Help islands fight climate change

from

Ben Wikler - Avaaz.org     to PJ

Dear friends,

As leaders like Obama waver on global climate negotiations, the voices of the most vulnerable are needed in the climate debate. Avaaz has a chance to help small island states, whose very survival is at stake, make their voices heard in Copenhagen — click to help:

Donate now!

With the biggest climate summit in history just weeks away, leaders are backing off their promises for a deal to stop catastrophic climate change.

If they fail, it won’t just mean less snow on ski slopes. Millions of families in Africa will see their farms turn to dust as the desert advances, many in Asia will die in worsening floods and storms, and whole island nations will be threatened by rising seas — all within 10-15 years.

The climate issue can get lost in statistics. But at critical moments, voices of moral authority can cut through the noise.

So Avaaz is launching a critical effort to build the capacity of negotiating teams from vulnerable islands like Nauru and Palau at the Copenhagen climate talks — and gearing up to support their message with intensive on-the-ground advocacy for a strong treaty. Even a contribution of $50US/€33 can cover signs and photocopying for a press conference — and more is needed for airfare, food, and training materials … please chip in what you can:
 https://secure.avaaz.org/en/their_voices…

We know the power of voices from the front lines climate change. At the climate summit in Bali two years ago, a stunning speech by the negotiator from Papua New Guinea pushed the US to relent — breaking a critical deadlock and rescuing the talks from collapse in the final hours. Island states continue to lead the world — demanding bold action where others are timid.

The problem is that Europe, Canada, and the US typically send dozens of negotiators and support staff to these summits — while most small island states have trouble sending more than two or three delegates. Multiple negotiations happen simultaneously. If a country has a tiny delegation, it literally has no seat at the table as decisions are made that will determine its survival.

What happens first to islands will one day happen to us all. We need the voices of island leaders in Copenhagen. And if each of us donates, even a small amount, we can help ensure that they will be heard — at the climate talks and around the world. Let’s do our part:
 https://secure.avaaz.org/en/their_voices…

The time has come to stand with our brothers and sisters at the front lines of climate change. Their fight, and their fate, is ours as well.

With hope,

Ben, Taren, Iain, Sam, Ricken, Alice, Milena, Paul, Luis, Julius, and the whole Avaaz team

PS: We’ve supported the island states before. Last year, over 150,000 of us signed a petition to support their UN resolution, which demanded that climate change at last be recognized as a threat to international peace and security. The island-state Ambassadors delivered the petition–and the UN passed the resolution. Now, we have a chance to help once more. Click below to stand in solidarity with those hit first and worst by climate change: https://secure.avaaz.org/en/their_voices…

——————————-

ABOUT AVAAZ Avaaz.org is an independent, not-for-profit global campaigning organization that works to ensure that the views and values of the world’s people inform global decision-making. (Avaaz means “voice” in many languages.) Avaaz receives no money from governments or corporations, and is staffed by a global team based in Ottawa, London, Rio de Janeiro, New York, Buenos Aires, and Geneva. Click here to learn more about our largest campaigns. Don’t forget to check out our Facebook and Myspace and Bebo pages! You can also follow Avaaz on Twitter!

From: Sylvia Gardner
November 16, 2009
Mechanical Miracles of the 21st Century

Mechanical Miracles of the 21st Century

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

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

————-

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

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

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

————–

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

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

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

————-

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

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

—————

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

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

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

A certain raport evolved between him and Washingtonian Diringer.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

——-

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

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

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

——-

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

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

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

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

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

——————

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

www.ft.com/obamainasia 

www.ft.com/rachmanblog

“Iceland will be a hugely important partner if they join, contributing to the EU’s geographic completeness,” said Iceland’s ambassador to the EU, Stefan Haukur Johannesson, who was appointed chief negotiator in the upcoming accession talks; he continued – “The northwestern flank will be added, which is key in the age of climate change and when the EU is starting to develop its own Arctic agenda.”

The EU is keen to get a toehold on the Arctic, with its enormous oil and gas potential and shipping possibilities via Northwest Passage. The bloc itself has no territorial access to the pole. With Iceland on board, the EU would instantly be on the Arctic Council, membership of which has been blocked by Canada.

But Iceland’s governing coalition is divided over the EU application. The normally euro-sceptic Left Greens gave their okay to moving ahead with negotiations in order to join the government, but much of their membership has not reacted well to the decision and MPs are under pressure from local branches of the party. Some analysts are speculating that it could split the party in two, with the more environmentally minded wing of the party the more pro-EU.

The centre left Social Democratic Alliance and their far-left coalition partners are also split over what attitude to take toward energy-intensive industries and a range of other policy issues.   It is far from certain if the government were to fall that any new coalition would continue with the application process.

On Friday, a poll carried out by the Research Center of Bifröst University for the TV channel Stöð Two found that 54 percent of Icelanders now oppose membership while only 29 percent are in favour, with 17 percent uncertain.

The survey suggests that opposition to joining the bloc has hardened in the last few months, as a poll in August had EU supporters on 34.7 percent and opponents on 48.5 percent. In September, another poll put backers of accession on 32.7 percent and opponents on 50.2 percent.

After the crash of Iceland’s three banks  people are still very angry. They don’t know who they should be angry at, so the EU, seemingly,  has turned into a sort of scapegoat. “There’s anger at everything foreign – the Brits, the Dutch, the IMF, the EU. They make no distinction,” said the Ambassador. “Another opinion says that with the banking collapse, there was a panic. a huge majority wanted to join the EU – now that is gone.” This opinion also says -  “If we joined the EU, we would get maybe five MEPs, similar to Malta, and three votes in the Council of Ministers. Our voice just would not be heard there. Our interests would instantly be sidelined by the bigger countries.” Iceland’s main interest is in the fisheries, that provide it with one third of the foreign currency earnings, and the EU might not help in this area.

The Barcelona, Catalunya, Spain, Climate Change Talks opened on Monday morning and the welcoming ceremony included José Montilla Aguilera, President of the Generalitat de Catalunya, who stressed that local and regional governments, not just states, desire to participate in, and contribute to, actions to address climate change. He said the Government of Catalunya has turned the fight against climate change into a main pillar of action, including through its renewable energy and sustainable transportation policies.

WELCOMING CEREMONY was opened by Yvo de Boer, the UNFCCC Executive Secretary.

Núria Marín Martinez, Mayor of L’Hospitalet, highlighted the role that local authorities can play in addressing climate change, drawing attention to commitments under the Covenant of Mayors against Climate Change.

Jordi Hereu, Mayor of Barcelona, stressed the need to connect local and regional policies and actions to effectively address climate change and called for inclusion of reference to local authorities in a climate change agreement.

Connie Hedegaard, Minister of Climate and Energy, Denmark, emphasized that the Barcelona session is paramount for success in Copenhagen where a coherent and ambitious solution is required to address the challenge of climate change. She highlighted “in-depth, frank and constructive discussions” during a recent meeting under the Greenland Dialogue on finance and mitigation, encouraging delegates to emulate this constructive spirit in Barcelona. She acknowledged the difficulty of getting binding agreement on all of the building blocks under the Bali Action Plan (BAP), pointing to further work required, and called on delegates to “walk the last mile to Copenhagen.”

María Teresa Fernández de la Vega, Vice-President of Spain, underscored the need to respond to climate change and highlighted the consequences of slowing down actions. Drawing attention to the window of opportunity to push forward a new green economy as a consequence of the global economic crisis, she said renewable energy would be one of the priorities of her country’s Presidency of the European Union (EU) in 2010. She also said €100 million of financing would be provided by Spain by 2012.

José Montilla Aguilera, President of the Generalitat de Catalunya, stressed that local and regional governments, not just states, desire to participate in, and contribute to, actions to address climate change. He said the Government of Catalunya has turned the fight against climate change into a main pillar of action, including through its renewable energy and sustainable transportation policies.

———–

As reported by the Earth Negotiations bulletin IN THE CORRIDORS http://mail.google.com/mail/#inbox/124b7… :

As delegates filled the vast halls of the Fira de Gran Via on Monday to begin the final week of negotiations before Copenhagen, many felt as if they had just left the previous round of discussions in Bangkok. As one delegate put it, the three-week intersessional period seemed like “a long working weekend.”

Expectations of progress in Barcelona, as well as in Copenhagen, varied. While many seemed resigned to the fact that a lot of work would have to be pushed beyond Copenhagen, others were angry at what they saw as attempts to lower expectations and the level of ambition.

Mixed feelings were also expressed on how the work should proceed in Barcelona. While many delegates expressed hope that meetings would go straight to informals to finally begin “real negotiations” and facilitate development of text and clear options for Copenhagen, some delegates continued to highlight the need for contact groups. One stressed that “a Copenhagen agreement needs to be developed in the light of day.” This sentiment was shared by some NGO representatives: “If they spend the meeting in informals from Tuesday onwards, I will have nothing to do for the rest of the week,” commented one.

In the afternoon, many delegates found their schedule to be much lighter than expected: suspension of the contact groups and informal consultations scheduled under the AWG-KP at the request of the African Group took many developed and developing countries by surprise.

Sudan, for the G-77/CHINA, expressed concern about calls by Annex I parties to end the Kyoto Protocol in favor of a single agreement in Copenhagen. He highlighted the need to make progress in defining Annex I parties’ individual and aggregate quantified emission limitation and reduction objectives (QELROs).

Sweden, for the EU, stressed that a new agreement should build on the Kyoto Protocol. He reiterated the EU’s willingness to reduce emissions by 30% from 1990 levels by 2020 as part of a global agreement, provided other countries take comparable commitments. He noted support expressed by the EU leaders for 80-95% emission reductions by 2050 from 1990 levels, and called on other developed countries to adopt the same goal.

The Gambia, for the AFRICAN GROUP,  said the Group would not accept scheduling of other contact group meetings until the work on “numbers” is completed.

Sudan, for the G-77/CHINA, expressed concern about calls by Annex I parties to end the Kyoto Protocol in favor of a single agreement in Copenhagen. He highlighted the need to make progress in defining Annex I parties’ individual and aggregate quantified emission limitation and reduction objectives (QELROs)

According to rumors circulating in the corridors, informal consultations held in the afternoon did not resolve the issue. Reactions to this development were mixed. According to a developing country delegate, the cancellation of informal groups should not have been necessary and was not a good start to the meeting.

