THE REAL PROBLEM IS THAT WITHOUT A US INPUT - THE POZNAN MEETING IN DECEMBER 2008 IS JUST A WASTE OF TIME AND PUBLIC FUNDS. WE REPORTED THAT THE US PERMANENT REPRESENTATIVE TO THE UN FOR THE PRESENT WASHINGTON ADMINISTRATION, AMBASSADOR ZALMAY KHALILZAD, TOLD US THAT HE WILL WORK WITH THE TRANSITION REPRESENTATIVES FOR THE INCOMING PRESIDENT THAT WILL BE ELECTED IN NOVEMBER, BUT WILL IT BE POSSIBLE WITH THIS HYBRID DELEGATION TO ACTUALLY SAVE THE PACE OF THE CLIMATE CHANGE NEGOTIATIONS THAT HAVE A SELF IMPOSED TIMETABLE ON THE ROAD TO COPENHAGEN? WHAT GOES ON THIS WEEK IN BANGKOK IS JUST THE TEA TIME ON THE WAY TO POZNAN - AND WE SEE ALREADY THAT THE WAY IS NOTHING BUT A TRACK IN THIN AIR.

BANGKOK, Thailand (AP), April 3, 2008, reproted by USA Today — The U.S. government insists it is deeply engaged in talks started this week on the world’s next climate pact, but other negotiators are already looking ahead to the next administration — and wondering what to expect.

Nations have less than two years to piece together a deal that scientists say is needed to cut greenhouse gas emissions and stop temperatures from rising so high they trigger disaster.

The high-stakes negotiations that began Monday in Thailand, however, are complicated by the coming U.S. presidential election.

Crucial details — such as how much Washington is willing to cut U.S. emissions — cannot be fully discussed until a new president takes office next year, slowing action on a final deal, some negotiators say. And it is far from certain what a new administration’s negotiating stance will be.

“The nature of the U.S. commitment … is unclear, and I suspect we’re not going to get a clear signal from the U.S. until after the next election,” said Ian Fry, a representative for the island nation of Tuvalu, which faces danger from rising sea-levels caused by global warming.

The world’s nations agreed last year at a conference in Bali to conclude a pact by December 2009. The agreement would succeed the first phase of the Kyoto Protocol warming agreement, which expires in 2012.

U.S. President George W. Bush has rejected the 1997 Kyoto pact, arguing it would hurt the American economy and was unfair because developing countries were not required to cut emissions. The agreement committed 37 wealthy nations to cut emissions to an average of 5% below 1990 levels by 2012.
Harlan Watson, the head of the U.S. delegation in Bangkok, insisted the administration was fully involved in the negotiations for the new pact.

Congress and leading U.S. presidential candidates have shown willingness to cap emissions. But Watson said the U.S. still wants commitments from major developing nations, no matter who is in the White House.

So far at Bangkok, however, he has limited his public statements to procedural issues.

“At this point in the process, there’s no enthusiasm for talking” about specific targets, Watson said.

“We don’t want to do anything that’s going to cut off the next administration’s options,” he said later.

U.N. climate chief Yvo de Boer acknowledged that one of the toughest parts of the haggling ahead — on how much industrialized countries will cut emissions — would best be discussed with a new U.S. administration.
The goal of the talks will be a complex document including emissions reduction commitments by industrialized countries; measures by developing countries; and financing and technology transfer to help them control emissions and adapt to the effects of rising temperatures.

EU biofuels sustainability criteria ‘not green protectionism’ - say to the Latins their  European Counterparts.

By Leigh Phillips, from Brussels, for the Euobserver, March 5, 2008: - European environment officials have denied that sustainability criteria for the import of biofuels is a form of “green protectionism” to be used against Latin American alternative energy products.

“Not by any means are sustainability criteria for biofuels an indication of green protectionism on the part of the EU,” said Soledad Blanco, the director of international affairs in the European Commission’s environment unit, on Tuesday (4 March).

“The commission’s proposals for sustainability criteria are linked to the legitimate environmental concerns European and global citizens have,” she added, speaking at a press conference during a meeting of some 61 environment ministers from across Latin America and the Caribbean and the EU.

The meeting, which saw Latin American, Caribbean and European environment ministers meet for the first time to discuss cooperation on combating climate change, comes ahead of the fifth bi-annual EU-Latin America and the Caribbean (EU-LAC) summit, which will take place in Lima, Peru in May.

Ms Blanco pointed out that between them, the 61 countries from the two regions have substantial power to push forward international consensus on the issue.

