From the IPCC Meeting in Geneva:

Mr. Rajendra Pachauri, has been reelected by acclamation this morning for a second term.

Mr. Pachauri will meet the press on Thursday following the closure of the Plenary at 13.00, at the CICG in Geneva.

He will then introduce the new Bureau members and provide information on other major items concerning the future IPCC work program.

The Chairman will only be available for interviews on that occasion.

Please see Press release attached.

With best wishes,

Brenda Abrar-Milani
IPCC information and communication Office
World Meteorological Organization (WMO)
7 bis, avenue de la Paix
CH-1211 Geneva 2
Switzerland
Tel. +4122 730 8066
Email:  babrar at wmo.int
Web: www.ipcc.ch

————————————————-

PRESS RELEASE
Tuesday September 2, 2008.
The IPCC is happy to announce that its Chairman, Mr. Rajendra Pachauri, has been reelected by acclamation this morning for a second term.

Mr. Pachauri has been the head of the organization since 2002. Under his leadership, the IPCC released “Climate Change 2007”, its Fourth Assessment Report, and was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize that same year.
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change is holding its 29th Plenary session in Geneva until Thursday 4 September.

All other agenda items under discussion, including the election of the other Bureau members, are still in progress. The new team elected by all member countries will lead the IPCC through the preparation of the Fifth Assessment Report, which is expected to be released in 2014.

Mr. Pachauri will meet the press on Thursday following the closure of the Plenary at 13.00, at the CICG in Geneva. He will then introduce the new Bureau members and provide information on other major items concerning the future IPCC work program.

The Chairman will only be available for interviews on that occasion.
Contact :
Brenda Abrar-Milani :  babrar at wmo.int Tel: +33 614 81 73 98/ IPCC website : www.ipcc.ch

 Statement by Achim Steiner, UN Under-Secretary General and UN Environment Programme

In Response to Hurricane Gustav and the Devastating Indian Floods

2  September,  2008- The  evacuation  of  New  Orleans  in  advance of hurricane Gustav and the
displacement  of  two  million Indians to the worst flood in 50 years underline the increasing
vulnerability  of  humanity  to  natural disasters-vulnerability that is set to rise under the
scientific scenarios if climate change if left unchecked.

According  to  Munich  Re,  one of the world’s leading insurance companies and a member of the  UNEP Finance Initiative, 2008 is already shaping up to be a significant, disaster-prone year.

By  June,  an  estimated 400 natural disasters had occurred costing $82 billion. And while the  earthquake  in  Sichuan  Province, China cannot be laid at the climate change door many of the  others  are  in line with the scientific predictions of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate  Change (IPCC).


“The  year  is  following  the  long-term  trend  towards  more weather catastrophes, which is
influenced by climate change,” said the German-based re-insurer last month.

Significant  weather-related disasters in 2008 include Cyclone Nargis and related storm surges
that  impacted  Myanmar in May leaving 138,000 people dead or missing; winter storm Emma which
hit  Europe in March costing an estimated $1.5 billion and the floods along the Mississippi in
the United States in June that have cost around $10 billion.

As  our  hearts  go  out  to  the  victims  and  the  families  affected by current exodus and
impacts-the  death  toll  in India stands at 75 but is likely to rise- our heads must focus on
the urgency to act on rising greenhouse gas emissions.

 There  is  now  less than 500 days before governments meet in Copenhagen in 2009 to agree on a
new climate deal to kick in post 2012.

Nothing  less  than firm, legally binding commitments to significantly reduce pollution linked
with  the  burning  of  fossil fuels will suffice alongside increased funding to climate-proof
vulnerable economies and communities.

Indeed  the  way  we  manage-or  fail  to  manage-our  cities and coastal infrastructure up to
transport networks; agricultural lands; forests; mangroves and wetlands will be as critical as
managing a big decline in carbon dioxide, methane and other key pollutants.

The  IPCC,  whose  20th  anniversary  we  mark  in Geneva this week, has provided the sobering
assessments and the clear direction that detours and delay and are not options.