Many developed country delegates in particular saw the move as a “poor tactic” and speculated on motivations behind it. Others, however, supported the position, calling it “necessary and quite timely,” and a developing country delegate said, “this demonstrates that if no agreement is reached in Copenhagen, it is because Annex I countries have refused to make necessary commitments.”

One veteran commented: “I thought I knew this process, but this just shows that unexpected things can happen – I hope this also applies to unexpectedly good progress in Copenhagen.”
and from Tiempo http://www.tiempocyberclimate.org/newswa… :

Meeting to discuss their position at the at the climate treaty negotiations in Copenhagen in December, African negotiators have declared that they will not accept a new agreement to replace the Kyoto Protocol, nor will they accept the merging of the Protocol into a new pact. They are calling for the Kyoto Protocol to be extended to cover a second and further commitment periods.

The African negotiators want see a separate legal instrument stemming from the Bali Action Plan: “a fair, inclusive, effective and equitable new agreement… that will benefit the climate and vulnerable countries and that will be undertaken in the context of poverty eradication, sustainable development and the need for gender equity.” Compensation is sought from the industrialized nations, who are held responsible for the climate problem, in the form of new, sustained and scaled-up finance required for adaptation and risk management. Speaking recently at a Nigerian government inter-ministerial conference in Abuja, Peter Tarfa from the Federal Ministry of the Environment said that “developing countries are seeking between US$200 billion and US$400 billion [a year] as compensation.”

More information
allAfrica

This Day

Climate change complacency `global suicide pact,’ UN told
Obama addresses climate change summit
U.S. President Barack Obama says the United States was slow to recognize the magnitude of climate change, but that Washington is moving swiftly to catch up. (Sept. 22, 2009)

Sep 22, 2009

Mitch Potter
THE TORONTO STAR WASHINGTON BUREAU
UNITED NATIONS – Complacency on climate change is tantamount to a global “suicide pact,” the President of the Maldives warned today as the largest-ever gathering of world leaders grappled with the issue at UN headquarters in New York.

Delivering an impassioned plea that stood out among a series of marquee speeches from the leaders of China, the United States, France and others, President Mohamed Nasheed of the Maldives pleaded with his powerful counterparts not to let the crisis slip through their fingers.

“We cannot make Copenhagen a pact of suicide — we have to make a deal,” said Nasheed, who in March emerged as a moral voice on climate change after unveiling plans to make the Maldives the first carbon neutral nation.

Today’s UN summit, unprecedented and involving nearly 100 world leaders, marks one of the final opportunities for nations to trade warm rhetoric for hard commitment in the runup to December’s Copenhagen conference, where the UN hopes a new global framework for emissions reduction will emerge to replace the failed Kyoto Accord.

President Hu Jintao told his counterparts that China is readying a four-part package of commitments aimed cutting emissions by a “notable margin.” Including a plan to plant 40-million hectares of carbon-absorbing forest.

But Hu cautioned that China, like other developing countries, “have limited capability” due to technology gaps. “Developing countries need to strike a balance between economic growth, social development and environmental protection.”

President Barack Obama said the U.S., like other nations, was “slow to response or even recognize the magnitude of the climate threat.

“But this is a new day. This is a new era. And I am proud to say that the United States has done more to promote clean energy and reduce carbon pollution in the last eight months than at any time in our history,” Obama said.

Doubts remain about Obama’s abliity to deliver on U.S. commitments, given that any pledges must also be sanctioned by the U.S. Congress, where a energy and climate bill may not be ready in time for Copenhagen.

But the momentum building in New York today is expected to bring new urgency to the issue — and, possibly, fresh leadership, as European delegates in particular turn up the heat.

“If we don’t take action we will face total disaster. There can be no further debate on this,” said French President Nicolas Sarkozy, who outlined the European Union’s willingness to spend as much as $100 billion over the next decade on technology transfers to enable developing countries to reduce emissions while maintaining growing economies.

“In Europe we are demonstrating we can move from growth with high carbon footprint to sustainable growth,” Sarkozy said. “No one will have to choose between unemployment and the environment.”

Prime Minister Stephen Harper is in New York today but did not attend the morning sessions. Harper was scheduled to lunch with Mayor Michael Bloomberg and will join up with 25 world leaders tonight for a private dinner at the UN at the behest of Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon.

Instead, Environment Minister Jim Prentice took Canada’s seat, where he absorbed the full heft of the messages of Obama, Hu, Sarkozy and the other keynote speakers.

“Canada was seated about 10 feet from the speaker’s podium so it came through very clearly,” Prentice told the Star. “I thought the President of the Maldives made a very compelling speech, with a crisp analysis of the challenge we all face.”

Prentice assessed the UN gathering as a “day where the United States and China are under the microscope,” with smaller nations looking for leadership from the two flagship economies.

On the momentum for a meaningful agreement at Copenhagen, Prentice said: “It’s too early to make categorical predictions. We do have 80 days left … we’re in the thick of this and I remain hopeful.”

Speaking to reporters outside City Hall in New York, Harper dismissed suggestions Canada is on the sidelines of the debate, saying his government is working closely with the Obama administration on a “truly continental approach” to climate change.

“Our position is very clear — we want to see an effective international accord, one that includes all the major emitters of greenhouse gases. And of course we’re working very closely with the Obama administration on a truly continental approach,” the Prime Minister said.

“We think that’s going well but we’ll share those views and those perspectives tonight,” during the UN dinner.

—————————–

Sarkozy proposes extra climate summit ahead of Copenhagen.

LEIGH PHILLIPS

23.09.2009 on EUobserver.com
 http://euobserver.com/9/28705/?rk=1

French President Nicolas Sarkozy has proposed that the leaaders of the major industrialised nations hold an extraordinary summit to discuss climate change ahead of the UN climate conference in Copenhagen in December.

Concerns that negotiations on a global climate deal are close to stalemated, despite fresh proposals for domestic measures aiming to counter global warming from China, prompted the suggestion from the French leader, in New York for a day of climate discussions during a meeting of the UN General Assembly.

Mr Sarkozy wants industrialised nations to come together before Copenhagen (Photo: United Nations)

“Considering how complex this negotiation is, a new summit before Copenhagen is needed,” he told attendees.
“We are on the path to failure if we continue to act as we have,” he said.

UN Secretary-General Ban Ki Moon warned ahead of the meeting: “The climate negotiations are proceeding at glacial speed. The world’s glaciers are now melting faster than human progress to protect them – and us.”

However, both China and Japan impressed with offers made over the course of the day.

Chinese President Hu Jintao committed his country to a plan that would see an expansion of forest coverage by planting trees of some 240,000 kilometres and produce 15 percent of its energy from renewable sources by 2020.

The Chinese leader also said that his country would reduce “by a notable margin” its carbon emissions growth.

However, he did not attach a specific reduction figure to the pledge.

“At stake in the fight against climate change are the common interests of the entire world,” he said. “Out of a sense of responsibility to its own people and people across the world, China fully appreciates the importance and urgency of addressing climate change.”

Developing countries “should not … be asked to take on obligations that go beyond their development stage,” he added.

Incoming Japanese Prime Minister Yukio Hatoyama also re-iterated a commitment made shortly after his election that the country will cut emissions by 25 percent by 2020, beating the EU’s binding target of 20 percent by the same date.

The EU has however committed to a cut of 30 percent if an ambitious global deal is reached in Copenhagen.

US President Barack Obama’s presentation to delegates was much anticipated but in the end underwhelmed.

“The threat from climate change is serious, it is urgent, and it is growing,” Mr Obama said. “And the time we have to reverse this tide is running out.”

He outlined steps the US is already taking to reduce greenhouse gas emissions such as doubling the generating capacity from renewable energy sources over three years, constructing offshore wind plants and looking to carbon capture and storage to bury the carbon that is produced by industry and the power sector.

But the American plan to cut emissions to 1990 levels by 2020 already announced and derided as strongly inadequate in many quarters is still tied up in the US Congress and may not be passed in advance of the Copenhagen meeting.

Nevertheless, by the end of the UN conference on Tuesday, Mr Ban and Danish Prime Minister Lars Loekke Rasmussen, host of the Copenhagen summit, impressed by the Chinese offer, had become somewhat more optimistic.

“This feeling of political momentum – that was very strong,” said Mr Rasmussen.

Climate Riders will arrive at the US Capitol on Wednesday, September 30th!

Pedal with 100+ Climate Riders  www.climateride.org), 7 ambassadors, and supporters from the DC area to bicycle the final three miles of their 300 mile journey from New York City. We’ll pedal up Constitution Ave to the West Lawn of the U.S. Capitol for the Climate Ride finale and rally, where we will be calling for action in the Senate and at COP15.

Riders should meet at 3:15pm for a 3:30 en masse departure to the US Capitol. See attached map.

You can also meet us at 3:45 PM on the West Lawn of the Capitol for the rally. Speakers at the rally include Bracken Hendricks of the Center for American Progress, Betsy Taylor of 1Sky, Keith Laughlin of Rails-to-Trails Conservancy, Alisa Gravitz of Green America, and members of Congress (TBA).

We will have a photo opportunity at the Capitol with an AP photographer and other professional photographers.
If you believe that the time is now to enact bold legislation on climate change and renewable energy, join us and make your voice heard!
CONTACT: Geraldine Carter, Climate Ride Co-Founder, at 406-241-1111

RSVP via facebook.

HEALTHCARE AND SOCIAL SECURITY REFORM AND FUNDING ALTERNATIVES.

In order to compete in the global economy and provide the jobs and revenues for economic recovery, it is necessary for U.S. companies to be relieved of the stifling twin burdens of healthcare and pension obligations. Likewise, local and state governments and their public authorities are going broke from their unaffordable healthcare and pension obligations and must be relieved of these burdens to maintain fiscal and social stability. The federal government must assume the responsibility for (1) a practical, affordable, revenue neutral universal healthcare (by expanding and incorporating into our existing Medicare System the best features of the best universal healthcare systems worldwide, with appropriate controls, efficiencies and provisions for their continual improvement, a fee structure based upon quality care, and tort reform), (2) provide a basic, livable retirement system, and (3) change the way it collects taxes to do this.

