http://www.miamiherald.com/2010/03/11/15…

Posted on Thursday, March 11, 2010 in THE OPPENHEIMER REPORT.

The Miami Herald’s Andres Oppenheimer shares his opinion on Brazilian President Luiz Inacio Lula Da Silva’s consideration to run for secretary general of the UN.

BY ANDRES OPPENHEIMER
 AOPPENHEIMER at MIAMIHERALD.COM
A short news item in Brazil’s news magazine Veja this week suggested that President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva is considering running for United Nations secretary general after he leaves office at the end of this year. If true, that would explain a lot of things.

Until now, the conventional wisdom was that Brazil’s recent foreign policy of open support to the world’s most ruthless dictatorships – IRAN – is tied to the country’s emergence as a new power in the world economy, and its desire to flex its muscle as a new — and fiercely independent — player in international affairs.

That’s probably true. But the Veja report — stating that Lula “has been sounded out by more than one person to be a candidate for U.N. Secretary General in 2011” — is adding a new element to the puzzle of what’s behind Brazil’s foreign policy. The Brazilian government says it will not comment on the magazine’s report.

Diego Arria, a former chairman of the U.N. Security Council, told me that “Lula would be a very strong candidate because of Brazil’s weight as an increasingly independent power, and because of his international prestige.” He added that Lula may be catering to an anti-U.S. climate at the United Nations “to position himself as a strong candidate for Secretary General.”

In recent days, Lula has made some shocking statements that are hard to understand coming from a former union leader who opposed military dictatorships. In an interview with The Associated Press, he compared Cuba’s peaceful oppositionists who are waging hunger strikes with “bandits.”

Lula, who recently visited Cuba and posed smiling with that country’s military dictator Gen. Raúl Castro shortly after political prisoner Orlando Zapata died from a hunger strike, said that hunger strikes should not be used “as a pretext” to defend human rights. Lula added, “Imagine if all bandits who are imprisoned in Sao Paulo went on a hunger strike and demanded freedom.”

Days earlier, Lula had reiterated his decision to visit Iran in May, despite international efforts to impose sanctions on that country amid growing evidence that its regime is building nuclear weapons in defiance of international rules.

Does Lula have a chance of becoming U.N. Secretary General? Most diplomats say current Secretary General Ban Ki-moon, a South Korean diplomat whose term expires Dec. 31, 2011, is expected to run for reelection. Most of the recent U.N. chiefs serve two consecutive terms.

“Lula’s name would be an honor to Latin America, but it’s a tradition for Secretary Generals to run for reelection, and I don’t see a reason why Secretary General Ban Ki-moon would not go for a second term,” Chile’s U.N. Ambassador Heraldo Muñoz told me.

Others noted that, if for some reason Ban decided not to run, Asian countries may want to have one of their own diplomats at the job for another five years, in keeping with the tradition that each region gets a two-term mandate. And many point out that Lula doesn’t speak English or French, a major obstacle for a candidate to the top U.N. job.

My Opinion: Most likely, Ban will get a second term, even if many countries would want a higher-profile U.N. chief. Lula is more likely to be offered the job of head of the Rome-based U.N. Food and Agriculture Organization, whose current director Jacques Diouf of Senegal has been on the job since 1994 and is on his way out.

Lula would be a perfect candidate for that position because of his successful “Bolsa Familia” anti-hunger program in Brazil and the international recognition it has given him. In addition, the FAO has never had a Latin American chief.

Granted, Lula may find that job too small, but — considering his awful human rights stands — it would be the perfect place for him.

———————-

Matthew Russell Lee of The Inner City Press at the UN points out another interesting angle that might explain the Munoz position:

“Meanwhile, press in Latin America and even Chilean Ambassador to the UN Munoz have been speaking of Brazil’s Lula as a possible UN Secretary General in 2012. While many in the UN might wish that this would happen, it is considered impolitic for Munoz, currently seeking an Assistant Secretary General post from Ban Ki-moon, to talk up a competing Lula candidacy.

Others say “ah ha” about the Lula story, thinking this might explain Lula’s schmoozing with Iran and other non favored regimes. What’s next, Lula praising Sri Lanka’s Rajapaksa and his blood bath on the beach? Pro Rajapaksa Sri Lankans are expected to demonstrate Friday at noon in front of the UN, echoing the Non Aligned Movements letter claiming that the UN has no human rights mandate.”

———————

Interesting stuff – the Miami Cubans might not like the idea so they try to preemt the trial baloon that was lauched by the Brazilian Veja – and then, if there is a change at the UN in 2012, it can be assumed that the Asians will claim a repeat of what happened when the US has helped ease out Egyptian Boutros Boutros-Ghali, who was elected as an African, and brought in then Kofi Annan for a full two terms for Africa. If the UN decides that the MENA group – North Africa and Arab Asia – is indeed a separate region – so above example is not precedent – then there would be no opposition to a prominent Latin American to get the nod. The former East European UN region has pretty much dissolved, so the new MENA or OIC structure will be able to put forward its candidate in due time.

——————

Also, what will be the Obama Administration’s position?

For one thing, the March 21, 2010 trip of the US President to Indonesia and Australia might produce a US backing for an Indonesian to head the UNFCCC – the present opening for Dirctor General under the Climate Change Convention. As of now, the countries that have voiced they will put forward their candidates are South Africa, India, and Indonesia. Brazil has not done so – and above information may indeed allow for this more complicated play with Lula getting in the New York picture later.

Turkey is an important State. It was born from the ashes of the Ottoman Empire after having chosen the loosing side in WW I. It went after that through a distilling process with the secular-military revolution of Ataturk, and was on its way to modernization. In the process Turks killed Armenians – that is well documented, and eventually Armenians said it was genocide. Those were clearly the childhood days of a more modern Turkey.

Growing up would have meant recognizing that in its evolution, Turkey has some darker shadows in its history basin – recognize it and stretch out a hand in peace. Instead Turkey preferred to continue without any relations to Armenia, while at the same time distancing itself from its Middle Eastern and Caucasian neighbors while courting a Europe that refuses to forgive a forgetful Turkey its past behaviour in relation to its Armenians, and then later its Kurds.

Turkey, in its ridiculous courting of Europe, has missed even the boat that was anchored in its doorsteps with the creation of five newly independent Central Asian States most of which being of Turkic ethnicity anyway. Turkey is torn now between Islam and secularism with an Islamic background – whatever they chose, it is going to be neither Christian Greek, nor Christian Armenian while the West – that is Europe and the US – are basically Christian and can be  counted upon as backing Armenia’s simple request to call the killings of a century ago an example of genocide like they are ready to call what went on in Kosovo, much more recently, a genocide against Muslims.

Turkey is important to the West as a bridge to the Islamic world of Asia including the Middle East and Central Asia, but the West can not tell its parliaments that for foreign policy reasons they are not allowed to call an old case of genocide by its name, or to tell their more liberal people that a cartoon or some other free expression that might offend someone’s feelings is not plain satire that they can express if it were their own leaders – secular or religious – be it even the Pope.

Turkey has now recalled its Ambassadors to the US and Sweden as sign of displeasure with Congress and Parliamentarian declarations in States that allow free expression via voting – specially as the direct consequence of it if it was genocide or plain heinous killing is not going to bring anyone to life back anyway.

We belabor this topic because our website has placed great hope in a reorienting Turkey on various issues – be these related to the place of Turkey on Kyoto Protocol and climate change, on oil and gas pipelines, or be it on the OIC, peace efforts in the Middle East, relations with Iran, Iraq etc. We are thus unhappy when Turkey steps back from responsibility that comes with maturity.  Why not just tell Armenia – let’s sign a peace accord based on mutual understanding that what has happened then, call it what you want, and we are sorry for it, will never happen again. The whole world would then applaud. Look at Jews and Germans – it was worse – but they talk and do not walk out on each other.

Climate science: a peace-studies lesson.

