|
Posted on Sustainabilitank.info on August 16th, 2008
by Pincas Jawetz (PJ@SustainabiliTank.com)
WIP on our website means WORK (WRITING) IN PROGRESS - or simply unfinished article. When finished the WIP will be taken off but the article will stay in place without the UPDATED designation. Nevertheless, theses introductory lines will remain as a reminder that the article had a long birth.
***
The meeting, August 15, 2008 was chaired by the Ambassador For Palau. Present were also the Ambassadors from Nauru and from Fiji. Many other Missions were represented - some of these missions have representatives on the working committee. Involved are also some of the active NGOs.
At present the sponsors of a resolution to be brought before the UN General Assembly are 11 from among the 14 Pacific Small Island Developing States - Fiji, Marshall Islands, The Federated States of Micronesia, Nauru, Palau, Papua New Guinea, Samoa, Solomon Islands, Tonga, Tuvalu, Vanuatu; the Maldives and Seychelles from non-Pacific SIDS; Canada, the Philippines from among larger States. But these 15 States will pick up many more co-sponsors. Mentioned were Turkey, the EU, Austria and Iceland that have expressed their eagerness to join. There is no opposition we were told - but only some hesitation because it is seen as a new approach to the problem of the humanitarian impact of climate change that goes on already - this while in major UN institutions the debate has not led yet to action. The inhabitants of the small islands of the Pacific are the first to lose their habitat - and what we see is the eradication of UN Member States by this predictable catastrophe.
On our website we announced this encounter between the proponents of the resolution and the NGOs:
Posted on Sustainabilitank.info on August 15th, 2008
by Pincas Jawetz ( PJ@SustainabiliTank.com)We also pointed out the topically relevant event at the Lincoln Center’s “Mostly Mozart Festival” when Lemi Ponifasio’s REQUIEM had its two evenings before a New York audience.The history of this special effort by the Pacific SIDS started on February 15, 2008, in a speech by Ambassador Stuart Beck of Palau, before the UN General Assembly:http://www.palauun.org/news_archive.cfm?news_id=189 Palau Calls for Security Council Action to Protect Island Nations From Sea-Level Rise.
NEW YORK, NY, www.islandsfirst.org February 15, 2008 — Addressing the General Assembly of the United Nations at the High Level Debate on Climate Change, H.E. Stuart Beck, Permanent Representative of the Republic of Palau, citing the “life or death” nature of sea-level rise for the world’s island nations, urged the Security Council to utilize its powers under Chapter VII of the UN Charter to address this threat to member states by imposing mandatory greenhouse gas emission standards on all member states, and utilizing the power to sanction, if necessary, to encourage compliance with such standards.
He said:
“The waters continue to rise in Palau, and everywhere else…Though this litany of disasters has become well known in these halls, no action with remedial consequences has been taken…We take this opportunity to respectfully call upon the Security Council to react to the threat which we describe. Would any nation facing an invading army not do the same?”
States reacted swiftly to the statement. This week, Ambassadors are meeting in New York to draft a General Assembly Resolution requesting Security Council intervention to prevent an aggravation of the climate change situation caused by greenhouse gas emissions by states. Pacific Island states will be in the forefront of the effort, since they are both the most vulnerable states, and amongst the least responsible for the problem.
Last year, the Security Council debated the security implications of climate change. Its then President, Foreign Minister Margaret Beckett of the United Kingdom, affirmed that climate change is a threat to “our collective security in a fragile and increasingly interdependent world”. Chapter VII of the UN Charter conveys to the Security Council the necessary tools to address the problem, as it has done so in recent years in connection with terrorism and HIV/AIDS. No other international body has the power to mandate change in an effort to save the threatened island cultures of the world.
The full text of Ambassador Beck’s remarks at the UN Climate Change debate is as follows:
“Mr. President, esteemed colleagues, friends:
The waters continue to rise in Palau, and everywhere else. Salinization of fresh water and formerly productive lands continues apace. The reefs, the foundation of our food chain, experience periodic bleaching and death. Throughout the Pacific, sea level rise has not only generated plans for the relocation of populations, but such relocations are actually in progress. Though this litany of disasters has become well known in these halls, no action with remedial consequences has been taken. Larger countries can build dikes, and move to higher ground. This is not feasible for the small island states who must simply stand by and watch their cultures vanish.