The ministers focussed on adaptation to and mitigation of the effects of climate change; sustainable energy technologies, including biofuels; and issues concerning biofuels and deforestation.

Brazilian environment minister Marina Silva gave a presentation to the assembled government department chiefs emphasising the sustainability of the country’s bioethanol and the beneficial social effects of the industry in her country.

Brazil is one of the world’s biggest producers of bioethanol, which in the Portuguese-speaking Latin American country is derived from sugar cane.

Asked about concerns Mexico has over food price increases that may result from their development, Manuel Bernales, president of Peru’s National Council for the Environment, said that combating climate change must be linked to sustainability and social concerns.

“Combating climate change should be linked to biodiversity and overcoming poverty and inequality,” said Mr Bernales.

At the same time, he insisted that biofuels from Latin America will meet “the most demanding standards.”

Slovenian environment minister Janez Podobnik, representing the Slovenian EU presidency, pointed to an ad-hoc working group that had been formed at the end of February that will look at drafting fuel sustainability criteria for both the proposed renewable energy directive and an earlier proposed fuel quality directive. This group is expected to offer its recommendations at the end of March.

As part of its far-reaching climate and energy package unveiled in January, the commission proposed a target of ten percent use of biofuels in transport, but announced at the same time that any such fuels would have to meet strict sustainability criteria.

The move was made to assuage the fears of environmental groups that far from reducing carbon emissions, on a net basis, they would actually increase them.

Brazil, however, which, along with the United States, produces some 69 percent of the world’s supply of ethanol, is concerned that Europe is now getting cold feet over biofuels.

Healing postponed: For all his lofty talk of national unity, Obama may actually put back the arrival of a post-racial America.
Trevor Phillips, March 2008 » Opinions » Prospect Magazine, UK.

 https://www.prospect-magazine.co.uk/arti…

 http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/pol…

Trevor Phillips is a broadcaster and journalist.

Let me confess to a pinprick of irritation at the emergence of Barack Obama as the first truly credible non-white candidate for president of the US. To begin with, there’s the problem of wearily having to answer my white friends’ plaintive question each time a significant black figure shoots across the American firmament: “Why can’t we have a British Obama (or Martin Luther King or Malcolm X or Oprah Winfrey)?” The implied challenge to black Britons in public life is: why can’t you be more like him/her?

The answer is simple. At a personal level, few people are as charismatic, capable and ruthless as this mixed-race political phenomenon. And anyone can do the maths: the black British population is proportionately one sixth the size of the black US population, so it’s hardly surprising that black Britons don’t produce the same range of talents.

But there’s history too. British whites don’t carry the stain of transatlantic slavery in the personal way that US whites do, and as a result race—specifically anti-black racism—does not play the same part in our story. Black Britons can’t bring centuries of white guilt to bear with the devastating impact that African-Americans have done for two generations. For the most part, we have been here for less than 60 years. British whites distanced themselves from the historic crime that still torments America long before we arrived. Few Britons ever owned slaves here; the blood remained on hands thousands of miles away. Britain’s black population is probably better compared to some of the less successful Latino communities of the US southwest.

There’s also a part of me that feels indignant on behalf of my Caribbean slave ancestors. Many of the big figures in African-American political history had Caribbean roots—Marcus Garvey (Jamaica), Malcolm X (Trinidad), Sidney Poitier (Bahamas). Yet a man whose African ancestors never endured transatlantic slavery has become the standard-bearer for the black presence in the US. Unlike most of us, Obama is able to trace his black ancestors back to Kenya through his father, and his white forebears through his mother to Ireland. But as the black conservative writer Shelby Steele suggests in his new book on Obama, A Bound Man, that is just what makes him so successful. Steele’s subtitle—Why We Are Excited About Obama and Why He Can’t Win—may appear to have been negated by Obama’s run in the primaries. The junior senator from Illinois, it seems, stands every chance of taking out the Clintons and then going on to beat John McCain.

But Steele isn’t talking about the elections. He is addressing the question of whether Obama represents a fundamental change in America. Many are desperate to believe. For whites, Obama as president would be the living proof that America truly has left the past behind. For blacks, on the other hand, Obama is simply another prophet offering true emancipation—another Garvey, King or Jesse Jackson. Yet Steele’s contention is that Obama is a kind of Greek tragedy in the making. The very thing that makes him the first person of his kind has “bound” him to failure: if he fulfils the hopes of whites, he must disappoint blacks—and vice versa.