Involves – Civil society Democracy and government International politics;  global security globalisation;  the politics of climate change.

by Paul Rogers, 11 March 2010. OpenDemocracy from the UK.
 http://www.opendemocracy.net/paul-rogers…

The doubters of global warming are emboldened by their new ability – as in the “climategate” affair – to put climate researchers on the defensive. But the experience of comparable assaults on the discipline of peace studies in the 1980s suggests that hostile scrutiny can have longer-term benefits for the target. The author mentions – “The articles in this series try to throw light on recent or current developments in international security. Just occasionally an element of personal experience creeps in. This is one of those.”

The last weeks of 2009 were difficult for the public face of scientific research into global warming. The failure of the climate-change conference in Copenhagen, the identification of minor flaws in the International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC’s) published documentation, and the exposure of email exchanges centred on the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) at England’s University of East Anglia – all raised doubts about those charged with presenting scientific evidence about climate change and renewing efforts to address the phenomenon. In the case of the email affair – given an extra conspiratorial frisson by being called “climategate” – the careful selection of damaging details by an evidently well-resourced group made it possible to erect a narrative of deception that found an uncritical welcome among climate “sceptics” and “deniers”.

Soon after the furore, Associated Press tasked a team to examine 1,073 emails from the CRU material in order to provide an independent view of what had happened. The result showed no evidence that climate change was faked (see “’ClimateGate’ Doesn’t Show Global Warming Was Faked, AP Reports”, Huffington Post, 12 December 2009); but amid a deluge of negative comment this attracted little attention, and the impression persists that the whole case for human-induced climate change has been severely hit.

For many of the researchers involved, the period of late 2009-early 2010 has been traumatic; they may have had to contend with controversy over the years, but this is something outside their experience.

The intensity of the coverage, and the zealotry of many sceptics in pressing their case, stem in part from changing global circumstances. There has long been deep opposition to any international move towards a low-carbon economy, from reasons both ideological (free-market true-believers) and commercial (the more retrograde transnational corporations, especially fossil-fuel companies). There was no great risk of such a move as long as George W Bush was in the White House; but the election of Barack Obama and the prospect of Copenhagen agreeing a successor to the Kyoto protocol made 2009 potentially a dangerous year. In this context, “climategate” has been a gift.

The peace benefit

The lesson of my own experience in the 1980s suggests that the longer-term impact might be rather different from what the architects of this affair intend. I got into working in the field of international security from teaching environmental science and resource-conflict at Huddersfield Polytechnic, west Yorkshire, in the early 1970s (and recently came across some of my thirty-five-year-old lecture notes dealing with rising atmospheric CO² levels!). I moved to Bradford’s department of peace studies at the end of the decade, just as the cold war was entering a particularly tense period; from around 1980 onwards, several of us there saw the need for independent research and writing on nuclear issues.

An early outcome (with co-authors Malcolm Dando and Peter van den Dungen) was a book about the risks and consequences of nuclear war: As Lambs to the Slaughter: The Facts About Nuclear War (1981). It struck a chord; 25,000 copies were sold in a few weeks, and that year around 500,000 people purchased an accompanying leaflet published by the environment group Ecoropa.

As Lambs… was part of a wider body of writings, much of it for an academic rather a general readership. This was the case with A Guide to Nuclear Weapons (1981) which ran to several editions and led eventually to a reference work: The Directory of Nuclear, Biological and Chemical Arms and Disarmament 1990. The core purpose of this writing was to be as accurate as possible; this meant (for example) always analysing Soviet as well as western systems and postures, and having a particular focus on the actual consequences of a nuclear war.

What strikes me in retrospect – and when thinking about the problems that climate scientists now face – is how widely varied were the reactions to our work. Military officers, for example, were actually very interested in it and very ready to engage in intensive debates. I was first invited to lecture at the Royal Air Force staff college in 1982 and have continued frequently to lecture at defence colleges to the present day. Senior civil servants in Britain’s ministry of defence were also willing to discuss our work.

The reaction on the political right – then very much in the ascendancy during Margaret Thatcher’s long premiership (1979-1990) – was very different; it was bitter and sustained opposition to what we were doing. In the Thatcherite view of the world, peace studies was “appeasement studies”, indulgent to official enemies and undermining of the nation’s moral fibre. Many articles and pamphlets were written about the Bradford department’s dangerous and subversive nature; one noble member of the House of Lords (the upper chamber of Britain’s parliament) even described us as a “rest home for urban guerrillas”. Some critics preferred a more personal touch: I was called “Dr Death”, and we regularly got abusive mail (which, on one or two occasions, went as far as death-threats).

It was known that Margaret Thatcher wished “something to be done” about peace studies; but this was politically difficult, since universities still retaine considerable independence (a situation that subsequent governments have done much to redress). than now. But the University Grants Committee (UGC) came under pressure to investigate us and to its credit agreed to do so only if Bradford’s vice-chancellor allowed it; he too was prepared to say yes, but – also to his credit – only if the peace-studies staff gave their consent. We certainly would! What followed was the equivalent of today’s “subject review”. It was thorough and exacting, and the UGC made public its verdict – that the department was maintaining high standards.

That outcome lifted the pressure off peace studies for the rest of the 1980s. With the end of the cold war by the end of the decade, much of the other work our staff and research students already did – on peacekeeping, environmental conflict, and mediation, among other issues – came to the fore; this created the foundation for an expansion of our work in the 1990s.

The landscape after battle

How does this relate to “climategate”? A key factor is that we were exposed to intensive criticism and persistent scrutiny of our work virtually from day one, and this in direct consequence made us hugely aware of the need for very high levels of accuracy and impeccable referencing of sources. Access to a wide range of military and defence journals, and a huge amount of information in the public domain, meant that this was actually not so difficult; but under so much external pressure we learned to be very cautious in our analysis at a time when exaggeration on the issues we addressed was common enough.

Many of us now think that the experience made us better academics. If almost everything you write is going to be exposed to detailed examination by relentless and often politically-motivated critics, then you have to set unusually exacting standards for your work. The likely – and beneficial – implication is that climate researchers who have gone through their own test-by-fire will in future take even greater care over published assessments and analyses.

In many ways we were luckier than today’s climate researchers: for there was an intense focus on our peace-studies work from the very beginning – whereas critics of climate science are able to retrieve work published a decade and more ago, when the issue was far less controversial, in order to pinpoint a minor laxity and use it to great effect to damn the whole enterprise.

The overall effect of the setbacks to climate-science’s public face may amount to the loss of a year in the transition to a low-carbon future, but the good work being done in this area offers many grounds for optimism. The New Economic Foundation’s The Great Transition project, and Tim Jackson’s book Prosperity Without Growth: Economics for a Finite Planet (Earthscan 2009) are but two examples. Alongside the evidence that continues to emerge about the accelerating impact of climate change, the flow of impressive research and compelling argument based on even more rigorous standards will ensure that the refusenik stance will in future become harder to make.

In the end, peace studies was made stronger by those who sought to expose it. In a similar way, the travails of climate researchers may well end up reinforcing the integrity of the science and the necessity of the low-carbon transition.

When real scientists say they are uncertain about something because they know that nothing is matter – all is probability – they are called cooks and what they say is rejected by the real cooks – then when the scientists decide to be efficient by talking certainty rather then probability – the same real cooks call them charlatans. Is there any hope to a decent world led by decent government capable of saying that the uncertainty principle
becomes a must in dealing with the precautionary principle?

March 10, 2010   -  One Flew over…..The Sequel   {that must have been … the Cookoo’s Nest?}

http://jer-skepticscorner.blogspot.com/

UN to review errors made by Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change

—

STOP THE PRESSES !

Sanity in the Main Stream Media

Editorial: Global warming challenge

FROM-OC Register

The possibility of suspending California’s Global Warming Solutions Act, a law unlikely to change temperatures but certain to wreak economic havoc, appears to have increased dramatically.

Two large Texas-based refineries have pledged as much as $2 million to pay for signature-gathering to place an initiative on the November ballot that would suspend the global warming law if passed by voters, the Los Angeles Times reported, citing Sacramento sources.