Is the United Nations simply powerless to act in the face of this threat to the very existence of many of its member states? We suggest that it is not.
Last April, under the Presidency of the United Kingdom, the Security Council took up the issue of climate change. At that time, while there were some expressions of discomfort with the venue of the debate, a discomfort which we decidedly did not share, there was general agreement with the notion expressed by the President of the Security Council, UK Foreign Minister Margaret Beckett that climate change is a threat to “our collective security in a fragile and increasingly interdependent world”.
Islands are not the only countries whose existence is threatened. Ambassador Kaire Mbuende of Namibia characterized climate change as a “ a matter of life or death” for his country, observing that “ the developing countries in particular, have been subjected to what could be described as low-intensity biological or chemical warfare. Greenhouse gases are slowly destroying plants, animals and human beings.”
Speaking on behalf of the Pacific Island Forum at last years Security Council debate Ambassador Robert Aisi, of Papua New Guinea observed that climate change is no less a threat to small island states than the dangers of guns and bombs to larger countries. Pacific Island countries are likely to face massive dislocations of people, similar to flows sparked by conflict, and such circumstances will generate as much resentment, hatred and alienation as any refugee crisis.
Ambassador Aisi observed then, and we reiterate now, that it is the Security Council which is charged with protecting human rights and the integrity and security of States. The Security Council is empowered to make decisions on behalf of all States to take action on threats to international peace and security. While we applaud the efforts of the President of the General Assembly and the Secretary General to shine a light on this awful problem, we take this opportunity to respectfully call upon the Security Council to react to the threat which we describe. Would any nation facing an invading army not do the same?
Under Article 39 of the Charter, the Security Council “shall determine the existence of any threat to peace…and shall make recommendations…to maintain or restore international peace or security”. We call upon the Security Council to do this in the context of climate change.
Under Articles 40 and 41 of the Charter, it is the obligation of the Security Council to “prevent an aggravation of the situation” and to devise appropriate measures to be carried out by all States to do this. While we Small Island states do not have all the answers, we are not unmindful of the scientific certainty that excessive greenhouse gas emissions by states are the cause of this threat to international security and the existence of our countries. We therefore suggest that the Security Council should consider the imposition of mandatory emission caps on all states and use its power to sanction in order to encourage compliance.
We further propose that under Article 11 of the Charter, the General Assembly is empowered to call to the attention of the Security Council “situations which are likely to endanger international peace and security” and, at the appropriate time, we will call upon this body to do so. In the event that the General Assembly chooses not to avail itself of this right, then we will call upon the countries whose very existence is threatened to utilize Article 34 of the Charter, which empowers each Member State to bring to the attention of the Security Council any issue which “might lead to international friction”.
I think we can all agree that international friction is a mild term to describe the terrible plight in which the island nations now find themselves.
Our Charter provides a way forward. Our Security Council has the wisdom and the tools to address this situation. And while we debate, the waters are rising.
Thank you.”
Permalink | Printer Friendly | Email This Article
Posted in Reporting From the UN Headquarters in New York, UN Commission on Sustainable Development, Reporting from Washington DC, Canada, Austria, Global Warming issues, Real World's News, Art Performance reviews, Reporting from UNFCCC Meetings, European Union, Futurism, Asia & Australia, Turkey, Iceland, Islands & SIDS, New Zealand, Caribbean Island States, Pacific Island States, Philippines, Nairobi, Grenada, Maldives, Mauritius, Seychelles, The New Climate, Oceans, Papua New Guinea, Vanuatu, Fiji, The Solomon Islands, Palau, The Marshall Islands, Kiribati, Nauru, The Federated States of Micronesia, Samoa, Tonga, Tuvalu, The Cook Islands, Brussels
del.icio.us Digg Reddit Google Technorati Windows Live Yahoo! | what's this?
