|
Posted on Sustainabilitank.info on March 1st, 2010 http://guest.cvent.com/EVENTS/Info/Summa…
In London – Cleantech Investor Breakfast on Brazil. Brazil, the fifth largest country in the world, is endowed with extensive natural resources. With an advanced ethanol infrastructure and massive hydro electric capacity, Brazil is a leader in terms of its renewable energy use. Investment in other renewable energy resources is also growing in interest: the Brazilian government aims to increase wind energy capacity to 10,000 MW over the next decade, taking its share of total energy supply to around 5 percent from 0.4 percent last year. Brazil recently held its first wind auction which resulted in a total of 71 projects signing on to provide 1,800 megawatts of generation capacity. Demand for biodiesel is being driven by domestic legislation: and there are also investment opportunities in biomass, driven in part by export demand. Brazil will host the World Cup in 2014 and Rio de Janeiro is the host city for the 2016 Olympics Games. Preparation for these events will involve extensive investment in sustainable infrastructure and will involve opportunities for international investors in fields such as waste to energy. This event will address some of the investment opportunities opening up in Brazil for UK investors – and will aim to provide a brief overview of the issues involved in doing business in Brazil. Cleantech magazine is compiling a series of features on cleantech/clean energy investment opportunities in Brazil. The first Brazilian focused issue of the magazine will be presented at the Brazilian breakfast. Investors interested in Brazil UK cleantech companies with products/services appropriate for the Brazilian market This event is free to attend, but registration is required. When Thursday, March 11, 2010 8:00 AM – 11:00 AM Where: Planner: Anne McIvor Permalink |
| ### |
|
Posted on Sustainabilitank.info on February 27th, 2010 Women’s Network For a Sustainable Future (WNSF) Provided us with a pink invitation to an event for which we were supposed to pay $55 for this “generously hosted by PricewaterCoopers event.” There was also an early bird option for $40. When I wrote that I would like to cover the event for the Sustainable Development website – the PriceWaterhouseCoopers lady of my correspondence first did not react to our e-mail then it was a nope. The Advertised pink sheet said: http://www.eventbrite.com/event/55129493… Cordially invites you to its New York Luncheon Panel
Including speakers from: A discussion of business risks and opportunities post-Copenhagen: What’s in store for companies nationally and internationally–and how to plan for it–with tips from those who were there. Wednesday February 24, 2010 Generously hosted by BOARD OF DIRECTORS Kathy Robb Marlys E. Appleton Dianne Dillon-Ridgley Shelly M. Esque Karen Flanders Joanne Fox-Przeworski. Ph.D Ann Goodman. Ph.D Sarah C. Howell Michele Kahane Clair Krizov Joyce LaValle ———- ADVISORY COUNCIL Ray Anderson Jo Ivey Boufford Paula Di Perna Eileen Fisher Joyce Haboucha Noreen Harrington Stuart Hart Terri Ludwig ———– SPONSORSHIP INFORMATION WNSF welcomes support from companies, foundations and individuals to help us spread the word to as many businesswomen as possible on how corporate responsibility can foster sustainability. If you are interested in sponsorship opportunities, please contact: WNSF is a 501(c)3 not-for-profit organization. Recent Sponsors Alcoa Foundation, AT&T, BP, Cola-Cola Co., Con Edison, Eileen Fisher Participation WNSF believes that integrating responsible, sustainable practices throughout organizations is key to building sustainable enterprises — and a sustainable future. That’s why WNSF welcomes participation from women in all parts of business including marketing, communications, legal affairs, human resources, finance, strategy, philanthropy, corporate citizenship and environment, health and safety. There are no formal membership requirements. To get regular email updates on WNSF activities, send your contact information to:info@wnsf.org WNSF Leadership Circle Founding Members: Recent WNSF sponsors include: Adobe Initial web site design and hosting provided by Netting Solutions =============== OK – without an invitation to those sandwiches, I found it convenient to stop by at 2:15 pm after an event on Kazakhstan at the George Soros Institute. Actually, I found that things, might actually be better then the initial impression. True, I have seen before high power corporate women barging into topics of social interest at the fringes of the UN that were rather a celebration of “We have Arrived” and we are ready to impress our sisters, but at least the most recent additions to this organization seem to understand the political importance of the subject beyond the potential of a corporate gain for their employing firm, and the lady I was in e-mail contact with, I was told was a complete novice employee of the organization. Anyway, I seem to remember having already run into the Corporate Ladies of WNSF previously at an event at the outskirts of the UN Headquarters at the time of a Women’s Conference, but this time got really intrigued by the post Copenhagen and how to benefit from Copenhagen concept. I