 It is not just weather-related catastrophes that are of concern.

Other  far-reaching  phenomena threaten lives, livelihoods and economies. These range from the
melting  of  glaciers  and snow-pack in the Alps and the Andes to the Himalayas and the Sierra
Nevada  mountains  up to sea level rise threatening the livelihoods of millions across Africa,
Asia indeed the entire world.

Some  small  island  states have already drafted permanent evacuation plans which means entire
cultures are at risk of extinction unless we unite to stop climate change.

The current calamities facing the planet, from the serious threat of famine in Ethiopia to the
misery  and  loss of life in India and the disruptions to the people of New Orleans, underline
the kind of economic and human suffering the globe is facing within the coming years.

But  the  IPCC  assessments have shone an even brighter light on the costs of action-indeed it
clear  that  it  will  not  cost  the Earth to save it, perhaps as little as a few tenths of a
percent of global GDP a year over the next 30 years.

In  doing  so  the  globe  can  also  address other running sores from the loss of forests and
biodiversity to delivering clean energy to the rural poor and conserving water supplies.

So  the  IPCC  remind  us that we have challenges but we also have choices. It is time to make
those.                                                                                        

In Bali last year at the climate convention meeting, governments agreed to negotiate a package
of actions to be finalized by, or at, the Copenhagen climate convention meeting.

While some progress was made in August at a meeting in Accra, Ghana, the level of consensus is
failing  to  match  the  magnitude of the challenges nor the opportunities to Green the global
economy.

 The  start  of the 2008 Atlantic hurricane season should serve as a reminder and catalyze that
urgent response.

According  to the United States National Oceanography and Atmospheric Administration, there is
now an 85 percent probability of an above-normal season as a result of atmospheric and oceanic
conditions.

The  IPCC said in its fourth assessment last year that there has been an increase in hurricane
intensity  in  the North Atlantic since the 1970s, and that increase correlates with increases
in sea surface temperature.

The  IPCC  also said it is likely that we will see increases in hurricane intensity during the
21st  century-it  is  not  too  late to act, first at the climate convention meeting in Poznan
later this year and decisively in Copenhagen a year later: we have some 500 days left.

 

*****

We visited him on his boat right here in New York, then later in Tel Aviv. He was one of a kind. His bringing ice cream to the children of Gaza did not end the will to fight - but showed that it is possible to be humane.
Yes, we know, some of the children that got his ice cream are now in the Hamas. But then, would they have been any better without that ice cream? It did nevertheless attempt to put a human face to the conflict, and it is not his fault that it did not lead to a more solid understanding.

If not the Palestinians and the Egyptians - there were hundred of thousands of Israelis that understood him. His spirit continues to be present at the Uri Avneri round table - every Friday night at least.

A coincidence - his death was announced on the day Barak Obama assumes the leadership of the Democratic Party of the US. We wonder what he would have said and post also the following tidbit:

And the New York Times correspondent from Jerusalem wrote the following version:

Climate conference makes progress on key dispute.

By (AP) Published: 2008-08-23, ACCRA, Ghana.
Delegates at a key U.N. climate conference made headway Friday on a plan to encourage developing countries to regulate carbon emissions by focusing on their largest industries.

The emerging plan sidesteps objections from countries like India and China, which refuse to accept national targets for the overall emission of the greenhouse gases blamed for global warming.

How to get developing countries to commit to reducing pollution levels has deeply divided countries seeking to craft a new climate change agreement to succeed the 1997 Kyoto Protocol, which expires in 2012.

The meeting of 1,600 delegates and environmentalists from 160 countries was the third conference this year working on the accord, due to be adopted in Copenhagen in December 2009.

The Accra meeting also was discussing ways to integrate the conservation of the world’s ever-shrinking forests into the Copenhagen agreement, as well as studying ways to raise and distribute the tens of billions of dollars needed annually to help poor countries deal with the consequences of climate change.

Under the Kyoto pact, only 37 industrial countries committed to meet specific targets. Together, they were required to cut emissions by an average 5 percent from 1990 levels by 2012. The United States refused to participate in the Kyoto regime because it excluded China and other large newly powerful economies from any obligation.

