Sustainabilitank » Bangladesh

It is official – 2000s Warmest Decade – Global Warming is Man-made and Cancun will be a bust or – in order to avoid this – the start of the implementation of moves initiated in Copenhagen by a smaller group of representatives. Big Business in Washington guarantees to try to interfere.

Pincas Jawetz — Thu, 29 Jul 2010 13:02:28 +0000

WORLD NEWS – JULY 29, 2010
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB40001424…

Climate report shows Earth has heated up over 50 years.

Which in the printed Wall Street version was rechristened – “CLIMATE STUDY CITES 2000 as WARMEST DECADE.” This appropriate to the US inward look of New York, while the above title is clear better positioned for the world at large -

By GAUTAM NAIK

A new assessment concludes that the Earth has been getting warmer over the past 50 years and the past decade was the warmest on record.

The State of the Climate 2009 report, published Wednesday as a special supplement to the Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, was compiled by 300 scientists from 48 countries and drew on measures of 10 crucial climate indicators.

Seven of the indicators were rising, including air temperature over land, sea-surface temperature, sea level, ocean heat and humidity. Three indicators were declining, including Arctic sea ice, glaciers and spring snow cover in the Northern Hemisphere.

“Each indicator is changing as we’d expect in a warming world,” said Peter Thorne, senior researcher at the Cooperative Institute for Climate and Satellites, a research consortium based in College Park, Md., who was involved in compiling the report.

The report’s conclusions broadly match those of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, a United Nations body, which published its last set of findings in 2007. The IPCC report contained some errors, which further stoked the debate about the existence, causes and effects of global warming.

The new report incorporates data from the past few years that weren’t included in the last IPCC assessment. While the IPCC report concluded that evidence for human-caused global warming was “unequivocal” and was linked to emissions of greenhouse gases, the latest report didn’t seek to address the issue.

The report “doesn’t try to make the link” between climate change and what might be causing it, said Tom Karl, an official at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration involved in the new assessment.

The report said, “Global average surface and lower-troposphere temperatures during the last three decades have been progressively warmer than all earlier decades, and the 2000s (2000-09) was the warmest decade in the instrumental record.” The troposphere is the lowest layer of the atmosphere.

The scientists reported that they were surprised to find Greenland’s glaciers were losing ice at an accelerating rate. They also concluded that 90% of planetary warming over the past 50 years has gone into the oceans. Most of it had accumulated in near-surface layers, home to phytoplankton, tiny plants crucial to virtually all life in the sea.

A new study has found that rising sea temperature may have had a harmful effect on global concentrations of phytoplankton over the past century.

—————————–

BUT THE WALL STREET JOURNAL IS VERY ANEMIC ON CONTENT OF ABOVE NEWS – IF YOU WANT TO KNOW WHAT REALLY HAPPENED, AS MOSTLY ALMOST – GO TO THE FINANCIAL TIMES. HERE YOU FIND FIONA HARVEY’S FULL ARTICLE – SHE CONTRIBUTES TO THE EDITORIAL SECTION AS WELL. YOU WILL BE IN THE CLEAR ABOUT THE MACHINATIONS IN WASHINGTON AS WELL.

You will also see there the Washington rot as in the following: “Myron Ebell, of the Competitive Enterprise Institute in the US, formerly in charge of energy with the powerful CSIS, said the new report would not change people’s minds. “It’s clear that the scientific case for global warming alarmism is weak. The scientific case for [many of the claims] is unsound and we are finding out all the time how unsound it is.”

You will find that there was no doubt about the implication that it is humans who did it except in the words of that outspoken minority of industry lobbyists that hold power over Washington.

————————–
http://blogs.ft.com/energy-source/author…

NOAA finds “human fingerprints” on climate

July 28th, 2010 by Fiona Harvey

A report from the NOAA in the US has found that data from ten key climate indicators all point to the same finding: the scientific evidence that our world is warming is unmistakable.

It is the first major piece of new research since the “Climategate” scandals.

It found that, relying on data from multiple sources, each indicator proved consistent with a warming world. Seven indicators are rising: air temperature over land, sea-surface temperature, marine air temperature, sea level, ocean heat, humidity, and tropospheric temperature in the “active-weather” layer of the atmosphere closest to the earth’s surface. Three indicators are declining: Arctic sea ice, glaciers and spring snow cover in the northern hemisphere.

Read the full report here:

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/bams-state-of-the-climate.

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/6d1fd25c-9a69-…

Research says climate change undeniable

By Fiona Harvey, Environment Correspondent

Published: July 28 2010 – print and on-line.

International scientists have injected fresh evidence into the debate over global warming, saying that climate change is “undeniable” and shows clear signs of “human fingerprints” in the first major piece of research since the “Climategate” controversy.

The research, headed by the US National Oceans and Atmospheric Administration, is based on new data not available for the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report of 2007, the target of attacks by sceptics in recent years.

FURTHER EDITOR’S CHOICE:

New climate data reignite debate – Jul-28

NOAA study – Jul-28

CBI attacks plan to tighten emissions targets – Jul-28

Energy Source: US renewables no longer priority – Jul-28

Clive Crook: Action on carbon is down the drain – Jul-25

The NOAA study drew on up to 11 different indicators of climate, and found that each one pointed to a world that was warming owing to the influence of greenhouse gases, said Peter Stott, head of climate monitoring at the UK’s Met Office, one of the agencies participating.

Seven indicators were rising, he said. These were: air temperature over land, sea-surface temperature, marine air temperature, sea level, ocean heat, humidity, and tropospheric temperature in the “active-weather” layer of the atmosphere closest to the earth’s surface. Four indicators were declining: Arctic sea ice, glaciers, spring snow cover in the northern hemisphere, and stratospheric temperatures.

Mr Stott said: “The whole of the climate system is acting in a way consistent with the effects of greenhouse gases.” “The fingerprints are clear,” he said. “The glaringly obvious explanation for this is warming from greenhouse gases.”

Some scientists hailed the study as a refutation of the claims made by climate sceptics during the “Climategate” saga. Those scandals involved accusations – some since proven correct – of flaws in the IPCC’s landmark 2007 report, and the release of hundreds of emails from climate scientists that appeared to show them distorting certain data.

“This confirms that while all of this [Climategate] was going on, the earth was continuing to warm. It shows that Climategate was a distraction, because it took the focus off what the science actually says,” said Bob Ward, policy director of the Grantham Institute at the London School of Economics.

But the report nonetheless remained the target of scorn for sceptics.

Myron Ebell, of the Competitive Enterprise Institute in the US, said the new report would not change people’s minds. “It’s clear that the scientific case for global warming alarmism is weak. The scientific case for [many of the claims] is unsound and we are finding out all the time how unsound it is.”

Pat Michaels, a prominent climate sceptic, ex-professor of environmental sciences and fellow of the Cato Institute in the US, said the NOAA study and other evidence suggested that the computerised climate models had overestimated the sensitivity of the earth’s temperature to carbon dioxide. This would mean that the earth could warm a little under the influence of greenhouse gases, but not by as much as the IPCC and others have predicted.

“I think it is the lack of frankness about this that emerged with Climategate, and that seems to continue [that make people doubt the findings],” he said.

Steve Goddard, a blogger, said the conclusion that the first half of 2010 showed a record high temperature was “based on incorrect, fabricated data” because the researchers involved did not have access to much information on Arctic temperatures.

David Herro, the financier, who follows climate science as a hobby, said NOAA also “lacks credibility”.

But Jane Lubchenco, the administrator of NOAA, said the study found that the average temperature in the world had increased by 0.56° C (1° F) over the past 50 years. The rise “may seem small, but it has already altered our planet … Glaciers and sea ice are melting, heavy rainfall is intensifying, and heat waves are more common.”

——————————————————-
http://planetark.org/wen/58965

Developing Nations See Cancun Climate Deal Tough.

Date: 29-Jul-10
Country: MEXICO
Author: Brian Ellsworth

Reaching a binding climate deal at the upcoming U.N. conference in Mexico will likely be difficult, delegates from a group of developing nations said on Monday, spurring further doubts about a global climate accord this year.

Environment ministers from Brazil, South Africa, India and China — known as the BASIC group — meeting in Rio de Janeiro said developed nations have not done enough to cut their own emissions or help poor countries reduce theirs.

Delays by the United States and Australia in implementing schemes to cut carbon emissions has added to gloomy sentiment about possible results from the Cancun meeting.

“If by the time we get to Cancun (U.S. senators) still have not completed the legislation then clearly we will get less than a legally binding outcome,” said Buyelwa Sonjica, South Africa’s Water and Environment Affairs minister.

“For us that is a concern, and we’re very realistic about the fact that we may not” complete a legally binding accord, she said.

BASIC nations held deliberations on Sunday and Monday about upcoming climate talks, but the representatives said those talks did not yield a specific proposal on emissions reductions to be presented at the Cancun meeting.

“I think we’re all a bit wiser after Copenhagen, our expectations for Cancun are realistic — we cannot expect any miracles,” said Indian Environment Minister Jairam Ramesh.

He added that countries have failed to make good on promises for $30 billion in “fast track” financing for emissions reduction programs in poor countries.

“The single most important reason why it is going to be difficult is the inability of the developed countries to bring clarity on the financial commitments which they have undertaken in the Copenhagen Accord,” he said.

Hopes for a global treaty on cutting carbon emissions to slow global warming were dealt a heavy blow last year when rich and poor nations were unable to agree on a legally binding mechanism to reduce global carbon emissions.

More than 100 countries backed a nonbinding accord agreed in Copenhagen last year to limit global warming to below 2 degrees Celsius (3.6 Fahrenheit) above pre-industrial times, but it did not spell out how this should be achieved.

The U.S. Senate on Thursday postponed an effort to pass broad legislation to combat climate change until September at the earliest, vastly reducing the possibility of such legislation being ready before the Cancun conference begins in December.

Australia has delayed a carbon emissions trading scheme until 2012 under heavy political pressure on from industries that rely heavily on coal for their energy.

The U.N.’s climate agency has detailed contingency options if the world cannot agree a successor to the Kyoto Protocol, whose present round expires in 2012 with no new deal in sight. {But the article does not spell them out and we wonder if they are any different from what we suggested – moving the deliberations away from the UNFCCC – to a much smaller group of Nations modeled along the lines on the evolving G20 with a united EU and a representation of AOSIS/SIDS and Highest suffering countries like Bangladesh on-board,}

Kyoto placed carbon emissions caps on nearly 40 developed countries from 2008-2012. {But Left out any responsibilities for the remaining countries including the above BRICS. Copenhagen was a success in the sense that it made it clear that the BRICS must be part of any agreement if it is going to happen – so, in this trspect, at Copenhagen there was progress – the first time since the beginning of the negotiations within UNFCCC.}

———————

The comments in green are those made by us – the editor of www.SustainabiliTank.info
WE ARE OPTIMISTS NEVERTHELESS AND WE HOPE THAT WITH THE UN-BASED SMILES FROM THE UN HEADQUARTERS IN NEW YORK, OUT OF THE WAY, A MORE ATUNNED CHRISTIANA FIGUERES WILL INDEED COME UP WITH A MORE MANAGEABLE DEBATE.