A Flat Tax Revenue System with rates to be determined by the Congressional Budget Office and/or the Office of Management and Budget to meet all government obligations and programs including debt service plus dedicated surcharge increases to cover actual costs of Healthcare and Social Security Programs is the most feasible means to finance Universal Healthcare and Social Security and restore fiscal and social stability.

(A) An Individual Flat Tax: would commence above the 2009 poverty level guidelines for individuals and families as published by the U.S. Department of Labor with a higher flat tax rate for incomes above $300,000. All tax deductions would be eliminated as would gift and estate taxes. This would be a progressive tax because the poor don’t pay taxes.

(B) Two Tiered Corporate Flat Tax rates:

(1) One Flat Tax rate on domestic corporate income    and

(2) Another lower flat tax rate on profits from overseas operations and/or subsidiaries or joint ventures (to offset foreign taxes) conditioned upon repatriation of profits to increase domestic liquidity, improve U.S. balance of payments, reduce current account deficits, and help pay for Universal Healthcare and Social Security.

All tax shelters, loop holes, and tax havens would be eliminated (both individual and corporate) as would all corporate and private medical, hospital, and pension plan expenses. Business investments would be expensed, depreciation schedules and interest charges abolished. Only business tax incentives for domestic job creation and research and development would be allowed.

Social Security pension eligibility extended to age 67 except for disabled or indigent. No Government, union, or employer pensions permitted (to eliminate corruption and fraud and avoid unsustainable financial burdens). Only single pension allowed. No double dipping. In addition to Social Security, only Roth type IRA would be allowed individuals with authorized private sector regulated investment institutions with transparency, full disclosure, and fee competition. Mandatory tax free conversion of IRA and 401K for accounts under $500,000 into Roth IRA’s with a modest progressive conversion tax levy on those accounts over $500,000 each based upon discounted present value of actuarial pension entitlement schedules. This would increase government and private sector efficiency and liquidity, reduce overhead and risk, and help restore lost individual pension values.

Furthermore, history shows that most great empires have succumbed to unaffordable foreign military adventures and profligacy and severe economic disparities at home. Consequently, the U.S. should reduce its foreign military obligations, and excessive military spending so it can afford decent healthcare, livable social security levels, and superior educational and skill training systems; maintain its living standards; enhance global competitiveness; and create jobs in all economic sectors, especially in the high-tech light industrial sector. A nationwide High-tech Export Free Zone Light Industrial Job Development Program for the country’s major urban centers (which contain over 70% of the population) that would incorporate education, high-tech, and apprenticeship training partnerships between industry and public education systems is the answer and key to opportunity, equality, and prosperity.

Harry L. Langer   E-mail:  hllanger.com

August 22, 2009

PRESS RELEASE from AVAAZ

LIVE BLOG SETS HEALTHCARE
RECORD STRAIGHT.

Live blogging is the latest vehicle for citizens in Canada and Europe who are hitting back in increasing numbers at “misrepresentation” and “downright lies” about public health systems in their countries in what has become a feverish debate over the future of American healthcare.

Within hours of being set up by global campaign network Avaaz.org, over 75,000 people had visited the website to express their support for public healthcare and to testify that it works, well. 

“The live blog page is receiving a constant stream of personal stories of life saving, life changing or simply efficient and reliable treatment in a range of public health systems,” said Ricken Patel, executive director of Avaaz.org.

Live blog posts appear on the screen in real time as comments come in from around the world.

“Health is an emotive subject. There’s already a strong Twitter campaign in defence of Britain’s NHS, but we’ve found that many people want to go beyond micro-blogging to share in depth their moving and inspiring accounts,” he added. 

“We hope their stories will provide some balance to the barrage of propaganda Americans are hearing that healthcare systems that guarantee essential care to their citizens are a bad thing,” said Patel.

Every wealthy country other than the United States guarantees essential care to all its citizens.

US healthcare is currently run by large corporations. It is the most expensive in the world, but ranks 37th in quality according to the World Health Organisation, and more than 40 million Americans can’t afford any care at all (US Census Bureau, 2007).

President Obama has proposed reforms to introduce choice to the US health system – both public and private options. But companies making large profits under the current system are fighting to keep it.

“We’ve not only been overwhelmed by people’s honesty and openness,” said Patel, “but also their determination to warn Americans not to be taken in by the scurrilous scare tactics being used by profit-driven insurance companies and conservative US politicians.”

President Clinton’s failed attempt at health care in 1994 has been identified as one of the key reasons why the Democrats lost their majority in the House.

“It sounds incredible, but Obama’s health plan, and with it his entire Presidency, could be derailed as happened with President Clinton in 1994, because big corporations and the radical right manage to convince Americans that public health systems are a nightmare similar to ‘Soviet Russia’,” said Ricken Patel, executive director of global campaign network Avaaz.org.

PERSONAL HEALTH STORIES 
(Selection from live feed of personal health care stories in public health systems:http://www.avaaz.org/en/)
Victoria Kreiberg, Calgary Alberta
When my sister and I were younger, we spent a lot of time in and out of the hospital with her asthma and my tonsillitis. Both of us had several near death experiences which required ambulance rides and extended stays in the hospital and eventually surgery. I remember each and every trip to the hospital- the care we received was always top quality and I don’t have bad memories of this time despite the circumstances. We were dirt poor as a family back then and I am more than certain that had we been living in the United States- one or both of us wouldn’t have made it. I am grateful every day for what we have here in Canada as far as health care is concerned- I am grateful because our healthcare system saved my life and my sisters- and will continue to save millions more- regardless of their income. 

Sue, UK
I have spent my whole life being cared for by the NHS. I was born to the new NHS, bore my children in NHS hospitals, my grandchild was born in a NHS hospital. We have been cared for well we have cutting edge surgery when it was appropriate. My sister who lives in the USA couldn’t even be investigated for infertility because her insurance wouldn’t pay for it. I am a nursing sister in the NHS and I am extremely proud to be a member/patient/advocate for the NHS. 

Paing, France
Bonjour, j’ai 46 ans je “souffre” depuis plus de 15 ans du trouble bipolaire. Le système de santé français a toujours couvert à 100% mes dépenses de santé lorsque mes revenus étaient insuffisants. Je trouve cela naturel et l’expression de la solidarité que les citoyens d’une nation se doivent.

Shanthi, Canada
I’m currently expecting my first child and everything from the hospital stay to care from trained, experienced mid-wives to vaccinations for my child are covered FOR FREE. My husband and I both work but would not likely be able to afford insurance in the US and would not be able to start our beautiful little family. The Canadian system is amazing – it defines who we are as a people in all of the best ways possible. 

Pat Bremner, Scotland
I live in Edinburgh, Scotland and have done so for 60 years. During that time I have been hospitalised on many occasions for a number of medical problems. The treatment and care I have been given by our NHS has been excellent. Having the NHS is one of the greatest things this country has established for its citizens. In emergency situations it is a great relief to know we will be treated straight away.

G. Cowley-Owen, Canada
Through-out my life, I have been blessed to live in Canada. Just the care my mother and I received when I was born was outstanding, as there were serious complications. I can’t imagine what would have happened had my parents had to worry about what our care would have cost, or had to compromise on that care. 2 years later my sister was born with a cleft lip, and again, my family received the best of care. Every time my sister or mother have needed any follow-up attention, from orthodontics to surgery, Canada has provided it. There is no question that Health Care in Canada works! Families are better off because of our universal healthcare system!! 

Sigi, Greece
My children and I are insured with the government health program and every time one of us gets sick, we just go and see the appropriate doctor, showing our Health Care Book.

Bent Lundberg, Denmark
My parents are both 75 and live in their own apartment. My mother is getting health care treatment for Parkinsons for free, and physical training for free, and my father just went through an operation in his leg on a free hospital. They get help for free in their home washing, and help keeping their home clean. My sister and sister in law were operated for cancer for free and has gone to controls for more than a decade for free.
At 16 I broke my leg, and was treated for free on a public hospital. An American tourist 17 year old with his family had broken his leg, and was treated like me in the bed beside me for free. 

His father estimated that it would had cost him $16.000 in USA in 1978 prices. Thank god for the public healthcare in Denmark.
Please know that we that have public health care wish for you Americans that you will take a careful look, and start listening to the voice from countries that know how it works. 

To interview Ricken Patel, executive director, Avaaz.org or make contact with people who have posted their stories, contact Alice Wynne Willson or Brett Solomon: media@avaaz.org+1-888-922-8229 (EST), +32 470 860 660 (CET). 

NOTES FOR EDITORS
1. To read live feed of personal health care stories in public health systems:http://www.avaaz.org/en/
2. In a public statement, Professor Stephen Hawking hit back at false claims that under the UK’s National Health Service he “wouldn’t have a chance” as his life would be considered “essentially worthless”. The British physicist who has had Lou Gehrig’s disease for 40 years said “I wouldn’t be here today if it were not for the NHS. I have received a large amount of high-quality treatment without which I would not have survived.”

ABOUT AVAAZ Avaaz.org is an independent, not-for-profit global campaigning organization that works to ensure that the views and values of the world’s people inform global decision-making. (Avaaz means “voice” in many languages.) Avaaz receives no money from governments or corporations, and is staffed by a global team based in Ottawa, London, Rio de Janeiro, New York, Buenos Aires, and Geneva. Click here to learn more about our largest campaigns. Don’t forget to check out our Facebook and Myspace and Bebo pages! You can also follow Avaaz on Twitter!

Please look at  http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/68fed498-85c0-11de-98de-00144feabdc0.html

Oil sands test of Obama’s green credentials.

By Sheila McNulty in Houston

Published The Financial Times: August 10 2009 .

The topic is extremely interesting when one remembers that the US had to pay a penalty for not allowing into the country the importation of Tetra-ethyl lead – the then California forbidden lead additive to gasoline, that its US producers moved to have a Canadian production line from which to force its importation into the profitable US octane market.