Korea, which is not one of the 37, surprised delegates by announcing that next year it will adopt a target for reducing its carbon emissions by 2020, but declined to give specifics. Earlier this year, South Africa also said it would embrace self-imposed targets, peaking its emissions by 2025.

Under the “sectoral approach” now taking shape, developing countries would set pollution targets for specific industries, like cement, steel or aluminum. Unlike the 37 industrial countries, they likely would not be punished for missing their goals.

“Something quiet but quite dramatic is happening,” said David Doniger of the Natural Resources Defense Council. “People are now talking about the same idea in the same language.”

India voiced reservations, but did not reject the concept. As for China, Doniger said the plan fit neatly with Beijing’s intention to increase the efficiency of its key industries, which produce the bulk of its carbon emissions.

Details of any agreement on the new approach would be complex and difficult to reach, and it is only one of many disputed components of a post-2012 pact.

But consensus appeared to coalesce around the notion that industrial countries will remain legally bound to meet a national cap on their carbon emissions, while developing countries would have flexibility in deciding which industries would be controlled and at what levels.

A critical element calls for advanced countries to provide the technology and funding to help other countries curb emissions in heavily polluting industries.

***

“There is now a basis for discussion,” said Katrin Gutmann, policy coordinator of the WWF Global Climate Initiative. “Before, we worried there would just be more clashes,”

But financing remains unresolved and it was unclear how governments would move forward, she said.

Japan, which advanced the proposal earlier this year to a chorus of criticism, said it was pleased with the response in Accra after it dropped several components that aroused objections.

Developing countries had feared the Japanese proposal was a backdoor device to impose binding targets that would limit their economic development.

“That is a great advancement compared with the beginning of this year,” Japanese delegate Jun Arima told the conference.

——————

From:  sniffenj at un.org
Subject: Cutting Fossil Fuel Subsidies Can Cut Greenhouse Gas Emissions, Says UNEP Report
Date: August 26, 2008 10:21:12 AM EDT

UNEP NEWS RELEASE

Cutting Fossil Fuel Subsidies Can Cut Greenhouse Gas Emissions, Says UN
Environment Programme Report.

Meanwhile, New Assessment of Clean Development Mechanism Shows
Climate-Friendly Energy Projects Achieving Lift-Off in Sub Saharan Africa.

ACCRA/NAIROBI, 26 August 2008 — Scrapping fossil fuel subsidies could play
an important role in cutting greenhouse gases while giving a small but not
insignificant boost to the global economy, a new report by the UN
Environment Programme (UNEP) says.

The report challenges the widely held view that such subsidies assist the
poor, arguing that many of these price support systems benefit the
wealthier sections of society rather than those on low incomes.

They are also diverting national funds from more creative forms of pro-poor
polices and initiatives that are likely to have a far greater impact on the
lives and livelihoods of the worse-off sectors of society.

Globally, around $300 billion or 0.7 per cent of global GDP is being spent
on energy subsidies annually.

The lion’s share is being used to artificially lower or reduce the real
price of fuels like oil, coal and gas or electricity generated from such
fossil fuels.

Cancelling these subsidies might reduce greenhouse gas emissions by as much
as 6 per cent a year while contributing 0.1 per cent to global GDP.

***

The report acknowledges that some subsidies or mechanisms, whether in the
form of tax breaks, financial incentives or other market instruments, can
generate social, economic and environmental benefits.

A case in point are feed-in tariffs that have kick-started a renewable
energy revolution in countries such as Germany and Spain.

The report also accepts that there may be cases where some subsidies can,
if well- devised and time-limited, meet important social and environmental
goals — for example, ones to encourage a switch from dirty,
health-hazardous or environmentally harmful fuels such a charcoal.

The report also cites the case of Chile where well-devised subsidies have
increased rural electrification from around 50 per cent to over 90 per cent
of the population over 12 years.

But the report argues that many seemingly well-intentioned subsidies rarely
make economic sense and rarely address poverty. The report, therefore,
challenges the widely-held myth that scrapping fossil fuel supports would
hit the poor.

