Thursday, Mar 4, 2010
AICGS Advisor March 4, 2010 Alliance Asymmetries Issue #5 Alliance Asymmetries In this week’s At Issue, Executive Director Dr. Jackson Janes discusses Secretary of Defense Robert Gates’ recent comments about the “demilitarization of Europe” and what this means for the future of both the Afghanistan engagement and the greater mission of NATO. To read this essay, please click here. Robert Gates and the “Demilitarization of Europe” In a speech given at a recent NATO summit in Washington, DC, Secretary of Defense Robert Gates criticized Europe for what he called an aversion to using “military force and the risks that go with it.” This statement provoked reactions from both sides of the Atlantic: many Americans agreeing with Gates’ assessment, many Europeans criticizing an American hunger for using military force. AICGS has compiled analysis from affiliated experts – including Stephen Szabo, J.D. Bindenagel, Michael Rühle, and others – as well as links to the best coverage of transatlantic reactions relating to the speech, available via the links below. To read Secretary Gates’ speech, please click here. To read Stephen Szabo’s essay, please click here. To access this page of links, please click here. American Institute for Contemporary German Studies 1755 Massachusetts Avenue, NW Suite 700 Washington, DC 20036 +1 202-332-9312

---

Post-Copenhagen – ALDE MEPs Corrine Lepage (MoDem, France) and Chris Davies (Liberal Democrat, UK) have called on the EU to be bolder in its strategy to help forge a legally binding global deal on carbon emission cuts in the wake of the failed Copenhagen Climate Change Summit.

Speaking after the European Parliament voted today to set a target of cutting EU emissions by more than 20% Lepage, vice-chair of the Environment Committee said:

“This resolution should be considered as a first step.

Our priority must be to re-establish the trust of our citizens in scientific data. It is vital to convince them that the promotion of a low carbon economy is a response both to the effects of climate change and, in part, to the economic crisis.

It is equally crucial that Europe speak with one voice in favor of an agreement with the main emitters of CO2, notably the US and China.

Finally, it is essential to stick to our financial commitments with regard to developing countries.”

Mr Davies, ALDE Environment Spokesman added:

“After the disappointment of Copenhagen the EU has to raise its game and take a lead. By saving energy and improving energy efficiency we will save resources, drive down emissions, and make our economy more competitive.”

Green groups have warned that electric cars could actually increase carbon emissions.

Spain pushes for common strategy on electric cars.
VALENTINA POP

January 10, 2010, EUOBSERVER / BRUSSELS  http://euobserver.com/9/29443/?rk=1

EU industry ministers on Tuesday (9 February) discussed plans to establish a common strategy for electric cars, a pet project of the Spanish EU presidency.

Following the informal talks in the northern Spanish city of San Sebastian, the country’s industry minister Miguel Sebastian said it was not an exaggeration to say that the electric vehicle “has been born today in Europe,” and that it has done so under the Spanish presidency.

“Obviously there are lots of questions …issues of legal security, validation, the safety of the vehicles themselves …and cost,” he admitted, however.

As national plans vary throughout Europe and use differing technologies, not always compatible, Spain is pushing for the EU commission to come up with a common strategy in May. The Spanish minister cited Germany’s support for the plan.

Madrid also wants the electric car included in the bloc’s economic strategy for the next ten years, the so-called 2020 Agenda, as it would boost its ailing auto sector, stem soaring unemployment rates and use the renewable energy produced domestically.

The EU would compete against already established electric car manufacturers in Japan, China and the United States.

“It is good for people’s pockets, good for European income and employment, good for Europe as a whole, and it will be good for the planet from an environmental perspective,” the Spanish minister said.

But his view was not shared by several green groups issuing a report on Monday in which they warned that electric cars alone could actually increase carbon emissions unless they were backed by “smart” power grids.

The report, commissioned by Friends of the Earth, Greenpeace and Transport & Environment, says that existing EU legislation on car emissions is flawed because it allows manufacturers to use sales of electric vehicles to offset the continued production of high gas-consuming cars.

Increasing sales of electric cars to 10 percent of the total could lead to a 20 percent increase in both oil consumption and CO2 emissions in the EU car sector, the groups warn.

About 400 grams of carbon dioxide are emitted on average for every kilowatt-hour of electricity in the EU, but this can more than double if coal is used, says the report.

The answer, in their view, is to integrate electric cars with a “smart” electricity network, which would charge vehicles only when there was an abundance of green power from sources such as wind farms. But smart power networks are still in their early phase, despite EU pledges to develop them further.

“Just as every car sold today has to have an odometer to show how far it has driven, every electric car needs a smart meter to show how much electricity has been used and better still, whether or not that electricity came from a renewable source,” Nusa Urbancic from Transport & Environment said in a statement.

Simply plugging electric cars in “like kettles” would leave consumers and electricity suppliers “in confusion and chaos”, Ms Urbancic argued. “It’s up to the EU to ensure that all new cars sold in Europe are fitted with this kind of technology,” she added.

The EU refuses to see the multi headed Hydra it has become and expects President Obama to play along. Reality calls – EU please get serious at becoming some sort of one headed entity! The US President is a busy man now with all that US Jazz.

It slowly starts sinking in – we said it a long time ago!

Battling the ‘Multilateral Zombie’ – EU climate strategy after Copenhagen.
LEIGH PHILLIPS

February 3, 2010, http://euobserver.com/9/29354/?rk=1,
 http://old.norden.org/analysnorden/defau…

EUOBSERVER / ANALYSIS – “The EU’s post-Copenhagen strategy should be
just to have a strategy, any strategy,” quips one Brussels think-tank
wag during an interview.

The rough hip-check Europe received in the Danish capital in December,
sidelining the bloc during the eleventh-hour huddle between major
powers that produced the Copenhagen Accord, has produced a wave of
despondency and cynicism amongst Brussels politicians, green
lobbyists, and analysts – and carbon traders across the continent to
boot. They’re all having a crack at how poorly the EU played its hand
during climate negotiations.

For the last three years, if it hasn’t been the institutional reform
of the Lisbon Treaty, it’s been the bloc’s obsession with climate
change that has dominated the EU agenda. Even if the EU is well off
the at least 40 percent cut in emissions that science demands if we
are to avoid catastrophic climate change, it remains the case that as
a result of its 2008 climate and energy package, Europe remains the
most advanced rich-country power on the planet in terms of its binding
CO2 reduction commitment.

With its climate boy-scout badge afixed to its sleeve, Brussels headed
off to Camp Copenhagen expecting at least to see its self-proclaimed
leadership reflected in winning something along the lines of a broad
commitment from other powers to at least a 20-percent cut in carbon
emissions below 1990 levels by 2020.

But in the end, the EU ended up the goody-two-shoes pupil who’s top of
the class, but yet, when he invites all the other kids over for a
party, glumly watches as they end up playing among each other instead
of with him. It was the US, China, India, Brazil and South Africa that
cobbled together the last-minute three-page-long Copenhagen Accord
without the EU even in the room, while most of the developing world
complained throughout the two weeks that Brussels was at best just a
cat’s paw for Washington.

Denmark’s Connie Hedegaard, now incoming EU
climate commissioner, was repeatedly attacked for favouring rich
countries over the developing world.

“It was the strangest conference I have been at in my life, from all
points of view,” Mr Barroso told a pow-wow of the leading European
think-tanks in early January.

Typical of the initial EU reaction were comments from Swedish
environment minister Andres Carlgren, who, when meeting in Brussels in
late December with his EU counterparts to debrief after the UN summit
and begin the discussion of what to do next, slammed the result as a
“disaster.”

“It was a really great failure and we have to learn from that,” he
said at the time. { but the gentleman forgot to say whose failure it was!}

Glass half full!

However, after the holidays, a clutch of pollyanna-ish EU officials
have since fervently urged everyone to consider the Accord’s silver
lining. Both President Barroso and the bloc’s chief climate
negotiator, Artur Runge-Metzger, in various venues have emphasised
that many of the things the EU had been pushing for were contained in
the final result – developed countries agreed for the first time a
concrete sum for climate finance, a target maximum average global
temperature increase of two degrees was embraced and a review,
allowing for a ratcheting up of targets if necessary, is foreseen for
2015.

Ms Hedegaard during the parliamentary hearing to confirm her
appointment as commissioner gave a robust defence of the document.

“I would very much have liked to have seen more progress in
Copenhagen, but finance was delivered; all the emerging developing
nations have accepted co-responsibility [for reducing emissions] and
Brazil, South Africa, China, India and the US, all of whom were not
part of the Kyoto Protocol, have now set targets for domestic action,”
she told MEPs mid-January.

But even as the EU begins to view the Copenhagen glass as half full,
elsewhere, support for the document is beginning to unravel.

Last week, realising that only around 20 countries had listed their
emissions reductions commitments in a schedule attached to the Accord,
UN climate chief Yvo de Boer quietly abandoned the 31 January deadline
for states to have done so.

At the same time, EU member states that have never been comfortable
with the bloc’s climate ambitions have used the opportunity to delay
or block European plans to boost its CO2 emissions reduction
commitment from 20 percent on 1990 levels to 30 percent. On 18
January, environment ministers met in Seville, to assess, for the
second time, the reasons for the failure in the Danish capital. UK,
France, Germany, Belgium and Spain continued to push for the increased
pledge, while Italy and Poland said now was not the time given the
poverty of ambition by other states at Copenhagen.

As of this week, the consensus in the bloc is to maintain its target
of 20 percent and conditional offer of 30 percent if other powers make
comparable efforts – in other words exactly the same position the EU
has held for the last year, although Ms Hedegaard has publicly said
she hopes to see a move to 30 percent “by Mexico,” meaning the next UN
climate summit in the Central American nation at the end of 2010.