Steele’s analysis is smart. If we discount the usual cod psychology—Obama’s “search” for his wayward and faithless Kenyan academic father—the thesis is simple. There are, Steele says, two kinds of influential black figures in US public life. The “challengers”—Garvey, Malcolm X, Jackson—wield power by making whites feel guilty about the old crime and only allowing the guilt to be relieved in return for concessions of one kind or another: a project here, a political sinecure there. Challengers point to the success of the much-touted, but somewhat overestimated, black middle class, many of whom benefited from affirmative action programmes (as Obama did) that gave them places at top universities (Columbia and Harvard in his case) and prestigious law firms.

The problem for the challengers is that their ambitions are necessarily limited to piecemeal concessions. They can only wield power as long as they remain victims—downtrodden and excluded. The moment they succeed, they lose the power of moral suasion.

Steele identifies another, more successful group, which he calls “bargainers.” These are black leadership figures who strike quite a different deal by saying to white America: “I will not use America’s horrible history of white racism against you, if you will promise not to use my race against me.” That way, everybody wins; whites feel flattered and win back what Steele calls their “racial innocence.” Blacks acquire freedom from the cage of their colour. Starting with Louis Armstrong, a series of black icons have sustained a brilliant crossover bargain: Poitier, King, Bill Cosby and, quintessentially, Oprah Winfrey. Both they and America have prospered from it.

Obama is a natural bargainer. Steele recounts the story of how he dealt with the arrest of a high school buddy for drugs. Obama’s (white) mother marched into his room demanding details. According to Obama’s own account, he gave her “a reassuring smile, and patted her hand and told her not to worry.” This, he wrote, was “usually an effective tactic” because people “were satisfied so long as you were courteous and smiled and made no sudden moves… such a pleasant surprise to find a well-mannered young black man who didn’t seem angry all the time.”

From Europe, all this is puzzling. It is almost impossible unless you’ve experienced it to grasp how profoundly race shapes everyday encounters in the US. To take one example, when African-Americans watch television in the evenings, they are watching a different America to whites. For the past 20 years the ratings have shown that the top 20 shows in white, black and Hispanic households rarely have more than two or three titles in common.

For white America, this separation makes the guilt associated with slavery an everyday reality. But if Obama can succeed, then maybe they can imagine that King’s post-racial nirvana has arrived. A vote for Obama is a pain-free negation of their own racism. (So long as they don’t have to live next door to him; Obama has yet to win convincingly in white districts adjacent to black communities. While winning in still-segregated South Carolina, he lost in states where blacks and whites are more likely to share offices and public transport—New York, California.)

For the black underclass and beyond Obama may be the latest messiah, but there is anecdotal evidence that where blacks have prospered to the extent that they are grimly competing for jobs and property with whites, they don’t buy “Obamania.” I would guess that this is because the people who actually experience just how far America remains from post-racial harmony are those blacks who work with whites.

Steele’s argument is that in the end Obama cannot win, because the gap between his promise of an America free of the racial divide and the reality of a nation still riven by colour-coded inequality remains too great. I think that he is partly right. Where his essay fails is in the narrowness of its analysis. He repeats the idea that black failure is principally down to the absence of black responsibility—a cultural failure—and downplays the impact of globalisation on poor communities.

And he has missed the biggest shift of all, which may work to Obama’s political advantage without having any impact on racial inequality. It is in fact another tall, charismatic, non-white who looks likely to dislodge the black/white divide from its dominant position in US public life. On 9/11, Osama bin Laden created a new “other.” In the face of this threat, America may just decide that it is time to heal the age-old fracture. In a sense, what victory for Obama may establish is that blacks just aren’t what they used to be—and that placating them isn’t that important any more. What the tens of millions who hope that his ascent will lift them out of the ghetto will make of that once they realise it, one can only imagine.

The true scale of the problem for black leadership in the US is demonstrated by the fate of the most significant, and tragic, figure in Steele’s book. Bill Cosby was once so big that he could force US television networks to do his bidding. Cosby, as Steele says, was a classic bargainer; The Cosby Show was the television show of the 1980s; he and his oh-so-cute black family offered America racial innocence. In recent years, Cosby has toured the country emphasising the theme of black responsibility, insisting that black children speak proper English, attacking the bling-bling rappers and entreating black men not to abandon their kids. All good stuff; yet today he cuts a sad and lonely figure, because he abandoned the moral weapon wielded by both bargainers and the challengers by insisting that in the end, salvation for blacks won’t depend on the actions of whites.

