threaten Muslim relics, practices, he said, that ‘totally flout what is divine!’
But he goes on to ask, ‘Can we still not entertain the hope that the holy precinct — what it is and what it symbolizes — will nonetheless one day succeed to inspire people who believe in the one God themselves to become united in their faith?’

Then, to the chagrin of some of his Israeli colleagues, he signs off, ‘East Jerusalem, Palestine.’”

—————————————

FROM THE WEEK IN REVIEW – THE WORLD SECTION:
 http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/15/weekin…

David Barboza – “China’s Sprint for the Gold.”

In 2009 it still has only 79 billionaires as compared to the US having 359 while the GDP of China is now $4.3 trillion as compared to the US of $14.2 trillions – whatever those figures are measuring. Yes – but don’t forget the trends! Then see the following ending paragraph:

“But even leading economists confess to difficulty at fully understanding the role of a nation dominated by state-owned companies.

For instance, while some argue that China’s low-cost manufacturing hurts America by draining away American jobs, other economists say that exporting those jobs to China allows companies to become more profitable in America, and expand their better-paying advertising, service and development departments at home. They also point out that Chinese factories hold down the price of everyday goods for Americans. One study, cited in “China: The Balance Sheet” (Public Affairs, 2006), said that, on average, America is about $70 billion a year richer because of trade with China.

Through all the arguments and counterarguments, one thing seems clear: China’s momentous shift is creating the need for armies of analysts, economists and experts to explain and forecast how China’s rise will remake the world, and the lives of ordinary Americans.”

—————————-

FROM THE SUNDAY BUSINESS SECTION WE PICK THE FOLLOWING:

From page 1 – “At Bloomberg, A Modest Strategy to Rule The World (as in “we want to be the World’s most influential news organization.” by Stephanie Clifford and Juli Creswall.
 http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/15/busine…

———-

and from page 7 – SOAP BOX:

By Harry Hurt III – Off – the – shelf: “Can Public Aid Really Help Business?”
 http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/15/busine…

and BACKDROP (City Photos)  also in the SOAP BOX section under multimedia:

The astonishing – “MICROLENDING FROM BANGLADESH TO THE BOROUGHS.” This is about the Grameen Bank established in Bangladesh to help poor women in developing countries – helping right here in New York City immigrant women with average loans of $1,625. NOW THIS IS JUST AS REVEALING OF THE STATE OF THE UNION IN THE US AS ANY ARTICLE ABOUT THE RISE OF CHINA. WE ASK – WHY WAS THIS ARTICLE NOT INCLUDED AMONG THE HIGHLIGHTS OF THE DAY?

Aha! Let us rethink the stimulus  to the big banks idea – perhaps by bringing Professor Yunus in as advisor to the White House? This is actually our idea of the day!
 http://www.nytimes.com/slideshow/2009/11…

Obama arrived at Tokyo’s Haneda airport aboard Air Force One earlier in the day on his first official trip to Japan. He will depart Saturday for Singapore to attend the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation forum summit.

“I began my trip here in Tokyo because the alliance between the United States and Japan is a foundation for security and prosperity not just for our two countries but for the Asia-Pacific region,” Obama said.

With the 50th anniversary of the revision of the Japan-U.S. security treaty coming up next year, the two leaders promised to strengthen the bilateral ties to aim for a “world without nuclear weapons.”

“I told Obama that the Japan-U.S. alliance is the foundation of everything in regards to Japan’s diplomacy,” Hatoyama said. “But the times and the situation of the world have changed and I suggested to further advance and develop the alliance, to create a constructive and future-oriented new Japan-U.S. alliance.”

During the evening talks at the Prime Minister’s Official Residence, Hatoyama and Obama issued a joint statement, pledging the two governments to work closely toward nuclear disarmament and nonproliferation. Obama won the Nobel Peace Prize last month for his vision of a nuclear-free world.

And On Climate Change according to Kyodo News:

80% cut in CO2 by ‘50 reaffirmed.

Prime Minister Yukio Hatoyama and U.S. President Barack Obamareaffirmed at their summit Friday the shared goal of achieving an 80 percent cut in greenhouse gas emissions by 2050 and supporting efforts by “the poor and most vulnerable” nations to combat climate change.