At the same time, the commission itself is in the ‘twenty-percenter’
camp, pushing this position in Copenhagen, “afraid to be naked” with
nothing left to put on the table in the game of climate strip poker.
Moreover, crucially, the executive’s goal of a transatlantic emissions
trading system is unworkable with cuts pledges that are wildly
divergent and without legally binding commitments from Washington.

The US is looking to a 17 percent emissions reduction on 2005 levels,
which works out to be just three percent when using the same 1990
baseline year as the EU. Watch for the US, if legislation gets
through, at some point to somehow nudge up its cut to 20 percent and
the EU to stick to the same figure, dressed up in language about how
the two targets are now comparable, with a fudge over the differing
baseline years.

Support unravelling:

Separately, four of the five architects of the Accord, Brazil, South
Africa, India and China, have themselves gone lukewarm on the project,
smarting from accusations from much of the rest of the developing
world that these four richest of the poor countries had broken ranks
after a year of unprecedented global south unity.

Last weekend, meeting in New Delhi, the four so-called Basic countries
described the accord as merely a “political understanding” without any
legal basis and that action should instead proceed on the basis of the
two documents to come out of the official UN process – one outlining
the second commitment period for the Kyoto Protocol and the other
dealing with climate actions by the US and emerging economies.

Indian environment minister Jairam Ramesh said: “We support the
Copenhagen Accord. But all of us were unanimously of the view that its
value lies not as a standalone document but as an input into the
two-track negotiation process under the UNFCCC.”

“The two-track negotiating process …is the only legitimate process
to reach a legally binding treaty in Mexico,” he added.

Meanwhile, the cornerstone of the Accord, an understanding that
however limited America’s commitment, Washington would at least be
able to deliver on this promise.

But with the surprise election to the US Senate of Massachusetts
Republican Scott Brown on an anti-climate-bill ticket, killing the
Democrat’s filibuster-proof majority, the country’s climate
legislation is threatened. A defeated or heavily watered down bill
only engenders further reservations in the minds of Chinese, Indian
and even European leadership about promising tough reduction targets.

For all the public talk of Latin American, Chinese and African climate
“villains” blocking the process in Copenhagen, privately, there is
frustration with Washington as well. A senior EU policy official
speaking to EUobserver described President Obama’s position as the
same as that of George Bush. “We are willing but only if others move,”
the official said, attributing the position to both the current and
former US leaders.

One EU climate voice {?}

A popular post-Copenhagen analysis from the Brookings Institute, the
centrist US think-tank, that has made the rounds of officialdom and
NGO-land warns of a slow-motion failure scenario similar to the Doha
round of WTO talks, a process it describes as a “multilateral zombie”
in which climate negotiations “stagger on piteously, never making much
progress while never quite dying either.”

Nevertheless, despite the dark days and the cynicism of some
onlookers, we can already begin to sense the outlines of a European
strategy.

EU Council President Herman Van Rompuy has already said he hopes to
see a common climate strategy emerge from an 11 February extraordinary
EU summit originally scheduled to deal with the economy. Angela
Merkel, as well, has upgraded a climate meeting in Bonn in June from
expert to ministerial level and the European Commission is preparing a
series of proposals that it is to put to the member states.

One of the main lessons the European Commission has drawn from the
Copenhagen failure is that European representation in climate change
talks needs to be streamlined in order to project its position more
effectively, even if the commission is not awarded the task of
negotiating on behalf of the bloc, as it does in trade talks,

“We are fragmented from a negotiating point of view,” President
Barroso said in his first public appearance of the year. “In trade
matters, this is different. The European Commission is the voice.”

Ms Hedegaard is of the same mind. In her parliamentary hearing, her
top message concerned European disunity: “In the last hours, China,
India, Russia, Japan each spoke with one voice, while Europe spoke
with many different voices.”

“A lot of Europeans in the room is not a problem, but there is only an
advantage if we sing from same hymn sheet. We need to think about this
and reflect on this very seriously, or we will lose our leadership
role in the world,” she told MEPs.

In a similar vein, the commission president has also suggested that
the new EU External Action Service – the bloc’s diplomatic corps born
of the Lisbon Treaty – be given more leeway to engage in climate
bargaining.

Until now, this sort of bilateral pressure has been left up to the
member states, with Paris tasked with winning over Francophone Africa,
London with arm-twisting the Commonwealth and Berlin given the job of
seducing Pacific islands.

Before last autumn’s federal election in Germany,
then-foreign-minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier was meeting regularly
with the Association of Small Island States and 20 Aosis ministers
visited the country last year specifically to discuss climate issues,
while Ethiopia’s surprise intervention at Copenhagen proposing a deal
that mirrored almost word for word a European Commission proposal from
September came as the result of UK and French behind-the-scenes
intercession.

While this sort of member-state activity is likely to continue, the
Lisbon Treaty has given the commission a powerful new diplomatic
weapon it intends to use to the fullest.

Sidelining the UN:

Related to this, the major task will be to break the remarkable unity
shown by developing nations. The UNFCCC’s principle dating back to
Kyoto of “common but differentiated responsibility,” is understood by
developing nations to mean that those countries that caused the
problem should pay for solving it and make binding commitments to CO2
reductions.

The third world has said that it would be happy to develop along a
low-carbon path itself, but that the rich north will have to pay for
this and that their emissions cuts should in any case be voluntary.
The World Bank, unhelpfully, has estimated the cost of all this to be
$400 billion a year. Meanwhile, wealthy nations, would rather that the
developing world, but specifically China and to a lesser extent India,
agree to binding, verifiable CO2 cuts without the price tag.

The key advantage of the Copenhagen Accord for rich countries is that
it “weakens or even does away with the principle of common but
differentiated responsibilities,” as the South Centre, a Geneva-based
think-tank close to developing world governments, warns – another
reason why the Basic countries, upon reflection, have taken a distance
from the deal.

In many ways, Copenhagen was a victory for the developing world, in
that it managed to hold off against pressure to junk the Kyoto
Protocol and in the end ensured that the Copenhagen Accord was only
“noted” by the UN plenary instead of endorsed, making it a document
floating in a legal limbo.

For this reason, the US has called for a junking of the UN process,
hoping that it can win other countries to its perspective via more
manageable arenas such as the G20 or the Major Emitters Forum, where
there are far fewer than the UN’s 192 nations to deal with and the
‘awkward squad’ of left-wing Latin American nations and the G77 group
of nations are absent. Both Jonathan Pershing, America’s chief
negotiator, and US climate envoy Todd Stern have said the UN should be
sidelined.

EU leaders however “are less neurotic about the UN than the Americans
are,” in the words of the Centre for European Policy Studies’ climate
specialist, Christian Egenhofer.

At the same time that President Barroso admitted to pulling his hair
out at the UN process, he also said there is no other option. “We need
to have a more efficient and results-oriented process in the future
…With unanimity, it is easier for one country to block – it’s the
basic logic of the system,” he said in early January, adding however:
“It’s very easy to criticise the UN …but the UN is what the members
make out of it.”

Although some Spanish presidency officials at one point said that
climate negotiations should pass through the G20 instead, everyone
else, from Mr Runge-Metzger to Ms Hedegaard believe this cannot be
done. “Some ask: ‘Shouldn’t we give up on the UN process?’ I say:
‘No.’ We would waste too much work,” she told the European Parliament.

Instead, according to Mr Runge-Metzger: “The next step for the EU is
to get the accord translated into the UN process,” to try to lock in
agreement in other fora and then feed this into the main UN
negotiations. The key is to appear to be endorsing the UN process
while still pushing for other fora to do the heavy lifting.

One arena in particular that climate watchers should keep an eye on is
the UN High-Level Panel on Climate Change and Development, announced
by Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon last September and to be launched
early this year. Made up of a handful of current heads of government,
along with experts, senior government officials and community leaders,
the panel will be a much more manageable entity, but will also have
the imprimatur of the UN.

Border tariff:

Meanwhile, EU officials are briefing heavily against the awkward
squad, attempting to paint them as obstructionist and
unrepresentative. Reporters are reminded of G77-chair Sudan’s
authoritarian government, while Ethiopia, which has authoritarian rule
but is on side, is never criticized. With Yemen, the birthplace of the
infamous underpants bomber, holding the 2010 presidency of the group,
this will be an even easier public relations hatchet job.

But it was not just a handful of countries, but the entire Africa
Group of Nations that forced a suspension of proceedings when they
twice walked out of the UN complaining of rich country shenanigans.
Latin America and the loudmouthed-or-eloquent (depending on who you
asked) Oxford-educated G77 negotiator Lumumba di-Aping, famous for his
line that an offer of $10 billion in climate finance “is not enough to
buy us coffins,” were only the most vocal of a host of frustrated
countries.

At the same time, even ardent developing world advocates privately
express their discomfort at the wealthy elites of China and India
using the poor of their own countries to advance an agenda of growth
that primarily benefits them. And it is true that the developing world
is not all of one mind. Tuvalu is bitterly opposed to the Copenhagen
Accord while the Maldives embraces it as the best it can get while the
tides are rapidly rising.

Elsewhere, the EU is also almost certain to take a fresh look at
slapping carbon tariffs on goods entering the bloc. There is no way
industry would allow a move to a 30 percent emissions reduction pledge
without such protection. “I will fight for a carbon tax levied on EU
borders,” French President Nicolas Sarkozy said earlier this month.

It’s always easy to dismiss such ambition when expressed by a man
known for his crafting of public policy by press conference, and EU
commissioner-designate for trade, Karel de Gucht has ruled a carbon
border tariff out, saying: “it will …lead to an escalating trade war
on a global level.”

But this is what a trade commissioner has to say. Many analysts
believe that a carbon tariff is inevitable and even WTO-compatible if
multilaterally agreed. The US climate bill already includes a carbon
tariff provision and, crucially, this is the stick that could be used
to force China, India and other nations to submit to its preferred
climate regime of binding reduction commitments for emerging
economies.

The EU is still essential here. Washington could not move ahead with a
tariff without Brussels on board.