From the Wikipedia: Karen Christiana Figueres Olsen (born August 7, 1956) was appointed Executive Secretary of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) on 17 May 2010, succeeding Yvo de Boer^[1] ^[2]. She had been a member of the Costa Rican negotiating team since 1995, involved in both UNFCCC^[3] and Kyoto Protocol^[4] negotiations. She has contributed to the design of key climate change instruments.^[5] She is a prime promoter of Latin America’s active participation in the Convention,^[6] a frequent public speaker,^[7] and a widely published author.^[8] She won the Hero for the Planet award in 2001.^[9]

For Latin America, in the BASIC group, speaks Brazil which has created for itself the image of an oil-rich country. This might create further difficulties for Ms. Figueres and we do not yet say that Brazil steaked out a final position for Cancun. In effect, the October 3, 2010 elections will have brought to the fore-front a new President for Brazil and we are yet to see his or her position.

The Upcoming Clean Energy Major Ministerial Washington DC Conference – July 19-20, 2010 – The David Sandalow Press Conference – The Meeting is for 80% OF THE GLOBAL ENERGY MARKET – and not for the Whole World. This might actually be good if the meeting were a little smaller and if it leads to actions.

Pincas Jawetz — Sat, 17 Jul 2010 01:12:15 +0000

Assistant Secretary of Energy for Policy & International Affairs David Sandalow.

TOPIC: Upcoming Clean Energy Ministerial July 19-20^th

This is written on the basis of a US Department of State Press Conference – Thursday, July 15, 2010.

————

This article follows our posting of July 14, 2010:

The Major 17 Economies were joined by Bangladesh, Denmark, Barbados, Ethiopia, Singapore and the UAE at the recent Rome meeting – to be followed by a July 19-20, 2010 Washington DC Meeting on Clean Energy – all this to build a program for Cancun. Posted on Sustainabilitank.info on July 14th, 2010 by Pincas Jawetz ( PJ at SustainabiliTank.com)

We said at the time that the July 19 – 20, 2010 Washington DC Ministerial meeting will be a sequel – now we are convonced that is actually a different kind of meeting and I do not think that its eyes will be towards Cancun.

———–

The Department of Energy’s Assistant Secretary for Policy and International Affairs, David Sandalow, gave a background briefing and answered questions on the web regarding the importance of the upcoming Washington DC – Clean Energy Ministerial meeting. He discussed Energy Secretary Chu’s hopes on what will be accomplished.

The following countries will be represented: Australia, Belgium, Brazil, Canada, China, Denmark, the European Commission, Finland, France, Germany, India, Italy, Korea, Japan, Mexico, Norway, the Russian Federation, Spain, South Africa, Sweden, the U.A.E. and the U.K.

This list excludes Indonesia from the Major Economies Forum which are 16 + The EU and then at their Rome meeting of June 30 – July 1, 2010, added on Ministers from a variety of representative smaller economies: Bangladesh, Denmark, Barbados, Ethiopia, Singapore, UAE.

This list includes in addition to the EU also all The Scandinavian States: Denmark, Norway, Spain and Sweden. As well it includes Belgium and Spain. It does not include Bangladesh, Barbados, Ethiopia, Singapore which were part of the meeting of June 30 – July 1, 2010 but it does include from that meeting Denmark that was a participant because of its hosting the Copenhagen meeting, and the UAE that seemingly represents the oil exporting countries.

The Washington meeting includes also Belgium because by now they have become the half year Presidents of the EU for July 1 till December 31, 2010, and it retains Spain that held this position during the first half of 2010. To top this there is also an actual EU delegation at the table besides the temporary Presidents. We assume that this delegation is there because Malta, Cyprus and other EU delegations are not there. Place was also found for all major four Scandinavian Countries – Denmark, Finland, Norway, Sweden – surely nice people all of them.

I write all of this in order to say that some better way has to be found on how to treat the EU and the World, when the Obama Administration wants indeed to show that it is serious about climate change by inviting just the large emitters that total 80% of the global emissions, or, if intent to bring in also some small representation of the small countries, that do not have substantial emissions, but proportionately are going to bear a major part of the suffering, the Rome initiative of having present also Bangladesh, Barbados and Ethiopia would have been just fine – and the total figure would have been then 16 + 1 (the EU) + 3 (this for Bangladesh, Barbados, Ethiopia) and it obviously would have included as part of the 16 also Indonesia.

For more information, the link to the website is: http://cleanenergyministerial.org/

——————-

At question time I asked from Mr. Sandalow why is Indonesia not at the meeting, and why was the symbolic, but important participation of the small number of really very small economies dropped?

The answer was that Indonesia said they are not coming because they participate at that time at a South Asia meeting. The fact that the small economies were dropped is “because this is for the large energy markets – for 80% of the ENERGY MARKET and not for the whole world.” THE IDEA IS COME UP WITH ACTIONS TO PROMOTE CLEAN ENERGY, he said.

It would have been easier to accept that answer had the US also kept out the additional 6 EU States that were not among the original 16 + EU. We also would like to ask why UAE – though we think that they clearly are a better choice then Saudi Arabia – but still not exactly your ideal partner when you try to disengage from oil even though they do in effect – as holders of serious financial reserves – also participate in the financial benefits from looking for a cleaner future.

The above, because after Copenhagen we hoped for the involvement of business interests in order to create the working alternative to the Kyoto process – the interest of business in going green. For this to be effective one must have at the table mainly the real big emitters who indeed coincide with the biggest economies.

We thought that amounted to the maximum of 16 and – under EU conditions – just one more chair for the EU. Now there will be 23 chairs at the Washington table. The higher number decreasing the chance for success.

Monday, July 19, 2010 at 9am there will be an open press conference when the meeting starts.

The Major 17 Economies were joined by Bangladesh, Denmark, Barbados, Ethiopia, Singapore and the UAE at the recent Rome meeting – to be followed by a July 19-20, 2010 Washington DC Meeting on Clean Energy – all this to build a program for Cancun.

Pincas Jawetz — Wed, 14 Jul 2010 14:49:51 +0000

Major Economies Forum on Energy and Climate Discusses Advancing Agreement at COP 16

1 July 2010: The seventh Meeting at the Leaders’ representative level of the Major Economies Forum on Energy and Climate took place in Rome, Italy, from 30 June-1 July 2010.

The meeting was attended by representatives from the 17 major economies, UN officials, and representatives from Bangladesh, Denmark, Barbados, Ethiopia, Singapore and the United Arab Emirates.

Participants discussed various issues related to the international climate change negotiations and, according to the Chair’s Summary, they emphasized the importance of quickly implementing the Copenhagen Accord’s fast-start financing provisions, highlighting that maximum clarity and transparency will build international confidence and be an essential part of a balanced outcome of the 16th session of the Conference of the Parties to the UNFCCC (COP 16) to be held Cancun, Mexico, in late 2010.

Participants exchanged ideas on Annex I Parties mitigation and support. They also addressed non-Annex I Parties mitigation, highlighting that it should be party-driven, non-politicized, have a “multilateral anchor” and be based on national communications. Participants discussed whether the targets and actions included in the Copenhagen Accord may be reflected in a future outcome and whether such outcome will be legally binding and contained in a single instrument or two. Extensive discussion focused on progress on measuring, reporting and verification (MRV) at COP 16 with regard to: Annex I Parties mitigation; financial and technological support of non-Annex I Parties mitigation; and non-Annex I Parties mitigation. Participants also emphasized the need to focus adaptation efforts on vulnerable countries.

Follow-up meetings were also announced, including: a Clean Energy Ministerial meeting to be held from 19-20 July 2010, in Washington, DC, US, to follow up on the Technology Action Plans of the Global Partnership launched by G-8 leaders in L’Aquila, Italy, in 2009; and a ministerial meeting on technology to be co-hosted by Mexico and India from 8-9 November 2010.
[Co-Chair's Summary] [Major Economies Forum website]

——–

The Major Economies Forum on Energy and Climate (MEF) was launched on March 28, 2009.

The MEF is intended to facilitate a candid dialogue among major developed and developing economies, help generate the political leadership necessary to achieve a successful outcome at the December UN climate change conference in Copenhagen, and advance the exploration of concrete initiatives and joint ventures that increase the supply of clean energy while cutting greenhouse gas emissions.

The 17 major economies participating in the MEF are: Australia, Brazil, Canada, China, the European Union, France, Germany, India, Indonesia, Italy, Japan, Korea, Mexico, Russia, South Africa, the United Kingdom, and the United States. That is 16 + EU + Denmark as host to the Copenhagen Meeting.

Denmark, in its capacity as the President of the December 2009 Conference of the Parties to the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change, and the United Nations have also been invited to participate in this dialogue.

An Agressive Ahmedi-Nejad speaks at the meeting of the Islamic scholars of the summit of the “Developing Eight” – a group of countries with large Muslim populations – that includes: Bangladesh, Egypt, Indonesia, Iran, Malaysia, Nigeria, Pakistan and Turkey. Turkish President Abdullah Gul was in attendance.

Pincas Jawetz — Sat, 10 Jul 2010 17:56:34 +0000

HOLOCAUST A CONFLATED SCAM TO CONFISCATE PALESTINIAN LAND – PURPORTS AHMADINEJAD.

10 July 2010, The San Francisco Sentinel.

Haaretz

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad questioned the historic dimensions of the Holocaust but rejected the label of an anti-Semite, the Fars news agency reported Friday.

“The West made a claim – about the Holocaust – and urges all the people in the world to accept it or otherwise go to prison,” Ahmadinejad told a group of Islamic scholars Thursday in Nigeria, where he attended a summit of the Developing Eight, a group of countries with large Muslim populations.

»Don’t miss The June 15 Condemnation Of Israel – The Worldwide Ignorance – The San Francisco Board Of Supervisors – The Sentinel Opinion

“The West allows everybody to question prophets and even God but not to pose a simple question and open the black box of a historic event,” he charged.

Ahmadinejad had earlier sparked international fury by calling for the eradication of Israel from the Middle East and its relocation to Europe or North America and by describing the murders of 6 million European Jews by Germany’s Nazi regime as a “fairy tale.”

He said Thursday that the Holocaust was an excuse for Israel and the West to take land away from millions of Palestinians and give it to Israel.

Iran does not recognize Israel and maintains that a referendum by all Palestinians, including refugees, and Jews should decide the future fate of a Palestinian state.

“We are after a diplomatic settlement through a referendum, but they [the West] say Ahmadinejad wants to kill people and is an anti-Semite,” the Iranian president said.

“No, this is wrong,” he added. “I love all Muslims, Christians and Jews. What I dislike are the Zionists, which are a party that has availed itself of the Holocaust as an excuse to establish the illegitimate state of Israel.”

The West fears the political differences between Iran and Israel might lead to a military confrontation between the two countries.

The international concern has increased amid fears that Iran might be using its nuclear program to make an atomic bomb.

Iran possesses 2,000-kilometer range missiles capable of targeting any part of Israel.

Tehran has said it has no secret nuclear projects and all its military capabilities were merely for the purpose of self-defense and deterrence.

But Tehran also warned that if Israel attacks the country’s nuclear sites, Iran would use its missiles to bomb Israel in retaliation.

—————————–

Developing Eight summit in Nigeria.
Published: July 8, 2010.

ABUJA, Nigeria, July 8 (UPI) — Improved trade and better visa arrangements for business people are among the discussion topics for the Developing Eight, meeting in Abuja, Nigeria, Thursday.

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is among dignitaries in Abuja for the meeting of the Developing Eight, a consortium of the world’s largest Muslim countries, includes Bangladesh, Egypt, Indonesia, Iran, Malaysia, Nigeria, Pakistan and Turkey, Radio France Internationale reported. Turkish President Abdullah Gul also was attending the summit.

Because Turkey and Indonesia also are members of the G20, Egyptian Deputy Foreign Minister Mohamed al-Oraby said they would be asked to convey concerns of developing countries {it does not say Islamic here} during the next G20 meeting, scheduled for South Korea in November 2010.