Sure, no-one has yet forbidden in the US the us of Canadian sand-oil, and energy security folks will have ready the argument – better Canadian imports then Middle East imports – but then how will compare the building of a new pipeline for these sand-oils with all those nice statements the US President made about US Climate Policy?

We wait to see!

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.

from:  anna.milakowski at csa.ca
This is an update to the original message about the Climate Change Conference which was originally scheduled for September 21-22, 2009 in downtown Toronto.

The date has now been changed to November 9-10, 2009. Same location, speakers and topics!

Please follow the link for a full brochure with topic descriptions and to register:
 https://learningcentre.csa.ca/lc_site/be…

Conference excerpt:

Climate Change – Measuring and Reducing Your Carbon Footprint in a Changing Regulatory Environment

The impacts of climate change are inescapable. Businesses and organizations face the realities of new provincial, federal and North American regulations, enhanced reporting and verification requirements, and the need to demonstrate a renewed sense of corporate responsibility. In this rapidly-evolving environment, “Business as Usual” is no longer an option.

CSA Standards has assembled a panel of leading North American climate change professionals, including key representatives from the federal and provincial government, to guide you through two intensive days designed to foster understanding of the changing regulatory and reporting requirements, as well as how to position YOUR business to become carbon neutral while capitalizing on the opportunities this new environment will inevitably create.

Climate Change WILL impact your business; join us to gain the tools and learn the strategies that will allow you to prosper within this new reality.

(The Canadian Standards Association is a not-for-profit membership-based association serving business, industry, government and consumers in Canada and the global marketplace.)

COMPRENDRE LA COMPENSATION CARBONE.
[ Livres Climat  ]

Auteur : Benoît Leguet, Valentin Bellassen
Editeur : Pearson

Prix : 9.95€

Aujourd’hui, chacun peut « compenser » ses émissions de carbone sur Internet, en quelques clics, lorsqu’il achète un billet d’avion. Mais que signifie au juste « compenser » ? Comment la compensation est-elle arrivée jusqu’au particulier ? Qui compense volontairement, et comment ? La compensation carbone est-elle un moyen efficace de lutter contre le réchauffement climatique ou sert-elle simplement à alléger notre conscience, et celle des entreprises, à bas coût ?

Benoît Leguet et Valentin Bellassen apportent des explications et des réponses claires et concises à toutes ces questions, qui concernent autant les entreprises que les particuliers.

La “compensation carbone”, qu’est-ce-que c’est ? La compensation carbone s’inscrit au nombre des instruments qui sont à notre disposition pour tenter de résoudre le problème du réchauffement climatique. S’appuyant sur l’idée que des gaz à effet de serre émis en des points différents du globe ont un effet identique sur le réchauffement, ce système propose à qui désire améliorer son impact climatique de financer des projets de réduction des émissions, afin de contrebalancer ses propres rejets de gaz à effet de serre. Un système de calcul élaboré permet de rendre les réductions effectuées grâce à ce financement équivalentes aux gaz à effet de serre émis. On dit alors de ceux-ci qu’ils ont été « compensés », et de l’activité qui les a produit (trajets en avion ou en voiture, chauffage, consommation d’énergie, etc.) qu’elle est « climatiquement neutre ».

Les auteurs
Benoît Leguet est diplômé de l’Ecole polytechnique (spécialité Economie environnementale).
Valentin Bellassen est diplômé de l’ENS (spécialité Ecologie, Biodiversité, Evolution) et doctorant en sciences de l’environnement.
Ils sont respectivement chef de projet et chargé d’études à la Mission Climat de la Caisse des dépôts sur les projets réducteurs d’émissions et la compensation carbone.

La Mission Climat est un centre de ressources qui anime et coordonne les travaux de recherche et de développement dans le champ de l’action contre le changement climatique. Elle réunit une équipe d’économistes et d’ingénieurs spécialisés.

Soutien promotionnel de la Caisse des dépôts, par l’intermédiaire de la Mission Climat.

Public
- Dirigeants d’entreprises, responsables développement durable et environnement, responsables communication
- Toute personne ayant une conscience écologique et souhaitant être mieux informée sur la compensation carbone

Sommaire
1. L’effet de serre : égalité dans le réchauffement, diversité dans les émissions
2. Quand on ne peut plus réduire, on peut toujours compenser
3. Dans le monde du protocole de Kyoto, la compensation a déjà 7 ans : l’âge de raison
4. Les réductions d’émissions de ces projets sont-elles réelles ?
5. La compensation volontaire a 3 ans et commence à trouver ses marques
6. En route vers la standardisation : une quête de garanties de qualité sur le marché volontaire
7. Compenser, c’est déjà réduire, mais ce n’est pas encore refroidir

Nombre de pages : 96
Date de parution : 14/11/2008
Public : Grand public averti

http://www.sustainabilitank.info/2008/11/28/from-backer-mckenzie-a-publication-prepared-on-behalf-the-7-governments-of-the-asia-pacific-economic-partnership-that-was-formed-by-the-bush-administration-with-the-old-australian-administration-in/

Listening to India – A lesson for Hillary on climate change.
President Obama bills himself on the world stage as an empathetic guy, and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton is a veteran of a famous “listening tour” of her own. Let’s hope the Administration was paying attention to India’s environment minister when he told Mrs. Clinton a thing or two about climate policy.

Wall Street Journal Editorial,Sunday,  July 25, 2009

“There is simply no case for the pressure that we, who have among the lowest emissions per capita, face to actually reduce emissions,” Jairam Ramesh told Mrs. Clinton in a closed-door meeting, according to a copy of his remarks distributed after the session. “And as if this pressure was not enough, we also face the threat of carbon tariffs on our exports to countries such as yours.”

Mr. Ramesh was simply repeating the widespread consensus in India that it’s irresponsible to sacrifice economic growth benefiting hundreds of millions of mostly poor people for the sake of environmental absolutism.

India’s per capita GDP is around $1,000. While its mostly state-owned energy industry is grossly inefficient and the country could benefit from less wasteful energy usage, emissions caps are the wrong way to go.

Caps would send prices on energy and other goods higher, not to mention the longer-term damage to economic growth. China conveyed similar concerns at the Group of Eight meeting in Italy earlier this month.

Mr. Ramesh’s remarks point to another cost India could bear even if New Delhi resists imposing its own emissions caps: the cost of protectionist measures imposed by developed countries to shield their businesses from the costs of their own national emissions targets. The cap and tax bill recently passed by the U.S. House is explicit in proposing tariffs on goods from countries that don’t follow the developed world’s anticarbon line.

Instead Mr. Ramesh repeated New Delhi’s longstanding call for developed countries to finance the import of expensive green technologies, which would in theory help India reduce emissions without incurring as many out-of-pocket costs. At the same time, India has rejected any calls for legally binding emissions targets.

If this concept sounds familiar, it should. President George W. Bush proposed such a framework almost exactly four years ago. The Asia-Pacific Partnership on Clean Development and Climate brought together the U.S., India, China and four other countries to find ways to spread green technologies. Environmentalists derided it at the time, partly because it didn’t set mandatory emissions reductions and partly because Mr. Bush had proposed it. It has since dropped off the radar screen, although it’s still in operation.

Call it a more honest form of environmentalism. The Indian government recognizes the public would never be willing to shoulder the costs of emissions controls, and that it’s unfair to ask millions of poor people to try. Mr. Bush understood that the developed world can best help developing countries green themselves up by supporting freer trade in environmentally friendly technologies. It’s a stark contrast to climate politics in today’s Washington, where Democrats try to push cap-and-trade through Congress before anyone notices the costs while special interests slip in protectionist carbon tariffs.

There is still serious scientific debate about the causes, effects and possible solutions for climate change. But if President Obama is determined to tackle the issue anyway, he could do worse than listen to what Mr. Ramesh said.

Voyage to the Plastic Frontier: the Alguita sails the Pacific
By Jan Lundberg of CultureChange.org

Captain Charles Moore is today one of several men of the hour. But if there
are people on this planet hundreds of years from now, surrounded by all the
non-biodegradable, toxic petrochemical plastic saturating the oceans, he
will be spoken of as the man of the hour — a Cassandra that people started
to seriously heed.

On the tenth anniversary of his findings establishing
the Northern Pacific Ocean Garbage Patch, Capt. Moore and his crew are out
there now sailing again.

Before the update on Captain Moore’s voyage for his Algalita Marine
Research Foundation, that started June 10 on the Oceanographic Research
Vessel Alguita, watch his riveting seven-minute mind-blowing presentation
at the TED talks. This is followed by the voyage’s description and blog,
ending with more resources and background. Help stop the plastic plague!
…
To go to the complete article, see photos and get links, go to
 http://culturechange.org/go.html?488

• Age: 58
• Gender: Male
• Astrological Sign: Scorpio
• Zodiac Year: Tiger
• Industry: Business Services
• Occupation: Consultant
• Location: Edmonton : Alberta : Canada

About Me

Author, consultant, imagineer – engaged in a wide range of activities around the world. Fun, imaginative, witty…and not at all expensive to hire!

What’s the earliest you’ve gotten up to watch cartoons and what did you see?

Its part of a promotion by my bank..

Interests

• Food and cooking books and reading/ writing television and film music and concerts wine fly fishing jazz

If President Obama wanted to show Africa that he appreciates those states that made democracy a way of governing, he had just two choices before him – these were Ghana and Botswana.

His clear intent was to go to Sub-Sahara, or black Africa, as this is the area from which people were brought to America as slaves, but these people contributed immensely to the powerhouse America has   become – so, stopping for 21 hours in Accra, with his wife, children and mother in law – descendants of slaves – he also spoke to America – see that is part of our roots – no less then Europe!

His previous trip to the African continent was to Cairo – but that was clearly a trip to the Arab world – Egypt and Saharan Africa are part of that world and not part of black Africa, even though in L’Aquila he had to shake the hand of Libya’s Muamar Gaddafi whom the States of all Africa appointed as the head of the African Union. Clearly that meeting had nothing to do with democracy nor with roots of America – even though it had one moment of grace – Libya, for whatever reasons, like South Africa and Brazil, are states that could have developed nuclear arms, but withdrew from doing so.