No one wants to know that; Obama least of all. And herein lies the problem. Both challengers and bargainers offer a strategy that needs the racial divide to stay at the centre of US life. In truth, Obama may be helping to postpone the arrival of a post-racial America, and I think he knows it. If he wins, the cynicism may be worth it to him and his party. In the end he is a politician and a very good one; his job is to win elections. He may even beat Hillary to the nomination (though I’d be surprised). But the harbinger of a post-racial America? I don’t think so. Obama’s boosters compare him with JFK (see below). But I think he has a more recent role model, whose charm, skill and ruthless cynicism he may come to emulate. I’m talking, of course, of William Jefferson Clinton.

———————–

one of the 16 Responses to “Trevor Phillips: why I’m not backing Obama”

this from BenjaminL
Feb 27th, 2008 at 5:11 pm
For Phillips, an American whose ancestors emigrated from Poland in 1890, Italy in 1920, Germany in 1944 or Russia in 1980 — or whose ancestors died in the Union cause in 1863 — is just another “US white” who “carries the stain of transatlantic slavery.”

He writes, in apparent earnesty, that the mere watching of different television programs “makes the guilt associated with slavery an everyday reality.”

No black candidate who could attract the votes of US whites would ever be acceptable to Phillips. Continuing to “bring centuries of white guilt to bear” is a recipe for continuing marginality in the vein of Jackson or Sharpton.

Now that formal racial equality has been achieved in the US, insofar as voters - blacks included - look for emancipation from politicians instead of attending to their own educational and entrepreneurial advancement, they have nothing to look forward to but disappointment.

———————-

and the article that got us to the “Prospect:”

Britain’s equality chief: Obama will only prolong America’s racial divide.

By Andrew Grice, Political Editor, The Independent, Thursday, February 28, 2008.

Trevor Phillips, Britain’s most influential black figure, has warned that the election of Barack Obama as US president would prolong rather than end America’s racial divide.

Mr Phillips’ surprise attack on the favourite to win the Democratic Party nomination comes in an article for Prospect magazine published today. Mr Phillips dismissed attempts by the Obama camp to hail their man as a “new JFK”, predicting he could emulate the “charm, skill and ruthless cynicism” of Bill Clinton.

Mr Phillips believed there were two types of influential black figures in America, both of whom keep race at the heart of US life — “challengers”, whose ambitions are limited to winning piecemeal concessions for blacks, and “bargainers”, who do not make an issue of “white racism” if whites do not play the race card against them. He described Mr Obama as a “natural bargainer”.

“In truth, Obama may be helping to postpone the arrival of a post-racial America and I think he knows it,” Mr Phillips wrote. “If he wins, the cynicism may be worth it to him and his party. In the end he is a politician and a very good one: his job is to win elections.” He backed the argument of Shelby Steele, who said in his biography of Mr Obama: “If he fulfils the hopes of whites, he must disappoint blacks – and vice versa.”

Mr Phillips said he would be surprised if Mr Obama saw off Hillary Clinton to win the Democrats’ nomination, as many commentators expect as she struggles to stay in the race. He conceded that it might happen.

The broadcaster and former Labour politician wrote: “For the black underclass and beyond, Obama may be the latest messiah, but there is anecdotal evidence that, where blacks have prospered to the extent that they are grimly competing for jobs and property with whites, they don’t buy ‘Obamania’. I would guess this is because the people who actually experience just how far America remains from post-racial harmony are those blacks who work with whites.”

Mr Phillips said the guilt associated with slavery is an everyday reality for white America. “But if Obama can succeed, then maybe they can imagine that [Martin Luther] King’s post-racial nirvana has arrived. A vote for Obama is a pain-free negation of their own racism. So long as they don’t have to live next door to him; Obama has yet to win convincingly in white districts adjacent to black communities.”

Explaining why there is no British “Obama figure”, Mr Phillips said the number of blacks in Britain was proportionately one sixth that of America and so does not produce the same range of talents. He added that British whites do not bear the stain of slavery in the way US whites do.

Mr Phillips’ scepticism about Mr Obama contrasts with the support for him voiced by David Lammy, the black Skills minister. He has described Mr Obama as “charming and intelligent but refreshingly able to laugh at himself” and compared him to presidents Roosevelt and Kennedy.

*David Cameron challenged Gordon Brown to US-style televised debates between party leaders at the next election, saying they had caught the public’s imagination in the presidential race. Mr Brown was dismissive, saying America did not have a weekly session of Prime Minister’s Questions.

For rolling comment on the US election visit: independent.co.uk/campaign08

IOM ( The International Organization for Migration ) Press Briefing Notes of Tuesday, February 19, 2008.