—————————-

Interesting to note – these Big Eight Islamic States include only Egypt from among the Arab States; neither was included India which has the second largest Islamic population among UN Member States and is a true democracy.

On the other hand, how would you react if the Big Eight from among the Christan majority States would meet, or “God-forbids” – whatever God – the biggest Eight Countries with Chinese Communities meet and criticize some white (read European) intruder? Just think the meaning of it all! We really would like to hear from you on this.

This brings us back to the notion that time has come for the Biggest Eight Democracies to meet
and see how they can establish solid leadership for the UN!

————————

UNDP is releasing its work on Sustainable Energy in Nepal in the context of advancing the MDG goals, but the UN Department of Public Information does not really want you to know about it.

Pincas Jawetz — Tue, 22 Jun 2010 15:18:53 +0000

The UN may even do good things once in a while – but then its Department of Public Information hides them from the world at large by not opening its doors to the interested media. Those they invite are those that are not interested in publicizing suggestions that can work when the world is called to disengage from its addiction to oil.

The following is a positive in the UNDP cap but when we asked to be invited to participate in the following Press Conference we did not even get the honor of a reply. So much about the UN – but we promise nevertheless to honor our readers by covering the issues even if the UN DPI prefers we did not exist. As we are busy today with the New York Forum, we will approach Mr. Olav Kjorven at a later date in order to cover at length the case of Nepal and other work under his leadership.
We told him in the past that his words will not get world distribution if presented only via the UN DPI chanel.

Now we post the information we received so our readers can have the appropriate links right away.

—————————

UNDP SAYS — Clean energy access in Nepal possible model for acceleration of progress towards MDGs:
Early investment in capacity development crucial to success.

As the 2010 MDG Summit approaches, UNDP’s on-the-ground experience in providing access to clean energy indicates a promising way of stepping-up progress towards achieving the MDGs. Currently, almost half of humanity —3 billion people— are energy poor. They live without access to modern energy for lighting, cooking, heating and mechanical power. For 250,000 people in remote rural communities in Nepal, this has changed.

What: Briefing at the UN DPI Briefing Room for which special DPI accreditation is required – on an effective energy programme that can help alleviate poverty and improve lives of poor communities around the world.

Who: Olav Kjorven, UNDP Director of Policy and UN Assistant Secretary-General

H.E. Mr. Gyan Chandra Acharya, Ambassador and Permanent Representative of Nepal Mission to the UN

Kiran Man Singh, Project Manager, Rural Energy Development Programme

When: Tuesday, 22 June, 15.00 – 15.45

Where: Dag Hammarskjold Library Auditorium

Through a pioneering partnership between UNDP and the Government of Nepal, the installation of micro-hydro plants has given them access to clean energy, creating jobs and incomes, opportunities for women and girls and improved school enrollment, among other benefits. Fundamental to this success has been the early investment in capacity development —in other words, helping people in the national government and in the communities themselves develop the knowledge, skills, institutions and regulatory environment needed for the emergence of both local demand for energy services and a local supply.

Nepal is now expanding the programme to bring energy to tens of millions of people. Kenya and other countries are interested in applying the same strategy. The approach could help accelerate progress towards the MDG’s and achieve the universal access to modern energy services by 2030, as proposed by the Secretary-General’s Advisory Group on Energy and Climate Change.

*** *** ****

Hard copies of the report “Capacity development for scaling up decentralized energy access programmes” will be made available at the briefing, and will also be available later today at http://www.undp.org/energy.

Media queries: Please contact Charles Dickson of UNDP’s Environment and Energy Group at charles.dickson@undp.org or 212-906-6041.

The Melting glaciers and snow in the Himalayas and Tibet effects the Indus, Brahmaputra, Ganges, Yangtze, and Yellow Rivers. The Indus is most affected and Pakistan a main casualty.

Pincas Jawetz — Fri, 11 Jun 2010 02:39:47 +0000

Study concludes – Melting Mountains Put Millions At Risk in Asia.

Date: 11-Jun-10
from SINGAPORE
by David Fogarty, Climate Change Correspondent, Asia, Reuters.

Increased melting of glaciers and snow in the Himalayas and Tibetan Plateau threatens the food security of millions of people in Asia, a study shows, with Pakistan likely to be among the nations hardest hit.

A team of scientists in Holland studied the impacts of climate change on five major Asian rivers on which about 1.4 billion people, roughly a fifth of humanity, depend for water to drink and to irrigate crops.

The rivers are the Indus, which flows through Tibet and Pakistan, the Brahmaputra, which carves its way through Tibet, northeast India and Bangladesh, India’s Ganges and the Yangtze and Yellow rivers in China.

Studies in the past have assumed that a warmer world will accelerate the melting of glaciers and snow in the Himalayas and Tibetan Plateau, which act like water towers, the study published in the latest issue of the journal Science says.

But a lack of data and local measurement sites has hampered efforts to more precisely figure out the magnitude of climate change impacts on particular countries, the numbers of people affected in coming decades and the likely effects on crops.

The issue is crucial for governments to assess the future threats from disputes over water, mass migration and therefore political risk for investors.

Lead author Walter Immerzeel and his team conducted a detailed analysis looking at the importance of meltwater for each river, observed changes to Himalayan and Tibetan glaciers and the effects of global warming on the water supply from upstream basins and on food security.

Immerzeel, a hydrologist at Dutch consultancy FutureWater and Utrecht University, said he believed his team was the first to use a combination of computer modeling, satellite imagery and local observations for all major Asian basins.

They found that meltwater was extremely important for the Indus basin and important for the Brahmaputra basin, but played only a modest role for the Ganges, Yangtze and Yellow rivers.

——

WARNING SIGNAL

The Brahmaputra and Indus basins are also most susceptible to reductions of flow because of climate change, threatening the food security of an estimated 60 million people, or roughly the population of Italy.

“The effects in the Indus and Brahmaputra basins are likely to be severe owing to the large population and the high dependence on irrigated agriculture and meltwater,” the authors say in the study.

For the Yellow River in northern China, the reverse appeared true with climate change likely to lead to more rainfall upstream, which, when retained in reservoirs, could benefit irrigation downstream.

The findings are a warning signal for Pakistan in particular whose growing population of 160 million people is heavily dependent on the Indus to grow wheat, rice and cotton from which the nation earns hard currency.

Immerzeel said adaptation was crucial.

“The focus should be on agriculture as this is by far the largest consumer of water,” he told Reuters in an email interview.

“You could think of measures such as different crop varieties which are less water consuming, different water management, or by providing economic incentives to farmers to use less water.”

China, the observer, becomes main force at the India-led 16th SAARC Summit of the 1.5 billion people South Asia Association for Regional Cooperation in Thimpu, Bhutan. The topic was “Towards a Green and Happy South East Asia.” Pakistan, Bangladesh and Nepal are supporting China’s full membership in SAARC – With China this will be 2.8 billion people grouping or 42.4% of all humanity.

Pincas Jawetz — Mon, 17 May 2010 11:22:17 +0000

India-China competition dims hopes for regional cooperation.

By HARSH V. PANT

The Japan Times online, Monday, May 17, 2010.

LONDON — Established in 1985, the South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation (SAARC) had its 16th summit meeting in Thimpu, Bhutan, late last month. Apart from the fact that Bhutan hosted its first SAARC summit, there was hardly anything that inspired confidence in this largely moribund organization that is celebrating the 25th anniversary of its founding this year.

Covering at least 1.5 billion people across India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Nepal, Sri Lanka, Bhutan, Maldives and Afghanistan, SAARC is one of the largest regional organizations in the world. But its achievements so far have been so minimal that even its constituents have become lackadaisical in their attitudes toward it. The state of regional cooperation in South Asia can be gleaned from the fact that Pakistani Prime Minister Yousuf Raza Gilani went to Bhutan via Nepal, using Chinese territory in Tibet rather than the straightforward route through India.

Bhutan chose climate change as the theme of the summit, and the eight-nation grouping delivered a Silver Jubilee declaration titled “Toward a Green and Happy South Asia.” The focus, however, was the agreement on trade in services signed during the summit. Intraregional trade in South Asia remains far below its potential despite the member states’ signing the South Asian Free Trade Agreement, which went into force in 2006.

For long, the dominant narrative of SAARC has been how the India-Pakistan rivalry hampers the group’s evolution into something significant. That is now losing salience amid China’s growing dominance of the South Asian landscape.

China entered SAARC as an observer in 2005, supported by most member states; India could do little about it and so acquiesced. Now, much to India’s consternation, Pakistan, Bangladesh and Nepal are supporting China’s full membership in SAARC. China’s rising profile in South Asia is not news. What is astonishing is the diminishing role of India and the rapidity with which New Delhi is ceding strategic space to Beijing on the subcontinent.

Even as China becomes the largest trade partner of most states in South Asia, including India, New Delhi is busy repeating the old mantra of South Asia being India’s exclusive sphere of influence.

Of course, no one takes note of that anymore. Pakistan’s all-weather friendship with China is well-known, but the reach of China in other South Asian states has been extraordinary. Bangladesh and Sri Lanka view India as more interested in creating barriers against exports than in spurring regional economic integration. India’s protectionist tendencies have allowed China to don the mantle of regional economic leader. Instead of India emerging as the facilitator of socio-economic development in Sri Lanka, Nepal and Bhutan, it is China’s developmental assistance that has impact.

India’s attempts to keep China out of the subcontinent have clearly not worked, and it’s time to re-evaluate its South Asia policy. China’s strategy toward South Asia is premised on encircling India and confining her within the geographical coordinates of the region. This strategy of using proxies started with Pakistan and has gradually evolved to include other states in the region, including Bangladesh, Sri Lanka and Nepal. China is entering markets in South Asia more aggressively through trade and investment, improving linkages with South Asian states through treaties and bilateral cooperation.

It is following up on this by establishing a ring of road and port connections in India’s neighborhood and deepening military engagements with states on India’s periphery. This quiet assertion of China has prompted various smaller countries in South Asia to play China off against India. Most states in the region now use the China card to try to offset the influence of India. India’s structural dominance in South Asia makes it a natural target of resentment among its smaller neighbors.

Yet, there is no hope for regional economic cooperation in the absence of Indian leadership. The failure of India to counter China’s rise has made it even more unlikely that such cooperation will evolve productively. As the two regional giants compete with each other in the near future, they will be more focused on relative gains vis-a-vis each other than on the absolute gains that regional cooperation can bestow.

Liberals in South Asia have long taken their inspiration from extraordinary developments in the European Union (EU), arguing that South Asia could also go down a similar path of regional economic and political cooperation.

That comparison is fundamentally flawed, however. The states in Western Europe arrived at the EU only after resolving persistent security dilemmas. And the U.S. security umbrella continues to ensure that European political rivalries do not raise their ugly heads again.

In South Asia, the security dynamics between a large India and its smaller neighbors ensures that the road to economic and political cooperation will be a bumpy one. And that road will become even more difficult to traverse with the emergence of China.

Harsh V. Pant teaches at King’s College London.

“South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation” (SAARC) will meet starting April 28, 2010 in Thimpu, Bhutan, to discuss a Green South Asia and the effects of Climate Change.

Pincas Jawetz — Thu, 15 Apr 2010 04:26:49 +0000

Climate change to be burning issue at 16th SAARC summit
Climate change will be the burning issue at the 16th South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation (SAARC) summit in two weeks in Thimpu, Bhutan, local media reported on Monday, April 12th 2010.