Also – Hatoyama and Obama endorsed a pledge by the Group of Eight major economies in July in L’Aquila, Italy, to halve global greenhouse gas emissions by 2050. However, they did not touch on an emissions reduction goal by developed countries by 2020, as it is the focal point of the current U.N. climate negotiations.

Hatoyama hopes to achieve a 25 percent cut in the nation’s heat-trapping gas emissions from 1990 levels by 2020.

Shifting to low-carbon growth is indispensable to the health of the planet and will play a central role in reviving the global economy, Obama and Hatoyama agreed.

They urged all major economies to “take ambitious concrete actions” on setting emission reduction targets and be “subject to a robust regime of reporting and international review.” {this was in effect the language for Japan only we heard earlier at the meeting at the Japan Society in New York}

—————-

In Japan, Obama stresses Asia’s role in U.S. economy

President Obama embarks on a nine-day tour of Asian countries, including Japan, Singapore, China and South Korea.

Obama is expected to address topics such as security, environment, the economy and U.S.-Asia relations.

Event: Obama speaks at Suntory Hall in Tokyo about American engagement in Asia.

Meeting: Meets with emperor and empress of Japan.

Travel: Leaves for Singapore.

By Anne E. Kornblut and Blaine Harden
Washington Post Staff Writers
Saturday, November 14, 2009

TOKYO — Declaring himself “America’s first Pacific president,” President Obama opened his trip to the region Saturday by asserting that the future of the U.S. economy depends more than ever on Asia — and by pledging that China’s growth will not come at the expense of its neighbors.

In speaking to an invited audience at Tokyo’s Santory Hall, Obama offered only cursory remarks on human rights, an issue that will grow more prominent this weekend as he crosses paths in Singapore with the leader of the Burmese military junta and then heads to China. As a sign of how exhausting his trip has already been, Obama briefly stumbled over the name of the Burmese opposition leader, Aung San Suu Kyi.

Unlike in earlier speeches in Cairo and Berlin, Obama did not seem to be trying to shift a global dynamic. But in the only major address he plans to give during this trip, he brought the force of his personal story to bear, invoking memories of a childhood visit to Japan and, in praising Asians as part of the immigrant experience in the United States, relating that experience to his own.

“I am an American president who was born in Hawaii and lived in Indonesia as a boy,” Obama said, mentioning his sister, Maya, who was born in Jakarta, and his mother’s years in Southeast Asia. “So the Pacific Rim has helped shape my view of the world.”

He mentioned his love for Japanese ice cream, thanking Prime Minister Yukio Hatoyama for serving his favored childhood treat at a dinner Friday night. He even offered “greetings and gratitude to the citizens of Obama, Japan.”

The speech was notably short on new initiatives toward Asia. Instead, the president emphasized that the future of U.S. prosperity is irreversibly tied to the dynamic economies of the region. “The fortunes of America and the Asia Pacific have become more closely linked than ever before,” Obama said. “So I want every American to know that we have a stake in the future of this region, because what happens here has a direct effect on our lives at home.”

Obama singled out China as a primary engine for sustaining the world’s economic recovery, saying the United States welcomes Beijing’s greater role on the world stage and intends to “pursue pragmatic cooperation with China on issues of mutual concern.”

“So the United States does not seek to contain China, nor does a deeper relationship with China mean a weakening of our bilateral alliances,” Obama said. “On the contrary, the rise of a strong, prosperous China can be a source of strength for the community of nations.”

Obama said the United States and China “will not agree on every issue” — he mentioned religious freedom and human rights — but added that the two countries should move “forward in a spirit of partnership rather than rancor.”

To keep the nascent economic recovery going, Obama said the United States and the countries of East Asia need to make fundamental changes in their respective economies — with Americans saving more, spending less and increasing exports, while Asians spend more on housing and infrastructure and also increase their standard of living.

“We have now reached one of those rare inflection points in history where we have the opportunity to take a different path,” Obama said. “One of the important lessons this recession has taught us is the limits of depending primarily on American consumers and Asian exports to drive growth.”

In an earlier news conference, Obama addressed what has become a serious sticking point in U.S.-Japanese relations, saying he expects Tokyo to implement its 2006 agreement to allow a U.S. Marine air station in Okinawa to be relocated on the island.