It should also be remembered that many other major powers were
sidelined at Copenhagen. Japan and Russia were also absent from
Copenhagen’s endgame. In many ways, the EU’s limited influence has
been largely a product of its own climate success. Although Europe is
the world’s third largest emitter, this will likely change in the near
future. Ironically, if the continent isn’t going to be as much of a
problem in absolute (as opposed to per capita) terms as China or India
by 2030, it doesn’t have much of a bargaining chip. Washington was
always going to be far more interested in Beijing.

Copenhagen was very much the US and China show, but it won’t always be.

——–

This feature was originially written for the Nordic Council’s Analys
Norden website.

{ We wonder at the last sentence of the article because we think that unless the EU does in fact unite under  one leadership it will not amount to much when the US continues to deal with the BASICs – I mean the countries that are form the basic future. The EU should aim at becoming the G3 to be added to China and the US in future global negotiations that will include also the IBSA and one or two more states. See please next article.}

——————————————————————————-

US blames Lisbon Treaty for EU summit fiasco. Mr Obama – the Madrid summit decision is being seen as a diplomatic snub to Spain.
by ANDREW RETTMAN from Brussels.

February 3, 2010, http://euobserver.com/9/29398/?rk=1
EUOBSERVER / BRUSSELS  writes -  The US State Department has said that President Barack Obama’s decision not to come to an EU summit in Madrid in May is partly due to confusion arising from the Lisbon Treaty.

State department spokesman Philip J. Crowley told press in Washington on Tuesday (2 February) that the treaty has made it unclear who the US leader should meet and when. { that sounds very clear to me.}

“Up until recently, they [summits] would occur on six-month intervals,
as I recall, with one meeting in Europe and one meeting here. And that
was part of – the foundation of that was the rotating presidency
within the EU. Now you have a new structure regarding not only the
rotating EU presidency, you’ve got an EU Council president, you’ve got
a European Commission president,” he said.

“We are working through this just as Europeans themselves are working
through this: When you have a future EU-US summit meeting, who will
host it and where will it be held?” he added. “All of this is kind of
being reassessed in light of architectural changes in Europe.”

The Lisbon Treaty came into force on 1 December, 2009. It created the post
of a new EU Council president and EU foreign relations chief in order
to give the union a stronger voice abroad.

It kept the institution of the six-month rotating EU presidency as
well, with the member state holding the chairmanship to do the bulk of
behind-the-scenes policy work in Brussels.

The Spanish EU presidency is being closely watched to see how the EU
manages the transition to the new power structure. The EU Council
president has so far taken charge of summits in the EU capital. But
Madrid was to share the limelight with a few top-level events at home.

The state department’s Mr Crowley said the US and Spain have been in
touch “directly” to discuss Mr Obama’s decision after Madrid learned
about it through the media on Monday.

“Obviously, there’s been some disappointment expressed by the
government of Spain, and we understand that and we’ll be working with
them on that,” he said.

Spanish Prime Minister Jose Luis Zapatero and Mr Obama are both
expected to attend the National Prayer Breakfast in Washington on
Thursday. But no bilateral meeting has been announced so far.

The informal event sees some 3,500 celebrities, businessmen,
politicians and religious leaders get together in the US capital each
year. It is organised by the Fellowship Foundation, a Christian
fundamentalist pressure group.

Mr Zapatero, a centre-left secularist, has taken flak for his trip in
Spanish media, with the El Pais daily calling his decision to attend
the prayer event “shocking.”

The White House has said that the US President would not be attending what used to be the regularly scheduled EU-US talks, which have been planned to take place in Madrid in May 24-25, 2010 by the Spanish Rotating EU Presidency for the First half of 2010.

Honestly, why should he participate in the European Games while there are so many real problems on his plate?

The EU has three Presidents – if they cannot decide who is their President in fact – do they really expect for Obama to travel trans-Atlantic, and sit at Summits chaired by all three of them – Herman Van Rampuy, The Permanent EU President, Jose Manuel Baroso, the President of the European Commission, and the Spanish Prime Minister, Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero,    who is presently the Rotating President of the EU?

Papers write of a “Snub.” This is ridiculous and for us who watched the Copenhagen Conference that was saved by President Obama under a G-2 arrangement with China, because he had to act fast if he wanted to save the meeting from itself, and there was no strong man or woman of the EU to stand at his side, the above “News” are old hat – and we say – we told you so!  Actually, we welcome Charles Forelle writes as “World News” in the Wall Street Journal of today: “Things haven’t been good recently for Europe’s position on the world stage. Despite the new treaty ambition to make the EU a bigger player, the bloc has sometimes seen itself shut out.  At climate talks in Copenhagen in December, Mr. Obama hammered out a last-minute accord with China and other emerging nations. The Europeans were left out of the picture.” This recognition of reality in a WSJ article is very unusual – but this is real life. If the EU does not get together – and still claims 7 seats at the G-20 – rather then one seat for real – they are turning themselves, by their own choice,  into world political irrelevancy. The same is true at the UN where we see more and more a 2 1/2 seats situation – with France and the UK in Security Council seats but Germany on practical UN Security Commissions, and no EU representative with any powers what so ever.

Obama’s decision not to go to Madrid is no snub to Mr. Zapatero or to Spain – but rather the cleareeded sign that he wants to go and meet the PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED EUROPE. Had Obama decided to go to Masdrid it would have been as if someone from Europe would come to a meeting of the US Governor’s Association. Just think – Germany id California, France is New York, the UK is Texas, Spain is Florida, Poland is Illinois, Austria is Vermont … etc etc. Perhapse indeed Van Rampuy should come to the US Governor’s Association meeting in order to learn what is needed in order to create out of the EU the neededpartner for Obama in order to turn the G-2 into a G-3 and to create out of the G-20 a new meaningful global body.

———————–

The best article on this we found is from The Telegtaph:
Barack Obama has snubbed the EU amid confusion in Washington over which “president” of Europe he would be expected to meet at a trans-Atlantic summit this spring.

By Bruno Waterfield in Brussels  – from Telegraph.com
Published:  01 Feb 2010 -
 http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnew…

The White House has said that Barack Obama will not be attending the EU-US talks planned to take place in Madrid in May.
The White House has said that the US President would not be attending the regularly scheduled EU-US talks, which have been planned to take place in Madrid in May 24-25, 2010 by the Spanish Rotating EU Presidency for the First half of 2010.

Honestly, why should he particioate in the European Games while there are so many real problems on his plate.
US officials have expressed frustration because the Lisbon Treaty, which was supposed to give the EU a single global voice, has created a number of European presidents competing for Washington’s attention.

Even the venue for the summit, Madrid or Brussels, has been “up in the air” after a tussle between Spain, which holds the EU’s rotating presidency and Herman Van Rompuy, the new created President of Europe.

Under the terms of the Lisbon Treaty, Mr Van Rompuy, President of the European Council which represents EU heads of government, should host the summit in Brussels as Europe’s lead negotiator in global bilateral talks.

But Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero, the Spanish prime minister, insisted that he should host the summit because the EU was in “transition” after the Lisbon Treaty entered into force in December.

A US official told the Wall Street Journal that President Obama had not yet received an a formal invitation to the EU-US summit, a twice yearly meeting that has taken place since 1991.

“We don’t even know if they’re going to have one. We’ve told them, ‘Figure it out and let us know’,” said the official.

Other American diplomats have blamed confusion over which of the three EU “presidents” is in charge of the summit – Mr Van Rompuy, Mr Zapatero or José Manuel Barroso, the European Commission president.

“Who attends from the US and at what point will depend on who’s calling the meeting,” said a US state department official.
“There’s a competition in Europe because you now have the standing EU architecture.”

Many national and EU diplomats are dismayed at the institutional infighting that has followed the entering into force of the Lisbon Treaty.

“The Spanish are behaving badly. They’ve made a mess of the summit but Van Rompuy and the post-Lisbon EU institutions will carry the can in the long term. The squabbling has damaged the EU in the eyes of the most powerful nation in the world,” said a senior source.

A European Commission spokesman hinted that the meeting would have to be downgraded or cancelled if Mr Obama did not show up.

“Normally a summit is a summit because it is attended by heads of state and government,” said the spokesman.

A Spanish foreign ministry spokesman said: “The EU-US summit is scheduled to take place in May in Madrid, as was foreseen and we are still preparing it.”

US officials have indicated that Mr Obama might reschedule talks with the EU in the wings of a Nato summit in Portugal this autumn.

From sergeberdugo@yahoo.fr

The Statement by Morocco Itinerant Ambassador Serge Berdugo, a Jew of prominent standing in Morocco, to the UN International Holocaust 2010 Commemoration. The Importance of the Panel was more then anything else – towards the Islamic World of today.

January 28, 2010

Mr. President, Ladies and Gentlemen,

It is my privilege to be part of this ceremony on the history of the Jewish Community of Morocco during the Second World War and to tell you how the European policy on Holocaust impacted the lives of this community. This presentation will illustrate and I quote His Majesty Mohammed VI: “tell the rest of the world how Arab and Islamic countries, such as mine, resisted Nazism and said “No” to the barbarity of the Nazis and to the villainous laws of the Vichy government”.

Mr. President, Ladies and Gentlemen,

First, let me remind you that in 1939 Morocco was under the French and Spanish protectorate.

Following the defeat of France and the coming into power of the Vichy Government, the Jews were faced with a systematic ideological anti-Semitism that led to the implementation of the Vichy anti Jewish legislation in Morocco.
On October 31st 1941, the King was compelled to enact legislation called the statute of Jews but not without obtaining major concessions to limit the scope and the impact of such measures as applied in France.
The first concession was related to the very notion of “Jew”. In Morocco, the Jews would be identified by the practice of the Jewish religion and not with reference to race or affiliation as referred to in Nazis ideology. “A Jew is a person who practices the Jewish religion”.