Discuss this article
###
|
Posted on Sustainabilitank.info on July 29th, 2008
by Pincas Jawetz (PJ@SustainabiliTank.com)
Opinion: Polar Race.
Monday 28 July 2008
by: Guy Taillefer, Le Devoir
http://www.truthout.org/article/polar-ra…
Guy Taillefer argues in Le Devoir that the US Geological Survey’s most recent evaluation of the polar depths - that they contain 412 billion barrels of oil, or a third of the planet’s proven reserves - will put additional strain on the already-fragile international understandings with respect to polar sovereignty and development.
The North Pole. Guy Taillefer writes, “Northern governments and oil companies have never salivated to quite the same extent over the Arctic, which becomes all the more hospitable to them as the ice melts … If one were a cynic, one would say that in this instance it is altogether to Ottawa’s advantage to drag its feet in the fight against greenhouse gases …”
Four hundred and twelve billion barrels of oil. A third of the planet’s proven reserves. That’s what the depths of the Arctic contain, according to the US Geological Survey’s most recent evaluation. One may count on Prime Minister Stephen Harper to take advantage of the opportunity to reassert Canada’s “unquestionable” sovereignty over the North - and to reduce the debate over the development of the circumpolar world to a war of flags and icebreakers.
Last Wednesday, after four years of research, the US Geological Survey, the American scientific agency specialized in hydrocarbons, delivered the first exhaustive estimate of potential oil and gas situated north of the polar circle: 90 billion barrels of crude, three times as much natural gas, 20 percent of the probable global reserves of liquefied natural gas…. The news is guaranteed to have a strong impact, given the present context of tightening energy supplies, surging prices at the pump, and the extraordinary growth of demand in developing countries. Northern governments and oil companies have never salivated to quite the same extent over the Arctic, which becomes all the more hospitable to them as the ice melts…. If one were a cynic, one would say that in this instance it is altogether to Ottawa’s advantage to drag its feet in the fight against greenhouse gases.
Moreover, quite by chance, the US Geological Survey estimates were made public one year, almost to the day, after two little Russian sailors dove to a depth of 4,000 meters in the beginning of August 2007 to plant a flag on the North Pole. This striking gesture - without any legal effect, however - relaunched the debate on the subject of sovereignty over the Arctic in great style.
Cut to the quick, then-Foreign Affairs Minister Peter MacKay decreed that the region Russia coveted was “unquestionably” Canadian.
Unquestionably? That remains to be seen. Experts from the UN, guarantors of the Convention on the Law of the Sea, will say between now and 2013 which between Ottawa and Moscow has the better-founded pretensions from a scientific perspective. At the moment, however, it seems that Russia is better placed to prove geologically that the Lomonossov Dorsal, a chain of undersea mountains that cross the Arctic, is the prolongation of the Russian continental plateau, and not of the Canadian plateau.
Politicians, unfortunately, don’t bother much with such scientific details in their communications with the electorate, preferring to play a nationalistic rhetoric that is easily digested. So the bad scenario would be that, in this race for the summit of the world, the sharing of the Arctic will be less the result of a UN judgment and multinational dialogue than of power struggles between the five countries involved - Canada, Russia, the United States, Denmark, and Norway. That scenario is altogether plausible.
“The Canadian Arctic is at the heart of our national identity,” Stephen Harper declared last year. He has announced, among other military measures in the last year, an investment of $7 billion over 25 years for buying naval patrol boats. A depressing prospect: that Canada seeks to take on its northern identity is laudable, that it proposes to get there by emphasizing military defense to the detriment of social, ecological and diplomatic initiatives, is much less so. It is difficult in any case to imagine that pugnacious Prime Minister-President Vladimir Putin will allow himself to be intimidated.
Nonetheless, the Harper way remains very questionable, in that it is a thousand leagues from the Canadian Way - based on dialogue and cooperation. Still, the most recent decades have demonstrated that it’s by balancing its own interests with those of its circumpolar neighbors - and not by sticking out its chest - that Canada has succeeded in preserving its Arctic sovereignty.