Hatoyama, who took office in September, has suggested that Futenma Air Station be moved off Okinawa or even outside the country. Hatoyama’s position was bluntly rejected last month by Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates.

The two countries agreed earlier in the week to form a high-level working group on the air station.

Obama said the two governments shared a common goal of providing for “the defense of Japan with minimal intrusion on the lives of the people who share this space.”

But a White House official traveling with the president emphasized that the working group would not reopen or renegotiate the three-year-old deal on restructuring U.S. forces in Japan.

——

The Chinese are ‘changing us’
Rising global power is reshaping the way Americans do business and live their lives.

By John Pomfret
Washington Post Staff Writer
Saturday, November 14, 2009

WAUSAU, WIS. — In a cavernous warehouse amid rolling hills and dairy farms, a group of farmers recently gathered around a buyer in a conversation heralding a sea change in the United States.

“I don’t think you Americans get it,” said the buyer, dressed casually in designer brands and sporting a watch worth as much as the mud-splattered GM trucks in the parking lot outside. “We need quality. We demand quality. Top quality. If you work with me, we can win together. But if you don’t, there’s nothing I can do.”

Being harangued by a pharmaceutical company executive from China was new for these burly farmers, but no one complained. These tough men from the American Midwest treated their Chinese guest as a savior of sorts, in an important economic and cultural reality that will confront President Obama on his first visit to China, starting Sunday.

On visits to Shanghai and Beijing, Obama will encounter not simply a rising global power but a nation that is transforming and challenging the way Americans live overseas and at home, from college classrooms to real estate offices to the ginseng farms of central Wisconsin.

Americans have been selling Panax quinquefolius to China since 1784 when the first China-bound trading ship sailed from New York to Canton, today’s Guangzhou, weighed down with 30 tons of the root, prized in Asia for medicinal properties. But today the U.S. ginseng industry, centered here in Wisconsin, is on its back, kicked down by bogus imitations from Chinese competitors and state-subsidized crops from Canada.

Twenty years ago, 1,500 farmers grew ginseng in Wisconsin for the China market; now the number is down to 150. Prices have dropped from $60 a pound to $24. The farmers around the ginseng barrels on this rainy fall night looked for an answer from Chun Yu, a Chinese businessman dangling his company’s chain of 1,000 retail stores throughout China as the ultimate prize.

“Years ago, it didn’t matter what we grew. They bought everything we had,” said Randy Ross, a 54-year-old former dairy farmer who has been growing ginseng since 1978. “Now we’ve got to learn how to satisfy them. They are changing us.”

Catching China fever:

While it’s not exactly the People’s Republic of Wisconsin, this state has been seized with a China fever of sorts. Throughout the United States, old notions of China have been replaced with a deeper understanding that China is a force that must be reckoned with. Hate it or love it, China is a major player in American life.

China is now Wisconsin’s (and the country’s) third-biggest export market, buying more American soybeans, oil seeds, hides and animal skins, raw cotton, copper, nonferrous metals, wood pulp, semiconductors and miscellaneous chicken parts (a.k.a. chicken feet) than anyone else.

At the University of Wisconsin, as at college campuses across the United States, mainland Chinese dominate the study of science and technology and form the backbone of the engineering, chemistry and pharmacy departments. They receive twice as many doctorates in this country as students from India, the next-closest foreign competitor. And among foreigners, they register by far the most patents in the United States.

Chinese investors have snapped up pieces of distressed real estate in Milwaukee, as they have in other crumbling Midwestern industrial cities, not to mention in Florida, California and Arizona. Last year, a group from Germantown, Md., and China bought an empty mall on Milwaukee’s depressed northwest side for $6 million, down from its $8 million list price. In July, a Chinese steelmaker bought 54 acres in an industrial park off Interstate 94 between Milwaukee and Chicago.

A team of Midwestern businessmen, including the former CIA station chief in Beijing, has recently established, in cooperation with the Department of Homeland Security, a special zone in Wisconsin that would grant U.S. citizenship in exchange for a $1 million investment.