The summit, which has the theme “Towards a green and happy South Asia,” expects to see a regional mechanism proposed by Nepal to counter the effects of climate change, reported The Kathmandu Post.

According to a Ministry of Foreign Affairs official, Nepal will push for an effective regional mechanism to cope with climate change. Also, Bangladesh and Maldives are likely to support Nepal’ s effort to set up a regional body, as both the countries will face the most drastic effects of climate change.

Studies have shown that rising sea levels because of melting polar ice caps mean that Maldives might get submerged, while Bangladesh will lose 20 percent of low-lying areas in the Bay of Bengal resulting in the displacement of 25 million people.

Bhutan has finished all the necessary preparations for hosting the summit, which will mark the 25th year of the establishment of the regional body.

According to the schedule, the summit formally kicks off on April 28 followed by a meeting of 38th session of the Programming Committee on April 29. Bhutan has officially launched a separate website with all the necessary information about the summit.

According to Hari Kumar Shrestha, Joint Secretary at the Foreign Ministry, the summit is expected to sign the SAARC Agreement on Disaster Response Mechanism, the Convention on Cooperation on Environment and Climate Change, and the Agreement on Trade in Services among member states.

The other issues likely to taken up by the summit would be energy and food crisis, and the effective implementation of SAARC Development Fund.

Regional issues like terrorism, extremism, early implementation of South Asian Free Trade Agreement, and expansion of tourism across the region will figure during the meet, according to officials.

The other key agenda would be the appointment of a SAARC Development Fund secretary for the secretariat, which is to be established in Thimpu.

The summit will also be attended by observers from China, Japan, the European Union, Republic of Korea, the United States, Australia, Mauritius, and Iran along with the eight member states.

Founded in 1985, the SAARC groups Bhutan, Bangladesh, India, Maldives, Sri Lanka, Nepal, Pakistan and Afghanistan.

Source: Xinhua
2010-4-13

Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu, the Turkish Secretary General of the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC), called for an Islamic Executive Bureau of Environment and a common OIC position on climate change, and led the organization to a meeting in Rabat, Morocco, January 18-19, 2010, chaired by Saudi Arabia’s Prince Turki.

Pincas Jawetz — Wed, 27 Jan 2010 14:17:01 +0000

Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu, the Turkish Secretary General of the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC), called for an Islamic Executive Bureau of Environment and a common OIC position on climate change, and led the organization to a meeting in Rabat, Morocco, Jamuary 18-19, 2010, chaired by Saudi Arabia’s Prince Turki.

The First Meeting of the Islamic Executive Bureau of Environment was held at the ISESCO Headquarters in Rabat on 18-19 January 2010. The meeting was chaired by H.R.H. Prince Turki bin Nasser bin Abdul Aziz Al Saud, General President of Meteorology and Environment Protection, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia.
In his message to the Meeting, the OIC Secretary General Professor Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu stated that the climate change posed an existential threat for some of the OIC Member States. Following the impasse witnessed during the Copenhagen Meeting, securing a fair and equitable agreement on climate change within the framework of existing instruments remains a priority for the OIC countries.

The Secretary General called upon the Member States to evolve a common OIC position on the climate change to safeguard their interests in the multilateral negotiations in the lead up to Mexico round. In the area of the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM), the Secretary General also proposed to establish a carbon dioxide exchange scheme to contribute to the reduction of carbon emission.

The Executive Bureau endorsed the proposal of the Secretary General to establish ‘H.R.H Turki bin Nasser bin Abdulaziz Special Chair for Environmental Studies’ in universities of the most vulnerable OIC countries exposed to the adverse impacts of climate change. The meeting entrusted ISESCO and the Presidency of Metrology and Environment Protection, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, in Coordination with the OIC General Secretariat to follow up the implementation of this project.

The OIC Secretary General assured the Islamic Executive Bureau for Environment, its Chair and the Secretariat of his resolve to work in unison to combat environmental challenges and securing the planet for the future generations.

The fake “Glaciergate” where a Climate Change Campaign unprovable time-prediction of otherwise true facts becomes something the UN uses to excuse itself for an otherwise long list of failures in leadership. Yes – ICE AT THE GLOBAL THREE POLES IS MELTING!

Pincas Jawetz — Fri, 22 Jan 2010 13:55:30 +0000

OK, there are disputes among Indian scientists and Indian officials who have connections to Indian oil industry. We knew this all the time and where not happy when under US President G.W. Bush the US pushed out under US business interests push, the scientific head of the IPCC and put in place the proxy Indians. But then, obviously, India is also not homogeneous – so we see internal Indian disputes.
YES – THE GLACIERS ARE MELTING AND NOBODY CAN PREDICT ACCURATELY THE YEAR OF THEIR FUTURE DEMISE – so what? The melting of these glaciers causes floods in the valleys – we know it because we see it. Yes, after they melt there will be draught – that is logic – it is implied in future shortage – that is clear. Those that love oil do not want to let go of it, and those that own refineries do not want to lose their investment – that is clear.
When lots of ice from above earth sites melts it will cause floods on coast line communities – that is clear. The melting of glaciers and the Antarctic ice will cause sea-level rise and floods – that can be sworn by – that is clear. Which island will disappear before 2013 or after – OK – that is not quite clear.
So what all this noise and only the UN can sound retreat – we do not. We also said that the relief of pressure on the tectonic plates because of the melting away of ice can cause earthquakes in areas where the plates meet – like the recent Tsunami belt over the earthquake belt shows. There are no scientific statements on this – only plain logic statements – so what? Yes we stopped short of our statement after the Haiti quakes and said – this one we do not exactly sense how it happened as we do not know of faults in that area. This is our lack of knowledge in this case that calls for help but it does not negate the prior statements. Science is not instantaneous – it requires further thinking and theories and proof if possible – not plain squabbles by industry-backed deniers and knee-jerk reactions by the UN. (our comments to the following news)

——————

SCIENCE, SPHERE, aol, January 21, 2010.

UN Climate Body Eats Crow Over Glacier Warning.

from Theunis Bates, a Contributor.

LONDON (Jan. 20) — It sounds like the plot of a Hollywood disaster movie: Central and Southern Asia are hit by biblical floods when the Himalayan glaciers suddenly melt. After that cataclysm, water no longer flows from the mountains, leaving rivers like the Mekong and Ganges dry and millions facing permanent drought. That was the picture painted by the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s 2007 report, which said there was a “very high” chance that these glaciers would disappear by 2035 if the world kept warming.

But the IPCC, the U.N. body charged with investigating climate change, has retracted that claim after it emerged that its predictions of a sudden melt weren’t based on peer-reviewed evidence, but instead on an article that appeared in the popular science magazine New Scientist in 1999.

Subel Bhandari, AFP / Getty Images

While the Khumbu Glacier near Mount Everest is shrinking, the United Nations admits it overstated the threat of a total glacial meltdown in the Himalayas.

Climate change skeptics have lapped up the scandal, which they’ve already dubbed “Glaciergate,” saying that it further erodes the credibility of climate science already damaged by last year’s Climategate e-mail scandal. Global warming denier Peter Foster, writing in Canada’s National Post, said the error showed how the “IPCC’s task has always been not objectively to examine science but to make the case for man-made climate change by any means available.”

But Jean-Pascal van Ypersele, vice chairman of the IPCC, said the mistake did not undermine the report’s key conclusions: that the warming climate is accelerating glacial melt and that this will affect the supply of water from the world’s major mountain ranges, “where more than one-sixth of the world population currently lives.”

“I don’t see how one mistake in a 3,000-page report can damage the credibility of the overall report,” van Ypersele told the BBC. “Some people will attempt to use it to damage the credibility of the IPCC; but if we can uncover it and explain it and change it, it should strengthen the IPCC’s credibility, showing that we are ready to learn from our mistakes.”

The argument over the IPCC’s melt date went public last November, when a paper written by Indian geologist Vijay Kumar Raina revealed that there was little consistency in the behavior of the Himalayan glaciers. Some were shrinking, he found, some expanding, and others were stable. If global warming were to blame, he asked, why weren’t they all following the same pattern? “A glacier … does not necessarily respond to the immediate climatic changes,” he wrote. “For if it be so then all glaciers within the same climatic zone should have been advancing or retreating at the same time.”

India’s environment minister, Jairam Ramesh, endorsed the paper and accused the IPCC of being “alarmist” in its predictions. But IPCC Chairman Rajendra Pachauri shot back that Raina’s findings were “voodoo science” and accused Ramesh of repeating the claims of “climate change deniers.”

Embarrassingly, it’s now the IPCC that stands accused of sloppy science, as a rigorous system of fact checks would have kept the controversial assertion out of the 2007 report. The claim first appeared in a 1999 interview between a New Scientist journalist and the Indian glaciologist Syed Hasnain, who speculated that the mountain range’s glaciers could vanish by 2035.

Environmental group the World Wildlife Fund then repeated Hasnain’s prediction in its 2005 report, “An Overview of Glaciers, Glacier Retreat, and Subsequent Impacts in Nepal, India and China.” As this was only was a campaigning paper, it had not undergone a thorough scientific review. But its lack of scientific rigor didn’t stop the IPCC using the WWF document as a source.

In chapter 10 of its 2007 report, the IPCC concluded: “Glaciers in the Himalaya are receding faster than in any other part of the world, and if the present rate continues, the likelihood of them disappearing by the year 2035 and perhaps sooner is very high if the Earth keeps warming at the current rate. Its total area will likely shrink from the present 500,000 to 100,000 square kilometers by the year 2035 (WWF, 2005).”

But many glaciologists believed those claims were overheated. As most Himalayan glaciers are hundreds of feet thick, only a sudden, huge spike in global temperatures could cause them to disappear before 2035. “The reality, that the glaciers are wasting away, is bad enough,” Graham Cogley, a glaciologist at Canada’s University of Trent, who played a key role in exposing the flawed claim, told the United Kingdom’s Sunday Times. “But they are not wasting away at the rate suggested by this speculative remark and the IPCC report. The problem is that nobody who studied this material bothered chasing the trail back to the original point when the claim first arose.”

Indian glaciologist Murari Lal, the lead author of that section of the IPCC report, last week rejected claims that the U.N. group had made a serious error. “We relied rather heavily on gray [not peer-reviewed] literature, including the WWF report,” Lal told New Scientist. “The error, if any, lies with Dr Hasnain’s assertion and not with the IPCC authors.”

Unsurprisingly, Hasnain has refuted that attempt to pass the blame. “The magic number of 2035 has not [been] mentioned in any research papers written by me, as no peer-reviewed journal will accept speculative figures,” he said to New Scientist. “It is not proper for IPCC to include references from popular magazines or newspapers.”

That’s a tough but obvious lesson, and one the IPCC is unlikely to forget.

The World Bank, Washington DC, January 12, 2010 – Economics of Adaptation to Climate Change – Bangladesh, Bolivia, Ethiopia, Ghana, Mozambique, Samoa and Vietnam. Is it about Development?

Pincas Jawetz — Thu, 07 Jan 2010 14:51:07 +0000

Economics of Adaptation to Climate Change Study:
The Global Report
www.worldbank.org
www.worldbank.org

Tuesday, January 12, 2010
3:00 – 4:30 PM
World Bank “J” Building, Washington D.C.
(entrance on 18th Street between G and H)
Room B1-080

Description:

The ongoing World Bank study – the Economics of Adaptation to Climate Change – has tried to further the understanding on two key issues: what will it cost developing countries to adapt to climate change and how can countries make their development plans more climate-resilient?