California refineries of the two companies, Valero Energy Corp. and Tesoro Corp., would be forced to slash greenhouse gas emissions. But the initiative would delay implementation until unemployment level drops to 5.5 percent for at least a year.

Unemployment is now at 12.4 percent.
The last thing California needs is an unnecessary law that drives up costs for businesses, prices for consumers and could send many of both fleeing the state.

The Times reported Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger had asked businesses not to support the ballot measure. The initiative is sponsored by Assemblyman Dan Logue, R-Linda, Rep. Tom McClintock, R-Granite Bay, and the People’s Advocate, a Sacramento-based anti-tax group. They have until April 24 to gather 433,971 valid signatures.

It’s time the public vote on the increasingly questionable theory underlying California’s law. Leaked documents have shown climate scientists paid by government grants may have rigged data, suppressed conflicting information and blocked skeptical scientists from inspecting their studies and submitting alternate theories.

Global warming alarmism would penalize huge economic sectors by forcing the purchase of government permits to emit greenhouse gases, while imposing other costly conditions to switch to uneconomical, taxpayer-subsidized alternative fuels.

The science behind the global warming is highly speculative. Several disclosures in recent months have shown many catastrophic claims were based on slipshod documentation, not peer-reviewed studies. A recent disclosure from Sweden’s Goteborgs Universitet showed only 62 percent of sources cited by the U.N.’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change were peer-reviewed in the its 2001 report.

Meanwhile, Dr. Phil Jones, head of Britain’s Climate Research Unit was forced to step down after thousands of leaked e-mails revealed he may have suppressed and altered data. He testified last week in the House of Commons that he withheld data of countries including Sweden because those nations’ prohibited release. But he was almost immediately rebutted by the nonprofit Stockholm Initiative “for a rational climate policy,” saying “All Swedish climate data are available in the public domain” and “that fact has been clearly explained to Dr. Jones.”

Claims of catastrophic global warming are based on computer models derived from increasingly questionable data by a relatively small cadre of scientists, who have profited for years from government and private grants to study the alleged threat. We say, let’s have a vote.

FROM-The Times

The United Nations is to announce an independent review of errors made by its climate change advisory body in an attempt to restore its credibility.

A team of the world’s leading scientists will investigate the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and ask why its supposedly rigorous procedures failed to detect at least three serious overstatements of the risk from global warming.

The review will be overseen by the InterAcademy Council, whose members are drawn from the world’s leading national science academies, including Britain’s Royal Society, the United States National Academy of Sciences and the Chinese Academy of Sciences.

The review will be led by Robbert Dijkgraaf, co-chairman of the Interacademy Council and president of the Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and Sciences.

He has been asked to investigate the internal processes of the IPCC and will not consider the overarching question of whether it was right to claim that human activities were very likely to be causing global warming.

The review, which will be announced in New York by Ban Ki Moon, the UN Secretary General, and Rajendra Pachauri, the IPCC chairman, is expected to recommend stricter checking of sources and much more careful wording to reflect the uncertainties in many areas of climate science.

The IPCC’s most glaring error was a claim that all Himalayan glaciers would disappear by 2035. Most glaciologists believe it would take another 300 years for the glaciers to melt at the present rate.

It also claimed that global warming could cut rain-fed North African crop production by up to 50 per cent by 2020. A senior IPCC contributor has since admitted that there is no evidence to support this claim.

The Dutch Government has asked the IPCC to correct its claim that more than half the Netherlands is below sea level. The environment ministry said that only 26 per cent of the country was below sea level.

The allegations about climate scientists are believed to have contributed to a sharp rise in public scepticism about climate change. Last month an opinion poll found that the proportion of the population that believes climate change is an established fact and largely man-made has fallen from 41 per cent in November to 26 per cent.

The Met Office, which produces the global temperature record used by the IPCC in its reports, has proposed a separate review of its data after admitting that public confidence in its findings had been undermined.

The Met Office relies on analysis by the University of East Anglia’s Climatic Research Unit, which is under investigation over allegations that its director manipulated raw data and tried to hide it from critics.
 http://jer-skepticscorner.blogspot.com/

————

We find in above the repetition of the figure 26 quite amusing. Actually we think that while at present perhaps indeed only 26% of the Netherlands is under sea level, but then, with sea level rise thanks to the melting of the ice at the poles, and in the mountain glaciers like in the Himalaya’s (what we call the three poles) – rest assured – half of the Netherlands will be under the water line. So what is your problem with that or with what the scientists said? By that time maybe 50% of the population will accept that this was an anthropogenic event – that is that they themselves caused it – and the only fault of the scientists was their shortage of words.

EU Climate Chief delivers Treaty blow.

by Fiona Harvey, Environment Correspondent
8th March 2010
 http://crazationsice.blogspot.com/2010/0…

The world will almost certainly fail to draw up a new treaty on climate change this year, the minister in charge of last year’s Copenhagen summit has admitted, delivering a heavy blow to the barely flickering hopes for a swift global settlement.

Connie Hedegaard, the Danish minister who masterminded the summit of world leaders on global warming last year and is now the European commissioner for climate change, told the Financial Times negotiations were not progressing fast enough for a treaty to be signed soon.

She also gave warning that pushing too hard for a treaty this year could be counterproductive.

“To get every detail set in the next nine months looks very difficult,” she said. “Europe would love that to happen, and I would love that to happen . . . but my feeling is that it is going to be very difficult to get a treaty.”

Her pessimism echoed that of the outgoing United Nations climate change chief, Yvo de Boer. He told the FT as he resigned last month after four years of seeking an agreement that he could not see a treaty being signed this year.

The admission also comes against the backdrop of a resurgence of climate change scepticism, fuelled by a series of mistakes made by scientists that have encouraged many politicians to oppose emissions regulation.

Governments had been hoping to forge a final treaty at a global conference this December in Mexico, after failing to do so in Copenhagen.

However, Ms Hedegaard said this was more likely to happen at a follow-up meeting next year in South Africa.

That would still allow governments to meet their self-imposed deadline of forging a new agreement before the end of 2012, when the current provisions of the world’s only existing treaty on greenhouse gas emissions, the 1997 Kyoto protocol, expire.

Ms Hedegaard robustly defended the Copenhagen summit, which attracted loud criticism, especially for the chaotic way in which it finished.

She said that calling world leaders to the long-running negotiations had ensured rapid progress towards the end, when for the first time developed and developing countries mutually agreed limits on their emissions.

But she said there would not be another Copenhagen-style summit. “You can do such a thing one time,” she said.

The price of failure, if diplomats attempted to force an agreement this year, was too high, Ms Hedegaard said.

“People would say let’s skip that idea, let’s skip the UN thing,” she said.

She also defended climate scientists, saying the handful of flaws in the 2007 report by the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and the e-mails in which scientists talked of concealing data did not affect the large body of scientific evidence amassed over decades.

The UN climate talks have been going on since 1992, when world governments signed the first legally binding treaty aimed at avoiding dangerous levels of climate change. The Kyoto protocol failed because it did not impose obligations on developing countries and was rejected by the US.

——————-

Connie Hedegaard: Statement of CONNIE HEDEGAARD, European Commissioner for Climate Action, on the creation of the Directorate-General CLIMATE “The DG CLIMATE has been created …
ec.europa.eu/commission_2010-2014/hedegaard/index_en.htm

If you want to unnerve a European, the revelation of a secret dinner of New York-based hedge funds conspiring against the euro is hard to beat. Europeans are right to worry – but not about the collusion itself. They should be much more concerned that some of the world’s smartest investors are convinced the euro has only one way to go: deep down.

At first sight, this flies in the face of a previous consensus. In Europe, in particular, the predominant view has been that the infidels at the Federal Reserve and the Bank of England will ultimately inflate themselves out of their debt, while the European Central Bank will hold firm. That scenario would be consistent with an overvalued euro.

So what has prompted some sophisticated investors to think the opposite? Greece? Probably not. This is a story about what will happen to the eurozone beyond Greece.