Moreover, in order to calm tensions, the five held a big meeting last spring, which ended in the participants’ commitment to settle any litigious question “in an orderly way,” to “strengthen their cooperation based on mutual trust and transparency” and to “assure the protection and preservation of the fragile marine environment of the Arctic Ocean.” Empty phrases? The future will show how these beautiful promises that we’d like to see kept will withstand the lust for 412 billion barrels of oil.
———————
We posted several days ago: “Reuters Reports That China Is Planting its Flag in the Arctic and Antarctic Regions. Actually they started already at least in 2003, so this is not just a reaction to the Russian Flag-posting of August 2007.”
Posted on Sustainabilitank.info on July 27th, 2008
by Pincas Jawetz ( PJ at SustainabiliTank.com)
So, face up to it - China is also in this game. And why should not Nauru or Grenada also be entiled to some of the profits? if they cannot afford the expense of drilling - bet you Brazil or Japan, even Korea and India, and who knows who else - can!
OK - Now Let Us Sit Down And Talk. For Once We Are Behind China and Expect The Dragon To Stand Its Ground.

The North Pole. Guy Taillefer writes, “Northern governments and oil companies have never salivated to quite the same extent over the Arctic, which becomes all the more hospitable to them as the ice melts … If one were a cynic, one would say that in this instance it is altogether to Ottawa’s advantage to drag its feet in the fight against greenhouse gases …” (Photo: NASA GSFC Direct Readout Laboratory / Allen Lunsford).
Permalink | Printer Friendly | Email This Article
Posted in Reporting From the UN Headquarters in New York, Reporting from Washington DC, Canada, Brazil, Real World's News, China, Reporting from UNFCCC Meetings, European Union, France, Germany, United Kingdom, Finland, Japan, Korea, India, Norway, Switzerland, Greenland, Scandinavia, Denmark, Sweden, Grenada, The US States, The New Climate, Arctic Ice, Oceans, Nauru, Alaska, Brussels, Scotland
del.icio.us Digg Reddit Google Technorati Windows Live Yahoo! | what's this?
Discuss this article
###
|
Posted on Sustainabilitank.info on June 22nd, 2008
by Pincas Jawetz (PJ@SustainabiliTank.com)
|
Weather and Climate Extremes in a Changing Climate
Final Report, Synthesis and Assessment Product 3.3 |
| |
|
|
CCSP, 2008: Weather and Climate Extremes in a Changing Climate. Regions of Focus: North America, Hawaii, Caribbean, and U.S.Pacific Islands. A Report by the U.S. Climate Change Science Program and the Subcommittee on Global Change Research. [Thomas
R. Karl, Gerald A. Meehl, Christopher D. Miller, Susan J. Hassol, Anne M. Waple, and William L. Murray (eds.)]. Department of Commerce, NOAA’s National Climatic Data Center, Washington, D.C., USA, 164 pp.See also brochure: Findings and Summary of the U.S. Climate Change Science Program. Frequently Asked Questions.
|


|
Final Report
Note: All links are to PDF files.