According to the second concession, bans and quotas were not applied to the Jewish religious institutions. This concession allowed Jewish institutions including schools to function properly and to receive 80% of their funding from the State budget.

Furthermore, business and handicrafts activities remained open to Jews.
The implementation of the Jews’ Laws by Moroccan authorities was another major concession granted to the King. This allowed the King to monitor and delay as much as possible, the implementation of these laws.

These concessions obtained by the King had considerable and practical implications on the daily life of the great majority of the Jews: the 90% that maintained a traditional way of living in Mellah and enjoyed a lifestyle similar to that of their Muslim neighbors.

The anti Jewish laws had only a little impact on them. They continued to practice their religion and do business. Their children received a Jewish and secular education of good quality.

Nevertheless, the minority of Jews, who embraced modernity and the European lifestyle, suffered all types of discrimination, humiliation and exactions.   They were forced to live in overpopulated Mellah.

They were excluded from the civil service, from the private sector (no more than 2% of Jewish doctors and lawyers) and from French schools (a maximum of 10% of Jewish students in high schools and 3% in universities).
Finally, the real estates of all the Jews had to be identified and listed.

From 1940 to 1943, the life of the Jews was certainly difficult and precarious but not more than that of the Muslims, who were themselves victims of discrimination by the Europeans.

Discrimination against Jews as well as Muslims included access to swimming pools, public places, theaters and stadiums.

During this enduring period, no major tension existed between the Jews and Muslims. In fact, the war had a little impact on the relationship between the two communities.

The opposite was true of relations with the European which were enterable to the extent that the Jews lived in a permanent fear to be humiliated and sometimes beaten by European mobs.

This violence reached its climax with the French fascist group “S.O.C.” which planned a pogrom targeting Jews in Casablanca on November 15th, 1942. In these circumstances, the Jews could not rely on the French police to protect them.

Fortunately, on November 8th, 1942, the landing of American forces in Casablanca prevented the implantation of such hideous action.
Nevertheless, it took more than one year to revoke the “Jews statute”.

Mr. President, Ladies and Gentlemen,

It was thanks to the courage and fairness of the young Moroccan Sultan that the discriminatory laws targeting those whom the King referred to as “his loyal Jewish subjects”, were never applied in an integral and uniform way.
Since the inception of the discriminatory laws, the Sultan consistently emphasized to his Jewish subjects that his door will always be open and that he will remain in a listening mood to their claims and complaints.
To illustrate this commitment, let me recall the testimony of my father Joseph BERDUGO, than President of the Jewish Committee of Meknes on the Census law of the Jewish assets that the French authorities intended to implement and which were viewed by the Jewish Community as a prelude to expropriation of their properties (as in France).

Indeed the Presidents of the 4 most important Jewish communities were taken secretly in a covered small van, walking then through the kitchens and the offices, to be received thereafter by the Monarch in his Apartment without any Protocol present.

The King said ‘I know your fears but I ask you to assure my Jewish subjects of my constant and full protection. Let them know that nothing will affect them that it did not affect first my family and myself’.

Informed that the French requested an inventory of the Jewish assets, while the law concerned only the real estate, the Sultan gave then his instructions to slow down the census and abstain from transmitting the files to the French authorities.

Following the landing of the US in November, 1942, and upon a request by the Sultan, my father was an eyewitness of the destruction of all the documents related to the census.

Mr. President, Ladies and Gentlemen,

Beyond all these clear statements and positions, in favour of his Jewish subjects, the King of Morocco undertook courageous actions. He took brave initiatives that the recent disclosures of French and British archives illustrate eloquently.

Let me quote from a confidential report drawn in 1985 from the French MFA archives:
“Dissidence, 24 May 1941 – Telegram AF1 Change of Attitude of the Sultan of Morocco toward the French authorities, by René Touraine.

Credible sources informed us that the relations between the Sultan of Morocco and the French authorities became much tenser the day the Residence put into application the decree on the “measures” against the Jews despite the strict opposition of the Sultan. The Sultan refused to make differences amongst his loyal people and he was offended to see that his authority was overtaken by the French authorities. The Sultan waited for his crowning anniversary and publicly announced that he forbade the measures against the Jews. On this occasion, the Sultan generally offered a banquet attended by the French representatives and eminent Moroccan personalities. For the first time, the Sultan invited to the banquet the representatives of the Jewish community who sat next to the French officials. He declared to the French officials, who were surprised by the presence of Jews at this meeting: “I absolutely do not agree with the new anti-Semitic laws and I refuse to associate myself with a measure I disagree with; I reiterate as I did in the past that the Jews are under my protection and I reject any distinction that should be made amongst my people”. End of quote.

This sensational statement has been widely circulated among the French and Moroccan population”.
Obviously, in order to protect the subjects of Jewish confession, the Sultan took considerable risks in challenging the authority of the French Protectorate, which ended up discharging and exiling the king and His family in 1953.
Since then we understand why the Moroccan Jews venerate Mohammed V as the righteous among nations who saved them from the Shoa.

Mr. President, Ladies and Gentlemen,

In assuming his spiritual role as “Commander of the faithful”, the King of Morocco, as descendant of the Prophet, is bound to protect Jews as much as he does Muslims.

The Sultan guarantees the security and the safety of the three components of the Kingdom: Arab, Berber and Jew, who for centuries lived in Morocco in harmony and brotherhood.

Today, “His Majesty the King Mohammed VI reiterated ‘His religious, historical and constitutional responsibility in the preservation of the persons, the rights and the sacred values of His subjects of Jewish confession”.

Mr. President, Ladies and Gentlemen,

We cannot address the issue of Holocaust in North Africa without referring to ‘forced labor camps’; these real ‘concentration camps’ created by Vichy to receive Gaullist, socialist, and communist opponents, Germans anti-Nazis, Spanish Republicans, Jewish refugees of Central Europe, Gypsies and even Muslim resistants.

These camps were under the total control of the French Army.

The prisoners who were at the mercy of their European Guardians experienced horrible conditions of detention. The 2000 Jews detainees representing 30% of the overall number of prisoners kept in over 30 camps. The camp of Berguent received exclusively 400 Jewish prisoners.

According to testimonies made by former prisoners in these camps, collected by British Foreign Office.

‘The only signs of humanity came from Muslim guards who took risks to relieve our sufferings’.

I draw your attention to the fact that as long as Moroccan Jews were enjoying the protection of the Sultan, no one was in custody in any of these camps.

This dramatic episode of the war was forgotten rather than hidden.
The existence of Camps in North Africa was revisited in 2007, in Robert Satloff’s book entitled: ‘Among the Righteous’.

Since the publication of this book, which tackles the Holocaust in the Arab countries, the Moroccan media published long surveys and articles on this ‘Forgotten story’, thus demonstrating that in an Arab and Muslim country, such as Morocco, one could speak about the Holocaust without taboos or any temptations of delayed .

This attitude of the Moroccan populations is in perfect symbiosis with the message of support addressed by King Mohammed VI to the ‘Aladin Project on the Holocaust’.

In this message read by the Moroccan Minister of Religious Affairs in UNESCO in March 2009, the Monarch stated:

‘My reading and that of my people are not one of amnesia. Our reading is the one of a memorial wound which we recorded in one of the most painful chapters in the Pantheon of the World history’.

The King invited also the participants: ‘to think differently about one of the most tragic and the most terrible stigmas of the Contemporary History, while nobody can pretend to make a total reading of the Holocaust, that is irrefragable and without concession nor dishonest compromise’.
In this perspective, Morocco cooperated with several NGO’s, to undertake exhaustive studies on the Holocaust in Morocco.

Mr. President, Ladies and Gentlemen,

One has to draw one lesson it is the importance of a Head of State in setting the tone for recognition, respect and treatment of minority faiths within its territory.

We can only hope that other Heads of State, seeking the enduring affections of their people, will come to realize that the way forward lies not in fanning the expedient fires of the moment, but in setting, as the King of Morocco does, a tone for tolerance and peaceful coexistence that will endure forever.

In conclusion, I would like to stress that although life for the Jews in Morocco was not always one of “wine and roses”, it was better than what other Jews experienced in most parts of the world, particularly in Europe.
Thank you for your attention.

Ranjit Devraj writes for IPS Terra Viva at the UN that the BASIC Group meeting concluded with an amazing – ‘Copenhagen Accord Not Legal, Kyoto Protocol Is.’ Nevertheless Brazil, South Africa, India and China – will submit their plans for voluntary mitigation actions by the Jan. 31, 2010 deadline stipulated by the Copenhagen Accord. That amounts to positive participation and denying it also.
 http://ipsterraviva.net/UN/currentNew.as…

WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 27, 2010

‘Copenhagen Accord Not Legal, Kyoto Protocol Is’
Ranjit Devraj

NEW DELHI, Jan 26 (IPS) – While the BASIC bloc countries – Brazil, South Africa, India and China – will submit their plans for voluntary mitigation actions by the Jan. 31 deadline stipulated by the Copenhagen Accord, they have taken care to emphasise that the agreement, reached at the end of the December climate change summit in the Danish capital, has no legal basis.

Addressing a joint press conference after a meeting of concerned BASIC ministers on Sunday, India’s environment minister Jairam Ramesh said: “We support the Copenhagen Accord. But all of us were unanimously of the view that its value lies not as a standalone document but as an input into the two- track negotiation process under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC).”

Ramesh explained that the Accord was not a legal document and that the “understanding reached at Copenhagen was that the accord will facilitate the two-track negotiating process which is the only legitimate process to reach a legally binding treaty in Mexico.” The two-track negotiation process was agreed upon at the December 2007 Bali conference, pertaining to Long-Term Cooperative Action under the UNFCCC and the 1997 Kyoto Protocol.

The BASIC meeting and the press conference were attended by Carlos Minc, the Brazilian environment minister, his counterpart from South Africa, Buyelwa Sonjica, and the vice-chairman of China’s National Development and Reform Commission, Xie Zhenhua.