understand that Dianne Dillon-Ridgley of Iowa City gave an inspirational description of the history of climate change policy. She has experience with the Sustainable Development concept since her appointment by President Bush Senior’s White House to go to the Rio convention, as per http://www.wnsf.org/index.php?com=static… Ann Godman is the Executive Director of the WNSF which she co-founded in 2002. She is now adjunct professor of corporate responsibility at the Center for Global Affairs at New York University, and affiliate professor at the graduate Center for Environmental Policy at Bard College. http://www.wnsf.org/index.php?com=static… Helle Bank Jorgensen was the moderator of the panel, and the hostess of the panel, as she is Partner, PricewaterhouseCoopers Denmark. Member of the PwC Global Sustainability Leadership Council. She gave me a PriceWaterhouseCoopers two page “Sustainable growth strategies” sheet with indication that PwC is sponsoring “Sustainability & Climate Change Thought Leadership.” I learned that PwC is promoting literature with titles like: A point of view series that covers the EPA new rules on GHG registration requirements and their regulation under the Clean Air Act. www.pwc.com Also – “Sustainability: Are consumers buying it?” and “Going Green: Sustainable growth strategies.” Capitalizing on a climate of change” seems to be a good introductory booklet - www.pwc.com and if you want to learn about the tax implications - www.pwc.com . Above all it seems that what PwC wants you to remember is that CSR is in vogue – “A comprehensive survey of corporate social responsibility reporting trends, benchmark and best practices” is something the consulting firm can help you with. The company distributed also booklets of “Rethink” as in Vision, Visibility and Strategy resulting in improved performance for your company. Obviously – there is nothing wrong in using greed to help achieve important societal goals – or who knows – the knowledge to avoid having to comply. http://www.accaglobal.com/documents/denm… Rebecca Craft was there to speak of Energy Efficiency at Con Edison, and I am sure Alison Taylor had things to add to this from the Siemens Corporation performance that we know well from what we were shown in Copenhagen, at the Siemens Denmark headquarters. Then there was James Fuschetti, the only man that was still in the room when I arrived, and the only man on the panel, a Managing Director at JP Morgan Chase, a banking corporation that has female executives, but has also the sense to deal with Sustainability and Climate Change to the subject and not as a matter of female representation. James Fuschetti is the Managing Director of the Office of Environmental Affairs at JP Morgan Chase and is responsible for its overall management and direction. Mr. Fuschetti spent 26 years as a banker and product specialist at JP Morgan Securities, Inc. During that time he lived in New York, Sao Paulo and London and worked with corporate and government clients in Latin America, Europe, the Middle East and Asia. In 1999 Mr. Fuschetti left JP Morgan to join the World Wildlife Fund (“WWF”) in Washington DC where he co-founded the Center for Conservation Finance. During his 7 years at WWF he helped develop financing solutions for large scale conservation projects in Asia and Latin America. In February 2008 Mr. Fuschetti returned to JP Morgan Chase to assume responsibility for the Office of Environmental Affairs. Mr. Fuschetti reports to William Daley. The Program was mainly about “REFLECTING ON COPENHAGEN” and Ms. Jorgensen posed questions to the panelists: - What are the risks and opportunities you see for your company after Copenhagen? - Do you see a different reaction nationally vs. internationally? - How do you successfully plan for the future in a time of such uncertainty? - While there is no current federal regulation – there is state/regional regulation – how do you address this in your company? - Any last questions – or tips? That all sounds good and I hope she got good answers, but for the life of me I do not understand why these topics had to be in pink format? Our website will fight for full equality for women when climbing the corporate ladder but we do not think that this sort of plain business talk ought to be segregated by sex. I was glad I went to look at this congregation as I walked away with the feeling that indeed it was not a Sarah Palin tea party, but rather a joint learning experience that actually could have an impact if the ladies in the audience felt more comfortable in hearing about the misery of our environment and our governing system from a woman, rather then in a more mixed setting. Permalink |
| ### |
|
Posted on Sustainabilitank.info on February 25th, 2010 The Latin Nations of the Western Hemisphere try to unite and discard the old world and the US and Canada infringement on what they see as their territory. It all started with the ALBA group. The US might try now to mend its ways with Cuba, but the UK is out for confrontation because of Antarctic oil. The US will have to take position when this issue reaches the Security Council. What if Argentina offers China rights to drill in the same areas that they consider part of their territorial waters?