| File Name |
| Entire Report |
pdf [10Mb] |
Individual Sections
|
| Front Materials
(includes: Front Cover, Federal Executive Team, Editorial and Production Team, Transmittal Letter, Table of Contents, Author Team, Acknowledgement, Synopsis, Recommended Citations, Preface)
|
pdf [653 Kb] |
| Executive Summary
|
pdf [917 Kb] |
| Chapter 1 Why Weather and Climate Extremes Matter
|
pdf [2 Mb] |
| Chapter 2 Observed Changes in Weather and Climate Extremes
|
pdf [4 Mb] |
| Chapter 3 Causes of Observed Changes in Extremes and Projections of Future Changes
|
pdf [2 Mb] |
| Chapter 4 Measures To Improve Our Understanding of Weather and Climate Extremes
|
pdf [487 Kb] |
Supporting Materials
|
| Appendix A |
pdf [373 Kb] |
| Glossary and Acronyms |
pdf [227 Kb] |
| Back Material
(includes: References, Contact Information, Climate Change Science Program and the Subcommittee on Global Change Research, Executive Office and Other Liaisons, Back Cover)
|
pdf [785 Kb] |
Brochure
|
| Findings and Summary of the U.S. Climate Change Science Program. Frequently Asked Questions. |
pdf [1 Mb] |
|
| This document, part of the Synthesis and Assessment Products described in the U.S. Climate Change Science Program (CCSP) Strategic Plan, was prepared in accordance with Section 515 of the Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2001 (Public Law 106-554) and the information quality act guidelines issued by the Department of Commerce and NOAA pursuant to Section 515). The CCSP Interagency Committee relies on Department of Commerce and NOAA certifications regarding compliance with Section 515 and Department guidelines as the basis for determining that this product conforms with Section 515. For purposes of compliance with Section 515, this CCSP Synthesis and Assessment Product is an “interpreted product” as that term is used in NOAA guidelines and is classified as “highly influential”. This document does not express any regulatory policies of the United States or any of its agencies, or provide recommendations for regulatory action. |
Permalink | Printer Friendly | Email This Article
Posted in Reporting From the UN Headquarters in New York, Reporting from Washington DC, Reporting from UNFCCC Meetings, United Kingdom, Latin America, Islands & SIDS, Caribbean Island States, Pacific Island States, Geneva, Rome
del.icio.us Digg Reddit Google Technorati Windows Live Yahoo! | what's this?
Discuss this article
###
|
Posted on Sustainabilitank.info on June 5th, 2008
by Pincas Jawetz (PJ@SustainabiliTank.com)
UN: Open AIDS Meeting to All - General Assembly Should Reverse Ban on Human Rights and Sexual Health Groups.
Writes Human Rights Watch from the UN.
(New York, June 5, 2008) – The United Nations General Assembly should reverse its decision to exclude three human rights and sexual health nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) from its June 10 high-level meeting on HIV/AIDS, a coalition of human rights groups and international AIDS organizations said today.
Assembly members Egypt, Zimbabwe, and Jamaica blocked the participation of the Egyptian Initiative for Personal Rights (EIPR), Gays and Lesbians of Zimbabwe (GALZ), and the Jamaica Forum for Lesbians, All-Sexuals and Gays (J-FLAG).
According to a resolution passed last year, the president of the General Assembly was responsible for compiling a list of relevant civil society organizations, which member states reviewed and approved. The three organizations were initially included on the General Assembly president’s list but denied accreditation after the General Assembly accepted their respective governments’ objection to their participation.
“This meeting is about expanding access to HIV prevention and treatment,” said Joe Amon, HIV/AIDS program director at Human Rights Watch. “It’s hypocritical and counterproductive for UN member states to block organizations from attending who are working to ensure that HIV information and services are truly available to all.”
The UN meeting is intended to review global progress made in the fight against AIDS. General Assembly meetings in 2001 and 2006 resulted in commitments by all member states to halt and reverse the HIV epidemic by 2010 and to achieve “universal access” to HIV prevention, care, and treatment. Greater involvement of civil society has been identified by the UN as a critical strategy to combat AIDS. In a resolution tabled late in 2007, civil society was specifically encouraged to be involved in this year’s meeting.
“J-FLAG is extremely disappointed by this move,” said Jason McFarlane, programme manager of J-FLAG. “The Jamaican government itself has acknowledged that homophobia is fuelling our HIV epidemic. Silencing J-FLAG – Jamaica’s only LGBT organization – undermines Jamaica’s efforts to combat HIV/AIDS.”
This is not the first time that key human rights groups have been excluded from the UN high-level meeting on HIV/AIDS. The South African government caused an uproar in 2006 by excluding the internationally acclaimed group Treatment Action Campaign, which has challenged South African Health Minister Manto Tshabalala-Msimang for past statements questioning the efficacy of anti-retroviral medicines.
“If the United Nations is to allow member states to exclude organizations, they should insist that the process be transparent,” said Hossam Bahgat, director of Egyptian Initiative for Personal Rights. “We applied for accreditation to attend the meeting along with dozens of other NGOs that we work with daily. All of these groups were approved while we were – without explanation – excluded.”