Without political and legal constraints, this would be much easier. The eurozone would prescribe itself a crisis resolution mechanism, a procedure to manage internal imbalances, and perhaps move towards a common eurozone bond. Several economists have made concrete proposals: Daniel Gros, director of the Centre for European Policy Studies, and Thomas Mayer, chief economist of Deutsche Bank, have argued the case for a European Monetary Fund. Yves Leterme, the Belgian prime minister, has proposed a European debt agency.

While all of this sounds sensible, none of it may ever happen because of political and legal constraints. Some member states would argue that a new European treaty would be needed to implement such proposals. The route to getting the Lisbon treaty ratified was so tortuous that Brussels would rather go to hell and back than negotiate and ratify another treaty. In any case, German constitutional law imposes such tight constraints that any dilution of the no bail-out clause in the Maastricht treaty or the price stability target of the ECB might trigger a forced German exit. The most one can hope for during the next 10 years is improved voluntary co-ordination in the European Council.

So the question then becomes: what economic adjustment mechanisms are feasible against this political and constitutional backdrop? The options are limited. The one policy response we can almost take for granted will be an attempt to reduce budget deficits back towards the Maastricht treaty’s upper ceiling of 3 per cent of gross domestic product. This will be achieved, if not by 2012, then a year or two later. Meanwhile, Germany has unilaterally prescribed itself a deficit-to-GDP ceiling of 0.35 per cent from 2016. There will be some slippage here as well. But there can be no doubt that the eurozone will try – and probably succeed – to consolidate its fiscal position. The budget committee of the German Bundestag started last Friday, in fact, by cutting the finance minister’s 2010 budget by almost €6bn ($8.2bn, £5.4bn).

If we assume further budgetary consolidation as a given, how then will the eurozone economy adjust? It is an economic fact that the sum of public and private sector balances must equal the current account balance. So forcing up public sector balances implies either an offsetting fall in private sector balances, an offsetting improvement in the current account balance, or some combination of the two.

In scenario one, the eurozone’s current account balance remains broadly unchanged, and all the adjustment comes through a fall in private sector balances. In a similar way, Greece last week solved its fiscal problem by creating a private sector problem of identical size. The Greek state – the sum of its public and private sectors – is just as bankrupt today as it was a week ago. This means that, by following the fiscal policy rules, the eurozone would risk a private sector depression, which would almost certainly be concentrated heavily in Europe’s south. This scenario would greatly increase the probability of a eurozone break-up at some point in the future. Investors who believe in this scenario would be very afraid to hold euros.

In scenario two, all the adjustment comes through the eurozone’s current account balance, which would turn from slightly negative to strongly positive. It is difficult to see how this could be done without a significant further devaluation of the euro. The euro would join the long list of currencies that have seen their problems solved through competitive devaluation. So the consequences would be a significant devaluation of the euro against the dollar and a reversal of its appreciation against sterling. It would make life more difficult for the British. But, most importantly, it would contribute to a resurgence in global imbalances.

Whichever scenario you choose, the euro is going to be weak. Even if the eurozone were to allow more serious slippage in budgetary consolidation than I have suggested, that would probably not help the euro either, as markets would start to doubt the longevity of the currency union for political reasons.

We have always known that a monetary union cannot exist without political union in the long run. Those smart New York investors are betting that the long run is closer than we thought.

munchau@eurointelligence.com

E i n l a d u n g EARTHDAY 2010

am Samstag, 20. März

• 18:00 Treffpunkt Gate 1, UNO – Vienna International Center (2 Sicherheitskontrollen, bitte rechtzeitig kommen)
• 18.20 Friedenszeremonie bei der japanischen Glocke (18:32 Läuten der Glocke)
• 19.00 Ende der Zeremonie und Verlassen des UN Geländes; optionales gemeinsames Abendessen.

Die Idee, einen Tag der Erde zu feiern, hat in vielen Teilen der Welt in den siebziger Jahren die Umweltbewegungen zusammengeführt. Ursprünglich sollte aber mit dem „Tag der Erde“ – der nun schon 15 mal bei den Vereinten Nationen in Wien begangen wird – noch viel mehr erreicht werden. Der Gründer des Earth Days, JohnMcConnell, hat diesen Tag vor 41 Jahren auch als interkulturellen Feiertag der “Bürger der Erde” verstanden, der den Anspruch jedes einzelnen Menschen auf Mitgestaltung und Teilhabe in Frieden und Gewaltfreiheit ausdrückt. Der verstorbene Auslandsösterreicher Hans Janitschek hat sich erfolgreich dafür eingesetzt dass diese Tradition, von Generalsekretär U Thant in New York begonnen, auch in Wien beachtet wird, wie klein auch immer.
Als traditionell rund um den Globus alle Kulturen verbindendes Ereignis gibt die Tag- und Nachtgleiche zum Frühjahrsbeginn den einfachsten denkbaren Anlass, an diese Verbundenheit aller Kulturen und Menschen mit ihrer Lebensbasis: „Mutter Erde” zu erinnern und Handeln in globaler Verantwortung als “Treuhänder der Erde” zu fördern und zu nähren. Das Läuten der Friedensglocke ist ein hörbares Zeichen für das Gefühl dieser Verbundenheit und des kreativen Neubeginns, das von diesem Tag ausgeht.

Anmeldung ist wegen des Eincheckens in den Sicherheitsbereich bis 16. März erforderlich: phaider@chello.at

Mit herzlichen Grüßen

Mag. Franz Nahrada, UN Liaison – Earth Society Foundation in Vienna

Peter Haider, UN Liaison – Universal Peace Federation

A ground pass is required to enter Vienna International Centre (VIC). If you do not have a permanent pass, please mail your name to phaider@chello.at not later than March 16th. A list of participants will then be at the main gate of the VIC and upon showing a personal document you will be issued a ground pass.

Recipients of this invitation who would like to attend the meeting are requested to present this invitation and their identity document at Gate 1 of the VIC.

The VIC, 1220 Wien, Wagramerstrasse 5, is best reached by U 1 (Kaisermühlen)

IPI to Hold 60th Anniversary World Congress in Vienna and Bratislava

Thinking the Unthinkable: Are We Losing the News?

The International Press Institute (IPI) will hold its annual World Congress in Vienna, Austria, and Bratislava, Slovakia, from 11-14 September 2010, the organisation today officially announced.

The 2010 World Congress will mark the 60th anniversary of the founding of IPI, and the organisation will celebrate 60 years of defending press freedom in a series of events, culminating in the World Congress in the “twin cities” of Vienna and Bratislava. Under the overall theme, “Thinking the Unthinkable: Are We Losing the News? (Media Freedom in the New Media Landscape),” the three-day conference will focus attention on the state of the news media itself, providing new business models and solutions for the media, and the unique opportunity to meet and interact with major players from both traditional and new media outlets.

The Congress will also look at the new ways of delivering information and how new technologies are proving to be a powerful ally of freedom of opinion and expression.

“The new information platforms are having an enormous impact not only on mainstream journalism, but also on press freedom in countries where authoritarian regimes seek to curtail freedom of opinion and expression,” said IPI Director David Dadge.

At a special Gala Dinner and Ceremony, to be held at Vienna City Hall, IPI will honour “60 World Press Freedom Heroes” to commemorate the 60 years of its existence. IPI’s Press Freedom Heroes are individuals who have made a significant contribution to the defence and promotion of press freedom, especially – but not only – if this involved acts of resistance or bravery under hardship conditions. “We will pay tribute to these brave men and women, who displayed the utmost courage in defending press freedom in their country or region,” said Dadge. “Many of them paid the ultimate price, murdered for what they wrote or said.” IPI intends to invite all surviving Heroes to the ceremony in Vienna.

For the first time, IPI will also hold – parallel to the Congress – a “New Media & High-Tech Innovations Exhibition”, showcasing the latest in new media technologies and information platforms.