This event will provide highlights of the groundbreaking Global Report and draw lessons from it to explain: (i) the what, how, and why of adaptation; (ii) whether adaptation is simply development (or not); and, (iii) how different estimates of global costs of adaptation fit together.

An overview will also be provided of the “Country Case Studies” track of the study, currently underway in Bangladesh, Bolivia, Ethiopia, Ghana, Mozambique, Samoa and Vietnam, and implications of adaptation for country-specific development paths.

Chair:
Warren Evans, Director,Environment Department, World Bank

Presenters:
Sergio Margulis, Study Team Leader and Lead Environmental Economist, World Bank
Urvashi Narain, Senior Environmental Economist, World Bank

Discussant:
Otaviano Canuto, Vice President,Poverty Reduction and Economic Management Network, World Bank

The study is made possible through the generous support of the UK Department for International Development (DfID), The Dutch Ministry of Foreign Affairs, and the Swiss Agency for Development and Cooperation.

RSVP to Ms. Hawanty Page: hpage at worldbank.org by Friday January 8, 2010

Now something even the hard-headed might be able to grasp – Nick Mabey, US General Chris King, UK Admiral Morisetti, Bangladesh General Muniruzzaman, people whose meeting in Washington DC we covered, and Cleo Paskal of Chatham House, come to Bella Center Thursday December 17th, on the eve of the official final session of The High Level. The GENERALS WILL TELL THE LEADERS THAT CLIMATE CHANGE LEADS TO WARS and this is no joke.

Pincas Jawetz — Thu, 10 Dec 2009 23:18:48 +0000

The following is just in time – please see what President Obama just said in Oslo after receiving the Nobel Prize:

Speaking as U.N.-sponsored climate talks continued in Copenhagen, Obama linked global warming to international security, telling his audience that “the world must come together to confront climate change.”

He said: “There is little scientific dispute that if we do nothing, we will face more drought, more famine, more mass displacement — all of which will fuel more conflict for decades.”

Now at the Copenhagen Conference on Climate Change will be heard something that the leadership of the UN managed to hide for many years – this until the taboo was broken by the UK at the time they chaired the UN Security Council three years ago. They declared, as part of their prerogative for naming a topic of their choosing, with full voice, that climate change is a security issue. We know what we say because our web was a victim of a UN that by policy of some individuals made the clear decision not to allow the UN DPI to see in its rooms the truth come out via the UN accredited press.

—————–

from Jonathan Gaventa

E3G, Institute for Environmental Security, Chatham House and Energy Security Initiative at Brookings COP15 Official Side Event

Delivering Climate Security

What the security community needs from a global climate regime

Thursday 17th December, 2:45pm – 4:15pm*

Liva Weel Room, Bella Center

Join leading climate security experts for a side event exploring climate change impacts on national security and how the global climate regime can address this threat.

Experts:

Brigadier General (ret) Wendell Chris King, Dean of Academics, U.S. Army Command and General Staff College

Nick Mabey, CEO and Founding Director, E3G

Rear Admiral Neil Morisetti, Climate and Energy Security Envoy, United Kingdom

Major General (ret) Muniruzzaman, President, Bangladesh Institute for Peace and Security Studies

Cleo Paskal, Associate Fellow, Chatham House

*Refreshments will be served at the end of the event.

For more information please contact Meera Shah on +44 207 234 9880.

Related materials are available on E3G’s website: www.e3g.org.

Climate Change Adaptation: It’s about Water!

Pincas Jawetz — Fri, 30 Oct 2009 12:00:19 +0000

Climate Change Adaptation: It’s about Water!
— Global Water Partnership’s contribution to the climate change dialogue

Water is central to the world’s development challenges. Whether it is food security, poverty reduction, economic growth, human health—water is the nexus. Climate change is the spoiler. No matter how successful mitigation efforts might be, people will experience the impacts of climate change through water.

The Global Water Partnership is participating in ‘Water Day’ at the climate change negotiations in Barcelona. GWP Executive Secretary Dr Ania Grobicki will be the lead speaker on water and transboundary issues on Tuesday, November 3. The venue is the Fira Congress Hotel, opposite the conference centre. The opening session starts at 9 am and lunch will be provided.

Recently, the GWP’s Technical Committee released its 14th Background Paper: “Water Management, Water Security and Climate Change Adaptation.” It argues that investments in water are investments in adaptation. The paper can be downloaded on www.gwpforum.org or ordered free at gwp@gwpforum.org.

Climate Change: How can we Adapt? – a one-pager about GWP’s key messages on this subject – is available here: http://www.gwpforum.org/gwp/library/GWP_Briefingnote_climatechange.pdf.

GWP has been accepted as an Inter-Governmental Organisation with Observer Status at COP 15 in Copenhagen in December and has submitted an article to the delegate publication. But more information on that will follow later.

More resources about climate change and water and more information on GWP’s involvement in the global dialogue on climate change is available on this page: http://www.gwpforum.org/servlet/PSP?iNodeID=205&itemId=442.

——————————————————–Steven DowneyHead of CommunicationsGlobal Water Partnership (GWP)Drottninggatan 33SE-111 51 Stockholm, SWEDENPhone: +46 8 522 126 52Fax: + 46 8 522 126 31E-mail: steven.downey@gwpforum.orgWebsite: www.gwpforum.org
A water secure world – the mission of the Global Water Partnership is to support the sustainable development and management of water resources at all levels.

An UPDATE – The September 26, 2009, Global Citizens Consultation on Climate Policy.

Pincas Jawetz — Sat, 26 Sep 2009 19:51:34 +0000

An UPDATE – The September 26, 2009, Global Citizens Consultation on Climate Policy.

As we posted earlier, on basis of very limited information, the initiative that started in Denmark ended up involving 39 countries but a total of 46 meeting places as the United States had six events, Switzerland three according to their three main languages, Spain three, and India, Brazil two each.

The full list of participating partners can be found at:
http://www.wwviews.org/node/11

It is interesting how the Maldives had a meeting organized by “Strength of Society – S.O.S.” that can be reached via sos.org@gmail.com, in Egypt the meeting was organized by Care International, and in Ethiopia and Malawi by the British Council – so we have a mix of local organizations and international NGOs. Basically it seems that the organizers did in most cases not come from the Country’s Government.

WWViews on Warming , c/o Teknologirådet, is The Danish Board of Technology
Antonigade 4
DK1106 Copenhagen K

Phone: +45 33320503 info at wwviews.org
Press contacts

- part of a European network of technology assessment that obviously must have strong contacts with the country’s government.

Our information comes from having eventually visited with the event organized by the Austrian member of the European network – the Institute of Technology Assessment (ITA) of the Austrian Academy of Science (OEAW) - www.oeaw@at/ita and having spoken with ITA Director Dr. Michael Nenwitch, the Vienna event organizer Dr. Ulricke Bechthold, and Project Management outreach person, Sabine Stemberger.

The ITA of the OEAW is an interdisciplinary research institute, something that we would call a think tank, that relates technical change with social issues in an effort to develop alternatives for political use with understanding for the technologies’ effects on society.
From them I learned that actually this was a 9 to 6 or as they say in Europe a 9:00 to 18:00 single day event, that because of its global scope becomes a 36 hour event, as while I was talking to them in Vienna, actually the Australian results were already known.

The idea was to invite chosen organizations in various parts of the world – chosen on basis of their interest and reliability. Those organizations were then supposed to invite a cross section of the population’s structure, chosen statistically according to age, gender, professional interest etc. to sit in a closed meeting around small tables – I think there were just 10 people to a table seated so they were a representative mix within the general representative mix of people in the room for sum total of 100 chosen representatives. Funny was how I at first did not understand that if I would be seated at a table, poor me could have upset this carefully organized apple cart.

The people were charged to participate in a series of four discussions – as said at their small round tables – they had then to answer questions for each separate topic of those four separate discussions, and in each discussion answers were tabulated like votes with final results given for the 100 participants in the room.

The first discussion deal with The Climate Change and its effects. After 45 minutes of discussion that followed a short introductory movie they had to vote on two questions.

In Essence -The Questions were: (A) Did you know how serious the issue of effects of global climate change is? and (B) How worried you are?

The answers were tabulated and presented at the end of the following discussion at the roundtables, while in between the discussions there was another activity. In between the first and second discussion the group was to hear just for 10 minutes from Austrian Federal Minister for Agriculture, Forestry, Environment and Water Economy, Mr. Niki Berlakovich, who participated also last week at the Verbund meeting and is heavily involved in the biofuels issue. www.lebensministerium.at

Also addressing the group were Professor Helga Kromp-Kolb, Climate researcher at the Meteorology Istitute of the Vienna University, and the scientific adviser to climate and energy funds in Austria www.boku.ac.at Also Professor Georg Stingl, the head of the mathematics and natural sciences at the Academy of Sciences www.oeaw.ac/ita.

Before the first discussion took place, the event was introduced by ITA Project Chair, Dr. Ulrike Bechthold, and by Dr. Wolfgang Gerlich.

The results of the voting following the above mentioned two questions for Discussion Round number one – they were -
for Question A: There was zero for full knowledge of the problems and for I do not want to answer. There was 38% for I knew a lot on the problems and 10% for I knew little – with 52% for I knew some of the issues.

for Question B: This about Worries. It was 36% for I worry a lot; 46% for medium; 14% for little; then still 4% – no way and 0 for – no answer.

The way I interpret the above is that further education work is needed so more people know the problems and worry about what goes on – but I surely would not want to see this become an excuse for a call to action now – the fact that politics are based on push from the people, the fact that people are not yet fully informed, may have a slow-down effect on the politicians. And this is dangerous for those that are in the know.

————–

Discussion round 2 dealt with the long range goals and urgency.

Discussion round 3 dealt with the issues of Green House Gas Emissions.

Discussion round 4 dealt with economy aspects, technologies, and adaptation.

Again, short videos were going to be used as introduction to each discussion. Eventually there was going to be a two hours debate about recommendations and the presentation of results – all of which I suggest to our readers to go to the original website in order to find out the results. As said, the meeting was not intended for outsiders or the press, and I fully understand the integrity of the procedures. Also, the intent of the recommendations is to influence the country’s delegation to Copenhagen – in this case the country is Austria and it is expected that the Minister of Environment, who just was here, will be the spokesperson in Copenhagen.

The meeting, though private, had nevertheless exposure to the press with a small Press Conference after the Minister’s visit with those selected for the discussion groups. As the Press Conference was not advertised on the WWView website, I missed it, though by chance arrived at its end and saw that there were good questions from the few journalists in the room. Having not heard the presentation, I did not ask in the open, but tried to ask the Minister what he thinks of the eventual G2 (US-China) answer to a post-Copenhagen situation if no real moves are decided upon in Copenhagen? I know this was an unfair question, but I asked it anyway, and I believe there will be a chance to come back to it another day. The Minister is clearly in the EU mainstream on climate change.

Now, before I finish, let’s see what are the recommendations that already came in from the Far East:

AUSTRALIA – Commit confidently at COP15 – Act now to limit warming below 2°C through a legally binding global agreement. Develop new technology in an ethical and accountable process. The need for leadership, education in technological advances is paramount.

INDIA (Bangalore) – Co Clean and Green – Governments and Corporate must fund development of clean technology and renewable energy without patent and proprietary bases. Create actionable awareness at all levels for sustainability and a clean green planet.

BANGLADESH – An International Climate Court! The new climate deal should include establishment of an international climate court to control the states/countries responsible for causing negative climatic impacts. The court should also evolve a legal framework to try climate cases and bring the offenders to justice and provide opportunity for negatively affected countries to claim compensation.