The stopover in Accra was, we think so, the only one positive event of this week-long Presidential trip overseas. This was a redeeming grace for the week and highlighted the statement that the President will in the future look forward to a decrease in large Summits that are too big to produce any good. From our point of view in effect counterproductive and just an increase of unjustifiable CO2 emissions.

We wonder even if the increase in the figure of an additional $5 Billion earmarked for Africa by the donors of the OECD could not have have been achieved in phone calls or by e-mails to Canada and the EU.

————-

Obama Wins More Food Aid but Presses African Nations on Corruption

Jason Reed/Reuters
President Obama and the first lady greeted President John Atta Mills of Ghana and his wife, Ernestina Naadu Mills, left, in the capital, Accra, on Friday.

EUROPE »
Obama Wins More Food Aid but Presses African Nations on Corruption
 Group of 8 powers meeting in L’Aquila, Italy, for larger donations to the aid effort, citing his own family’s experiences in Kenya. As a result, the initiative grew from $15 billion over three years, which was pledged coming into the summit meeting, to $20 billion.

At a news conference afterward, Mr. Obama said that when his father came to the United States, his home country of Kenya had an economy as large as that of South Korea per capita. Today, he noted, Kenya remains impoverished and politically unstable, while South Korea has become an economic powerhouse.

“There had been some talk about the legacies of colonialism and other policies by wealthier nations,” he said, “and without in any way diminishing that history, the point I made was that the South Korean government, working with the private sector and civil society, was able to create a set of institutions that provided transparency and accountability and efficiency that allowed for extraordinary economic progress, and that there was no reason why African countries could not do the same.”

He also criticized the culture of corruption in some African countries, saying that those who wanted to start a business or get a job there “still have to pay a bribe.” While wealthy nations must help, he said, poorer countries “have an obligation” to reform themselves.

Mr. Obama said his thinking had been affected in part by conversations with his relatives who still lived in Kenya. “They themselves are not going hungry, but live in villages where hunger is real,” he said. “And so this is something that I understand in very personal terms.”

Other American presidents have called on African countries to take more responsibility for their countries’ problems and have pressed them to fight corruption, but none with Mr. Obama’s background. Just one generation removed from Africa himself, he occupies a powerful place in the African consciousness.

- QUOTATION OF THE DAY -

“No business wants to invest in a place where the government skims 20 percent off the top, or the head of the port authority is corrupt. No person wants to live in a society where the rule of law gives way to the rule of brutality and bribery. That is not democracy, that is tyranny, and now is the time for it to end.”
- PRESIDENT OBAMA,     on the need for reform in Africa.

————————————–

Obama Delivers Call for Change to a Rapt Africa
By PETER BAKER

Saul Loeb/Agence France-Presse — Getty Images
President Obama addressed the Ghanaian Parliament at the Accra International Conference Center on Saturday.
President Obama traveled in Africa as a potent symbol of a new era but also as a messenger with a theme of responsibility.

Text of Obama’s Speech in Ghana

Obama in Africa: Welcome Back, Son. Now Don’t Forget Us.

http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2009/07/11/world/AP-AF-Obama-Text.html

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/12/weekinreview/12gettleman.html

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/12/world/africa/12prexy.html?em

———–

 The UN came into existance in 1945 as a post-World War II organization, as a club of the victors in the war, to guide the world under the supervision of the 5 permanent members of the UN Security Council: the US, Britain, France, Soviet Russia, and Maoist China.The war-axis states of Germany, Italy and Japan were not members of the UN

It became slowly evident that the above five were not the world economic leaders and in 1975, thirty years later, in Paris, a new club was formed – the G6 that had in it the US, Britain, France the free economy states that won WWII, and the newly successfully reconstructed former losers of the WWII Germany, Italy and Japan. Those were the six largest free market economies and the main democracies that could have been viewed together as the motor of the world economy.

Canada was added to above group two years later – so it was G7 – then for various political reasons – and seemingly as an encouragement for its internal change – in 1997 President Clinton got Russia admitted to what became then known as the G8. Above structure had a small corrrection nevertheless when the other states of the European Union wanted also some sort of recognition, and the representative of the EU was also given a chair next to the above G8.

Another thirty years later that group – the US, Europeans, Japan, and Russia has shown its irrelevance when much of the economy is now decided in a completely new world of Beijing, Delhi, and Brasilia that includes the two billion plus fast growing markets of Asia and another economic potential giant that is becoming the leader of South America.

 So what is happening now is that for particular purposes new groupings are being created for the purpose of attacking ongoing important issues.

The UN itself, with its 192 mix of members is hardly an organization for efficiency. In effect already while still relatively a much smaller body, back in 1945, its General Assembly was planned as a pure debating club. The best use for the UN is to allow its Secretary General to sit also in the smaller room of the more powerful, and let him present the wish list of the dispossessed.

President G.W. Bush, not really with problem solving best intentions, allowed the establishing of a G-20 that covers many more diverse participants – from Argentina to Turkey – and hoped that this smaller debate club will make it clear to the world the extent of what can be agreed upon and what not. This group met November 2008 and created its own cycle of meetings that had in 2009 a Summit in London and has planned another Summit in Pittsburgh for this September. The L’Aquila G8 Summit is thus, time-wise, halfway in between those two meetings, but on a different cycle of meetings.

President Berlusconi wanted to show that he can save the G8 and had sessions to which he invited besides the G8 leaders also the leaders of China, India and Brazil – the first redress of the problem that could have created a G11. If the EU could show that it is capable of getting its act together and have just one seat at the table for a new ideal global economic leadership – the US, the EU, Japan, China, India, Brazil, Russia, Canada – this could have been the most practical reformulated G8, but this sort of solution is still light years ahead of us.

As above G11 looked politically incorrect with no African or Arab on board – Mr. Berlusconi invited to his group also South Africa and Egypt – and this new G13 was host to some of the L’Aquila meetings.

But even the G13 did not seem good enough to many other UN member states, so they knocked on the door and about 40 of them had their head-of-state admitted to L’Aquila to sit in at some of the meetings. Obviously, also the UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon was there and the Swedish UN Presidency for July-December 2009 was there.

Talking about climate change, President Obama has his own idea of a G16 + EU group. That was the group that witnessed the lack of practical results on the Climate issue. Yes, there is some talk of aspirational goal of two degrees Celsius (3.6 degrees Fahrenheit) as limit to global warming with some behavioral intent figures as targets for 2050. But with no agreed upon shorter term targets for 202o and nearer, these are just fairy tails – and every level-headed person understands that. What is mistakenly called a G17 and is only a G16+EU, is the Washington created MAJOR ECONOMIES FORUM or MEF – which is the G11+EU+Mexico, South Africa + Australia, Indonesia, Korea. (Are these 16/17 the maximum one could work with?)

A serious problem is – the Europeans understand that the US House of Representatives figure of just 4% CO2 emissions reductions by 2020, based on 1990 figures – but dressed up in Congress language to make it look as 17% – it really does not compare to the EU figure of 20% for 2020 that they even offered to increase to 30% if the rest of the world is ready to go for the 20%.

Even the good meaning Barack Obama does not measure up to the Europeans, even when one looks at the criticism the Europeans get from their own NGOs.

UN’s Ban Ki-moon talks of “missed unique opportunity” at L’Aquila, but he must have been sleep-walking if he ever thought that there will be a result at L’Aquila. This website keeps pointing at the UN as a source of unreal sunshine – it is unreal because it does not exist. Instead of saying what has to be done and speaking truth to power, all we hear are hopes and missed opportunities. Now we hear about next target time – the September Pittsburgh meeting of the G20.

Further, China is busy now with its internal Xinjiang Province internal fights, but on climate change there is no substitute to a direct G2 agreement China-US. What we are saying is that with all the waste of time in the UN sponsored cycle of climate debates – the reality is that if there is no G2 material on the Copenhagen December 2009 table, there will simply be no climate change global agreement. Those that think that above G2 agreement will be just the lowest common denominator have not looked outside their window at what real life looks like.

The most important statement for the L’Aquila meeting was by Celso Amorim the Foteign Minister of Brazil: “THE G8 IS OVER AS A POLITICAL DECISION GROUP.” “IT SIMPLY REPRESENTS NOTHING AT ALL – YOU CAN’T IGNORE EMERGING COUNTRIES SUCH AS BRAZIL, CHINA, INDIA.” He said this a month earlier at a meeting in Paris.

_______————-_________

THE UPDATE

We learned from the Wall Street Journal reporter Jonathan Weisman that not only “G-8 DELAYS MAKING BIG DECISIONS” but actually that in light of the fiasco with this meeting, President Obama said: “THE ONE THING I WILL BE LOOKING FORWARD TO IS FEWER SUMMIT MEETINGS.” One can easily see that what he meant is meetings with people bound in organizations that have lost their relevance with the times so they cannot come up with decisions for our days and for the future.

The interesting thing is that President Obama clearly thinks that without China, India and Brazil, the G8 has simply lost any power to decide on issues like Climate Change and World Trade and economics. On the other hand he also said that the UN is not the place for series negotiations and we feel that the UN suggested formula is the G16 + the EU.

Mr. Obama also said, as we saw on TV, that the exact number of the new kind of “G” to be involved in joint decision making is a very difficult figure because everybody agrees that the figure must be small “but we must be part of it so they say” – when it was decided that the figure be 20, the country that comes 21 demanded to be included so it becomes G21. We know exactly about what country of the EU he was talking – and we also know what other EU country will then want to be #22. This clearly borders with the ridiculous – and it does not reach yet out to demands from the poorer and more suffering countries that also want to be heard!

* * *

From AQUILA, Italy July 11, 2009 — The Group of Eight leading industrial democracies pushed many priorities of their summit here off to larger groups of countries, placing the next moves in trade negotiations, climate-change talks and containing Iran’s nuclear program in front of the so-called G-20 and the United Nations in September.

In his parting news conference here, President Barack Obama took a swipe at both the G-8 and the United Nations as antiquated, as other leaders also talked of formalizing a new grouping that would add a half-dozen of the biggest developing nations to the current G-8.