The Congress programme features a roster of world-class speakers, including Alex Jones, Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist and director of the Shorenstein Center on the Press, Politics and Public Policy at Harvard University’s Kennedy School of Government; Jeff Howe, contributing editor at Wired Magazine and author of the best-selling book, “Crowdsourcing”; Jim VandeHei, co-founder and executive editor of the influential Politico website; Martin Figueiredo, publisher and editor-in-chief of i Daily in Portugal; Guy Black, executive director of the Telegraph Media Group in the United Kingdom; Alexandra Föderl-Schmid, editor-in-chief of Der Standard in Austria; Sarah Montague, presenter, BBC, London, and many more. The event is expected to draw over 400 participants and their guests from around the world.

Confirmed partners for the Congress are: Google; OMV; Samsung; Telekom Austria Group; City of Vienna; Twin City Liner; and Austrian Airlines, as official carrier.

IPI’s media partners for the Congress are: ORF; Der Standard & APA.

The Institute of Development Studies in the UK is seeking to recruit a Head of Climate Change. Please could you pass on this link to anyone you think might be interested in applying, noting the application deadline of the 6th April:
 http://www.ids.ac.uk/go/idsjob/head-of-c…

The Climate Change and Development Group works to reduce poverty, vulnerability and support social justice in a changing climate through research, teaching, communications and knowledge sharing on climate change, disasters and development issues. The Group’s work cuts across and involves collaboration with other IDS research and information teams.

We are seeking a new Head of Climate Change to lead the Climate Change and Development Group and to play a strategic role in making climate change a key thematic issue in the future work of the institute.

The successful candidate will be expected to have an outstanding background in economics or related social science and a PhD (although exceptionally, comparable research and practical experience may be taken as a substitute), and an excellent research and publication record related to or relevant to any of the above areas. A proven capacity to work in a multi-disciplinary team, in policy environments, with overseas partners and practical experience in the field are also essential, and language abilities beyond English will be an advantage.

Salary: £41,057 – £60,000 per annum (depending on experience)
Closing Date: 12 midday UK time, Tuesday 6th April 2010
Interview Date: Thursday 13th May 2010

Hannah Bywaters
Administrator
Climate Change and Development Centre
Institute of Development Studies
at the University of Sussex, Brighton BN1 9RE
Tel: +44(0)1273 915722
Email:  H.Bywaters at ids.ac.uk
Website: www.ids.ac.uk/climatechange

from: Silke Rusch <Silke.Rusch@unece.org>

date:  Thu, Mar 4, 2010
subject:    International Forum “Greening Real Estate Markets” 26-27 April 2010.

The UNECE Committee on Housing and Land Management and its Working Party on Land Administration are pleased to announce that registration is now open for the International Forum “Greening Real Estate Markets: A Multistakeholder Perspective”, organized in cooperation with the German Environment Agency (UBA).

The event will take place in Dessau, Germany from 26-27 April 2010.

Those interested in participating will find more detailed information on the event’s website, that also includes a section for registration:
 http://www.umweltbundesamt.de/umweltoeko…

—————

Silke Rusch
Associate Environmental Affairs Officer
United Nations Economic Commission for Europe
Environment, Housing and Land Management Division
Palais des Nations
1211 Geneva 10
Phone: +41-22-917-4216
Fax: +41-22-917-0107
Email:  silke.rusch at unece.org
www.unece.org/hlm

The United Arab Emirates, led by Abu Dhabi, is the first member of OPEC to associate itself with the so called Copenhagen Note by a Valentine’s day Association message to the World Community – we are with you – we take responsibility for action. This from Mari Luomi’s blog for the Finnish Institute of International Affairs.

From:  Jones Andrew <Andrew.Jones@upi-fiia.fi>
date:    Mon, Mar 1, 2010 at 4:17 AM
subject:  New UPI-FIIA publication – The EU and the global climate regime: Getting back in the game.

We are pleased to announce the release of a new publication by the International Politics of Natural Resources and the Environment Research Programme at The Finnish Institute of International Affairs (UPI-FIIA):

** – The EU and the global climate regime: Getting back in the game
 http://www.upi-fiia.fi/en/publication/10… Published 25.2.2010
by Thomas Spencer, Kristian Tangen, Anna Korppoo of the Finnish Institute of International Affairs.

The Finnish Institute of International Affairs.
 http://www.upi-fiia.fi/en/blog/269/ by  andrew.jones at upi-fiia.fi
web: http://www.upi-fiia.fi/
Tel: +358 206 111 734            GSM: +358 40 480 1655
Address: Kruunuvuorenkatu 4, 00160 Helsinki, Finland

** – and the Latest blog: The Opec state that clears its own, greener pat.

The Opec state that clears its own, greener path.
by Mari Luomi

ResearcherInternational Politics of Natural Resources and the Environment research programme. Published 26.2.2010

The United Arab Emirates, led by its wealthiest emirate Abu Dhabi, is finally taking the steps necessary to align its domestic and international policies in the field of climate change. Who would have thought just three years ago that the UAE would stand out as the only Opec state to associate itself to a controversial climate change accord, have a Climate Change Envoy, dub nuclear as clean energy, and, most importantly, set international climate change mitigation ahead of oil industry interests.

The United Arab Emirates (UAE) recently became the first Opec member state to associate itself with the disputed Copenhagen Accord. It is also establishing a Directorate of Energy and Climate Change and has flirted with the possibility of announcing emission cuts in comparison to business-as-usual levels. What are the implications of these simultaneous moves for the country and, most interestingly, for the Opec bloc?

————–
The Association Letter:

The UAE’s association letter, sent to the UN Climate Convention (UNFCCC) on Valentine’s day, was designed to be a clear message to the international community that the UAE is concerned about the negative impacts of climate change and is willing to do its fair share in mitigating climate change. This comes despite the fact that the UNFCCC places no commitments on the country to cut its emissions. The UAE is exempt from emission cuts because, despite its GDP per capita rank placing it in the global top-15, it is classified under the Convention as a developing country.

The association letter notes that the UAE has initiated ‘numerous domestic programmes’ that would reduce the UAE’s emissions to below business-as-usual levels. It also promises a more detailed follow-up on the issue. One would hope that this means that the UAE is planning to set a similar goal as, for example, Singapore, a high-income developing country, which has pledged to cut emissions by 16% in relation to BAU emissions by 2020.

Three issues are highlighted in the letter:
- The common but differentiated responsibilities principle;
- The economic impacts of climate change and its mitigation on oil exporting states and
- The importance of promoting carbon capture and storage, as well as nuclear energy technologies, under the international climate negotiating regime.

The importance of countries associating with the Copenhagen Accord is still contingent on the form and direction that the currently disarrayed international negotiations take over the coming months. Also, the content of the UAE letter has only a few surprises, including the potential emission target and the mention of nuclear energy.

What is significant, however, is that no other Opec state has so far associated itself with the Accord. Kuwait has explicitly rejected it. Saudi Arabia, which took part in the group of 25-30 countries that drafted the Copenhagen Accord, informally representing the voice and interests of the OPEC group, has not associated itself so far. Rather, in a submission to the UNFCCC in mid-February, the country states that the Accord ‘has no legal status within the UNFCCC, and thus can’t be used as basis or reference for further negotiations’.

If any Opec country should back the document, it is Saudi Arabia, given that it participated in negotiating the text, especially since the issue of the impacts of the so-called response measures (policies and measures taken to cut greenhouse gas emissions) and the need to assist countries vulnerable to them, which is one of the key demands of Saudi Arabia and the OPEC group, is included in the Accord.

—————

Climate Change Directorate:

Abu Dhabi’s major English newspaper The National reported today on the setting up of a new Directorate of Energy and Climate Change under the UAE’s Foreign Ministry. To understand the significance of this move, one must take a quick dive into the national context.

Abu Dhabi, owner of over 7% of the world’s proven oil reserves and nine tenths of the total oil reserves of the seven-emirate federation it presides over, has for roughly three years now been building itself an image of a ‘future energy giant’. It has declared itself to be the ‘green energy leader of the region’ and, to earn the title, it has built up an impressive list of alternative energy initiatives, most of which converge under the umbrella of the Masdar Initiative, an alternative energy and technology venture by the Mubadala Development Company. What is best, international media and governments have bought the brand: from the President of Maldives to Ban Ki Moon, the world is praising Masdar and Abu Dhabi for their efforts.