CHINA – Bring the Issue Before The People. To enhance the citizen’s awareness of environmental protection by effective dissemination e.g. short film, public interest advertisement.

The above clearly shows what it is paramount is were you live, and citizen of what country you are. It would be nice if we had a true global citizenship, but as we do not have one yet, it is hard to come to an agreement, and our refuge is to talk among those who really count – something that may be as large as a new G-20 or who knows – as small as a G2.

on www.wwviews.org – the link for the results is -
http://results.wwviews.org/new2/?cid=bla…

Top Story of the New York Times presents now that even the US War College sees in Climate Change a danger to US Security. We say this all the time – DOD will eventually do more where DOE does not function because of congenital deformations caused by the inputs from the Washingtonians with very narrow energy horizons.

Pincas Jawetz — Mon, 10 Aug 2009 18:35:22 +0000

The New York Times Sunday TOP STORIES – August 9, 2009.

Climate Change Seen as Threat to U.S. Security
By JOHN M. BRODER

A growing number of policy makers say that the world’s rising temperatures, surging seas and melting glaciers are a direct threat to the national interest.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/09/science/earth/09climate.html?th&emc=th

{The Following confirms what we are saying continuously for the last 5 years.}

- QUOTATION OF THE DAY -

“We will pay for this one way or another. We will pay to reduce greenhouse gas emissions today, and we’ll have to take an economic hit of some kind. Or we will pay the price later in military terms. And that will involve human lives.”
- GEN. ANTHONY C. ZINNI, former head of the Central Command, on climate change.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/09/science/earth/09climate.html?th&emc=th

WASHINGTON — The changing global climate will pose profound strategic challenges to the United States in coming decades, raising the prospect of military intervention to deal with the effects of violent storms, drought, mass migration and pandemics, military and intelligence analysts say.

Such climate-induced crises could topple governments, feed terrorist movements or destabilize entire regions, say the analysts, experts at the Pentagon and intelligence agencies who for the first time are taking a serious look at the national security implications of climate change.

Recent war games and intelligence studies conclude that over the next 20 to 30 years, vulnerable regions, particularly sub-Saharan Africa, the Middle East and South and Southeast Asia, will face the prospect of food shortages, water crises and catastrophic flooding driven by climate change that could demand an American humanitarian relief or military response.

An exercise last December at the National Defense University, an educational institute that is overseen by the military, explored the potential impact of a destructive flood in Bangladesh that sent hundreds of thousands of refugees streaming into neighboring India, touching off religious conflict, the spread of contagious diseases and vast damage to infrastructure. “It gets real complicated real quickly,” said Amanda J. Dory, the deputy assistant secretary of defense for strategy, who is working with a Pentagon group assigned to incorporate climate change into national security strategy planning.

Much of the public and political debate on global warming has focused on finding substitutes for fossil fuels, reducing emissions that contribute to greenhouse gases and furthering negotiations toward an international climate treaty — not potential security challenges.

But a growing number of policy makers say that the world’s rising temperatures, surging seas and melting glaciers are a direct threat to the national interest.

If the United States does not lead the world in reducing fossil-fuel consumption and thus emissions of global warming gases, proponents of this view say, a series of global environmental, social, political and possibly military crises loom that the nation will urgently have to address.

This argument could prove a fulcrum for debate in the Senate next month when it takes up climate and energy legislation passed in June by the House.

Lawmakers leading the debate before Congress are only now beginning to make the national security argument for approving the legislation.

Senator John Kerry, the Massachusetts Democrat who is the chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee and a leading advocate for the climate legislation, said he hoped to sway Senate skeptics by pressing that issue to pass a meaningful bill.

Mr. Kerry said he did not know whether he would succeed but had spoken with 30 undecided senators on the matter.

He did not identify those senators, but the list of undecided includes many from coal and manufacturing states and from the South and Southeast, which will face the sharpest energy price increases from any carbon emissions control program.

“I’ve been making this argument for a number of years,” Mr. Kerry said, “but it has not been a focus because a lot of people had not connected the dots.” He said he had urgedPresident Obama to make the case, too.

Mr. Kerry said the continuing conflict in southern Sudan, which has killed and displaced tens of thousands of people, is a result of drought and expansion of deserts in the north. “That is going to be repeated many times over and on a much larger scale,” he said.

The Department of Defense’s assessment of the security issue came about after prodding by Congress to include climate issues in its strategic plans — specifically, in 2008 budget authorizations by Hillary Rodham Clinton and John W. Warner, then senators. The department’s climate modeling is based on sophisticated Navy and Air Force weather programs and other government climate research programs at NASA and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.

The Pentagon and the State Department have studied issues arising from dependence on foreign sources of energy for years but are only now considering the effects of global warming in their long-term planning documents. The Pentagon will include a climate section in the Quadrennial Defense Review, due in February; the State Department will address the issue in its new Quadrennial Diplomacy and Development Review.

“The sense that climate change poses security and geopolitical challenges is central to the thinking of the State Department and the climate office,” said Peter Ogden, chief of staff to Todd Stern, the State Department’s top climate negotiator.

Although military and intelligence planners have been aware of the challenge posed by climate changes for some years, the Obama administration has made it a central policy focus.

A changing climate presents a range of challenges for the military. Many of its critical installations are vulnerable to rising seas and storm surges. In Florida, Homestead Air Force Base was essentially destroyed by Hurricane Andrew in 1992, and Hurricane Ivan badly damaged Naval Air Station Pensacola in 2004. Military planners are studying ways to protect the major naval stations in Norfolk, Va., and San Diego from climate-induced rising seas and severe storms.

Another vulnerable installation is Diego Garcia, an atoll in the Indian Ocean that serves as a logistics hub for American and British forces in the Middle East and sits a few feet above sea level.

Arctic melting also presents new problems for the military. The shrinking of the ice cap, which is proceeding faster than anticipated only a few years ago, opens a shipping channel that must be defended and undersea resources that are already the focus of international competition.

Dot Earth: Climate, Security and Politics

Times Topics: Global Warming

Ms. Dory, who has held senior Pentagon posts since the Clinton administration, said she had seen a “sea change” in the military’s thinking about climate change in the past year. “These issues now have to be included and wrestled with” in drafting national security strategy, she said.

The National Intelligence Council, which produces government-wide intelligence analyses, finished the first assessment of the national security implications of climate change just last year.

It concluded that climate change by itself would have significant geopolitical impacts around the world and would contribute to a host of problems, including poverty, environmental degradation and the weakening of national governments.

The assessment warned that the storms, droughts and food shortages that might result from a warming planet in coming decades would create numerous relief emergencies.

“The demands of these potential humanitarian responses may significantly tax U.S. military transportation and support force structures, resulting in a strained readiness posture and decreased strategic depth for combat operations,” the report said.

The intelligence community is preparing a series of reports on the impacts of climate change on individual countries like China and India, a study of alternative fuels and a look at how major power relations could be strained by a changing climate.

“We will pay for this one way or another,” Gen. Anthony C. Zinni, a retired Marine and the former head of the Central Command, wrote recently in a report he prepared as a member of a military advisory board on energy and climate at CNA, a private group that does research for the Navy. “We will pay to reduce greenhouse gas emissions today, and we’ll have to take an economic hit of some kind.

“Or we will pay the price later in military terms,” he warned. “And that will involve human lives.”

www.new7wonders.com – the campaign to elect the top 7 Wonders of Nature of the World.

Pincas Jawetz — Sat, 01 Aug 2009 14:30:07 +0000

The following are the top 28 finalists in the Official 2009 New 7 Wonders of Nature competition – nominated from among hundreds of sites around the world that have been proposed.

see please: http://www.new7wonders.com/ and you can vote – for up to 7 of the 28 list – at that link.

you can vote for your choice of 7 on line, by phone, or text message. It is expected that one billion people will vote and the winner will be announced in 2011.

A similar effort two years ago elected seven manmade wonders generated considerable publicity. We backed at that time Machu Picchu, Peru

These selections are being organized by a Swiss filmmaker and entrepreneur, Bernard Weber, and the committee that chose the 28 finalists included Federico Mayor, former chief of UNESCO, and Rex Weyler, co-founder of Greenpeace International.

Like everything else that has a UN connection, obviously such selections will be politicized beyond the simple angle of national pride – just see the country called Chinese Taipei for what most call Taiwan.

In this year of climate change we thing the Amazon will get the world’s nod, but watching in Vietnam (it is Halong Bay) how a whole country can get beyond a particular location we would have said that China could muster the vote, but will they do it for Taipei?

From among the many places on the list that we have been to – I am voting as Numero Uno for the Iguazu Falls.

Country

Amazon

VENEZUELA

SURINAME

PERU

GUYANA

FRENCH GUIANA

ECUADOR

COLOMBIA

BRAZIL

BOLIVIA

VENEZUELA

CANADA

GERMANY

UNITED ARAB EMIRATES

IRELAND

PALESTINE

ISRAEL

JORDAN

PUERTO RICO

ECUADOR

UNITED STATES

PAPUA NEW GUINEA

AUSTRALIA

Halong Bay

VIET NAM

Iguazu Falls

BRAZIL

ARGENTINA

LEBANON

KOREA (SOUTH)

TANZANIA

INDONESIA

MALDIVES

Masurian Lake District

POLAND

Matterhorn/Cervino

SWITZERLAND

ITALY

Milford Sound

NEW ZEALAND

Mud Volcanoes

AZERBAIJAN

Puerto Princesa Underground River

PHILIPPINES

Sundarbans

INDIA

BANGLADESH

SOUTH AFRICA

AUSTRALIA

ITALY

CHINESE TAIPEI

From the competition on the 7 Man-made wonders – a stamp collection from Gibraltar:

For all media inquiries and interview requests, please contact:

Tia B. Viering, Head of Communications
Mobile: +41 79-762-2784
Phone: +49 89 489 033 58 (Munich office)
Email at press@n7w.com.

LABOUR GAINS in Arab slave work: The acting Director-General of UAE’s labour ministry informed about the move – Any worker who has not been paid for more than two months has the right to change jobs without a No Objection Certificate (NOC) even after receiving his dues.

Pincas Jawetz — Sun, 26 Jul 2009 01:11:00 +0000

Unpaid workers can switch jobs, UAE ministry says – paper
by Neeraj Gangal on arabianbusiness.com, Friday, 24 July 2009

LABOUR GAINS: The acting Director-General of UAE’s labour ministry informed about the move – Any worker who has not been paid for more than two months has the right to change jobs without a No Objection Certificate (NOC) even after receiving his dues, according to a report.

Humaid Bin Deemas, the acting Director-General of UAE’s Ministry of Labour informed this on Thursday, the Gulf News daily reported. The senior official was speaking at a press conference that was held after an open day event at the ministry’s premises in Dubai, it added.

“Workers who have not been paid for more than two months have the right to stay with the same company or choose to change jobs without the NOC.

“The rule is also applicable to those who have not been paid for the same duration of time but decided to cancel their work permits where they will have the six month ban, which is usually enforced by the ministry, lifted,” Bin Deemas added.

Related: IN PICS: Inside Dubai’s labour camps.
Related: Registered firms to pay workers via WPS from September.

The worker has now the right to leave his employer without filing the required notice period if the firm does not fulfil any of its commitments as stipulated in the employment contract, Gulf News noted.

Also, all firms registered with the UAE Ministry of Labour will start making payment of workers’ wages through the newly introduced wages protection system (WPS) from September, the ministry said on Thursday.