At the press conference, Xie said that the BASIC group’s objectives were consistent with the interests of the developing countries. “BASIC will take the lead in large-scale emission reduction and also stick to the policy of common but differentiated principle.” Sonjica said BASIC would not make any decision outside the Group of 77 (G-77) countries. “We see ourselves as adding value to the proposals of G-77,” she said.

Siddharth Pathak, a member of the international environmental group Greenpeace’s policy division, told IPS that the willingness of the BASIC group to support vulnerable countries by ensuring their participation in open and transparent negotiations and plans to provide technological and financial support was commendable. “We hope that this support will become tangible by the group’s next meeting in April.”

Pathak said that while BASIC appeared keen to consolidate itself as a group and also take along the G-77 countries, it needed to “demonstrate leadership, both in furthering negotiations on a fair, ambitious and legally binding agreement, and in terms of pushing industrialised counties to urgently reduce GhG (greenhouse gas) emissions and make their own appropriate contributions.”

Other analysts said the BASIC meeting had the potential of cementing differences both within and outside the bloc.

“What is crucial now is to see whether China and India will stick to carbon intensity figures in their action plans, as they announced before the Copenhagen meet,” said Siddharth Mishra, director at CUTS International, a leading economic policy and advocacy group. Carbon intensity is a measure of carbon dioxide emissions per unit of production.

“This will suit China well because it is already on a trajectory of lowering its energy intensity and it has voluntarily announced cuts of 40-45 percent before Copenhagen,” said Mitra. “India, too, can reduce the trend of the growth of its emissions and specify domestic regulations to ensure reductions in emissions from its dirty industries,” Mitra told IPS.

Mitra added: “We don’t know what the back-of-the-envelope calculations are, but both China and India may benefit from the pledge of 100 billion U.S. dollars by the end of the decade for developing countries to adapt to climate change and limit the global rise in temperatures, since industrialisation began, from exceeding two degrees Celsius.”

Denmark, as president of the Conference of Parties (CoP), has been asked by the BASIC ministers to convene immediately meetings of the two negotiation groups for the Kyoto Protocol and the Long-Term Cooperative Action in March and ensure that they meet on at least five more occasions before the 16th CoP in December.

After the BASIC countries joined hands with the United States in negotiating the Copenhagen Accord, at the end of the summit in the Danish capital, several developing countries expressed fears that the document would become legal and dilute the Bali two-track process.

BASIC ministers have also asked the rich nations to speedily distribute the 10 billion dollars they had pledged to the least developed countries and the islands to address climate change this year.

Brazil’s Minc said at the press conference that BASIC had decided to create its own fund to help small island states and the least developed countries. “The actual contributions will be decided at the next meeting of the BASIC in South Africa,” he said.

A day before the BASIC meet, Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh let it be known that he had reservations over pressure from Danish Prime Minister Lars Løkke Rasmussen and United Nations Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon for follow-up action on the Copenhagen Accord and get results by the Jan. 31 deadline.

While the Accord had called for “economy-wide emission targets” by 2020 by the Annex-1 (rich countries) and the other countries to submit “mitigation actions,” Rasmussen and Ban had written separately to all heads of state and governments on Dec. 30, urging them to submit their commitments by Jan. 31.

Their joint letter was silent on the Kyoto Protocol, raising suspicions. Mitra said that such suspicions first surfaced after the UNFCCC executive secretary, Yvo de Boer, failed to mention the Kyoto Protocol at a press conference held soon after the Copenhagen Accord. “The impression that there is a plan afoot to bury Kyoto is not helped by the fact that the European Union is pushing it as a first step to new negotiations.”

The Kyoto Protocol, the world’s only legally binding agreement, required 37 wealthy nations to cut GhG emissions by 2012, but asked for no commitments from developing countries. In contrast, the Copenhagen Accord does not talk of mitigation goals for the developed countries and is seen to be acting to lower the bar in climate negotiations when scientists warn that the climate is changing more rapidly than estimated earlier.

The Accord was opposed by Venezuela, Bolivia, Cuba, Nicaragua and Sudan on both substantive and procedural grounds. For that reason, it could not be accepted or endorsed by the CoP, which only “took note” of it, denying the document status at the U.N.

In an editorial on Tuesday, the respected ‘The Hindu’ newspaper commented that the response of BASIC “underscores the view of the developing world that the Copenhagen Accord chose to give insufficient importance to the central tenet of “common but differentiated responsibilities” outlined in the UNFCCC.

The Hindu editorial said one positive outcome of the “common strategy” adopted by BASIC countries was the fostering of “active South-South cooperation” to advance science. “Given that intellectual property rights on technology remain a major barrier to achieving higher energy efficiencies, such joint efforts involving India and China hold great promise.”

THAT IS AMAZING – EVEN THOUGH IT IS CARNAVAL 2010 TIME IN PERNAMBUCO,
BRAZIL THERE IS ALSO RECOGNITION THAT IT IS THE GLOBALLY RECOGNIZED
HOLOCAUST WEEK – SOMETHING FOR ALL DECENT PEOPLE OF THE WORLD TO TAKE
NOTICE.

>> “AO RECIFE O QUE O RECIFE NÃO CONHECE”
Durante toda esta semana, a história do Holocausto será lembrada no
Recife. A comunidade judaica de Pernambuco está à frente da exposição
“Ao Recife o que o Recife não conhece”, no Shopping Paço Alfândega,
devido à Semana Mundial de Lembrança ao Holocausto. Lá, o visitante
encontrará painéis do século 16 e 17, apresentação de vídeos, objetos
e uma maquete da rua do Bom Jesus. A exposição é organizada pelo
Arquivo Histórico Judaico de Pernambuco (AHBJ-PE) e pela Federação
Israelita de Pernambuco (Fipe).

Serviço:
Até o dia 31 de janeiro
De segunda a sábado, das 10h às 22h, e domingo, das 12h às 20h
Paço Alfândega – Bairro do Recife
Entrada gratuita
Mais informações: 81.3194.2100

—————–

EXPOSIÇÃO CONTA A HISTÓRIA DA GUERRA CIVIL ESPANHOLA
A história da Guerra Civil espanhola está sendo contada para os pernambucanos pela mostra “Cartales de la Guerra Civil Española: un grito en la pared (1936-1939)”. A exposição está no Centro Cultural Correios, no Bairro do Recife, durante o mês de janeiro, organizada pelo Instituto Cervantes do Recife, com apoio da Prefeitura do Recife. Lá, o visitante encontra uma coleção de 95 cartazes pertencentes à Fundação Pablo Iglesias, da Espanha.

Serviço:
Até dia 31 de janeiro
De terça a sexta, das 9h às 18h, e sábado e domingo, das 12h às 18h
Centro Cultural Correios: Avenida Marquês de Olinda, 262 – Bairro do Recife
Mais informações: 3224.5739 / 3424.1935

—————-

Carnaval 2010 – Baile Municipal
A tradicional festa que inicia o Carnaval do Recife, o Baile
Municipal já tem data marcada, dia 6 de fevereiro. Essa é a festa mais
esperada pelos os foliões da cidade, que preparam suas tradicionais ou
criativas fantasias para frevar e se divertir durante toda a noite. A
programação deste ano conta com a animação de Claudionor Germano, Spok
Frevo Orquestra, Elba Ramalho, Alceu Valença, Daniela Mercury e André
Rio. O baile também conta com a participação especial de Getúlio
Cavalcanti, homenageado do Carnaval Multicultural do Recife 2010,
junto com o artista plástico Vicente do Rego Monteiro (in memoriam).
Em sua 46º edição, o baile, além de divertir o folião, tem um
importante papel social, pois o que for arrecadado com a venda dos
ingressos será repassado para o Hospital Infantil Maria Lucinda e para
a Casa da Estância.

Serviço:
46º Baile Municipal do Recife
Chevrolet Hall
Dia 6 de fevereiro, a partir das 19h
Ingressos: R$ 35

View the program here: newsletter_impressao

This was received from Sudha Ravi from the Indian Consulate, New York, Trade Commission  commerce at indiacgny.org

and here we learn two things:

(1) that the Indians are proud og having earned a green future contest that was set up by Mayor Bloomberg

(2) that the immigration regulations will make it difficult for the US to take maximum benefit from the participation of bright minds from developing countries. The loser will thus be the US.

Mayor: Difficulty Teams Now Face Obtaining Visas and Launching Plans Highlights Need for Comprehensive Immigration Reform.

MAYOR BLOOMBERG ANNOUNCES WINNER OF “NYC NEXT IDEA” GLOBAL BUSINESS PLAN COMPETITION: ENTREPRENEUR TEAM FROM INDIAN INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY

January 7, 2010
No. 07
 The NYC Next Idea competition was announced in February 2009 as part of a suite of initiatives dedicated to strengthening New York City’s entrepreneurial community. The competition was launched to raise the visibility of the City as an international center for innovation and entrepreneurship and showcase the talent from business and engineering schools around the world, while also encouraging innovative business ventures that can launch and operate here. The Mayor was joined at the announcement at Columbia Business School, which helped administer the competition, by Deputy Mayor for Economic Development Robert C. Lieber, New York City Economic Development Corporation President Seth W. Pinsky, Mayor’s Office of Immigrant Affairs Commissioner Fatima Shama, Columbia University Senior Executive Vice President Robert Kasdin, Laura Resnikoff, director of the Columbia Business School Private Equity Program and the three finalist teams from India, Spain and France.

“Cities around the world hope to be a place of innovation where entrepreneurs want to go to launch businesses,” said Mayor Bloomberg. “New York City doesn’t have to hope – we are that place. Just look at the talented teams from the world’s leading business and engineering schools that participated in our NYC Next Idea inaugural global business plan competition. But it’s not enough to be a place entrepreneurs want to go; we also have to make sure our city – and our country – is a place they can go. That’s why we are committed to working with the Obama Administration to pursue sensible immigration reform. No one can say for sure whether the finalists’ ideas will translate into successful job-creating businesses. What a shame, though, if they and countless others are denied the opportunity even to try.”