We keep saying – the US will find it difficult to continue with wars in Asia if its backyard “south of the border” gets shaken up. * * * From: AS/COA Online <weeklyroundup@as-coa.org>
Date: Wed, Feb 24, 2010 Subject: Weekly Roundup: Latin America’s New Bloc. * * *
Permalink |
| ### | ||||||||||
|
Posted on Sustainabilitank.info on February 25th, 2010 February 25, 2010, from ALDE The European Parliament today adopted its opinion on Ukraine following recent Presidential elections. ALDE Vice President, Adina Valean (PNL, Romania), was a member of the EU’s election monitoring mission. In adopting the resolution Valean highlighted the five years of lost time in addressing the constitutional deficits in Ukraine that have held back genuine reforms and undermined Ukraine’s reputation as a stable democracy: “Ukraine has a great deal of potential but it has sacrificed a lot of good will in recent years by its failure to resolve the internal checks and balances in its own system of governance.” “The paradox is that the leaders of the Orange revolution now find themselves in opposition whilst Victor Yanukovych has begun his mandate by making overtures to the European Union.” “Unfortunately for the moment there exists a lack of clarity on both sides regarding the nature of the EU’s present and future relationship with Ukraine which is hindering better cooperation and understanding. Following the change in Government, this is the first honest debate we need to have with the new leadership in Kiev, and to see what common ground and common projects we can find that are in the interest of both parties.” —————– It is quite clear that the Ukraine is torn by its internal division of a west that looks forward to the EU and an east that looks backwards to Russia. We said it before – nothing wrong with a split and allowing each part to attach itself to whomever they chose. But neigh – the Ukraine has had a government that was led by the east faction, and then by one that was led by the west faction that ended up splitting in two, now we have a return to power of the east faction that has learned something by being in opposition and now approaches the West before turning to Russia. We wish them luck but think that in face of the rising economies of Asia, it is for Russia itself to start changing and push for its own incorporation with Europe. Obviously, this will mean that Russia give up its nuclear high rolling, starts aligning with the EU on issues like Iran, allow for more rights to its own people. What Russia’s efforts will do will then cause further stalling in the creation of the European Federation, but at least give a good reason for the stalling of these advances within the EU that occur anyway. The Ukraine’s future is indeed the link to the entree of Russia to its own negotiations with the EU. Permalink |
| ### |
|
Posted on Sustainabilitank.info on February 24th, 2010 More Ambition Needed if Greenhouse Gases are to Peak in Time, Says New UNEP Report Pledges Post Copenhagen Unlikely to Keep Temperatures Below 2 Degrees Celsius by Mid Century. (UNEP Year Book Also Launched Today Outlines Growing Governance Challenge from Climate to Chemicals.) Bali (Indonesia), 23 February 2010 – Countries will have to be far more ambitious in cutting greenhouse gas emissions if the world is to effectively curb a rise in global temperature at 2 degrees C or less. The experts suggest that annual global greenhouse gas emissions should not be larger than 40 to 48.3 Gigatonnes (Gt) of equivalent C02 in 2020 and should peak sometime between 2015 and 2021. They also estimate that between 2020 and 2050, global emissions need to fall by between 48 per cent and 72 per cent, indicating that an ambition to cut greenhouse gases by around three per cent a year over that 30 year period is also needed. Such a path offers a ‘medium’ likelihood or at least a 50/50 chance of keeping a global temperature rise at below 2 degrees C, says the new report. The new study, launched on the eve of UNEP’s Governing Council/Global Ministerial Environment Forum taking place in Bali, Indonesia, has analyzed the pledges of 60 developed and developing economies. They have been recently submitted to the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) following the UN climate convention meeting in Copenhagen in December. The nine modeling centres have now estimated how far these pledges go towards meeting a reasonable ‘peak’ in emissions depending on whether the high or the low intentions are met. “The expected emissions for 2020 range between 48.8 to 51.2 GT of CO2 equivalent based on whether high or low pledges will be fulfilled,” says the report. The report, as noted earlier, says that in order to meet the 2 degree C aim in 2050, emissions in 2020 need to be between 