The new system makes the electronic transfer of labourers’ wages from employer to employee mandatory following a decree issued by Labour Minister Saqr Ghobash.

A serious article published on CultureChange.org says that strip mining and draught – thus climate change – as studies show, had also evident psychological effects.

Pincas Jawetz — Sun, 07 Jun 2009 13:16:41 +0000

What Does Climate Change Do to Our Heads?

by Sanjay Khanna
14 May 2009, CultureChange.org
A small yet growing body of evidence suggests that how people think and feel is being influenced strongly by ecosystem transformation related to climate change and industry-related displacement from the land. These powerful stressors are occurring more frequently around the world.

A case in point: When researchers from the Centre for Rural and Remote Mental Health at the University of Newcastle in Australia conducted interviews in drought-affected communities in New South Wales in 2005, the responses suggested some of their subjects may have been suffering from a recently described psychological condition called solastalgia (pronounced so-la-stal-juh).

Solastalgia describes a palpable sense of dislocation and loss that people feel when they perceive changes to their local environment as harmful. It’s a neologism that Glenn Albrecht, an environmental philosopher at the University of Newcastle’s School of Environmental and Life Sciences, created in 2003.

Albrecht’s work among communities distraught by black-coal strip mining in New South Wales’ Upper Hunter Region convinced him that the English language needed a new term to connect the experience of ecosystem loss to mental health concerns.

“The sense of a home landscape being violated [by strip mining-related environmental damage] seemed to have disturbed the region’s social ecology so much that the psychic or mental health of many people living in the zone of high impact was being affected,” he says.

Albrecht’s stunning insight? That there might be a wide variety of shifts in the health of an ecosystem—from subtle landscape changes related to global warming to desolate wastelands created by large-scale strip mining—that diminish people’s mental health.

In Eastern Australian communities, where the toll of a six-year-long drought has been devastating, interviews with farmers provided additional momentum for the solastalgia concept.

In one such interview, a female farmer poignantly described the loss of her garden oasis. “Our gardens have had to die,” she said, “because our house dam has been dryâ€¦. So it’s very depressing for a woman because a garden is an oasis out here with this dustâ€¦you know, to come home to a nice green lawn is justâ€¦ that’s all gone, so you’ve got dust at your back door.”

While persistent drought and open-pit coal mining may be extreme cases, if the environmental degradation of the past hundred years is any indication, our contemporary lifestyles, built on a dwindling resource base, have failed to acknowledge how much the mental health of people and ecosystems is interrelated.

This may imply that the unrelenting media focus on weather-related and economic aspects of climate change does not adequately take into consideration the challenge of mitigating the psychological impact of global warming. How might we feel when the heat is relentless and our surrounding environment changes irrevocably? How might our mental health be affected?

In a recent Wired magazine article on Albrecht and the concept of solastalgia, Global Mourning: How the next victim of climate change will be our minds, writer Clive Thompson sensitively characterized as “global mourning” the potential impact of overwhelming environmental transformation caused by climate change. Thompson cogently summed up Albrecht’s view of what solastalgia might look like were it to become an epidemic of emotional and psychic instability causally linked to changing climates and ecosystems.

Albrecht also emphasizes that feelings of melancholia and homesickness have previously been recorded among Aboriginal peoples in the Americas and Australia who were forcibly moved from their home territories by U.S., Canadian and Australian governments in the late nineteenth and twentieth centuries.

Sanjay Khanna: You speak of psychoterratic and somaterratic illnesses. What are they?

Glenn Albrecht: Psychoterratic illness involves the psyche or mind and terra or earth. So a psychoterratic illness would be an earth-related mental illness, where both nostalgia and solastalgia are examples of people being made “mentally ill” by the severing of “healthy” links between themselves and their home or territory.

Somaterratic illness, on the other hand, involves soma or the body and relates to damage done to the human body, its physiology and/or genetics, as a result of the loss of ecosystem health by, for example, toxic pollution in any given area of land.

SK: You note on your blog that there are antecedents to solastalgia.

GA: Yes, David Rapport, a past professor at the University of Guelph in Ontario, Canada, is a pioneer in the study of the health of natural ecosystems and their relationship with humans. In the 1970s, he described “ecosystem distress syndrome,” which was what happened when an ecosystem couldn’t restore its balance after an external disturbance.

Once I fully appreciated this concept, I realized there must be a human equivalent to ecosystem distress syndrome, that is, a home environment so profoundly disturbed that it affected the balance of well being or the mental health of people within their social ecology.

The interviews of affected people I conducted along with Nick Higginbotham and Linda Connor in strip-mined areas of the Upper Hunter Valley showed that people’s sense of place was being violated and that this was profoundly disturbing them. Their home environment was being desolated and it seemed to us that the vital link between ecosystem health and human health, both physical and mental, was being severed.

SK: Can you tell us a little bit more about the origins of solastalgia?

GA: Solastalgia’s Latin roots combine three ideas: The solace that one’s environment provides, the desolation caused by that environment’s degradation and the pain or distress that occurs inside a person as a result.

Solastalgia brings into English a much-needed word that links a mental state to a state of the biophysical environment. The need for new concepts in the face of what is happening under climate change has seen other cultures develop new terms that have affinities with solastalgia.

The Inuit, for example, have a new word, uggianaqtuq (pronounced OOG-gi-a-nak-took), which relates to climate change and has connotations of the weather as a once reliable and trusted friend that is now acting strangely or unpredictably. And the Portuguese use the word saudade to describe a feeling one has for a loved one who is absent or has disappeared. The upshot is that under the pressure of climate change, your preferred climate and ecosystem might well be thought of as a lover gone missing or turned bad.

SK: How might your research impact on psychiatry and the diagnosis of psychoterratic illnesses such as solastalgia?

GA: Alongside five other researchers, our four-person team co-wrote a summary of our research on the mental health impacts of mining and drought for psychological and psychiatric professionals. The paper, Solastalgia: the distress caused by climate change, was published in Australasian Psychiatry, a publication of the Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Psychiatrists, in November 2007.

Our team has mused that people badly affected by solastalgia would benefit from a set of professionally developed diagnostic tools so that solastalgia could be listed as a condition that required diagnosis and professional attention.

We’re happy for other people to take that challenge up and there are some academic psychiatrists who are interested in exploring these ideas further. However, given that key aspects of solastalgia are existential, the traditions of environmental philosophy and medical psychiatry may not come together so harmoniously. The melancholia of solastalgia is not the same as clinical depression, but it may well be a precursor to serious psychic disturbance.

That said, it’s worth remembering that up until the mid-twentieth century, the medical profession viewed nostalgia as a diagnosable psycho-physiological illness in which, for example, soldiers fighting in foreign lands became so homesick and melancholic it could kill them.

Today psychiatrists would see the condition of rapid and unwelcome severing from home as post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), an outcome of an acute stressor such as warfare or a Hurricane Katrina.

Solastalgia on the other hand is most often the result of chronic environmental stress; it is the lived experience of gradually losing the solace a once stable home environment provided. It is therefore appropriate to diagnose solastalgia in the face of slow and insidious forces such as climate change or mining.

SK: Would you tell us a little bit about the transdisciplinary team that you participate on?

GA: Nick Higginbotham, a social psychologist colleague who specializes in epidemiology and health matters, is working to gather empirical data for our solastalgia research. He has developed a much-needed environmental distress scale (EDS) that teases out the specific environmental components of distress from all the other things that go on in a person’s life. We will be using this scale in the new AUS$430K grant the team has received from the Australian Research Council to extend our earlier work by addressing “the lived experience (ethnography) of climate change” among people in the Hunter Valley.

Linda Connor, an ethnographer and social and medical anthropologist, handles the ethnography or cultural experience of all this. So collectively we have empirical (Higginbotham), cultural (Connor) and philosophical (me) interpretations of health and climate change. Finally, Sonia Freeman, our research assistant, has co-authored a number of papers.

SK: What implications might the recent apology by Kevin Rudd, the new Prime Minister of Australia, to the “stolen generations” of Australian Aborigines have in relation to solastalgia?

GA: The apology by Kevin Rudd to the stolen generations is about seeking forgiveness for the government-sanctioned taking of Indigenous children from their families and from their home territories (their “country”) from 1909 until 1969. There have been profound mental and physical health impacts from this process and many of the remaining stolen generations are now ageing but with a 17-year shorter life expectancy on average than non-indigenous Australians. Those who are alive today may be experiencing genuine nostalgia for a once-sustainable past and solastalgia within contemporary pathological and depressed home environments.

SK: Do you see a relationship between the conquest of Indigenous peoples of the Americas and Australasia, the state of environmental degradation and the experience of loss that we are seeing today? If so, what is that relationship from your perspective and research?

GA: The answer is, yes, there is a relationship between the two colonial cultures: the two continents were colonized only by the systematic dispossession of complex and formerly sustainable Indigenous societies.

Traditional Indigenous cultures in the Americas and Australasia displayed a profound appreciation of the relationship between human and ecosystem health, something global culture is trying to rediscover under the label of sustainability.

Remnant aboriginal cultures are still being pushed aside by the dominant global model of economic growth and progress. Even today, their chronic health problems are likely related to social and political issues that are connected to ongoing dispossession.

I’ve had recent firsthand experience of the lives of Indigenous people leading semi-traditional lives in Northern Australia to see the importance of the connections between human health and ecosystem health. In Arnhem Land, Aborigines who live on what are called “outstations” have been able to maintain much stronger and healthier links to their traditional land. Their physical and mental health status is, as a consequence, much better than those whose links to their own land have been severed and who now live in crowded, dysfunctional communities.

SK: Some of the solastalgia symptoms you describe are similar to the loss of cultural identity, including the loss of language and ancestral memory. Loss of place seems an extension of this new global experience of weakened cultural identities and Earth-based ethical moorings.

GA: I have written on this topic in a professional academic journal and expressed the idea of having an Earth-based ethical framework that could contribute to maximizing the creative potential of human cultural and technological complexity and diversity without destroying the foundational complexity and diversity of natural systems in the process.

Our history shows that some people and cultures have a tendency to create pathological ways of thinking, but if we want to support a life-affirming ethic in the twenty-first century, we are in need of reform and change.

SK: In the context of accelerating environmental change, what would you say to young people about the planet they are inheriting? What does sustainability mean in the context of the overwhelming pace of environmental and economic change that we’re seeing today?

GA: This is a tough one because the children of today face the double whammy of the escalating pace and scale of changes under the global forces of development and those of climate chaos. I’ve suggested to my own teenagers that what is happening is unacceptable ethically and practically and they should be in a state of advanced revolt about the whole deal.

From my perspective, supporting and maintaining the status quo is no longer a reasonable response to these big picture issues. At every point, we must challenge and refute this kind of thinking in a society that is clearly on a non-sustainable pathway.

Unfortunately, the lot in life of the youth today is to undo much of what has been done in the name of growth and progress in the last two hundred years. However, this does not mean a return to the past: As Herman Daly (the ecological economist) once said, you can have an economy that develops without growing.

On a personal level, I’m an optimistic, energetic philosopher and I believe that we must get our values more life orientated. I’m not willing to give up on encouraging change towards sustainability even in the face of what look like overwhelming negative forces.

The four-year grant recently awarded to our team will allow us to study the lived experience of climate change at a regional level. We’re happy that we’ll be able to start contributing data on how climate change is shifting culture, values and attitudes.

The next four years are critical. As a member of a research team, I believe that we’re right at the leading edge of change research and we are very committed to supporting the network of ecological and social relationships that promote human health. There’s hope in recognizing solastalgia and defeating it by creating ways to reconnect with our local environment and communities.