Fifteen leading business and engineering universities from countries across Asia, Latin America, and Europe signed up to participate in NYC Next Idea 2009-2010, and ten teams submitted final proposals. The three teams of finalists representing business and engineering schools in France, Spain, and India were in New York City this week to present their plans.

Business plans targeted sectors such as Financial Services, Media & Technology, Green Technology and Bioscience, and included a new screening product for infectious diseases, a zero-emission bike-share program, and new telecom technology. In addition to the cash prize, the winning team will be offered free space within one of the City’s new business incubators for two years.

“To continue to grow and innovate New York City must continue to attract the best and the brightest from around the globe,” said Deputy Mayor Lieber. “NYC Next Idea helps us expand New York City’s standing as a global center for innovation and entrepreneurship and bring leading business students to launch their firms here. By making it easier to get a business off the ground, and setting the stage for growth across a variety of sectors New York City will be better poised to capture growth and create jobs moving forward.”

“A key to maintaining New York’s status as the world’s economic capital is ensuring that we continue to attract and retain talented entrepreneurs from around the globe,” said New York City Economic Development Corporation President Pinsky. “To this end, we recently launched our new NYC Next Idea competition – a competition designed to bring the business leaders of tomorrow to the City, today. We are thrilled that this competition has been such a success in its inaugural year and are proud to add it to our growing list of offerings aimed at the entrepreneurial community, including programs providing access to much-needed start-up financing and inexpensive space, as well as training and networking opportunities.”

The competition, administered by the New York City Economic Development Corporation and supported by Columbia Business School, was open to new, independent ventures in the conceptual, seed, start-up, or early growth stages, and business concepts that included the expansion of an existing venture into New York City. Criteria for judging the applications included commercial viability of the product or service; market analysis and a need for the product or service in New York City; comprehensiveness of the company’s sales and marketing plan; the company’s competitive differentiation over other players in the market; caliber of team members and advisors; financial analysis; and coherency of the final presentation.

“This competition is about discovering the next generation of business innovators in New York City, and we’re grateful that the city’s development leaders have turned to Columbia for support in that endeavor,” said Laura Resnikoff, director of the Columbia Business School Private Equity Program and adviser to the New York City Economic Development Corporation’s competition team.
The other finalists were Biofont from INSEAD Business School in Fontainebleau, France, and NYCycling from IESE Business School of the University of Navarra, Spain.

The teams were judged in the final round by FirstMark Capital CEO and Managing Director Lawrence Lenihan, RRE Ventures General Partner Will D. Porteous, Greycroft LLC Partner Andrew B. Lipsher, Ascent Biomedical Ventures Partner Arthur Tinkelenberg, Ph.D, and NYCEDC Executive Vice President Steven Strauss, Ph.D. Columbia Business School alumni including W Capital Partners Vice President Eugene Song, Latin America Venture Capital Association Director of Strategy and Product Development Ariel Muslera, and Greenhill Capital Partners Vice President Somak Chattopadhyay judged the second round. This week, NYCEDC  released a Request for Proposals today to solicit a university partner for NYC Next Idea 2010-2011. Information on the RFP will be available at www.nycedc.com

In the last year alone, the City has announced more 50 initiatives to address a wide range of obstacles faced by the small- and medium-size businesses throughout the five boroughs who are creating the building blocks of our new economy. These range from lowering taxes, to increasing capital availability, to starting training and networking programs, to providing opportunities to secure thousands of discounted work stations across the five boroughs.
Below are summaries of the finalist plans provided by the three teams:

——

BIOFONT

·        University: INSEAD: Institut Européen d’Administration des Affaires (European Institute for Business Administration) – FRANCE
·        Team members: Harleen Jolly and Ankit Bisht
With pandemic outbreaks of infections increasing in frequency, there is a clear need for screening tools to detect individuals with infectious diseases, especially in densely populated and highly interconnected urban areas such as New York City. BioFont is a biotechnology proposal that has developed a ground-breaking product that can be used to screen individuals for infectious diseases in an expeditious and accurate manner. Though methods exist to screen large numbers of people for potentially contagious illnesses, none are affordable, quick, or easily used without detailed training.
BioFont is taking advantage of the latest breakthroughs in biotechnology, and the major paradigm shift in the healthcare sector away from laboratory table-top blood analyzers to develop a product that is affordable, simple to use, and provides accurate and quick results. The product is a combination of a portable electronic analyzer and disposable test strips, which process and display results in a simple yes/no format. Beyond the healthcare sector, BioFont envisages a demand for this product in New York City’s schools, airports, public places, households, and workplaces.

——

NYCYCLING
·        University: IESE: Instituto de Estudios Superiores de la Empresa (Institute of Higher Business Studies) – SPAIN
·        Team members: Patricia Bayley, Adrian Lui and Martin Mazza
NYCycling is an innovative zero-emission bike-share program designed to transport users from one destination to the next within New York City. This new, clean and healthy transportation alternative is composed of a system of self-service stations at which users can rent bicycles, ride them to their destination, and return them to the nearest station. The program offers a creative solution that alleviates transportation bottlenecks and utilizes the existing infrastructure in New York City’s current transportation system – over 600 miles of bike paths traversing the metropolis.
Learning from established bike-share programs, NYCycling aims to offer a high service level for a responsible price to cyclists in New York City.  Through partnerships with corporations, non-profits, and law enforcements, NYCycling also aims to become a successful and publicly appreciated alternative form of local transportation.

——-
GREENEXT TECHNOLOGY SOLUTIONS
·        University: IIT: Indian Institute of Technology Madras – INDIA
·        Team members: Aashish Dattani, Sriram Kalyanaraman and Vinayshankar Kulkarni
Greenext Technology Solutions is clean-technology proposal that is pioneering specialized software and hardware solutions to utility companies, renewable energy producers, energy storage manufacturers, and energy traders. Their product, XEstor, serves as a common interface to store energy from any source across New York City into large battery storage sites. The product communicates with the electric grid and combines real-time consumer demand information with current energy prices to charge or discharge electricity into the grid. This flexible mechanism to produce or store energy based on demand can act as a backup power source to bridge supply gaps and maintain the grid’s reliability through ancillary services such as regulation and emergency response.

The Greenext Technology Solutions team strongly believes that today’s challenges in the energy sector can be addressed through clean-technology solutions such as smart grids that hold the potential to meet growing energy demands. Greenext Technology Solutions team is convinced that with energy demand continuing to rise rapidly on the one hand and both energy availability and supply efficiency struggling to meet it on the other, financial incentives and deregulation of electricity markets will make their solution a highly viable one in the future.  And New York City is a prime locale for such technology because of its burgeoning population and energy needs, as well as an electric grid in need of innovative upgrades.

Contact:
Stu Loeser/Andrew Brent                                             (212) 788-2958
David Lombino/Libby Langsdorf (NYCEDC)               (212) 312-3523

Warm Regards

Sudha Ravi
Commerce & Economic Wing
Consulate General of India
3 East 64th Street
New York 10065
T: 212-774-0610
F: 212-734-4980
E:  commerce at indiacgny.org

There is fun out there on the web – is it not?
Hackers 2 – Ahmedi-Nejad and Zapatero 0.
Somebody has fun on the web with leaders that stepped on toes.

Mischievous Hackers Go After World Leaders.

Carl Franzen
Contributor to aol

(Jan. 5) — The Web sites of the Iranian President and the Spanish Prime Minister were taken down in the past day for two surprising reasons: Mr. Bean and Michael Jackson.

Late Monday night, someone slapped a message on Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s official site that pleaded to God for the leader’s death in 2010, strangely mixing celebrity references with cold threats.

“Dear God,” the statement read, “In 2009 you took my favorite singer – Michael Jackson, my favorite actress – Farrah Fawcett, my favorite actor – Patrick Swayze, my favorite voice – Neda,” a reference to the first name of a woman killed by gunfire during Iranian’s post-election protests in June 2009.

Continuing, the message said, “Please, please, don’t forget my favorite politician – Ahmadinejad and my favorite dictator – Khamenei – in the year 2010. Thank you.”

Around the same time, Spanish Prime Minster Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero once again played the victim in a long-running joke in his nation. Readers of the newly unveiled site for the incoming European Union president saw his portrait replaced with the British comedy character Mr. Bean. The comparisons spring from their similarities in physical appearance and bumbling ways, at least according to critics of Zapatero’s economic leadership.

By Tuesday morning, both Web sites were rendered inaccessible, but early observers managed to save screen shots of the quixotic, pop-culture savvy messages.

There were no claims of responsibility in either incident, though both countries have faced plenty of challenges from hackers as of late.

Last month, the Spanish Ministry of Culture announced it was drafting plans to shut down popular file-sharing Web sites in the country. In response, self-described “hacktivists,” or hacker activists, defaced a leading Spanish anti-piracy Web site, replacing it with their manifesto.

In June, pro-democracy activists around the Internet supported efforts to hack and “flood” Iran’s government Web sites with “junk traffic” in an effort to take them temporarily offline. On the ground, protesters also used the Internet to organize their activities and upload images of the crackdown by the Iranian security forces.

In mid-December, Twitter’s domain name system was hijacked and its home page defaced by hackers calling themselves the “Iranian Cyber Army.” The microblog is one of the primary channels that dissidents and journalists have used to spread the news of the on-and-off opposition protests in Iran over the past six months.

While the source of that attack also remains anonymous at this time, the message left by the hackers claimed it was retaliation against the United States for “Controlling And Managing Internet By Their Access” and for the U.S. trade embargo against Iran.