The report cites liquid petroleum gas (LPG) subsidies in India where $1.7
billion was spent in the first half of the current financial year on trying
to get the fuel into poor households. “LPG subsidies are mainly benefiting
higher-income households. … Despite the ineffectiveness of the subsidy the
programme is being extended until 2010”, says the study.

Indeed the report concludes that in many developing countries the real
beneficiaries of such subsidies are neither the poor nor the environment
but well-off households; equipment manufacturers and the producers of the
fuels.

Achim Steiner, UN Under-Secretary-General and UNEP Executive Director,
said: “In the final analysis many fossil fuel subsidies are introduced for
political reasons but are simply propping up and perpetuating
inefficiencies in the global economy—they are thus part of the market
failure that is climate change.”

“There are now less than 500 days before the crucial UN Climate Change
Convention meeting in Copenhagen in late 2009. Governments should urgently
review their energy subsidies and begin phasing out the harmful ones that
contribute to the wasteful use of finite resources and delay the
introduction of renewables or more efficient forms of generation while
creating disincentives and barriers to public transport up to energy saving
appliances”, he added.

***

The new UNEP report– Reforming Energy Subsidies: Opportunities to
Contribute to the Climate Change Agenda—was released today at a meeting in
Accra, Ghana of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC).

Here Governments have gathered to continue negotiations under the Bali Road
Map towards a conclusive and far-reaching new climate deal by Copenhagen
2009.

***

CDM Takes Off in Sub-Saharan Africa:
Today UNEP also presented new findings on the penetration of the Clean
Development Mechanism (CDM) in sub-Saharan Africa.

The CDM, part of the Convention’s Kyoto Protocol agreed in 1997, allows
developed nations to offset some of their greenhouse gas emissions by
funding cleaner energy projects in developing countries that generate
carbon credits known as certified emission reductions.

These can range from wind and biomass energy projects to ones that tap
methane from rubbish tips and schemes that encourage the use of less
polluting fuels or power plants.

There has been concern that the benefits of the CDM, a contrasting example
of a policy tool aimed at wider social, economic and environmental benefits
when compared with fossil fuel subsidies, have been by-passing countries in
Africa.

The main countries benefiting to date have been the rapidly developing
economies such as China, Brazil, and India.

The new figures, compiled by the UNEP Risoe Centre on Energy, Climate and
Sustainable Development in Denmark, indicate that this is changing with the
first CDM projects emerging over the past 18 months in six countries– the
Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC), Madagascar, Mauritius, Mozambique,
Mali and Senegal.

These include an oil well, gas flare reduction project in the DRC and a
river hydroelectric project in Madagascar.

In Kenya new projects include a 35MW extension of geothermal, hot rocks,
generation and a sugar cane waste-into-energy project with Mumias Sugar
Company.

Mr. Steiner added: “Whereas fossil fuel subsidies are an example of a
blunt policy instrument, perpetuating old and inefficient economic models,
the CDM is an example of a more intelligent, market-based mechanism that is
fostering the transition to a modern Green Economy.”

He said the uptake in Africa was due, in part, to the impact of the UN’s
Nairobi Framework initiative launched in 2006.

Here UNEP, along with partners including the UN Development Programme
(UNDP), have been working to build the human and regulatory capacity of
poorer countries to access carbon financing.

Other measures have included awareness-raising among banks and industry
players on the continent to new green finance opportunities.

The UNEP Risoe Centre has been monitoring global trends in CDM investment
and the impacts of these activities for some time.

“Excluding South Africa, there were only six CDM projects in five
sub-Saharan countries in 2006. Now there are 49 projects in 12 countries,
South Africa included”, says Lars Appelquist, a researcher at the Centre.

This still remains low compared to a global tally of close to 3,500 CDM
projects, but does mark a departure from the very low levels of the past.