Human rights groups and international AIDS organizations – including Human Rights Watch (HRW), the International Council of AIDS Service Organizations (ICASO), and the International Women’s Health Coalition (IWHC) – joined the three excluded NGOs in appealing to the UN General Assembly to ensure that the rhetoric of “universal access” is matched with participation and inclusion, and to each individual government to withdraw their objections and allow representatives to attend the meeting.
“We are all in this fight together,” said Samuel Matsikure, programmes manager for GALZ. “To succeed in the fight against AIDS we must come together. We can not allow governments to divide and exclude certain NGOs.”
For more information, please contact:
In New York, Joe Amon, Human Rights Watch (English): +1-917-519-8930 (mobile)
In New York, Rebecca Schleifer, Human Rights Watch (English, Spanish): +1-646-331-0324 (mobile)
In Cairo, Soha Abdelaty, EIPR (Arabic, English): +20-2-2794-3606; or +20-2-2796-2682; or +20-12-310-7147 (mobile)
In Toronto, Mary Ann Torres, ICASO (English): +1-416-921-0018 ext. 16; or +1-416-419-6338 (mobile)
In Uganda, Ian McKnight, Caribbean Vulnerable Communities (English): +1-876-564-1241 (mobile)
Permalink | Printer Friendly | Email This Article
Posted in Policy Lessons from Mad Cow Disease, Reporting From the UN Headquarters in New York, UN Commission on Sustainable Development, Reporting from Washington DC, Real World's News, Future Meetings, Egypt, South Africa, Jamaica, Zimbabwe
del.icio.us Digg Reddit Google Technorati Windows Live Yahoo! | what's this?
Discuss this article
###
|
Posted on Sustainabilitank.info on June 4th, 2008
by Pincas Jawetz (PJ@SustainabiliTank.com)
UN food summit hammers out plan for world’s hungry.
From Times Online, June 4, 2008 - Richard Owen in Rome.
President Lula da Silva of Brazil defended the use of biofuels, of which his country is a major producer.
Delegates to the UN summit on the world food crisis today began hammering out an emergency plan to reduce hunger and help Third World farmers despite often testy disagreement behind the scenes over the future of biofuels.
The three-day summit, convened by the UN Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO), which is based in Rome, ends tomorrow, when the final communique will be issued outlining both short-term and long-term solutions.
A draft declaration vows to eliminate hunger and secure “food for all, today and tomorrow”. The leaders undertake to “stimulate food production and increase investment in agriculture” while “addressing obstacles to food access and using the planet’s resources sustainably for present and future generations”.
The draft document calls for a reduction in trade barriers and food export restrictions, emergency food aid, increased crop yields and guidelines on the use of biofuels.
Related Links from Times Online http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/wo…
What leaders are eating at the UN food summit
Mugabe: UK trying to topple me
Quick fixes will not solve deeper food crisis
FAO officials said 850 million people already faced famine or malnutrition, and rising food and fuel prices would push that figure over the one billion mark, with the risk of further riots and instability in affected nations. Prices of staples such as rice, corn and wheat have soared.
The UN World Food Programme (WFP) said it was rolling out an additional US$1.2 billion in food assistance to help tens of millions of people in more than 60 nations hardest hit by the food crisis.
“With soaring food and fuel prices, hunger is on the march and we must act now,” Josette Sheeran, Executive Director of WFP, told the summit.
She said that WFP was “helping the world to weather the storm” by tripling the number of people who receive food in Haiti, doubling those who will receive food in Afghanistan, and delivering assistance to people in Somalia, Ethiopia and Kenya. “We have mobilised our 10,000 employees and every dollar and Euro given to us to reach as many hungry people as we can at this critical time,” she said.
The first day of the summit was dominated by controversy over the presence of the President Ahmadinejad of Iran and President Mugabe of Zimbabwe. Today, however, delegates got down to the nitty-gritty of the food crisis, with the United States and Brazil - the world’s largest producer of sugar-cane ethanol - defending the diversion of crops for energy in the face of growing criticism.