THE BAHAMAS - Strengthening Travel and Identity Document Examination – To complement the government of The Bahamas’ e-Passport, Visa, e-identification and Border control initiative, designed to efficiently manage entry and exit of passenger flows, IOM is hosting a series of workshops for law enforcement officials.

Officers from The Bahamas Immigration Department, the Royal Bahamas Police Force, Bahamas Customs and the Royal Bahamas Defense Force will gather today for the first of several training sessions taking place in Nassau, where IOM technical experts will be discussing ways to facilitate legitimate travel while developing the required expertise to identify and deter potential security risks, which might threaten national and regional security.

Nidia Casati, IOM Chief of Mission in the Dominican Republic, explains the importance of the workshops: “Over the last decades, the notion of security and the nature of security threats have broadened as challenges to both have become more complex. The current international climate and the increasing threat and mobility of international terrorism, has put state security concerns at the forefront of the discussion on the international movement of persons. With national economies depending on the brisk movement of tourism and trade, states need to ensure that their border security will not be compromised while facilitating legitimate travel.”

The sessions, basic and advanced (training of trainers) will focus on travel and identity document examination, detection of fraudulent documents, handling and securing evidence and detection of impostors, among other related topics.

The trainers will share their knowledge and expertise and provide training to enhance the participants’ ability to detect and prevent the use of fraudulent and counterfeit travel documents and strengthen overall security while facilitating legitimate transit and travel throughout the region.

The Bahamas, an archipelagic nation with a total land mass of 5,400 square miles spread out over an area of 100,000 square miles of ocean, faces a daunting challenge with respect to managing migration and securing its borders.

The training sessions will be conducted by IOM experts on travel document fraud in collaboration with the U.S. Department of Homeland Security/Customs and Border Protection (DHS/CBP).

This IOM project is funded by the U.S. State Department Bureau of Western Hemisphere Affairs (WHA).

For more information, please contact Niurka Piñeiro at IOM Washington, Tel: 1.202.862.1826 ext. 225, Email:  npineiro at iom.int

For additional information:

USA
Office of the Permanent Observer to the United Nations Ÿ 122 East 42nd Street, Suite 1610, New York, NY 10168
Tel: 1(212) 681 7000 - Fax: 1(212) 867-5887 - E-mail:  unobserver at iom.int - Internet: www.iom.int or www.un.int/iom
Geneva
Jean-Philippe Chauzy ŸTel: 41 22 717 9361 - Mobile: 41 79 285 4366 Ÿ E-mail:  pchauzy at iom.int
Jemini Pandya Ÿ Tel 41 22 717 9486 - Mobile : 41 79 217 3374 Ÿ E-mail :  jpandya at iom.int

Imagine Everyone Was Equal, in Emissions.
By Andrew C. Revkin, on www.DotEarth.com, February 15, 2008.

In a three-day summit at the United Nations on global warming this week, a parade of representatives from developing countries expressed growing discontent with the lack of action by rich ones to start curbing emissions of greenhouse gases that, in the long run, are likely to exact the most harm in the world’s poorest places.

India, China, and other poorer countries with fast-growing economies said they were ready to limit their own emissions, keeping them lower, on a per person basis, than those in the already-industrialized North. This Associated Press story conveyed their stance:

Chinese envoy Yu Qingtai told The Associated Press that China would try to keep a lid on its growing gas emissions when compared to U.S. per capita emissions.

So that keeps the ball in the court of the industrial powers. One of the grand challenges in the climate debate remains clarifying the different responsibilities of countries that have already built their prosperity and quality of life on coal (and to a smaller extent oil) and those on the verge of doing so.

* * *

On a per-person basis, responsibility for greenhouse-gas emissions is no contest. The rich dominate. Right now, the average United States citizen generates about 20 metric tons of carbon dioxide a year through the use of electricity, heating and cooling, vehicles, manufacturing and the other energy-intensive facets of modern daily life. For various reasons, Japan and Europe have far lower emissions, with Japan and Britain, for example, just under 10 tons per person per year. In China, the number is about 3.8 tons. In India, it’s 1.2 tons per person.

* * *

This gets back to a central question here on Dot Earth — how much is too much?

Some libertarian critics have implied I’m supporting a Draconian push back to sweaters and bicycles (see Ron Bailey’s recent critique of my “Unnecessary Things” post). [UPDATE: Draconian by some of their standards, not mine.] Some environmentalists say I’m too gloomy about the chances that humanity will resolve to share responsibility for limiting climate risks.