SAN FRANCISCO SPANISH CONSULATE PROTEST SLATED DECEMBER 2 – EXCLUSION OF ISRAELI STUDENTS FROM A SOLAR ENERGY COMPETITION.
30 November 2009

The U.S. Department of Energy created the first Solar Decathlon in 2002, and agreed in 2007 to have Spain host the competition in alternating years, and is co-sponsoring the 2010 event.

Spain is hosting the 2010 Solar Decathalon, a world solar energy research competition and has now announced that it is excluding students from Ariel University, one of 20 finalist teams.

Spain has capitulated to demands from those groups promoting BDS (boycott, divestment and sanctions) against Israel and will not allow the team from Ariel to participate.

The San Francisco Chronicle writes to us:

Join StandWithUs/San Francisco Voice for Israel will protest Spain’s exclusion of Israeli students from solar energy competition outside the Consulate of Spain December 2, 2009.

The 5:00 p.m. to 6:00 p.m. demonstration will be held at the Consulate General of Spain, 1405 Sutter Street at Franklin, San Francisco.

We will be part of a nationwide series of protests that will also be taking place at Spanish consulates in New York, Chicago and Los Angeles.

Please see standwithus.com for further details and to sign the petition to the government of Spain as well as the US government which should now withdraw its sponsorship of this event.

From Nanette Woonton, Kya Orana from the Pacific:

ISLAND STATES OUTRAGED AT ATTEMPTS TO UNDERMINE COPENHAGEN OUTCOME.

6 November, Barcelona – The 43-member Alliance of Small Island States
(AOSIS) today expressed outrage at attempts this week to steamroll the
worlds most vulnerable countries into accepting a watered down political
agreement at the Copenhagen Climate Summit this December, rather than
internationally legally binding outcomes.

Brushing aside suggestions at this weeks climate talks in Barcelona that
it would be impractical or unrealistic to agree this year on legally
binding instruments for post-2012, AOSIS demanded the immediate
engagement of world leaders to break the deadlock in negotiations, and
urged heads of state and government to come to Copenhagen ready to sign
onto robust and legally binding commitments.

Ambassador Dessima Williams, Permanent Representative of Grenada to the
United Nations and current AOSIS Chair, said Many states put forward
their proposed treaty texts nearly six months ago. There are no
practical obstacles whatsoever. All thats lacking now is the political
will to finish the job. Weak political declarations are not the
solution. Leaders must come to Copenhagen ready to sign on to new
targets under the Kyoto Protocol, and a new broader treaty to bind all
countries.

It is widely accepted that only legally binding commitments are
sufficient to seal the deal on deep emission cuts and the finance
commitments necessary to protect those already suffering the early
impacts. For most states, legally binding outcomes are a prerequisite
for a new multilateral deal on climate change.

AOSIS applauded UK Prime Minister Gordon Browns recent promise to attend
the climate talks in Copenhagen, and today welcomed similar calls to
world leaders from Brazilian President Lula da Silva and German
Chancellor Angela Merkel late yesterday. Confirming her own Prime
Ministers attendance in Copenhagen, Ambassador Williams said With just
four weeks to go before Copenhagen, it is high time to set aside narrow
national interests and focus on saving the planet from the
fast-approaching climate catastrophe.

Small island nations, joined by the Group of Least Developed Countries
and other vulnerable nations more than 80 in total continue to call for
global warming to be limited to well below 1.5C above pre-industrial
temperatures.

Large polluters have indicated a preference for a 2C limit, but recent
science indicates that the higher limit would threaten the existence of
a number of low-lying island states, and cause suffering, loss of life
and irreparable damage to the worlds coral reefs.

Contact

Dr Albert Binger
Permanent Mission of Grenada to the United Nations
Email:yengar@hotmail.com <mailto:yengar@hotmail.com>

Stevensonian Democratic Internationalist, Professor Richard N. Gardner, among the best that try to help the UN, and with Internationalist Environmental Credentials as well, says Copenhagen will be the stage where individual Nations will declare what they are ready to do to decrease their impact on climate change – just that and no-more at this stage.

Professor and Ambassador Richard N. Gardner, with Columbia University since 1957, is Professor of Law and International Organizations at the Law School. He was also US Ambassador to Italy and Spain.

Professor Gardner was appointed by President Kennedy as the Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for International Organization Affairs in 1961, a position he held until 1965, when he served also as a senior adviser to Adlai Stevenson II, the John F, Kennedy appointed United States Ambassador to the United Nations. Further, after a year with the U.N., he served as a member of the President’s Commission on International Trade and Investment Policy from 1970 to 1971. He served also in various advisory positions in the U.N.

He served as a special adviser to the United Nations at the 1992 Earth Summit in Rio as he did in 1972 to the UN Conference on the Human Environment. From 1982 to 1993 he was cochairman of the Aspen Institute Program on the United States and the World Economy.

I remember Professor Gardner from the ‘92 UNCED and from lectures at Columbia University. He is a convinced internationalist – as good as the believers in a UN system can get.

He was a principle adviser to Adlai Stevenson who himself, since the San Francisco 1945 Conference that created the UN, was a strong believer in the good the UN can do – even when it was just the place where the US and the USSR could meet to talk in order to tone down the Cuban missile crisis. So, it was not surprising that Professor Gardner was a speaker at the UN memorial to Senator, Governor, Ambassador, Adlai Stevenson.

The November 3, 2009 meeting in the ECOSOC room at the UN, was opened by US Ambassador Alejandro Wolf, moderated by former US Under Secretary of State Thomas Pickering, and populated UN stars – some going back to time of the creation – like Brian Urquhart who served under all UNSGs todate, went on well over time.

I will not elaborate here on what was said and on the only question (from the Ambassador from Botswana) – because of the over-time – that was allowed at the end, but will go directly to my little after-the-meeting exchange with Ambassador Gardner.

——

Gardner, a US Stevensonian Internationalist Democrat, even past member of The Trilateral Commission 1957 – 2005, and International Environmentalist, was my target for questions about “the Hopenhagen.”  I wanted to know what he thinks the UN can expect realistically from Copenhagen?  And he did not disappoint me.

Gardner said that the situation is not ready for an across the board agreement – just only for individual countries stating what they will do to reduce their emissions.

On my question about bi-lateral agreements – like US-China, US-India, China-India, Brazil-China etc. this sort of agreements that are economic and environmental at the same time and could create the network on which some day an international agreement might be based. He completely accepted this approach and offered that the upcoming President Obama trip to China is extremely important to a climate agreement.

I did not ask him about the possibility of an EU internal agreement so it could speak with one voice, but I mentioned having seen the home-made passport (leather parchment and eagle feather) that Thomas Banyaka, the spokesman for the Hopi Nation, used to enter and leave Sweden for his participation at the 1972 Conference on the Environment. The Hopi being an Environment-friendly Nation with no UN status.

Is there any hope for the EU to be part of a G3 global leadership? The EU destroyers come from the inside from those that do not want to give up temporary powers – that is for all to see.

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

EU presidency trio of next three rotating EU Presidents – Spain, Belgium, Hungary – lays claim to political power and raises new objections to a strong full time effective EU President as envisioned by the Lisbon treaty. A specially pathetic case in our opinion in this respect is Belgium.
HONOR MAHONY of EUobserver writes: “EU presidency trio lays claim to political power.”

November 3, 2009 http://euobserver.com/9/28917/?rk=1

EUOBSERVER / BRUSSELS – Leaders of the countries next in line to take on the day-to-day running of the European Union have made it clear that they do not wish to be sidelined by any future EU president.

Gathered in Brussels last week to present a common logo for 18 months of co-operation beginning in January, the prime ministers of Spain, Belgium and Hungary were keen to emphasize the importance of “institutional balance” – an oblique way of saying they do not wish to get elbowed out of the political picture by a powerful new president of the European Council, a post created by the almost-ratified Lisbon Treaty.

“The future of Europe does not depend on one person …the future of Europe depends on institutions,” said Belgian leader Herman Van Rompuy.

His Hungarian counterpart Gordon Bajnai said “more time” is needed to “decide the role of the president and his relation to the rotating president.” He also said that one of the three prerequisites for the future president should be that the person “is someone who is ready to live with the already existing institutions of Europe.”

With the Lisbon Treaty now likely to come into place within the coming few months, focus has turned to the uncertainties contained in the document.

One of these includes how the six-month rotating presidencies and the national leaders of the moment will rub along with the permanent president.

While the president, who can hold office for up to five years, is supposed to drive forward the political agenda of the EU through the regular meetings of EU leaders, the rotating presidency will manage the daily policy-making including chairing monthly ministerial meetings in all areas, bar foreign policy. The set-up, with its undefined hierarchy, could lead to damaging turf wars.

The problem of the proliferation of chiefs with potentially overlapping job descriptions under the Lisbon Treaty – it also introduces a beefed up foreign policy post – has practical implications too, such as who will take part in EU summits with third countries. EU attendance at these events is often a crowded affair, a problem the union’s new set of rules is supposed to fix.

Who will be the first president of the European Council is still unclear, with member states unsure about whether they want a powerful global figure, or someone with a more administrative job description. The EU parliament will discuss the role of the new president on 11 November, while the appointment itself is expected to be decided at an extraordinary summit later this month.

The type of person who gets the job is set to strongly influence how the EU will make a go of the new Lisbon Treaty system – a fact acknowledged by the Hungarian leader.

Mr Bajnai said it was the three countries’ “noble task” to “prove it is a better solution.”

Spain, which is likely to be the first country to operate a presidency under the Lisbon Treaty beginning on 1 January, will face the challenge of setting the terms for how successive countries manage the relationship between the national leader and the EU president.

A still greater challenge to the system is likely to come when one of the most powerful EU countries, Britain, France or Germany hold the rotating presidency. But this is not foreseen until 2017.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

———–

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

More information
allAfrica

This Day

Analysis of national climate action plans of emerging economies – Proposals for quantifiable emission reduction contributions of emerging economies.