The US plans to use 25 per cent of its corn crop for ethanol production by 2022, and the European Union aims to obtain 10% of its car fuel from bio-energy by 2020. The US Agriculture Secretary, Ed Schafer, insisted that “the use of sustainable biofuels can increase energy security, foster economic development especially in rural areas and reduce greenhouse gas emissions without weighing heavily on food prices.”
He said the US was “deeply concerned by the current crisis…..We are now projecting to spend nearly five billion dollars in 2008 and 2009 to fight global hunger”.
But Jacques Diouf, director general of the FAO, said: “Nobody understands how $11-12 billion-a-year subsidies in 2006 and protective tariff polices have had the effect of diverting 100m tonnes of cereals from human consumption, mostly to satisfy a thirst for fuel for vehicles.”
Mr Schafer responded that biofuels had contributed under 3 per cent to food price increases. However FAO officials said biofuels accounted for 59 per cent of the increase in global use of coarse grains and wheat between 2005-2007, and 56 per cent of the increase in vegetable oils. The International Monetary Fund (IMF) estimates that biofuels are responsible for up to 30 per cent of the price rises overall.
Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva, the President of Brazil, accused critics of biofuels of hypocrisy. “It offends me to see fingers pointed at biofuels, which produce clean energy, when those fingers are soiled with oil and coal,” he said. “It is frightening to see attempts to draw a cause and effect relationship between biofuels and the rise of food prices”.
But he took a swipe at the US version of biofuel, saying that corn-based ethanol was less efficient than fuel produced with sugar cane, and could only compete “when it is shored up with subsidies and shielded behind tariffs”. Yasuo Fukuda, the Japanese Prime Minister, added: “In some cases, biofuel production is in competition with food supply…..We need to ensure that biofuel production is sustainable.”
The Rome summit will be followed by the G8 summit in Japan next month and the final stages of the stalled World Trade Organisation (WTO) Doha round of talks on global trade. Pascal Lamy, the head of WTO, said a Doha deal “would reduce the trade-distorting subsidies that have stymied the developing world’s production capacity”.
Ban Ki Moon, the UN Secretary-General, said “Nothing is more degrading than hunger, especially when man-made”. He said the “global price tag” to overcome the food crisis would be $15 billion to $20 billion a year. Food supplies would have to rise 50 per cent by the year 2030 to meet demand.
Douglas Alexander, Britain’s International Development Secretary, said that Western farm subsidies were also responsible for food price rises. “It is unacceptable that rich countries still subsidise farming by $1 billion a day, costing poor farmers in developing countries an estimated $100 billion a year in lost income,” he said
Permalink | Printer Friendly | Email This Article
Posted in Policy Lessons from Mad Cow Disease, Reporting From the UN Headquarters in New York, Reporting from Washington DC, Global Warming issues, Kenya, Cartoons / Photos, Futurism, Somalia, Ethiopia, Japan, Iran, Afghanistan, Haiti, Zimbabwe, Rome
del.icio.us Digg Reddit Google Technorati Windows Live Yahoo! | what's this?
Discuss this article
###
|
Posted on Sustainabilitank.info on June 3rd, 2008
by Pincas Jawetz (PJ@SustainabiliTank.com)
Brazilian-American Chamber of Commerce, Inc. www.brazilcham.com
“COSAN, the world’s biggest sugar-cane processor, received 368 million reais ($225 million) in government financing to build three power plants, which will be fueled by vegetation waste from crushed sugar cane, as the company seeks to tap Brazil’s growing demand for electricity. The plants will generate 200 megawatts of electricity, the National Bank for Economic and Social Development - BNDES said yesterday in an emailed statement.” (Bloomberg, June 3, 2008)
Luciano Coutinho, President of BNDES and
Paulo Diniz, CFO of COSAN
will speak at
THE BRAZIL ENERGY SUMMIT
June 23rd at the Waldorf-Astoria Hotel, New York
They will be joined by an outstanding line-up of speakers, confirmed as of today:
Ala |
|