In the end, my goal is to be an equal-opportunity explorer of ideas as various as the need for more global governance to protect the commons, and the free-market mantra, that all will be well if people are left to pursue prosperity and comfort by whatever means they can afford.

But getting back to that baseline question, if everyone gets to emulate the established emitters, what will the atmosphere be like?

* * *

I did a brief thought experiment last night. Where would carbon dioxide emissions be if everyone on Earth was using fossil fuels at the same pace, per capita, as the United States is now? Or let’s take, say Britain, as a kind of middle case, presuming that the United States will find ways to trim its emissions (a 50-percent cut taking us to Europe’s level).
It’s simple multiplication. Right now, the sum of global emissions of carbon dioxide by a world population of 6.6 billion, very-unequal humans, is about 29 billion tons a year.

If everyone was emitting at the British level, it’d be 66 billion tons a year.

Okay, let’s try the United States. That’d be 132 billion tons of carbon dioxide at the US level - released into the atmosphere each year, if everyone on Earth had an equal carbon footing.

So clearly something has to give, presuming the countries of the world are serious about accepting the findings of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (which they all did, ostensibly, last year).

Vaclav Smil, a reality-based energy expert at the University of Manitoba who has studied this issue long and hard, said the following in an email when I was working on my 2006 story on declining research on new energy options:
“We have the know-how to consume, in rich countries, only half as much [energy] as we do without lowering our REAL quality of life (REAL does not include unlimited SUVs, 15,000 sq. ft. custom-built houses etc, etc), and to provide everybody, even in the most desperate parts of Africa with enough for a decent life. But we prefer to waste enormously, and Africans prefer endless bouts of civil wars. This is not primarily a technical problem…. This is primarily an ethical, moral problem (i.e., we have only one biosphere).”

This posting starts with the essence of the presentation of the Austrian Permanent Representative to the UN, Ambassador Gerhard Pfanzelter, and moves then to the article by Matthew Russell Lee on www.InnerCity.Press.com - these related to the UN Security Council open debate on “CHILDREN AND ARMED CONFLICT.” We had before one posting where The Permanent Representative of Israel lamented the fact that some use their own children as human projectiles in suicide bombings - these people obviously have no respect then for the children of the other. We picked the Austrian intervention because it is uncluttered with direct references to reality, and basically makes all the right requests for a world of sanity.

The Austrian presentation stresses that we have already on the books all the tools needed for a sane world - tools that prohibit and criminalize recruitment and use of child soldiers, as well as other abuses of children in armed conflict. We have already the tools for monitoring and reporting of abuse. The problem is that violations just continue without regard to the rules on the books. The Ambassador wants to see that rape and sexual abuse of children should also trigger automatically the requirement for monitoring and reporting mechanisms like it is for the use of the children as soldiers. He is appalled by the level of sexual and gender-based violence against children documented in the Secretary-General’s report. He makes clear allusion to the UN’s own forces, that were tainted, as we well know, with many accusations of sexual abuse.

He requests that child rights training should be an obligatory part of training of UN peace keeping personnel. THE EUROPEAN PEACE UNIVERSITY IN STADTSCHLAINING, BURGENLAND, AUSTRIA, is offering Specialization Courses on Child protection, Monitoring and Rehabilitation also for UN and EU personnel. Similarly, he expressed Austria’s interest in protection of women and girls, and asks for support to the Machel Strategic Review and the development of an Inter-Agency Child Protection Database for applicability in conflict and post-conflict situations.

All of the above is nifty, but then look please on The Inner City posting to see that not all are equal at the UN. Some get away literally with murder, while some that are not big enough, or influential enough, at the UN are doomed to stay as victims. Please - see the attached posting, and consider what can be done to bring reality based corrections into the UN deliberations for enforcing the already existing regulations - equally - for the strong and weak.
For one thing, we were appalled when after the presentation by the Ambassador of Israel, it was the Palestinian representative who spoke of those that do war hiding behind children. He surely meant not his own Palestinians but with straight face and impunity was probably talking of the Israelis. And what happened with troops from Sri Lanka that were returned from Haiti for misusing local children? Was there any reeducation process applied if there was no court action? What about the refusal of Karzai of Afghanistan to let UN look into child recruits by the Taliban? Will pacification intent over-rule looking into child-soldiers issues?

in http://www.sustainabilitank.info/categor… we made the following announcement and we also posted the program of that very unusual event that used the UN as a stage:

February 14, 2007, Investor Summit On Climate Change to Follow Upon the UNGA President’s Summit at the UN in New York City.
Posted on Sustainabilitank.info on February 11th, 2008, by Pincas Jawetz ( PJ at SustainabiliTank.com)

“The following meeting represents stock-holder power of about $30 trillion, as per a statement made today by Fiona Harwey of the London Financial Times, at the meeting in the UN Trusteeship Council Auditorium at the UN Headquarters. The President of the UN General Assembly, Dr. Srgjan Kerim, called for this meeting in order to build synergism that helps further progress on the road from Bali to Copenhagen. The idea is that business, NGOs, academia and media are needed in this transition - not only the government representatives. Now business will be the first to pick up, already this Thursday, that is after the Monday-Wednesday official meetings. Morgan Stanley, Lehman Brothers Holdings, Deutsche Bank, Credit Suisse Group, Merrill Lynch, Goldman Sachs Group, UBS, Bank of America, General Electric, Procter & Gamble, Caterpillar, DuPont, are part of this exercise.

Today, February 11, 2008, at a press conference, Sir Richard Branson called for the creation of a WAR ROOM to fight global warming/climate change. The enemy in this war is the fossil carbon being pushed into the atmosphere. He, and later Mr. Yvo de Boer of the UNFCCC refused to put their finger on three countries that refuse to do something positive about the issue, but suggested that an international system must be put in place with incentives for business to start moving in the right direction. Sir Richard even said that he has already 5 people in his mind that could head this War Room - Al Gore is one of them. This will be people with business savvy and he expects to put in the leaders hand half a billion dollars as a stimulant. There was a lot of talk of business that moved away from ignorance and embraced now awareness - and this is not just “greenwash.” OK - the Thursday meeting is now just-in-time to prove the point.”

We said that we expected to be there and report on the proceedings - we were thanks to an invitation from the organizers - and now we will try to put forward some of our impressions. We did not cover the February 11-13, 2008 UN exercise from inside the UN, this because of the UN Department of Communications and Public Information long-standing position that our writing truth about sustainable development and climate change issues is not to the liking of some of these employees of the UN.

Ceres (pronounced “series”) is a national network of investors, environmental organizations and other public interest groups working with companies and investors to address sustainability challenges such as global climate change. Formerly the Valdez Principles, now called the CERES Principles for environmentally sound business practices were drafted by a Coalition of environmental organizations, environmentally friendly businesses, and labor unions.

Things are confusing a bit. The Letters CERES also stand for California Environmental Resources Evaluation System headquartered in Sacramento California. But the CERES of our meeting has its headquarters now in Boston Massachusetts, though it started out as an organization that was tied together by the San Francisco headquartered Sierra Club and other San Francisco based organizations. Please see http://www.ceres.org.

In our case here Ceres or CERES stands for - Coalition for Environmentally Responsible Economies and we know that some might get confused. We will thus use plain CERES and expect that the content of the message fits for both meanings.

The CERES Principles:

In the fall of 1989, Ceres announced the creation of these Principles, a ten-point code of corporate environmental conduct to be publicly endorsed by companies as an environmental mission statement or ethic. Imbedded in that code of conduct was the mandate to report periodically on environmental management structures and results. In 1993, following lengthy negotiations, Sunoco became the first Fortune 500 company to endorse the Ceres Principles. Today, the tide has changed dramatically. Over 50 companies have endorsed the Ceres Principles including 13 Fortune 500 firms that have adopted their own equivalent environmental principles.

By endorsing the Ceres Principles or adopting their own comparable code, companies not only formalize their dedication to environmental awareness and accountability, but also actively commit to an ongoing process of continuous improvement, dialogue and comprehensive, systematic public reporting. Endorsing Ceres companies have access to the diverse array of experts in our network, from investors to policy analysts, energy experts, scientists, and others.

The Ceres Principles are:

1. Protection of the Biosphere
We will reduce and make continual progress toward eliminating the release of any substance that may cause environmental damage to the air, water, or the earth or its inhabitants. We will safeguard all habitats affected by our operations and will protect open spaces and wilderness, while preserving biodiversity.

2. Sustainable Use of Natural Resources
We will make sustainable use of renewable natural resources, such as water, soils and forests. We will conserve non-renewable natural resources through efficient use and careful planning.

3. Reduction and Disposal of Wastes
We will reduce and where possible eliminate waste through source reduction and recycling. All waste will be handled and disposed of through safe and responsible methods.

4. Energy Conservation
We will conserve energy and improve the energy efficiency of our internal operations and of the goods and services we sell. We will make every effort to use environmentally safe and sustainable energy sources.