Meanwhile, in a state that has lost more than 160,000 (or one-third) of its manufacturing jobs in a decade, local newspapers have been running editorials praising the People’s Republic and blasting those who oppose closer trade ties or Chinese investment. “China is a friend to Wisconsin and its businesses, not an enemy in a trade war,” the Wisconsin State Journal said in an editorial.

Seeking out business:

Wisconsin’s governor, Jim Doyle (D), has been to China to promote Wisconsin three times since he took office in 2003. When he first went, he said, fellow governors in other states worried about the appearance of an American governor going to China seeking business. Now, it’s commonplace. More than 14 of his counterparts have visited China in the past two years.

“China is incredibly important to us,” he said in an interview. “Even in these difficult times, some of the industries getting by are the ones selling to China. If we didn’t have the Chinese, we would have been in much, much tougher shape.”

One of those firms is Bucyrus International, based in South Milwaukee, which has exported coal-mining equipment to China since trade relations were opened in the 1970s. In the past three years, it has doubled its workforce, in part because of the China trade.

“We were still skeptical seven or eight years ago that these guys were for real,” said Bucyrus chief executive Tim Sullivan. “Now we know.”

The boosterism about China sometimes reaches a fever pitch. One of the businessmen who helped set up the special investment zone, Robert Kraft, said China in the future will do what the Germans did for Milwaukee in the past. “The Chinese are coming,” Kraft said in a telephone interview from China, where he was scouting for Chinese investors. “We’re just trying to get a piece of it for Wisconsin.”

“The Chinese Are Coming” was the title of a session in late September in Baltimore at the annual meeting of the National Association for College Admission Counseling. There educators spoke about skyrocketing numbers of Chinese high school graduates applying for admission at U.S. colleges. That’s new. For the last 20 years, Chinese have been at or near the top of the number of foreign students in the United States — but most were in grad school. In all, about 89,000 are currently in the United States, according the Chinese Embassy.

China has also helped establish 61 Confucius Institutes across the United States, including one in Wisconsin, to teach Chinese and undertake “cultural dialogues,” the embassy said.

At the University of Wisconsin in Madison, Chinese undergraduates now account for more than half of the 1,109 Chinese students there. That increase is another sign that China is coming because Wisconsin, like many state schools, doesn’t provide scholarships for international undergrads. Last year, Chinese students paid out $2 billion in tuition nationwide. “That money is keeping some American colleges alive,” said Laurie Cox, who runs the international student center at the Madison campus.

“Every time I turn around, another campus has signed a memorandum of understanding with another Chinese university,” said Kevin Reilly, the president of the university’s 26 campuses. Reilly recently joined Doyle on a trip to China. “I came away thinking, if the 20th century was the American century . . . you have to believe that the 21st century will be the Chinese century.”

Difficulties and disputes:

Wisconsin is not immune to troubles with China. For years, until they were stopped in 2004, two Chinese nationals used Milwaukee as a base from which they exported restricted electronics and computer chips to Chinese institutes that make missiles.

Quality problems with China’s imports have also bedeviled Wisconsin firms — as they have American consumers who purchased deadly pet food, lead-laden toys, and defective drywall that is believed to have rendered thousands of homes in the South almost uninhabitable.

One Wisconsin company, Scientific Protein Laboratories, was in the center of a supply chain making the blood-thinner heparin.

Hundreds of allergic reactions to the drug, including 81 reported deaths, led to a nationwide recall that was linked to tainted raw materials from China in 2007 and 2008.

These days Wisconsin is at the center of a new trade dispute with China. Appleton Coated of Kimberly was one of three paper companies to join with the United Steelworkers to file a petition with the government alleging that China was dumping certain types of paper products in the U.S. market. On Nov. 6, the U.S. International Trade Commission decided to investigate allegations of unfair subsidies.

Jon Geenan, international vice president for the United Steelworkers, grew up near the Kimberly plant. He estimates that Chinese and Indonesian imports have cost the state more than 5,000 jobs in its paper mills. That means dozens of foreclosed homes and hundreds of people who are behind on their property taxes. “Even the churches say that donations are down,” he said. “They are definitely challenging the way we live.”