“As new policy drivers and planned capacity development activities bear
fruit, the market will likely exhibit exponential growth like other
regions”, says Glenn Hodes, CDM Programme Manager at UNEP Risoe. Indeed,
assuming Governments agree on a deep and decisive new climate agreement in
2009, Africa overall could see roughly 230 projects by 2012, according to
Hodes’ and Appelquist’s calculations.

These could cumulatively generate over 65 million certified emission
reductions, worth close to $1 billion at a conservative carbon credit price
of $15.

“Compared to CDM prodigies like India, Africa is poised to be the late
bloomer”, says Hodes.

—————————-

Notes to Editors:

“Reforming Energy Subsidies: Opportunities to Contribute to the Climate
Change Agenda” was commissioned by UNEP’s Division of Technology, Industry
and Economics. The principal author is Trevor Morgan of Menecon Consulting
and now with the International Energy Agency (IEA).

It says that Russia has the largest subsidies in dollar terms amounting to
around $40 billion a year and mainly spent on making natural gas cheaper.

Iran comes second with around $37 billion; six countries, spending in
excess of $10 billion on subsidies, come next. These are China, Saudi
Arabia, India, Indonesia, Ukraine and Egypt.

The report can be downloaded at www.unep.org

The new data and estimated take up of Clean Development Mechanism (CDM)
projects in Africa can also be downloaded at www.unep.org

For more information, please contact: Nick Nuttall, Spokesperson/Head of
Media, UNEP Nairobi, on Tel: +254-20-762-3084, Mobile: +254-733-632755 or
+41-79-596-5737, E-mail:  nick.nuttall at unep.org;
Or Anne-France White, Associate Information Officer, UNEP Nairobi, at Tel:
+254-20-762-3088, Mobile: +254-72-8600-494, or E-mail:
 anne-france.white at unep.org

=========

  Permalink | Printer Friendly |  Email This Article
Posted in UN Commission on Sustainable Development, Reporting from Washington DC, Austria, Brazil, Global Warming issues, Israel, China, Reporting from UNFCCC Meetings, European Union, Futurism, South Africa, Japan, Korea, India, Iran, Denmark, Ghana

del.icio.us Digg Reddit Google Technorati Windows Live Yahoo! | what's this?

Discuss this article

Terror War Re-Evaluated as Musharraf Steps Down.
By BENNY AVNI, Staff Reporter of the Sun | August 19, 2008

America and Pakistan’s neighbors are being forced to re-evaluate their strategy in the war on Al Qaeda and the Taliban after the resignation yesterday of President Musharraf, whose nine-year reign included a decision after September 11, 2001, to cooperate closely with America in the fight against international terrorism.

President Musharraf of Pakistan responds to people gathered after the farewell ceremony in Islamabad yesterday. Officials in Washington yesterday were careful to balance statements of praise for Mr. Musharraf with expressions of confidence that his successors would do just as well. But in New Delhi, where Mr. Musharraf’s recent misfortunes are seen as a probable cause for the renewal of Pakistani-Indian hostilities in the disputed region of Kashmir and elsewhere, officials were almost openly ruing his departure.

A Pakistani-born diplomat yesterday said it is ironical that Mr. Musharraf, after long being maligned as a ruthless dictator, could end up ushering in a new, more democratically oriented government in Islamabad. “He left like Nixon did, under pressure of probable impeachment,” the diplomat, who spoke on the condition of anonymity, said. “Then again, he is also the first Pakistani leader to leave on his own, without being hanged, assassinated, or deposed by the military. For Pakistan, that is a certain step forward.”

But it was unclear yesterday whether Mr. Musharraf would stay in Pakistan, where some are calling for him to be put on trial, or be forced to seek asylum in Saudi Arabia, Turkey, or the West. Asylum in America “is not on the table,” Secretary of State Rice said yesterday. According to reports from the region, a Saudi plane departed Pakistan yesterday without picking up Mr. Musharraf, after sitting on the tarmac for hours. A leader of the ruling coalition in Pakistan, Nawaz Sharif, spent years in Saudi exile after he was deposed as prime minister in a 1999 military coup by Mr. Musharraf, who was then chief of the army.