“There’s no sense those institutions can adequately capture the enormous changes that have taken place during those intervening decades” since their founding, Mr. Obama said. “The one thing I will be looking forward to is fewer summit meetings.”

Climate-Change Pact Falls Short
G-8 Opens to Emerging Economies
G-8 Voices Concern Over Iran Actions
Leaders Note Economic Risks Remain

$10 new Billion for a total of $20 Billion have been collected forAfrica Agriculture – aid and development with the proding from President obama and new pledges from Canada and the EU.

Senior White House officials said the president has more clearly defined expectations for the September meetings.

The nations gathered in L’Aquila did achieve one parting success, a $20 billion pledge over three years to overhaul food and agricultural assistance to the poorest countries. Only about half that pledge is new money, according to the White House, but it roughly doubles nonemergency agricultural assistance.

On Thursday, it had seemed that the total would be only $12 billion, below the level intended just days before. Instead, last-minute pledges came from Canada and the European Union, among other countries. Mr. Obama, in a Friday morning session, made an emotional, personal appeal, saying richer nations had an obligation to act. But he also said recipient nations had to acknowledge that they were complicit in their poverty, through corruption, a lack of transparency and other barriers to growth.

On Iran, Mr. Obama edged closer to an ultimatum, saying there would be consequences if Tehran continues to pursue nuclear weapons and shuns negotiations by the time the G-20 meets. “We’re not going to just wait indefinitely …. and wake up one day and find ourselves in a much worse situation and unable to act,” he said.

On trade, nations agreed to a series of bilateral meetings at which developing countries will outline for which products and services they intend to maintain protective tariffs and other barriers, and which they will allow to compete globally. The idea, according to a U.S. official, is to achieve clarity to speed up global trade talks that the 17-nation Major Economies Forum pledged to complete by 2010.

The forum also pledged to deliver plans to the G-20 meeting to finance clean technology and reforestation programs to combat climate change, and to help poor countries adapt to an already warming world.

That demand was a surprise move sprung by Mr. Obama behind closed doors Thursday, to come up with something concrete after developing countries unexpectedly balked at accepting firm targets for emissions reductions.

Progress on all of the issues will depend in large part on Mr. Obama’s sway both with the U.S. Congress and balky partners such as Russia. Congress on Thursday cut his aid request to help developing countries respond to climate change.

Russian President Dmitry Medvedev also struck a discordant tone after a week of wooing by Mr. Obama. He suggested no progress on Washington’s arms control agenda is possible until Mr. Obama scraps the East European missile-defense site. “If there is no positive decision on this particular issue, than all others will also fail,” he said.

Write to Jonathan Weisman at  jonathan.weisman at wsj.com

————————–

Further from the press:
 http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/10/opinio…

 NEW YORK TIMES EDITORIAL
A Lesson on Warming.

July 10, 2009
President Obama had hoped to emerge from this week’s Group of 8 summit meeting in Italy with a tentative agreement uniting rich and developing nations in a common fight against global warming. Instead he got a lesson on how divided the world remains on the issue — and how hard he will have to work to pull off an agreement.

Mr. Obama was clearly eager to restore America’s leadership role. He convened a special side meeting of 17 nations — the G-8 plus China, India and seven other developing nations — that together emit 80 percent of the world’s greenhouse gases.

Before the leaders gathered, their negotiators had already settled on a draft communiqué, committing to a 50 percent cut in worldwide greenhouse gas emissions by 2050. The industrial countries would cut theirs by 80 percent, and the developing countries would make “significant” if unquantified cuts. But on Wednesday, things fell apart. The developing nations flatly refused to commit to the 50 percent goal by 2050.

It was not immediately clear why they balked. Some repeated an old demand: that the United States and the other industrialized nations — which bear responsibility for the buildup of greenhouse gases since the beginning of the industrial revolution — should do more and do it faster. Otherwise, the developing nations would be left with an unfair share of the burden while their economies were expanding rapidly.

What is clear is that Mr. Obama and the other leaders of the developed world have yet to come up with the right mixture of pressure and incentives to get the developing countries to commit.

The 17 nations did agree to an “aspirational” goal of preventing global temperatures from rising more than 3.6 degrees Fahrenheit. But with global climate talks in Copenhagen only five months away, aspirational goals won’t carry things very far.

If there is any chance of pulling this off, the developed countries are going to have to take away all excuses from China, India and other developing nations. The Europeans have already committed to deep cuts in their emissions. The United States is doing a lot better under Mr. Obama, but it is still lagging.

The House’s climate change bill requires emissions reductions of only 17 percent from 2005 levels by 2020. (The Europeans have pledged themselves to a 20 percent reduction from a much earlier base line, which will require much more aggressive cuts.)

We know that getting the Senate to do as well as the House won’t be easy. But Mr. Obama will have to press them to do even better.

Mr. Obama should also continue to talk to the Chinese, who are now the world’s leading emitters of greenhouse gases. A host of top administration officials, Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton included, have made the pilgrimage to Beijing.

The Europeans are concerned that Mr. Obama and the Chinese will cut a less ambitious side deal and undercut a worldwide agreement. There is no evidence to support those suspicions. Mr. Obama, like the Europeans, says he wants a strong deal to bring down emissions. Without China’s participation, the fight against global warming is essentially lost.

—-
 http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/10/world/…

 NEWS ANALYSIS
Group of 8 Is Not Enough, Say Those Wanting In.

By PETER BAKER and RACHEL DONADIO
Published: July 9, 2009
L’AQUILA, Italy — The idea at first was simple power politics. Economic troubles prompted the most powerful democracies to convene a summit meeting to determine the course of the world, or at least as much of it as they could.

Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva, Brazil’s president, left, greeted Prime Minister Manmohan Singh of India at the summit meeting.
It worked well enough that they did it again the next year. And the next. More countries joined, and more began banging on the door. Eventually, the so-called Group of 8 started what might be considered auxiliary clubs. And that was how they ended up with a meeting on Thursday that was actually dubbed the G-8 + 5 + 1 + 5. Seriously.

The group’s 35th gathering is such a sprawling event that the leaders of about 40 countries traveled here for it. No longer can just eight powers drive every decision. President Obama headed one meeting with 17 leaders for what he called a Major Economies Forum because there would be no point grappling with climate change without, say, China and India.

So whither the Group of 8 in a Group of 20 world? What relevance does the Group of 8 have when it seemingly cannot take landmark action without enlisting others? Does it make sense for thousands of officials, diplomats, lobbyists, public relations people and journalists to descend on a single overwhelmed town each year when maybe a simple videoconference call might do? Or if it is still meaningful, then does it have the right membership in a changing world?

“Look at the amount of effort, of carbon, of cost that went into this,” said Kumi Naidoo of South Africa, co-chairman of the Global Call to Action Against Poverty, an advocacy organization, looking at the large tents set up for the news media, complete with air-conditioning, wireless Internet and land lines.

“The G-8 is an elite cocktail, a self-appointed group,” he added. “I think it’s an anachronism, and consistently undermining the work of other multilateral initiatives.”

These are questions that come up every year, but more so lately as economic and political power shifts. The Group of 20, which includes the eight and an array of nations from Argentina to Indonesia to Turkey, has emerged in recent months as a potent forum addressing the global recession.

President George W. Bush summoned the Group of 20 leaders to Washington in November to figure out how to revive the world economy. Mr. Obama joined the group when it met in London in April and invited it to meet again in September in Pittsburgh.

As a first-time Group of 8 participant, Mr. Obama seems to have a skeptical eye, uncertain about its suitability as a vehicle for solving the world’s problems. This year’s meeting produced statements on the economy, Iran, the Middle East and other topics but made few breakthroughs, and Mr. Obama’s aides cast it as a mere way station between Group of 20 meetings.

“We view this meeting and this discussion as a midpoint between the London G-20 summit and the Pittsburgh G-20 summit,” said Mike Froman, the president’s chief negotiator, or “sherpa.”

Indeed, Mr. Obama concluded that it was pointless to talk about climate change among just the eight powers, so he invited nine others Thursday. Developing countries like China and India agreed to make “meaningful” reductions in greenhouse gases but refused to accept the specific targets for 2050 sought by the United States and Europe.

Mr. Obama cast that as victory enough, until discussions resume at the Group of 20. “We’ve made a good start,” he said, “but I am the first one to acknowledge that progress on this issue will not be easy.”

The developing countries of the Group of 20 say the days of the smaller club are numbered. “The G-8 is over as a political decision group,” Celso Amorim, Brazil’s foreign minister, said last month at a conference in Paris. It “represents nothing at all,” he said, adding that “you simply can’t ignore emerging countries such as Brazil, China or India.”

Still, talk of restructuring or scrapping the Group of 8 invariably runs into resistance from current members. At a news conference on opening night, Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi of Italy, the host, said the summit meeting was “ideal for building confidence and cordiality, for creating friendships and deepening friendships.” He added, “We call each other by our first names and not our last names” and gather “at the same informal table.”

There is no doubt Italy pulled off a tour de force of last-minute organization, spending $75 million to transform a police training complex in an earthquake zone into an Olympic-style village, complete with high-quality espresso bars and wicker lawn sets. Cooks are preparing 25,000 meals over three days, and 3,700 journalists registered to attend.

It is a far cry from the original meeting outside Paris in 1975, when leaders of the United States, Britain, France, Germany, Italy and Japan inaugurated the Group of 6. Canada joined two years later, and it became the Group of 7, an organization without organization — no headquarters, no bylaws, no staff, just a rotating leadership to hold the annual meeting.

President Bill Clinton got Russia admitted in 1997, and others started attending as observers. By this year, there was a regular meeting with China, India, Brazil, Mexico and South Africa, now dubbed the Group of 5.

Mr. Berlusconi also invited Egypt, so the secondary meeting became known as the G-8 + 5 + 1. Then there was a working lunch with international organizations called the G-8 + 5 + 1 + 5. Given that China’s president, Hu Jintao, abruptly left to deal with rioting at home, perhaps it should have been called the G-8 + 5 + 1 + 5 — 1.