Side Event at the UNFCCC Barcelona Climate Talks:

Tuesday, November 3rd 2009 
7.45 – 9.15 pm, Room LENTISCO

 

In this side event Ecofys and the Wuppertal-Institute, two German independent consultants, will present results of a recent analysis of national climate action plans of emerging economies (Brazil, China, India, Mexico, South Africa, South Korea) in regard to mitigation of GHG emissions.

The study includes an update of an ealier sector-based assessment of mitigation potential in 2008. Based on these results the presenters will introduce a preliminary assessment of options on how to integrate national appropriate mitigation actions in particular countries .

This study was commissioned by the Federal Environment Agency (Umweltbundesamt, UBA), an independant scientific body of the Federal Environment Ministry, based in Dessau, Germany.

 

————-

Dr. Guido Knoche
Federal Environment Agency
- Climate Change Division -
D-06844 Dessau-Rosslau
eMail: guido.knoche[at]uba.de

  

Our morning prayer of November 2, 2009 is that the following is true one month to Copenhagen hope – not just another Hopenhagen artifact.

 
UNFCCC PRESS RELEASE:  Barcelona UN Climate Change Talks to put in place solid foundation for success at Copenhagen read the release on our website:
<http://unfccc.int/files/press/news_room/press_releases_and_advisories/application/pdf/opening_pr_barcelona.pdf>

(Barcelona, 2 November 2009) – The last negotiating session before the historic UN Climate Change Conference in Copenhagen in December kicked off Monday in Barcelona, Spain.

The meeting in Barcelona (2 to 6 November) follows on the UN Climate Change Talks in Bangkok (28 September to 9 October), which saw increasing convergence, streamlining of negotiating text and narrowing down of options for a comprehensive, fair and effective international climate change deal. (our comment – just ??)

“The Barcelona talks need to make clear progress and put in place a solid foundation for success at Copenhagen,” said UNFCCC Executive Secretary Yvo de Boer. “We have only five days to achieve this, only five days to further narrow down options and come up with working texts. But I am convinced that it can be done,” he added.

Alluding to a meeting of around 35 Environment Ministers ahead of the Barcelona talks, Danish Minister for Climate and Energy Connie Hedegaard said: “Ministers promised to instruct negotiators to be flexible and constructive towards a Copenhagen outcome.”

“Striking a deal is not easy now. But it will not be easer next year or the year after,” she added.

Specifically, progress on adaptation, technology cooperation, action to
reduce emissions from deforestation in developing countries and enhanced capacity building is expected in Barcelona.

 “Workable middle ground options have emerged on these items that can be taken forward and concretised,” said Yvo de Boer. “The good work needs to be continued, especially in view of preparing the ground for prompt implementation now and up to 2012.”

Heads of state and government meeting in New York earlier this year agreed that in Copenhagen, clarity must be provided on ambitious emission reduction targets of industrialised countries, as well as the need for nationally appropriate mitigation actions by developing countries with the necessary support.

A beacon to guide discussions is the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s finding that an aggregate emission reduction by industrialized countries of between minus 25% and 40% over 1990 levels would be required by 2020, and that global emissions would need to be reduced by at least 50% by 2050, in order to stave off the worst effects of climate change.

“The targets of industrialised countries that are presently on the table are clearly not ambitious enough,” the UN’s top climate change official said. “We therefore need more ambitious targets on an individual basis and urgent progress on the negotiations under the Kyoto Protocol,” he added.
Heads of State and Government agreed in September at a UN climate summit in New York that Copenhagen must generate significantly scaled-up financial and technological resources, with a mechanism that would allow funds to be generated automatically over time, along with an equitable governance structure that manages and deploys those funds in line with the adaptation and mitigation needs of developing countries.

“The magnitude of long-term finance has been recognised, but more clarity on precise contributions from industrialised countries is needed ahead of Copenhagen, above all clarity on what the prompt start-up finance will be to unleash urgent action in developing countries,” Yvo de Boer said.

More than 4,000 participants, including delegates from 181 countries, have registered for the UN Climate Change Talks in Barcelona. The UN Climate Change Conference in Copenhagen will take place in Copenhagen from 7 to 18 December.

“Copenhagen must open the door to the common good and close the door to a common disaster,” said UNFCCC Executive Secretary Yvo de Boer.

“And in Denmark, governments must give their clear realistic answer both on what they will do to avoid catastrophic climate change and how to do it, along with delivering a strong, functioning architecture to kick-start rapid action in the developing world,” he added.

About the UNFCCC

With 192 Parties, the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) has near universal membership and is the parent treaty of the 1997 Kyoto Protocol. The Kyoto Protocol has been ratified by 189 of the UNFCCC Parties. Under the Protocol, 37 States, consisting of highly industrialized countries and countries undergoing the process of transition to a market economy, have legally binding emission limitation and reduction commitments. The ultimate objective of both treaties is to stabilize greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere at a level that will prevent dangerous human interference with the climate system.

For further information, please contact:

Mr. Eric Hall, Spokesperson/Manager of Communications and Media
mobile: +34 67 173 3741; e-mail: ehall(at)unfccc.int

Mr. John Hay, Press Officer
mobile: +34 67 173 3762; e-mail: jhay(at)unfccc.int

Mr. Alexander Saier, Media Coordination (TV, Radio and Online services)
mobile: +34 67 173 5985; e-mail:  asaier(at)unfccc.int

Ms. Carrie Assheuer, Public Information and Media Assistant
mobile:  +34 67 173 0880; e-mail:  cassheuer(at)unfccc.int
See also <http://unfccc.int>

———- Forwarded message ———-
From: christine campeau <christinecampeau@yahoo.com>
Date: Fri, Oct 30, 2009 
Subject: How to reduce your emissions by more than 40% by 2020: Practical examples from Scotland

Dear colleagues,

Caritas Internationalis and SCIAF (Caritas Scotland) are pleased to invite you to attend “How to reduce your emissions by more than 40% by 2020: Practical examples from Scotland”, an event to be held in Barcelona on Tuesday November 3rd, from 9h00 – 10h30 in Room 5 of the convention centre.

Scotland has recently passed legislation that commits it to reduce its greenhouse gas emissions by at least 42% by 2020 and 80% by 2050, with at least 80% of these reductions coming from domestic sources. Please join us to hear Scotland’s Minister for Climate Change and Scottish NGO and business leaders discuss how they plan to meet these targets in practice.

For more information, please contact:

Christine Campeau, Caritas Internationalis (ccampeau@caritas-internationalis.com)
Rowan Popplewell, SCIAF (rpopplewell@sciaf.org.uk)

—————

Also, don’t forget that Barcelona is the capital of Catalunya Government – another well advanced Regional Government in Europe. The latter had a very interesting event at the UN – sponsored by UNU – see our posting on that event. In the US this sort of activity can be found in the State of California. Proof that States, Regions, provinces, large cities, can come up with better and faster legislation then cumbersome governments that are UN Member States.

———- Forwarded message ———-
From: Sarah Tyler <sarah.tyler@save-children-alliance.org>
Date: Thu, Oct 29, 2009
Subject: Invitation to Press Conference in Barcelona: Feeling the Heat: Child Survival in a Changing Cimate

Save the Children cordially invites you to the launch of their new report:

FEELING THE HEAT Child Survival in a Changing Climate

Climate change is the biggest emergency for the world’s poorest children and it is happening now.

Without concerted action, millions of children will be at increased risk from disease, under nutrition, water scarcity, disasters, and the collapse of public services and infrastructure.

No one will be immune to the effects of climate change, but children under five will feel the brunt.

When: 11:00 am, 5 November 2009 Where: Barcelona Convention Centre, FIRA GRAN VIA Pavilion 8.

Who:  Alberto Soteres, CEO Save the Children Spain;
Rudolph von Bernuth,  Emergency Director;
Benedict Dempsey, climate change specialist

Save the Children speakers will be available for interviews in Spanish, English and Italian.
B-roll is available for broadcast outlets and high quality images are available for print outlets.
For more information and a copy of the report, please contact Sarah Tyler  +447958337624 or  Sarah.Tyler at save-children-alliance.or…

 

Climate Change Adaptation: It’s about Water! 
— Global Water Partnership’s contribution to the climate change dialogue

Water is central to the world’s development challenges. Whether it is food security, poverty reduction, economic growth, human health—water is the nexus. Climate change is the spoiler. No matter how successful mitigation efforts might be, people will experience the impacts of climate change through water.

The Global Water Partnership is participating in ‘Water Day’ at the climate change negotiations in Barcelona. GWP Executive Secretary Dr Ania Grobicki will be the lead speaker on water and transboundary issues on Tuesday, November 3. The venue is the Fira Congress Hotel, opposite the conference centre. The opening session starts at 9 am and lunch will be provided.

Recently, the GWP’s Technical Committee released its 14th Background Paper: “Water Management, Water Security and Climate Change Adaptation.” It argues that investments in water are investments in adaptation. The paper can be downloaded on www.gwpforum.org or ordered free at gwp@gwpforum.org.

Climate Change: How can we Adapt? – a one-pager about GWP’s key messages on this subject – is available here: http://www.gwpforum.org/gwp/library/GWP_Briefingnote_climatechange.pdf.

GWP has been accepted as an Inter-Governmental Organisation with Observer Status at  COP 15 in Copenhagen in December and has submitted an article to the delegate publication. But more information on that will follow later. 

More resources about climate change and water and more information on GWP’s involvement in the global dialogue on climate change is available on this page: http://www.gwpforum.org/servlet/PSP?iNodeID=205&itemId=442.

 

——————————————————–Steven DowneyHead of CommunicationsGlobal Water Partnership (GWP)Drottninggatan 33SE-111 51 Stockholm, SWEDENPhone:   +46 8 522 126 52Fax:      + 46 8 522 126 31E-mail: steven.downey@gwpforum.orgWebsite: www.gwpforum.org
A water secure world – the mission of the Global Water Partnership is to support the sustainable development and management of water resources at all levels.