“President Musharraf has been a friend to the United States and one of the world’s most committed partners in the war against terrorism and extremism,” Ms. Rice said in a statement.

“President Bush appreciates President Musharraf’s efforts in the democratic transition of Pakistan as well as his commitment to fighting Al Qaeda and extremist groups,” a White House spokesman, Gordon Johndroe, said. He added: “We’re confident that we will maintain a good relationship with the government of Pakistan.”

American officials said they were confident that the uneasy ruling coalition of the moderately Islamic party led by Mr. Sharif and the Western-oriented party that was led by Benazir Bhutto until her assassination and is now led by her widower, Asif Ali Zardari; son, Bilawal Bhutto Zardari, and Prime Minister Gilani, would cooperate with America on the war on terror as closely as Mr. Musharraf did. “The war against extremism is bigger than one man,” a State Department spokesman, Robert Wood, said.

Mr. Musharraf’s “departure is a loss for the U.S. because the civilian government will not do as good a job against terrorism,” a former American ambassador to the United Nations, John Bolton, told The New York Sun.

In the aftermath of the 2001 attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, “What we needed in Pakistan is someone to stand with us, and Musharraf did just that,” a Bush administration official said yesterday, speaking on the condition of anonymity. America reciprocated to the tune of $10 billion in military support for the Pakistani government after Mr. Musharraf promised to dedicate his army and intelligence services to the fight against the Taliban and Al Qaeda.

Now, according to some in Washington, the best remaining Pakistani partner in the war on terror is the current army chief of staff, General Ashfaq Parvez Kayani, who has yet to express a preference for any party. Meanwhile, the partnership between the Pakistan Muslim League-N and the secular Pakistan Peoples Party is fragile and unlikely to maintain Mr. Musharraf’s tight grip over the army and the country’s powerful Inter-Services Intelligence.

India is specifically concerned that a resurgent ISI could shift Pakistan’s attention to Kashmir and hostilities with New Delhi from the war on terror and the Afghan border. As speculation about Mr. Musharraf’s departure increased in recent weeks, India’s national security adviser, M.K. Narayanan, told a Singaporean newspaper, the Straits Times, that the president’s absence would leave “a big vacuum.” India is “deeply concerned about this vacuum because it leaves the radical extremist outfits with freedom to do what they like, not merely on Pak-Afghan border but clearly our side of the border too,” Mr. Narayanan told the paper.

In recent years, the long-standing tensions between New Delhi and Islamabad have eased under Mr. Musharraf. The two countries established commercial ties, while the situation in Kashmir grew calmer. During the last few weeks, however, cross-border attacks have increased, Pakistani-backed pro-independence Kashmiri fighters have intensified their activities, and diplomatic talks have slowed. Additionally, both India and Afghanistan blamed the ISI for the bombing in July of the Indian Embassy in Kabul.

—————-

So, all acknowledge that the real power in Pakistan - military dictatorship or not - is in the hands of the Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) and who rules over them? Quite clearly, there never was a Pakistani Ataturk - and what do these generals want? Whatever it is - it is not democracy.

What does Military Nationalism mean in a Pakistani context? Where is their loyalty when it comes to the Taliban, and even Al-Qaeda? What was their historic relationship to the Saudi Arabian money pipeline, or to the US involvement in the Cold War heating-up proxy-stage in Afghanistan with the introduction of religious extremism well funded via the Saudis? Will someone start using this Sunni potential as an antidote to the Iranian Shia element in the larger Islamic World? Historically, it was just only Pakistan, who besides the Saudi monarchy, recognized the annexation of Jerusalem by Jordan. Without a military hand ruling in Islamabad - this being replaced by a politically broad, but weak, alliance - will the ISI, and everybody else, find it more convenient to spend the ISI time now in playing the fields outside Pakistan, rather then trying to muddle the waters at home? Will anyone look under the rug of the old nuclear materials, and know-how sales, and will there be a second round of this sort of sales - specially as they have more to offer then Iran or North Korea?

Musharraf or not, the incomming US President will have to worry about what goes on inside the nominal borders of Pakistan much more then the stated preocupation with Afghanistan.