Then there is breakfast on Friday with African leaders. All told, roughly 40 countries representing 90 percent of the world economy sent leaders to L’Aquila. But that has risks of its own; a president never knows whom he might run into. Mr. Obama found himself shaking hands on Thursday with Col. Muammar el-Qaddafi of Libya.

Robert C. Fauver, who was Mr. Clinton’s sherpa, agreed that the Group of 8 could be redefined, but noted that has complications too. “If you’re trying to negotiate an exchange rate deal with 20 countries or a bailout of Mexico, as in the early Clinton days, with 20 countries that’s not easy,” he said. “If you get above 10, it just makes it too darn hard to get things done.”

Attending his 21st summit meeting, John Kirton, director of the Group of 8 Research Group at the University of Toronto, said the group would evolve with additional formats involving more countries. But he said the core eight still represented unrivaled political and economic power and had the duty to weigh in on issues of democracy that others could not.

“There’s a lot that the eight can do that the others can’t,” he said. “You’ll always need the G-8.”

———–

The Wall Street Journal has a negative approach to the G8 and to everything that may impact on the US free style.
 http://online.wsj.com/article/SB12471830…

 http://online.wsj.com/article/SB12471889…

————

Climate change deal eludes big polluting nations – Climate change talks grind to halt.
By Guy Dinmore in L’Aquila and Fiona Harvey in London

The Financial Times, July 10 2009 03:00

Leaders of the world’s 16 biggest polluting countries last night failed to agree on targets and funding to cut greenhouse gases, setting the stage for recriminations between rich and poor nations.

A sombre Barack Obama, US president, who chaired the meeting of the Major Economies Forum in Italy, said he acknowledged that progress would not be easy and that it would be “no small task” to bridge the differences.

The MEF countries, which produce 80 per cent of global emissions, agreed that the world should not heat up more than 2 °C above pre-industrial levels. But India and China resisted a push from the G8 developed nations to set a target of reducing emissions by an overall average of 50 per cent by 2050.

Leaders must “fight the temptation towards cynicism”, Mr Obama said, calling climate change the defining challenge of his generation and acknowledging that the US had a much higher per capita carbon footprint.

“No one nation is responsible. No one nation can address it alone,” he said, noting that he had to “wrestle” politically with the issue in the US and that a global recession made it harder for all countries to get on board.

However, Ed Miliband, UK secretary of state for energy and climate, told the Financial Times that a pledge by developed nations to limit global warming to less than 2 °C “significantly increases the chances of success at Copenhagen”.

NGOs and environmental activists were dismayed at the outcome, calling it a missed opportunity that risked undermining the UN conference in Copenhagen in December, which must set a climate change programme to replace the Kyoto framework expiring in 2012.

“The blame lies squarely with the G8,” said Anantha Guruswamy of Greenpeace. “The blame game will start. The EU and others are blaming India and China and then there will be a harsh pushback.”

While the G8 club of rich nations agreed on Wednesday in what Mr Obama described as a “historic consensus” to cut their emissions by 80 per cent by 2050, they failed to set near-term goals. They also refused to commit themselves to the huge funding required – estimated by experts at some $150bn (€107bn, £92bn) a year – to help developing countries adapt to climate change and cut their own emissions. Mr Obama only said that the MEF had agreed to a “substantial increase” in contributions to poor countries.

Ban Ki-moon, UN secretary-general, who will chair the Copenhagen meting, was quoted as saying the G8 summit had “missed a unique opportunity”.

China in particular wanted assurances from the G8 that intellectual property rights would be relaxed so it could benefit from new technologies to take a lead in clean energy markets.

Joanne Green, head of policy for the Catholic Agency for Overseas Development, said the 2 °C limit agreed by MEF was “forward movement but it is woefully inadequate compared to what is needed”.

Climatico, a network of climate change experts, said that, to limit temperature rises to 2 °C, emissions needed to peak in the next 10-15 years. It said the US Senate was the best hope for breaking the impasse by giving Mr Obama a strong cap-and-trade bill.

Thursday, July 9, 2009

G8 ITALY SUMMIT.
G8 summit gets off to rough start – Hu’s exit damages climate talks as emerging economies challenge the industrialized powers

By JUN HONGO
Staff writer, The Japan Times online. – Japan Time – Thursday, July 9, 2009.

ROME — With the relevance of the Group of Eight being challenged by emerging powers, the G8 leaders got down to business Wednesday addressing climate change and what their next move might be when and if the global recession subsides.

But the launch of the three-day G8 summit in L’Aquila was spoiled even before it began, with Chinese President Hu Jintao returning home to get a handle on the ethnic riots tearing apart the restive city of Urumqi in the northwest.

A shadow also grew over the climate change issue as chances appeared slim that the Major Economies Forum on Energy and Climate, or MEF, would be able to hammer out long-term greenhouse gas emissions cuts, Japanese diplomatic sources said.

The key multinational emissions forum was to meet Thursday on the sidelines of the summit in the Italian mountain town.

The sources said MEF preparatory negotiations failed to bridge the gap between members of the industrialized and developing countries, effectively dashing hopes of achieving a substantial agreement.
Hu’s absence exacerbated the MEF discord, the sources said.

An initially prepared MEF draft declaration pledged a global emissions reduction of 50 percent by 2050, with industrialized countries promising an 80 percent cut in the same time frame, they said.

The 17-member MEF was established in March under the initiative of U.S. President Barack Obama to complete the groundwork for forging a new international carbon-capping framework to succeed the 1997 Kyoto Protocol, which expires in 2012.

Along with the G8, major greenhouse gas emitters China, India and Brazil are also members of the MEF.

Despite the forum’s apparent inability to produce tangible results, the G8 was nevertheless expected to issue a joint statement on climate change later in the day, in addition to discussing the global economy, the sources said.

The eight leaders were expected to share views on how not to jeopardize the “green shoots” of recovery being seen in some areas, as well as “exit strategies” for reversing the heavy fiscal stimulus that many countries embraced to revive their economies, the sources said, adding that how to stave off global unemployment was also on the agenda.

During a working dinner, the G8 was expected to focus on political matters, including domestic unrest in Iran and North Korea’s nuclear threat.

Obama and his Russian counterpart, Dmitry Medvedev, who agreed Tuesday to reduce the size of Russia’s nuclear arsenal, were expected to lead the discussion on global denuclearization.

For Prime Minister Taro Aso,denuclearization and how to end North Korea’s nuclear threat are expected to be key concerns.

Earlier this month, Foreign Ministry officials in Tokyo listed five key themes for this year’s summit: Iran, North Korea, global denuclearization, the Middle East peace process and the war in Afghanistan.

The L’Aquila summit concludes Friday after assistance to Africa is discussed. But with emerging economic powers like Brazil and India being kept outside the discussion framework, critics say any talks held within the G-8 alone are incapable of resolving global economic issues.

In that sense, the Thursday meeting with the emerging powers will have more relevance than the G-8 itself, they said.

But Japanese officials defended the G-8 framework, saying its agreements are still influential in forming the base for discussions with other economic powers.

The G-8 includes the United States, Britain, Canada, Japan, Italy, Germany, France and Russia.

——————

www.SustainabiliTank.info take on the Wednesday-Thursday-Friday July 8-10, 2009 meetings follows:

President Obama of the US came to Rome after having achieved an agreement with the Medvedev/Putin leadership of Russia on what concerns nuclear arms reduction and certain aspects of non-proliferation. Those issues allow thus for US leadership at the G8 meeting. On the other hand, at the Obama created G-16 + the EU and the UN meeting on climate change, the fact that the US is well behind Europe on the main issues on Global Warming, the US is really not in position of leadership.

Prime Minister Gordon Brown of the UK is in very weakened internal position so he is no great asset at the G8 table.

Canada’s Prime Minister Stephen Harper leads now a weak minority government and does not radiate influence either.

Japan’s Prime Minister Taro Aso is just as weak at home as Messrs. Brown and Harper and thus not really in a leadership position either.

Italy’s Berlusconi, thanks to his personal peccadilloes, is rather an international joke, even though his countrymen may think his behavior charming. His country-women – that is those that did not profit from his closeness – may think differently.

Germany’s Chancellor Angela Merkel is in best position of them all when it comes to the issues of climate change, but in what concerns applying stimulus packages in Europe she is just slow or lacks interest as she saw that this might not have brought in the US the results that the Obama administration was promising to Americans and the world. She clearly has no intention to cooperate in what she is not convinced that it works, and is also critical of the US lack of progress in alternatives to the old fossil-fuels based economy. We do not think that President Obama will be able to convince her to change her mind during the three days of these meetings.

France’s President Nicolas Sarcozy is strong politically at home – so here no problems – but when it comes to evaluating his two years in office, one has difficulty finding his international agenda – thus another non-leader for these events.

Russia’s double-headed eagle – President Medvedev and Prime Minister Putin – will rest on the perch and don’t expect them to lead either.

Looking at the above and at the ruins of the earth-quake damaged Italian age-old city of L’Aquila, one can only hope for reconstruction if the world is going to see a better economy in the future and in the process also create a program of what to do with the pesky issue of climate change. Let us face the reality that there is little chance to achieve progress at the   July 2009 meetings.

***

Thursday there is the meeting of 17 members that is the G16 + the EU – or actually the G8 + G5 (Brazil, India, China,   Mexico, South Africa) + Australia, Indonesia, Korea,   and the EU.

Those are the 17 that were invited to participate at the State Department building, in Washington DC, meeting for climate talks under the Major Economies Forum (MEF) April 27, 2009. That meeting was organized by Secretary of State Hilary Clinton. Later there was also a meeting in Mexico City and in September 2009 they will have yet another meeting in Pittsburgh. The intent was to come up with an agreement to be presented before the Copenhagen climate meeting this December.

OK – so where are we now? Did the US and China formally agree on how to proceed jointly on the effort to find a G2 solution? But really we will not find out if this is the case on Thursday, July 9, 2009. Chinese President Hu Jintao returned home today to deal with the ethnic riots tearing apart the restive city of Urumqi in the Muslim Northwest Province of Xinjang, and without him present there is little sense for the Thursday meeting. India also does not seem to be ready to let the OECD countries of the hook so indeed setting only long term targets without well funded immediate action will not do this time. India just released its budget plans and worldwide there are reactions that the government did not plan enough as stimulus packages either. Indeed, Secretary of State Hilary Clinton will be going mid July to India like she did go to China at the start of her taking over at State. Will she be able to come up with better understanding with India, while it seems to the Indians that the US is back to a pre Bush China-first policy?