5. Risk Reduction
We will strive to minimize the environmental, health and safety risks to our employees and the communities in which we operate through safe technologies, facilities and operating procedures, and by being prepared for emergencies.

6. Safe Products and Services
We will reduce and where possible eliminate the use, manufacture or sale of products and services that cause environmental damage or health or safety hazards. We will inform our customers of the environmental impacts of our products or services and try to correct unsafe use.

7. Environmental Restoration
We will promptly and responsibly correct conditions we have caused that endanger health, safety or the environment. To the extent feasible, we will redress injuries we have caused to persons or damage we have caused to the environment and will restore the environment.

8. Informing the Public
We will inform in a timely manner everyone who may be affected by conditions caused by our company that might endanger health, safety or the environment. We will regularly seek advice and counsel through dialogue with persons in communities near our facilities. We will not take any action against employees for reporting dangerous incidents or conditions to management or to appropriate authorities.

9. Management Commitment
We will implement these Principles and sustain a process that ensures that the Board of Directors and Chief Executive Officer are fully informed about pertinent environmental issues and are fully responsible for environmental policy. In selecting our Board of Directors, we will consider demonstrated environmental commitment as a factor.

10. Audits and Reports
We will conduct an annual self-evaluation of our progress in implementing these Principles. We will support the timely creation of generally accepted environmental audit procedures. We will annually complete the Ceres Report, which will be made available to the public.

CERES’ Mission: Integrating sustainability into capital markets for the health of the planet and its people.

Accomplishments: At its founding in 1989, Ceres introduced a bold new vision to the business community. That vision is of a world in which business and capital markets promote the well being of human society and the protection of the earth’s biological systems and resources. Ceres advances its vision by bringing investors, environmental groups and other stakeholder together to encourage companies and capital markets to incorporate environmental and social challenges into their day-to-day decision-making. By leveraging the collective power of investors and other key stakeholders, Ceres has achieved dramatic results, among those:

• Recipient of numerous awards including the 2006 Skoll Award for Social Entrepreneurship and the Fast Company/Monitor Group Social Capitalist award, and was named one of the 100 most influential players in the corporate governance movement by Directorship Magazine.
• Launched the Global Reporting Initiative (GRI), now the de-facto international standard used by over 1200 companies for corporate reporting on environmental, social and economic performance.
• Joined with Yale University and insurance firm, Marsh, to create the Sustainable Governance Forum on Climate Risk, a unique leadership development program designed to help corporate leaders address the problem of climate risk.
• Spearheaded dozens of breakthrough achievements with companies, such as Nike becoming the first global apparel company to disclose the names and locations of its 700-plus contract factories worldwide in 2005, Dell Computer agreeing in June 2006 to support national legislation to require electronic product recycling and “takeback” programs, and Bank of America announcing a $20 billion initiative in March 2007 to support the growth of environmentally sustainable business activity to address global climate change.
• Brought together 500 investor, Wall Street and corporate leaders at the United Nations in 2005 to address the growing financial risks and opportunities posed by climate change. The ground-breaking meeting included 28 U.S. and European investors approving a 10-point action plan seeking stronger analysis, disclosure and action from companies, Wall Street and regulators on climate change. Another investor summit will be held in February 2008.
• Launched and directs the Investor Network on Climate Risk (INCR), a group of more than 60 leading institutional investors with collective assets of over $4 trillion.
• Published cutting-edge research reports to help investors better understand the implications of global warming. Among those: a January 2007 report, Climate Risk Disclosure by the S&P 500, an August 2006 report, From Risk to Opportunity: How Insurers Can Proactively and Profitably Manage Climate Change, and a March 2006 report, Corporate Governance and Climate Change: Making the Connection, which analyzed how 100 of the world’s largest companies are addressing the business challenges from climate change.

After the February 14, 2008 event at the UN - Ceres Press people provided the following press release:

Peyton Fleming, Ceres, 617-733-6660,  fleming at ceres.org
Patricia Charles, UN Foundation, 440-506-9564,  patricia at unfoundation.org

U.S. and European Investors Tackle Climate Change Risks and Opportunities. Investors Make Bold Commitments to Energy Efficiency and Other Clean Technologies, Require Closer Scrutiny of Carbon-Intensive Investments

NEW YORK CITY, NY — Nearly 50 leading U.S. and European institutional investors managing over $1.75 trillion in assets today released a climate change action plan at the United Nations that will boost investments in energy efficiency and clean energy technologies and require tougher scrutiny of carbon-intensive