In Marathon County, where the glaciated soil makes for a bitter ginseng, the way many Chinese like it, Yu, the ginseng buyer, appears content with his new role as big shot. He recently met Gov. Doyle and signed a deal to become China’s exclusive importer of Wisconsin’s prized root. “But only if the quality is good,” he said. “The student has become the teacher!”

Close to the departure of President Obama on his all-important trip to Asia with stops in Tokyo November 12th, Singapore November 13-15, Shanghai November 15th, Beijing November 16-18, and Seoul November 18-19, the Japan Society has planned co-incidentally the event we are reporting about here.

Japan is the only original OECD member in Asia, as such Japan clearly feels justifiably it is a US prime partner in Asia. It also was clearly instrumental in nailing down the 1987 Kyoto Protocol to The Framework Convention on Climate Change, and hopes that this material will continue to be the base for future climate negotiations. That was the basis for having co-organized and hosted  the following meeting – November 10th.

————-

Copenhagen & Beyond: A Multilateral Debate about Climate Change Policy.
Green Japan Series
Tuesday, November 10, 2009 at the Japan Society, New York.

The positions and participation of Japan, China and the United States in any successor treaty to the Kyoto Protocol will help determine its success or failure. In a Tuesday November 10, 2009 panel, at the Japan Society, New York, Masayoshi Arai, Director, JETRO New York, Special Advisor, Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry (METI); The Honorable Zhenmin Liu, Ambassador Extraordinary and Deputy Permanent Representative of China to the United Nations; Elliot Diringer, Vice President, International Strategies, Pew Center on Global Climate Change; and Takao Shibata, chair of the working group that drafted the Kyoto Protocol, debated the direction of international climate change policy.

It was Moderated by Jim Efstathiou, Correspondent, Bloomberg News, and co-organized by the Carnegie Council for Ethics in International Affairs

————–

Takao Shibata, who is now a Chancellor Lecturer at the University of Kansas and Japan Consul General in Kansas City,mentioed that Japan is ready to commit to a 2020 reduction of 25% in emissions provided that there is FAIR and EFFECTIVE agreement with a VIGUROUS COMPLIANCE agreement as part of it. He stressed that the problem with Kyoto was that there was no compliance paragraph in the Protocol. All it said was that we postpone decision.

The OBJECTIVE must be: THE STABILIZATION OF CO2 CONCENTRATION IN THE ATMOSPHERE rather then fighting over figures of temperature increase or concentrations in parts per milion numbers. We have already a Framework he said – the Copenhagen process should be about STABILIZATION. Later he added that we must at least agree to a 2050 position.

Mr. Masayoshi Arai, who is in New York since June 2009, with The Japaese External Trade Organization (JETRO), after having held 16 positions within Japan Government, includingthe Prime Minister’s task force that created the Japan Consumer Protection Agency, and with The Fair Trade Commission and Agency for Natural Resouces and Energy and its Research Institute, Supervised manufacturing industries in their CO2 emissions reduction, and has also an MBA from Wharton, probably because of his present government trade position, was rather careful in what he said. He said that we ned something “meaningful”  for global warming  and left the Japanese point of view to Professor Shibata.

————-

Eliot Diringer whose organization, the Washington based Pew Center, is a link between Environmentalism, industry and government made it clear that what is lacking is a legal architecture in place to deal with the problems created by climate change to which now Professor Shibata answered on the spot that the history is such that already in Berlin, later in Kyoto, the US was against a legal concept – that is a clear 15 year old problem. In Kyoto, the US Vice President came to seal the Protocol in full knowledge that it is unratifiable in Washington. Shibata does not want a repeat of this with a US that is in no position to ratify an agreement.

Diringer came back with the suggestion that he can see that Developing countries will accept self prescribed domestic reductions and will request an agreement that makes this possible for them to do so. That means a new FRAMEWORK that is more flexible then the original.

—————

Ambassador Zhenmin Liu, Deputy Permanent Representative of China to the UN in New York since 2006, in charge of China’s participation on the Second Committee at the UN, with prior experience at the UN in Geneva and as Director-General of the Treaty and Law Department of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs has been involved in Climate Change negotiations for China. He was actually the only member of the panel entitled to express a national negotiating position, and he did indeed come through.