Also Indonesia will not be there as President Yudhoyono just was having a reelection campaign that it seems he won.

***

Friday is the last day and it is dedicated to the provision of funds for Africa. OK – this subject will get some figures and it will be $15 Billion that President Obama pushed for – as aid for poor farmers – and when President Obama will be on Saturday in Ghana he will be able to present those figures to his African hosts.

Our prediction is thus that from L’Anquila the main product of these meetings will be a new promis for Africa. Will it be funded this time in reality – that is something to check upon later. But then a serious review regarding Africa is really in the making indeed. The key is to be henceforth less reliance on food aid from subsidized produce in the US and the EU, and more investments and help in order to build up local agriculture in Africa – as the future economy of Africa. Some of the African NGOs have finally spoken up that the relliance on food hand-outs has destroyed Africans’ potential to feed themselves.

***

Will the real legacy of L’Anquila be that the G8 has lost its relevance in a world where most of the so called great economies are indeed dependent for their well being on some of the members of the lesser G5? With China, India and Brazil not part of the august post-World War II group is there any reason for the separate G8 pow wow? Would not going directly to a more updated group have been more effective? Then what about the EU? Could it not be practical to letthe member states finally decide that they could speak with one voice? If that is not the case why litter the G16 with an added presence at a time that the UN is rightly not mentioned at all?

——-

G8 must galvanise talks on warming.
The Financial Times, July 8 2009

The summit meeting of the Group of Eight industrialised nations that opened in Italy on Wednesday looks increasingly like an event in search of a purpose. The more broadly based G20, including China and India among others, is the place where deals on the global economy are being done. So what is the point of the G8?

The answer should be: to galvanise the debate on climate change. A consensus is needed between the rich and poor for a new deal to slow down global warming. It is supposed to be finalised by the United Nations at Copenhagen in December. But to have any hope of progress there, the leaders gathered in L’Aquila this week must give a clear sense of direction.

The European Union has been consistently in the lead in setting ambitious targets to cut emissions. The good news now is that the US president is engaged and enthusiastic. Barack Obama will co-chair Thursday’s meeting of the 17-member Major Economies Forum, including both China and India. The bad news is that Hu Jintao, the Chinese president, has gone home to deal with the ethnic unrest in Xinjiang. But that should not give an excuse for indecision.

The first ominous sign is that the two sides have not agreed on a target of halving global emissions by 2050. That is the minimum necessary to ensure that the rise in global temperatures should not exceed 2 degrees Celsius, the danger level agreed by scientists. It would require the developed economies to cut their emissions by 80 per cent, to allow developing economies to pollute more as they grow faster. But China is not prepared to sign up to the target until there are more concessions on the table. It is hard to understand, as China stands to be a big beneficiary.

India is also playing hard to get. Delhi will not move on a complete package until there is more money on the table, with rich countries paying the poor to mitigate the effects of global warming, and adapt to them. Such an attitude could scupper any deal.

The G8 leaders can and should do more. In particular, they should start work on a commercial mechanism via the cap-and-trade system to finance bigger transfers from rich to poor. That would be politically more acceptable than straight handouts. The EU might also unilaterally increase its target to cut emissions in 2020 from 20 to 30 per cent. Both the US and Japan need to set more ambitious targets for 2020 as well as 2050. But in the end, a deal on climate change is not just for the rich to do. The poor will suffer most if it fails.

———–

Nations agree to steeper cuts in greenhouse gas emissions
By Fiona Harvey in London, and Guy Dinmore and George,Parker in L’Aquila
Published: July 9 2009 03:00 | Last updated: July 9 2009 03:00
The Group of Eight industrialised countries yesterday agreed to more stringent cuts in greenhouse gas emissions than ever before.

The G8, meeting in Italy, pledged to take on the lion’s share of the emissions reductions scientists say are needed, with cuts of 80 per cent by 2050 for developed countries. This would contribute to a hoped-for target of halving emissions globally by the same date.

They also resolved to try to hold global temperature rises to no more than 2 °C above pre-industrial levels, which scientists regard as the limit of safety.

This is the first time such a target has been formally adopted in a leading international forum. Gordon Brown, UK prime minister, hailed the deal as “historic”.

But British officials said there was “no chance” that these targets would also be agreed by a wider group of countries, including emerging economies, meeting today on climate change.

Leaders of 16 of the world’s biggest greenhouse gas emitting countries are meeting at the G8 at the request of Barack Obama, US president.

He called the meeting, known as the Major Economies Forum, which he is co-chairing with Silvio Berlusconi, Italian prime minister, to break the deadlock in climate change talks aimed at producing a successor to the Kyoto protocol at a conference in Copenhagen in December.

It is the first time leaders of all the big emitters have held a summit on climate change. The United Nations secretary-general held a meeting for world leaders in 2007, but George W. Bush, then US president, turned up only for the dinner at the end.

However, China and India have so far refused to agree to the target of halving global emissions by 2050, despite assurances that the G8 will take on the largest slice of the burden.

The early departure of Hu Jintao, China’s president, from the meeting yesterday made any change in position even less likely.

One of the aims of the MEF was to bring leaders of the main emitting countries together so that they could allow their environment ministers – who attend the UN negotiations – greater latitude in making a deal.

Anantha Guruswamy, Greenpeace programme director, said China and India had refused to sign up to the global target because the G8 club of rich nations had not put forward proposals for financing emissions cuts and measures to adapt to climate change in poor countries.

“It is up to Obama to show leadership on this,” he added.

Beijing and Delhi also want rich countries to agree higher targets on cutting emissions by 2020 than they have come up with.

The 16 countries in the MEF produce 80 per cent of the world’s carbon emissions. The European Union and Denmark, as host of the Copenhagen conference, also attend its meetings.

***

to be a bit more exact the first 9 out of the 16 – CO2 emissions in billions of metric tons, 2006 are as follows – and if you wish it is about 75% just for the first 8 total and they are not the old G8.

China     6.0

US           5.9

Russia     1.7

India       1.3

Japan       1.3

Germany     0.9

Canada         0.6

UK               0.6

S. Korea       0.5

———-

CLIMATE CHANGE
Obama insists world climate accord possible.
By George Parker and Guy Dinmore in L’Aquila and Fiona Harvey in London
The Financial Times,   July 9 2009

Barack Obama, US president, insisted on Thursday there was still time for the world to agree binding commitments to cut greenhouse emissions, in spite of stalemate at the G8 summit in L’Aquila.

Mr Obama takes centre stage in the Italian town on Thursday when he chairs a session on global warming, bringing together 17 rich and emerging economies, including China and Brazil.

US diplomats say there is no chance that the countries will agree to cut world emissions by 50 per cent by 2050 – from a still undecided baseline of 1990 or later. They are however likely to agree on an aspiration to stop temperatures rising more than 2 degrees centigrade compared with pre-industrial levels.

The early departure of Hu Jintao, China’s president of China, from the meeting made any change in position on cuts even less likely.

But Mr Obama believes an agreement on binding intermediate targets – for a deadline sometime before 2050 – can be reached before a UN climate change summit in Copenhagen in December.

Robert Gibbs, White House spokesman, said Mr Obama told President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva of Brazil that “there was still time in which they could close the gap on that disagreement in time for that important [meeting]“.

Mr Obama is seen as a pivotal figure in reaching any Copenhagen agreement, but months of tense negotiations lie ahead.

India, China and other big emerging economies want to be sure the west is serious about meeting medium term targets for cutting emissions before they commit themselves. They also want money to help them clean up their industries.

The credibility of the G8 on climate change was challenged by Russia, which had earlier signed up to a communique by the group committing wealthy nations to an even more ambitious 80 per cent cut in emissions by 2050 – again with a still undecided baseline. The Russian delegation however has questioned whether such a long-term target is meaningful.

Ban Ki-moon, UN secretary-general, said progress on climate change at the G8 was so far “not enough”. He added: “This is politically and morally [an] imperative and historic responsibility … for the future of humanity, even for the future of the planet Earth.”

————–

Further – the UN travelog:

UN DAILY NEWS from the
UNITED NATIONS NEWS SERVICE
8 July, 2009 =========================================================================

SECRETARY-GENERAL EN ROUTE TO ITALY TO MEET WITH G8 LEADERS

Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon is heading today to the Italian city of L’Aquila, where he will meet with the leaders who are attending the annual summit of the Group of Eight (G8) industrialized nations, after wrapping up his first official visit to Ireland.

In a letter sent to G8 leaders ahead of their 8-10 July summit, Mr. Ban highlighted climate change and development as some of the current challenges requiring action.

Among other things, Mr. Ban asked G8 governments to take the lead on the issue of climate change by making “ambitious and firm commitments” to slash greenhouse gas emissions by 25-40 per cent, the levels the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) says are required on the part of industrialized countries to ward off the worst effects of global warming.

On development, the Secretary-General urged the G8 to outline how donors will scale up aid to Africa over the next year to fulfil the commitments the Group made at its summit in Gleneagles, Scotland, in 2005.

Mr. Ban departed for Italy from Ireland, where he met today with Irish Defence Minister Willie O’Dea. They travelled to the McKee Barracks, where the Secretary-General met with a group of veteran UN peacekeepers from Ireland and also took part in a ceremony paying respect to Irish peacekeepers that made the ultimate sacrifice while serving the Organization.

The UN chief is scheduled to travel again next week to attend the 15 July Summit of the Non-Aligned Movement in Sharm el-Sheikh, Egypt, where he will deliver an address encouraging the group to build on its leadership role to address some of today’s challenges, including disarmament, the economic crisis and the achievement of the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs).

The eight MDGs – which range from halving extreme poverty to halting the spread of HIV/AIDS and providing universal primary education – have a target date of 2015, as agreed by world leaders in 2000.