These two moves – the association with the Accord and the new Envoy – might mainly have been taken for branding purposes, but what is important is that they will potentially have far-reaching implications for Opec’s negotiating dynamics that have so far been dominated by a very different tone. They are also finally bringing the ambitious national projects of Abu Dhabi and the UAE’s international climate policy closer to each other.

–
From: P F Henshaw <eco@synapse9.com>
Date: Mon, Mar 1, 2010
Subject: The trouble with being good at controlling nature – our healthcare addiction

Philip F. Henshaw sent us the following and we thought it should give us further material for thought and we invite your reaction.

Phil Henshaw writes:

I’ve been looking right at it, studying it deeply, for years.    This week I found another side of the moral quandaries of the healthcare crisis in America that seems to raise it to the scale of the mortal and moral threats we face with the energy crisis, climate change or that loss of bio-diversity.   We’re addicted.    It started with the great early achievements of healthcare, like the universally acclaimed combination of great science and our societal commitment to good works in eradicating Smallpox.

Even the best of solutions, or could I say *especially* the best of solutions, tend to lead people not having foresight into the deepest sort of trouble.   Eradicating Smallpox was greeted as proof we could overcome any great threat of nature, but incidentally also did serve to greatly multiply people and kicked off our great completely unaffordable profit/science healthcare spiral.   That this is what our healthcare crisis is really about sort of just dawned on me.

What makes healthcare an all but incurable growing addiction is the combination of:

1) our being mortal, so the more healthcare we get the more we physically need, and 2) that this has become the last great growth industry for American capitalism.

It combines the economic arts we are most proud of, science, finance, good works and marketing, to create an incurable and unaffordable economic addiction to disease.

That healthcare has become a genuine cancer by multiplying cures and costs toward the exhaustion of the economy, is a true Gordian Knot of moral quandaries rapidly bankrupting everyone.

Has our talent for controlling nature really become incurable?  … destined to overwhelm us with its natural complications?   That very dilemma also seems to be one that nature solves in making literally every perfect thing she makes, though… i.e. that she somehow doesn’t get carried away with limitless problem solving, and is able to make things whole and perfect anyway.

It’s “a long shot”, of course, but this suggests we really need to change.     If we weren’t so busy telling nature how to behave maybe there actually are secrets to find in how she does things worth studying.

Phil Henshaw      ¸¸¸¸.·´ ¯ `·.¸¸¸¸

NY NY     www.synapse9.com

 http://guest.cvent.com/EVENTS/Info/Summa…

In London – Cleantech Investor Breakfast on Brazil.

Brazil, the fifth largest country in the world, is endowed with extensive natural resources. With an advanced ethanol infrastructure and massive hydro electric capacity, Brazil is a leader in terms of its renewable energy use.

Investment in other renewable energy resources is also growing in interest: the Brazilian government aims to increase wind energy capacity to 10,000 MW over the next decade, taking its share of total energy supply to around 5 percent from 0.4 percent last year. Brazil recently held its first wind auction which resulted in a total of 71 projects signing on to provide 1,800 megawatts of generation capacity.

Demand for biodiesel is being driven by domestic legislation: and there are also investment opportunities in biomass, driven in part by export demand.

Brazil will host the World Cup in 2014 and Rio de Janeiro is the host city for the 2016 Olympics Games. Preparation for these events will involve extensive investment in sustainable infrastructure and will involve opportunities for international investors in fields such as waste to energy.

This event will address some of the investment opportunities opening up in Brazil for UK investors – and will aim to provide a brief overview of the issues involved in doing business in Brazil.

Cleantech magazine is compiling a series of features on cleantech/clean energy investment opportunities in Brazil. The first Brazilian focused issue of the magazine will be presented at the Brazilian breakfast.
The breakfast will be chaired by Paulo Wrobel, who is responsible for Energy and Biofuels at the Brazilian Embassy in London.

INTENDED FOR:

Investors interested in Brazil
Biofuel/biomass companies/investors

UK cleantech companies with products/services appropriate for the Brazilian market

This event is free to attend, but registration is required.

When    Thursday, March 11, 2010 8:00 AM – 11:00 AM

Where:
Rosenblatt Soliciors
9- 13 St Andrew Street
London EC4A 3AF
+44 (0) 20 7955 0880

Planner:    Anne McIvor

Women’s Network For a Sustainable Future (WNSF) Provided us with a pink invitation to an event for which we were supposed to pay $55 for this “generously hosted by PricewaterCoopers event.”

There was also an early bird option for $40. When I wrote that I would like to cover the event for the Sustainable Development website – the PriceWaterhouseCoopers lady of my correspondence first did not react to our e-mail then it was a nope. The Advertised pink sheet said:
 http://www.wnsf.org/

 http://www.eventbrite.com/event/55129493…

Cordially invites you to its New York Luncheon Panel

The Business of Climate Change: Post-Copenhagen Opportunities

Including speakers from:
Consolidated Edison,
Interface,
JP Morgan Chase,
PricewaterhouseCoopers,
Siemens

A discussion of business risks and opportunities post-Copenhagen: What’s in store for companies nationally and internationally–and how to plan for it–with tips from those who were there.

Wednesday February 24, 2010
12 to 2pm

Generously hosted by
PricewaterhouseCoopers
300 Madison Avenue @ 42nd St.
New York City

BOARD OF DIRECTORS

Kathy Robb
Chair, WNSF; Head of environmental practice, Hunton & Williams.

Marlys E. Appleton
Vice President, Sustainability Initiatives; Chair, Sustainability
Steering Committee.
AIG Global Investment Group (AIGGIG).

Dianne Dillon-Ridgley
Director, Interface Inc.

Shelly M. Esque
Vice President, Legal and Corporate Affairs; Director, Corporate
Affairs Group, Intel Corporation

Karen Flanders
Director, Corporate Responsibility, The Coca-Cola Company

Joanne Fox-Przeworski. Ph.D
Former UNEP Director for North America and founding director of the Bard Center for Environmental Policy

Ann Goodman. Ph.D
Executive Director, the Women’s Network for a Sustainable Future.

Sarah C. Howell
VP, Public Affairs, American Wind Energy Association.

Michele Kahane
Professor of Professional Practice, Milano, the New School for
Management and Urban Policy.

Clair Krizov
Executive Director, Environment and Social Responsibility, AT&T

Joyce LaValle
Former Senior Vice President, Interface Inc. A veteran in the commercial interiors industry and advocate for environmental sustainability

———-

ADVISORY COUNCIL

Ray Anderson
Founder and Chairman, Interface Inc.

Jo Ivey Boufford
Professor and Former Dean, Wagner School of Public Service, New York University.

Paula Di Perna
Former President, Joyce Foundation.

Eileen Fisher
Founder, Eileen Fisher Co.

Joyce Haboucha
Director, Social Investment, Rockefeller.

Noreen Harrington
Former Managing Director, Goldman Sachs.

Stuart Hart
Director, Sustainable Enterprise Institute, Cornell University.

Terri Ludwig
President, Merrill Lynch Community Development Company.

———–

SPONSORSHIP INFORMATION

WNSF welcomes support from companies, foundations and individuals to help us spread the word to as many businesswomen as possible on how corporate responsibility can foster sustainability.

If you are interested in sponsorship opportunities, please contact:
Ann Goodman, Executive Director. Please direct inquiries to  info at wnsf.org.

WNSF is a 501(c)3 not-for-profit organization.

Recent Sponsors

Alcoa Foundation, AT&T, BP, Cola-Cola Co., Con Edison, Eileen Fisher
Inc., Ford Foundation, JP Morgan Chase, Merrill Lynch, Nathan Cummings
Foundation, Novartis, Pfizer, Starbucks, Swiss Re, McGraw-Hill Cos.