###

Sanjay Khanna is a writer and foresight researcher based in Vancouver, Canada. He can be reached at sk AT khannaresearch DOT com. His blog is at www.realisticsanctuary.com. More articles are available at www.huffingtonpost.com

The burst of a concept of SUSTAINABLE BANKING ranging from Spain to Brazil, Bangladesh, India and the new Indian Government with a Minister of State for the South-South. Observations while sitting in at a meeting of the Asia Society and looking at the London Financial Times.

Pincas Jawetz — Thu, 04 Jun 2009 17:41:57 +0000

Today’s Financial Times had a 4-pages SPECIAL REPORT – titled “SUSTAINABLE BANKING.” I was quite skeptical when I saw this title, but then the front page photo was of a wind-mills farm among cacti in Brazil, and the subtitle – “Winds of change: financing renewable energy projects, such as this one in Brazil, is increasingly favoured as part of a sustainable banking policy.” I became even more intrigued – is it possible that financial insatitutions stop chasing after ideas that build baloons and decide instead to use the wind in for really positive achievements?

Right there in front it said: “ECONOMIC CRISIS SOWS SEEDS OF CHANGE – SUSTAINABILITY MAY BE A WINNER IN THE FALLOUT FROM THE GLOBAL CREDIT CRUNCH, WRITES BROOKE MASTERS.”

It starts: “‘The credit crunch and collapse of the structured products market have turned much accepted financial wisdom on its head. The world has gained a new appreciation for long-term risk, and regulators around the globe seek to impose new standards on institutions they supervise.’ ‘Sustainability is not a luxury at all. It is just good business. People are paying even more attention than they were before because they are more conscious of their images,’ says Fabio Barbosa, president of Grupo Santander Brasil, which now owns Banco Real, winner of last year’s FT Sustainable Bank of the Year award. ‘Society is demanding a more conscious attitude.’” Then please read it further at http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/0c03d2a2-4f01-…

and “Dangers: Credit crunch holds many key lessons for the future By Mike Scott” at http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/0598956a-4f01-… then he continues as:

“Opportunities: Big institutions learn to think small.” – The world has recently lost its faith in the global financial system as an engine of prosperity, but there is one area that shines through as a success.

Microfinance, pioneered by economics lecturer (and now Nobel laureate) Mohammed Yunus in the 1970s, has improved the lives of millions of people by lending them tiny sums that enable them to take the first step on the road to financial inclusion.

The sector has developed from Professor Yunus’s first loan of $27 in a Bangladeshi village to be embraced around the world. While those first loans came out of Prof Yunus’ own pocket, the poorest people in the world are now, indirectly, receiving money from some of the biggest banks in the world and â€“ through specialist investment firms such as BlueOrchard â€“ some of the world’s wealthiest individuals. This at: http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/0f702242-4f01-…

and “Age of scarcity: Resource shortages yield investment opportunities” at http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/114e03c2-4f01-…

Eventually you ask yourself why the two major banks of Spain, which by the way did not buy into the balloons, and banks in Brazil and India are front runers in this review of what is solid banking for future generations, and why did the US banks and the other European banks , not see what these saw?

Which brings us to David Chazan reporting on what was learned by wise people of Bangladesh from turning MAOISM to MICROFINANCE in a JOURNEY OF HOPE at http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/01d58ab4-4f01-…

And there is much more from where these notes come in those four pages of the Financial Times.

Wew suggest thus to our readers – do yourselves good by going by yourselves to: http://search.ft.com/search?queryText=%2… and see further:

GOOD “Leading Banks reap benefit of environmental agendas” at http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/036122d0-4f01-…

I was leafing through the Financial Times while waiting at The Asia Society this morning for the start of the session on “A new Indian Government: Deciphering the Election Results and their Implications,” on which we advertised in our posting:

China and Climate Change with Jeffrey D. Sachs, Pakistan’s Crises, Water Management for the Poor, A New India Government, Philippines’ 2010 Politics – First Week in June discussion programs at the Asia Society in New York.
(posted on www.SustainabiliTank.info, Tuesday, May 26th, 2009)

Chaired by Mira Kamdar, a Senior Fellow at the World Policy Institute and recent fellow at the Asia Society, with panelists that included Kanchan Chandra from New York University, Sanjay Ruparella from The New School for Social Research, New York, and via a telephone connection to Delhi, Mr. Pramit Chaudhuri, The Hindustan Times Senior Editor.

The discussion was about the politics of India and the consensus was that the Congress Party and the main opposition parties have decreased in electoral power because of an immense fractionation among the voters, and the formation of hundreds of splinter groups – so that now smaller minorities of voters can obtain larger majorities in the lower house of Parliament.In the Upper House the situation is similar but a different coalition is needed there. Will now the new government – that has power in the House but really not in the street – with the extreme case having been that an elected member of the Parliament came in with just 9% of the vote – tackle needed social issues? There is a need for generational change, but the new faces are in many cases the sons and daughters of the old faces. The Senior Editor said that the stronger government, thanks to the numbers in Parliament, will have now less shackles to bring about change and liberalize, even though the left was weakened, Seemingly the stock market and journalism think so – but will they?

During the Bush Administration, doors to the US have been opened and it is expected that on nuclear power this will continue, and seemingly, if climate change is dealt with in this context, there will be cooperation here to – they said.

It can be expected that investments from institutions – inside and outside India – will continue in infrastructure like highways, and energy, but will they invest in human infrastructure? Is there going to be a shift away from identity (read ethnic) policy, in States like Bihar?

India has now the opportunity to work with the new US for a green 21st century in areas like public transportation, not just 8-way highways. Will they? In effect, from the rural sector there is now push for decentralization and small scale solar and wind, with grass roots involvement at the village level – so here we come to the real potential for innovation on this huge subcontinent – this connects to our opening story.

The Senior Editor said that India like China had a consumption driven growth model. Domestic consumption and investment came in from the outside, but with the credit problems investment fell 3-4%. They will now have to make this up from new public expenditures as much of the infrastructure comes not just from the State, but from the individual State Governments.

There was a question about curbing the population growth, but it was answered that actually the population is considered an asset for growth. How to provide health services to the population did not seem to be a priority.

————-

When the meeting broke, I spoke in private with the panelists present about the fact that Shashi Tharoor is now a Minister in charge of dealings with what the UN calls the South, as I wrote about in the June 1, 2009 posting: “Dr. Shashi Tharoor – the new India Minister of State for External Affairs in charge of the Middle East, Africa, and Latin America Affairs.”

We agreed that this may open the way for such contacts, so that India becomes more effective on the international stage – further, I also believe that he might be a good link to the new Washington of President Obama – with the departure of the powers that kept him out of the UN Secretary General’s office.

Bangladesh Institute of Peace and Security Studies (BIPSS) and Institute of South Asian Studies (ISAS, Singapore) are jointly organizing the first BIPSS-ISAS Roundtable dialogue on Singapore-Bangladesh Relations May 25, 2009 in Singapore. Will deal also with future of regional groupings in South and Southeast Asia (i.e. SAARC and ASEAN). We expect effects of Climate Change to be put on the table under the regional security topic.

Pincas Jawetz — Sun, 17 May 2009 17:52:55 +0000

Bangladesh Institute of Peace and Security Studies (BIPSS) and Institute of South Asian Studies (ISAS, Singapore) are jointly organizing the first BIPSS-ISAS Roundtable dialogue on Singapore-Bangladesh Relations on 25 May 2009 in Singapore.

A four member delegation from Bangladesh led by President BIPSS, Major General ANM Muniruzzaman (Retd.), will arrive in Singapore on 24 May, 2009. The roundtable agenda encompasses a wide range of issues that are of interest for both the countries; Singapore and Bangladesh. Both the institutes will present papers (each institute will present 4 papers) on domestic economic developments (of respective countries), regional security architecture, evolving regional relations in South and Southeast Asia and future of regional groupings in South and Southeast Asia (i.e. SAARC and ASEAN). The Roundtable will also review past and existing relations between Bangladesh and Singapore.

The roundtable dialogue will essentially play a major role in strengthening Singapore-Bangladesh relations and furthering regional cooperation. This will be a yearly event at Track II level, and the 2nd Singapore-Bangladesh Roundtable will be hosted in Bangladesh in 2010.

Tentative Programme

~~SUNDAY, 24 MAY 2009~~

Arrival of Bangladesh Delegation to Singapore

~~MONDAY, 25 MAY 2009~~

8.30am
Arrival of Delegates and Tea / Coffee
9.00am
WELCOME ADDRESS

Professor Tan Tai Yong
Co-Chair, First Roundtable on Singapore-Bangladesh Relations, and
Director, Institute of South Asian Studies, Singapore

Major General Muniruzzaman
Co-Chair, First Roundtable on Singapore-Bangladesh Relations, and
President, Bangladesh Institute of Peace and Security Studies

9.15am
SESSION ONE
Singapore and Bangladesh: Understanding Domestic Socio- economic and Political Environments

Moderator
Dr Amitendu Palit
Visiting Research Fellow
Institute of South Asian Studies

Presentations

Key Socio-economic and Political Developments in Bangladesh
Dr. S Mahmud Ali, Senior Editorial Coordinator – Asia-Pacific, at the BBC World Service, London and a member of the BIPSS International Advisory Board.
Key Socio-economic and Political Developments in Singapore
Dr Gillian Koh, Senior Research Fellow, Institute of Policy Studies Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy, NUS.
Discussions

10.45am
SESSION TWO
Bangladesh-Singapore Relations

Moderator
Dr. S Mahmud Ali,
Senior Editorial Coordinator – Asia-Pacific, at the BBC World Service, London and a member of the BIPSS International Advisory Board.

Presentations

Relations between Singapore and Bangladesh â€“ The Bangladesh Perspective Khaled Iqbal Chowdhury, Research Associate, BIPSS
Relations between Singapore and Bangladesh â€“ The Singapore Perspective Mr M. Shahidul Islam, Research Associate, Institute of South Asian Studies

12.15pm

Lunch

1.30pm
SESSION THREE
Singapore and Bangladesh: The Regional Security Architecture

Moderator
Professor S. D. Muni
Visiting Senior Research Fellow
Institute of South Asian Studies

Presentations

Major Security Challenges facing South Asia
Major General ANM Muniruzzaman (Retd.),
President BIPSS.
Major Security Challenges facing Southeast Asia
Mr Daljit Singh
Visiting Senior Research Fellow
Institute of Southeast Asian Studies
Discussions

3.00pm
Tea / Coffee

3.15pm
SESSION FOUR
Singapore and Bangladesh: Regionalism and the Future of
Regional Groupings in South and Southeast Asia

Moderator
Major General ANM Muniruzzaman (Retd.),
President BIPSS.

Presentations

Bangladesh, the South Asian Region and SAARC
Shafqat Munir, Research Analyst, BIPSS.
Singapore, the Southeast Asian Region and ASEAN
Ambassador See Chak Mun
Senior FellowInstitute of South Asian Studies
Discussions

4.45pm
CLOSING REMARKS

Professor Tan Tai Yong
Co-Chair, First Roundtable on Singapore-Bangladesh Relations, and
Director, Institute of South Asian Studies, Singapore

Major General Muniruzzaman
Co-Chair, First Roundtable on Singapore-Bangladesh Relations, and
President, Bangladesh Institute of Peace and Security Studies

5.00pm
End of Roundtable

6.30pm
Cocktails followed by Dinner hosted by ISAS

9.00pm
End of Dinner