Ambassador Liu said that he cannot have now a document to replace Kyoto – this lines him up with what might be a Japanese interest, but clearly is no answer to the problems that were pointed out at why Kyoto was a failure.

But then he also said that you need a GLOBAL CAP for the GHG emissions that must then take into account, when talking about individual nations, their level of industrialization.

A certain raport evolved between him and Washingtonian Diringer.

It was agreed that there is the need for Technology Innovation, Technology Cooperation, and Technology Transfer.

Diringer said that China is very well positioning itself for the green technology economy. People in the US start to understand that the US will lose the competition for future technology and there must be a start for support in US Congress for energy action right now.

These exchanges gave me an opening to ask mty question about what goes on right now – the days that President Obama plans for his trip to Asia with a long stopover in China.

I started my question to ambassador Liu by saying that on the internet there is a lot of talk about a G-2 US-China agreement needed to jump start the Copenhagen negotiations, and I saw visually the Ambassador cringe.  to this idea of a G-2. I continued by asking that what can we expect as an outcome from the meetings in Beijing if there is anything he could tell us as we believe that some concluding material was negotiated prior to the deision for this trip considering tha this is in effect the second meeting between the leaders?

I was honored with a long answer that included several main points.

The first point is that the US has accepted Kyoto and I guess China does not want to renegotiate Kyoto.

Then, China has 20% of the world population the US only 5%, but China has only a fraction of the GDP per capita then the US, so there is no G-2 situation here. That must have been the reason for the cringing – China does not want to lose its place as leader of the underdeveloped nations.

Secondly – this is not a US – China negotiation but a negotiation for all groups.

Thirdly, there is place for clean energy cooperation, bilateral programs and projects – to jointly use clean technology.

——-

Professor Shibata added that we talk of the atmosphere where there are no national boundaries. We talk of sovereign areas only on the surface of the earth – and we must realize that the effects turn up in the air and we have no national control of the air.

Further, he said that in the west when something bad happens, the first thing we do is we sue the polluter – ask him to pay. He continued saying “I would encourage everyone to think about that.”

Mr. Diringer added that the CDM was introduced to harness market forces to get reduction of CO2 emissions at lowes cost.

——-

To summarize – it was nice for Japan to try to host a US-China debate before moves that will inevitably have to bring the US and China closer together. To follow up – let us look at President Obama’s itinerary to get further in depth to what a reorientation of the US towards Asia could mean.

Japan, South Korea, and China are trying to form an East Asia Trilateral grouping with a Free Trade Agreement among the three countries. Obviously, this will open the Chinese market to Japan and Korea and there is no way for the US, with its own effective NAFTA agreement with Canada and Mexico. Japan wants thus perhaps more then just be a pivot in US – Chiba negotiations, it rather has also to make sure that it can hold on to its own agreements with both main countries. President Obama has thus quite a few non-climate topics to talk about in his Yokyo and Seoul stops.

The second big stop is in Singapore where he will meet the 21 members of APEC: Australia, Brunei Darussalam, Canada, Chile, China, Hong Kong (part of China), Indonesia, Japan,  Korea, Malaysia, Mexico, New Zealand, Papua New Guinea, Peru, The Philippines, Russia, Singapore, Chinese Taipei (Taiwan), Thailand, The United States, and Viet Nam. This will be the reintroduction of the US to the Pacific region in general – an area that the locals contend was totally neglected by the US in the eight years of the Bush administration. A main point in this meeting will be to help redirect the participating economies from export to the US to supply to their local populations – this so that they help both areas – their own and the US economy as well.

Will they also consult on whom to back for the job of UN Secretary-General in 2010? That is about the time to start this sort of negotiations, and Singapore seems to be the right place to look for the best viable candidate.

Eventually, the Third leg of the trip – the stops  in China – will have to be the clear main target of the trip – as said here by Ambassador Liu, the business deals in clean energy that can underpin both economies  (US and China) so they become an example for cooperation on climate change that presents direct benefits to economies looking for sustainable growth, that is a match to the needs of the people and the climate as well -  this is what we call Sustainable Development that is mutual – for the newly industrializing nation and for the phasing out of the old polluting industries of the past.

——————

for information from President Obama’s Asian trip we recommend:

www.ft.com/obamainasia 

www.ft.com/rachmanblog