Participation

WNSF believes that integrating responsible, sustainable practices throughout organizations is key to building sustainable enterprises — and a sustainable future. That’s why WNSF welcomes participation from women in all parts of business including marketing, communications, legal affairs, human resources, finance, strategy, philanthropy, corporate citizenship and environment, health and safety. There are no formal membership requirements. To get regular email updates on WNSF activities, send your contact information to:info@wnsf.org

———–

WNSF Leadership Circle

Founding Members:
Eileen Fisher Inc.
Intel
Joyce La Valle
Kathy Robb

Recent WNSF sponsors include:

Adobe
Applied Materials
AIG
Alcoa Foundation
AT&T
BP
The Coca-Cola Companies
Con Edison
DuPont
Eileen Fisher Inc.
Ford Foundation
Hewlett-Packard
Hunton & Williams
Intel
Interface
JP Morgan Chase
The McGraw-Hill Companies
Merrill Lynch
Nathan Cummings Foundation
Novartis
Pfizer
Pricewaterhouse Coopers (PwC)
Siemens
Starbucks
Swiss Re
Symantec

Initial web site design and hosting provided by Netting Solutions

===============

OK – without an invitation to those sandwiches, I found it convenient to stop by at 2:15 pm after an event on Kazakhstan at the George Soros Institute.

Actually, I found that things, might actually be better then the initial impression. True, I have seen before high power corporate women barging into topics of social interest at the fringes of the UN that were rather a celebration of “We have Arrived” and we are ready to impress our sisters, but at least the most recent additions to this organization seem to understand the political importance of the subject beyond the potential of a corporate gain for their employing firm, and the lady I was in e-mail contact with, I was told was a complete novice employee of the organization.

Anyway, I seem to remember having already run into the Corporate Ladies of WNSF previously at an event at the outskirts of the UN Headquarters at the time of a Women’s Conference, but this time got really intrigued by the post Copenhagen and how to benefit from Copenhagen concept.

I understand that Dianne Dillon-Ridgley of Iowa City gave an inspirational description of the history of climate change policy.  She has experience with the Sustainable Development concept since her appointment by President Bush Senior’s White House to go to the Rio convention, as per http://www.wnsf.org/index.php?com=static…

Ann Godman is the Executive Director of the WNSF which she co-founded in 2002. She is now adjunct professor of corporate responsibility at the Center for Global Affairs at New York University, and affiliate professor at the graduate Center for Environmental Policy at Bard College. http://www.wnsf.org/index.php?com=static…

Helle Bank Jorgensen was the moderator of the panel, and the hostess of the panel, as she is Partner, PricewaterhouseCoopers Denmark. Member of the PwC Global Sustainability Leadership Council. She gave me a PriceWaterhouseCoopers two page “Sustainable growth strategies” sheet with indication that PwC is sponsoring “Sustainability & Climate Change Thought Leadership.” I learned that PwC is promoting literature with titles like: A point of view series that covers the EPA new rules on GHG registration requirements and their regulation under the Clean Air Act. www.pwc.com

Also – “Sustainability: Are consumers buying it?” and “Going Green: Sustainable growth strategies.”

Capitalizing on a climate of change” seems to be a good introductory booklet - www.pwc.com and if you want to learn about the tax implications - www.pwc.com . Above all it seems that what PwC wants you to remember is that CSR is in vogue – “A comprehensive survey of corporate social responsibility reporting trends, benchmark and best practices” is something the consulting firm can help you with. The company distributed also booklets of “Rethink” as in Vision, Visibility and Strategy resulting in improved performance for your company. Obviously – there is nothing wrong in using greed to help achieve important societal goals – or who knows – the knowledge to avoid having to comply.                                       http://www.accaglobal.com/documents/denm…

Rebecca Craft was there to speak of Energy Efficiency at Con Edison, and I am sure Alison Taylor had things to add to this from the Siemens Corporation performance that we know well from what we were shown in Copenhagen, at the Siemens Denmark headquarters.

Then there was James Fuschetti, the only man that was still in the room when I arrived, and the only man on the panel, a Managing Director at JP Morgan Chase, a banking corporation that has female executives, but has also the sense to deal with Sustainability and Climate Change to the subject and not as a matter of female representation.

James Fuschetti is the Managing Director of the Office of Environmental Affairs at JP Morgan Chase and is responsible for its overall management and direction. Mr. Fuschetti spent 26 years as a banker and product specialist at JP Morgan Securities, Inc. During that time he lived in New York, Sao Paulo and London and worked with corporate and government clients in Latin America, Europe, the Middle East and Asia. In 1999 Mr. Fuschetti left JP Morgan to join the World Wildlife Fund (“WWF”) in Washington DC where he co-founded the Center for Conservation Finance. During his 7 years at WWF he helped develop financing solutions for large scale conservation projects in Asia and Latin America. In February 2008 Mr. Fuschetti returned to JP Morgan Chase to assume responsibility for the Office of Environmental Affairs. Mr. Fuschetti reports to William Daley.

The Program was mainly about “REFLECTING ON COPENHAGEN” and Ms. Jorgensen posed questions to the panelists:

- What are the risks and opportunities you see for your company after Copenhagen?

- Do you see a different reaction nationally vs. internationally?

- How do you successfully plan for the future in a time of such uncertainty?

- While there is no current federal regulation – there is state/regional regulation – how do you address this in your company?

- Any last questions – or tips?

That all sounds good and I hope she got good answers, but for the life of me I do not understand why these topics had to be in pink format? Our website will fight for full equality for women when climbing the corporate ladder but we do not think that this sort of plain business talk ought to be segregated by sex.

I was glad I went to look at this congregation as I walked away with the feeling that indeed it was not a Sarah Palin tea party, but rather a joint learning experience that actually could have an impact if the ladies in the audience felt more comfortable in hearing about the misery of our environment and our governing system from a woman, rather then in a more mixed setting.

February 25, 2010,  from ALDE
Ukraine must make up for lost time.

The European Parliament today adopted its opinion on Ukraine following recent Presidential elections.

ALDE Vice President, Adina Valean (PNL, Romania), was a member of the EU’s election monitoring mission. In adopting the resolution Valean highlighted the five years of lost time in addressing the constitutional deficits in Ukraine that have held back genuine reforms and undermined Ukraine’s reputation as a stable democracy:

“Ukraine has a great deal of potential but it has sacrificed a lot of good will in recent years by its failure to resolve the internal checks and balances in its own system of governance.”

“Unfortunately for the moment there exists a lack of clarity on both sides regarding the nature of the EU’s present and future relationship with Ukraine which is hindering better cooperation and understanding. Following the change in Government, this is the first honest debate we need to have with the new leadership in Kiev, and to see what common ground and common projects we can find that are in the interest of both parties.”

—————–

It is quite clear that the Ukraine is torn by its internal division of a west that looks forward to the EU and an east that looks backwards to Russia. We said it before – nothing wrong with a split and allowing each part to attach itself to whomever they chose. But neigh – the Ukraine has had a government that was led by the east faction, and then by one that was led by the west faction that ended up splitting in two, now we have a return to power of the east faction that has learned something by being in opposition and now approaches the West before turning to Russia. We wish them luck but think that in face of the rising economies of Asia, it is for Russia itself to start changing and push for its own incorporation with Europe. Obviously, this will mean that Russia give up its nuclear high rolling, starts aligning with the EU on issues like Iran, allow for more rights to its own people. What Russia’s efforts will do will then cause further stalling in the creation of the European Federation, but at least give a good reason for the stalling of these advances within the EU that occur anyway. The Ukraine’s future is indeed the link to the entree of Russia to its own negotiations with the EU.

More Ambition Needed if Greenhouse Gases are to Peak in Time, Says New UNEP Report

Pledges Post Copenhagen Unlikely to Keep Temperatures Below 2 Degrees Celsius by Mid Century.

(UNEP Year Book Also Launched Today Outlines Growing Governance Challenge from Climate to Chemicals.)

Bali (Indonesia), 23 February 2010 – Countries will have to be far more ambitious in cutting greenhouse gas emissions if the world is to effectively curb a rise in global temperature at 2 degrees C or less.

This is the conclusion of a new greenhouse gas modeling study, based on the estimates of researchers at nine leading centres, compiled by the UN Environment Programme (UNEP).

The experts  suggest that annual global greenhouse gas emissions should not be larger than 40 to 48.3 Gigatonnes (Gt) of equivalent C02 in 2020 and should peak sometime between 2015 and 2021.

They also estimate that between 2020 and 2050, global emissions need to fall by between 48 per cent and 72 per cent, indicating that an ambition to cut greenhouse gases by around three per cent a year over that 30 year period is also needed.

Such a path offers a ‘medium’ likelihood or at least a 50/50 chance of keeping a global temperature rise at below 2 degrees C, says the new report.

The new study, launched on the eve of UNEP’s Governing Council/Global Ministerial Environment Forum taking place in Bali, Indonesia, has analyzed the pledges of 60 developed and developing economies.

They have been recently submitted to the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) following the UN climate convention meeting in Copenhagen in December.

The nine modeling centres have now estimated how far these pledges go towards meeting a reasonable ‘peak’ in emissions depending on whether the high or the low intentions are met.

“The expected emissions for 2020 range between 48.8 to 51.2 GT of CO2 equivalent based on whether high or low pledges will be fulfilled,” says the report.

The report, as noted earlier, says that in order to meet the 2 degree C aim in 2050, emissions in 2020 need to be between 40 Gt and 48.3 Gt.

Thus even with the best intentions there is a gap of between 0.5 and 8.8Gt of CO2 equivalent per year, amounting to an average shortfall in emission cuts of 4.7 Gt.

If the low end of the emission reduction pledges are fulfilled, the gap is even bigger-2.9 Gt to 11.2 Gt of CO2 equivalent per year, with an average gap of 7.1 Gt says the report How Close Are We to the Two Degree Limit?

Achim Steiner, UN Under-Secretary General and UNEP Executive Director, said: “There are clearly a great deal of assumptions underlying these figures, but they do provide an indication of where countries are and perhaps more importantly where they need to aim.”

“There clearly is ‘Gigatonne gap’ which may be a significant one according some of the modelers. This needs to be bridged and bridged quickly if the international community is to pro-actively manage emissions down in a way that makes economic sense,” he added.

“There are multiple reasons for countries to make a transition to a low carbon, resource efficient Green Economy of which climate change is a key one. But energy security, cuts in air pollution and diversifying energy sources are also important drivers,” said Mr Steiner.

“This week at the UNEP GC/GMEF we will also shine a light on the opportunities ranging from accelerating clean tech and renewable energy enterprises to the climate, social and economic benefits of investing in terrestrial and marine ecosystems,” he added.

Some of those multiple opportunities for action are showcased in the UNEP Year Book 2010 which is being presented to ministers responsible for the environment who are attending the meeting.

These include Reduced Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation (REDD) which gained political support at the Copenhagen climate change meeting.

REDD, which involves supporting developing countries to conserve rather than clear tropical forests, could make an important contribution not only to combating climate change but also to overcoming poverty and to a successful UN International Year of Biodiversity.

.    The Year Book estimates that investing $22 billion to $29 billion in REDD could cut global deforestation by 25 per cent by 2015.

It also highlights a new and promising REDD project in Brazil, at the Juma Sustainable Development Reserve in Amazonas.

.    Here each family receives US$28 a month if the forest remains uncut, one potential way of tipping the economic balance in favour of conservation versus continued deforestation.

Renewables are also gaining momentum: although still very low compared to the huge potential of renewable energy, the global installed wind generation capacity has grown at the rate of 25 per cent per year over the past five years.

.    In China, for example installed capacity has nearly doubled every year since the end of 2004 – and the report notes that the wind energy potential under perfect conditions has been estimated at up to 72,000 GW, nearly five times total energy demand. Probably 20 per cent of this energy potential could be captured in the future, representing almost 15 000 GW.

Managing a response to climate change also echoes the challenge of International Environment Governance, a key theme at this week’s GC/GMEF.

—————————————

Governance also underpins the international response to other challenges highlighted in the UNEP Year Book 2010.

Harmful substances

Among the chemicals now causing the greatest concern worldwide are endocrine disrupters, which interfere with hormone systems and are linked to serious effects on reproductive health.

A growing number of scientists are concerned that spikes in cancer, reproductive abnormalities, infertility, and behavioural disorders are the result of exposure to these chemicals during the development of foetuses and children.

The Year Book also looks at the nitrogen cycle, which has been identified as one of three key areas where ‘planetary boundaries’ have been crossed.

Most of the world’s biodiversity hotspots receive nitrogen from air and water at levels known to alter ecosystems, and nitrogen is creating dead zones in coastal waters-areas where big drops in oxygen levels can occur.

Global nitrogen use in agriculture is projected to double to some 220 million tonnes a year by 2050 if present trends continue.

Reducing the world’s nitrogen use will require a profound transformation of agricultural practices. But this may be essential to keep ecosystems from becoming so saturated with nitrogen that they become terrestrial equivalents of the oceans dead zones.

Ecosystem management

2010 is the International Year of Biodiversity. Changes in biodiversity due to human activities have been more rapid in the past 50 years than at any other time in human history.

.    The latest IUCN Red List, 17,291 species out of 47,677 assessed are under threat: 21 per cent of all known mammals, 30 per cent of all known amphibians, 12 per cent of all known birds, 28 per cent of reptiles, 37 per cent of freshwater fishes, 70 per cent of plants, and 35 per cent of invertebrates.

The report emphasizes that ecosystem management, of which biodiversity is the building block, has an important role to play in mitigating and adapting to the impacts of climate change.

Managing ecosystems for resilience, and protecting biodiversity to support this resilience, is critical both to meet development objectives and to address the challenges of climate change.

Disasters and conflict

In 2009, progress was made towards understanding how climate change, environmental degradation, and mismanagement of natural resources increase vulnerability to both disasters and conflicts, also within the context of the International Strategy for Disaster Reduction.

Equally how sustainable natural resource management may reduce vulnerability to disasters and conflict while supporting peacebuilding.

.    Forty per cent of intra-state armed conflicts have been shown to be directly linked to competition over natural resources.

Disasters and conflicts are linked to the environment in two important ways. First, environmental degradation often results in the loss of natural defences and environmental services, increasing communities’ vulnerability to environmental hazards and weakening their resilience.

Second, climate change is expected to exacerbate environmental degradation and increase disaster risks as storms, floods, and droughts become more frequent and more intense.

The year 2010 will see further work and research into this area, including new guidance on natural resource management, peacebuilding and ways to minimize conflict risks from natural resources while maximizing opportunities from economic development and livelihoods.

———————-

This paper was prepared by the Chief Scientist of UNEP with input from representatives of the following groups:

The Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency (D. van Vuuren and M. den Elzen),

Ecofys (N. Höhne), Potsdam Institute of Climate Impact Research, Germany (M. Meinshausen and J. Rogeli),

Climate Analytics (M. Schaeffer), UNEP Risø Centre on Energy, Climate and Sustainable Development,

Risø National Laboratory for Sustainable Energy, Technical University of Denmark (Jorgen Fenhann and John Christensen),

National Center for Atmospheric Research, United States (B. O’Neill),

International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis (K. Riahi),

Met Office Hadley Center, United Kingdom (J. Lowe),

Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment at the London School of Economics,

United Kingdom (C. Taylor, A. Bowen, N. Ranger.)

———————-

The UNEP Year Book 2010 is available online at www.unep.org

To order the Year Book 2010, visit www.earthprint.com

For more information on the 11th Special Session of the UNEP GC/GMEF, visit: www.unep.org

For More Information Please Contact:

Nick Nuttall, UNEP Spokesperson/Head of Media, Nairobi, at tel: + 254-733-632755 or +41-79-596-5737, e-mail:  nick.nuttall at unep.org

Anne-France White, UNEP Information Officer, +254 (0)20 762 3088, or  anne-france.white at unep.org

————

Further Resources

How Close Are We to the Two Degree Limit?
XIth Special Session of the Governing Council
UNEP Year Book 2010