40 Gt and 48.3 Gt. Thus even with the best intentions there is a gap of between 0.5 and 8.8Gt of CO2 equivalent per year, amounting to an average shortfall in emission cuts of 4.7 Gt. If the low end of the emission reduction pledges are fulfilled, the gap is even bigger-2.9 Gt to 11.2 Gt of CO2 equivalent per year, with an average gap of 7.1 Gt says the report How Close Are We to the Two Degree Limit? Achim Steiner, UN Under-Secretary General and UNEP Executive Director, said: “There are clearly a great deal of assumptions underlying these figures, but they do provide an indication of where countries are and perhaps more importantly where they need to aim.” “There clearly is ‘Gigatonne gap’ which may be a significant one according some of the modelers. This needs to be bridged and bridged quickly if the international community is to pro-actively manage emissions down in a way that makes economic sense,” he added. “There are multiple reasons for countries to make a transition to a low carbon, resource efficient Green Economy of which climate change is a key one. But energy security, cuts in air pollution and diversifying energy sources are also important drivers,” said Mr Steiner. “This week at the UNEP GC/GMEF we will also shine a light on the opportunities ranging from accelerating clean tech and renewable energy enterprises to the climate, social and economic benefits of investing in terrestrial and marine ecosystems,” he added. Some of those multiple opportunities for action are showcased in the UNEP Year Book 2010 which is being presented to ministers responsible for the environment who are attending the meeting. These include Reduced Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation (REDD) which gained political support at the Copenhagen climate change meeting. REDD, which involves supporting developing countries to conserve rather than clear tropical forests, could make an important contribution not only to combating climate change but also to overcoming poverty and to a successful UN International Year of Biodiversity. It also highlights a new and promising REDD project in Brazil, at the Juma Sustainable Development Reserve in Amazonas. . Here each family receives US$28 a month if the forest remains uncut, one potential way of tipping the economic balance in favour of conservation versus continued deforestation. Renewables are also gaining momentum: although still very low compared to the huge potential of renewable energy, the global installed wind generation capacity has grown at the rate of 25 per cent per year over the past five years. . In China, for example installed capacity has nearly doubled every year since the end of 2004 – and the report notes that the wind energy potential under perfect conditions has been estimated at up to 72,000 GW, nearly five times total energy demand. Probably 20 per cent of this energy potential could be captured in the future, representing almost 15 000 GW. Managing a response to climate change also echoes the challenge of International Environment Governance, a key theme at this week’s GC/GMEF. ————————————— Governance also underpins the international response to other challenges highlighted in the UNEP Year Book 2010. Harmful substances Among the chemicals now causing the greatest concern worldwide are endocrine disrupters, which interfere with hormone systems and are linked to serious effects on reproductive health. A growing number of scientists are concerned that spikes in cancer, reproductive abnormalities, infertility, and behavioural disorders are the result of exposure to these chemicals during the development of foetuses and children. The Year Book also looks at the nitrogen cycle, which has been identified as one of three key areas where ‘planetary boundaries’ have been crossed. Most of the world’s biodiversity hotspots receive nitrogen from air and water at levels known to alter ecosystems, and nitrogen is creating dead zones in coastal waters-areas where big drops in oxygen levels can occur. Global nitrogen use in agriculture is projected to double to some 220 million tonnes a year by 2050 if present trends continue. Reducing the world’s nitrogen use will require a profound transformation of agricultural practices. But this may be essential to keep ecosystems from becoming so saturated with nitrogen that they become terrestrial equivalents of the oceans dead zones. Ecosystem management 2010 is the International Year of Biodiversity. Changes in biodiversity due to human activities have been more rapid in the past 50 years than at any other time in human history. . The latest IUCN Red List, 17,291 species out of 47,677 assessed are under threat: 21 per cent of all known mammals, 30 per cent of all known amphibians, 12 per cent of all known birds, 28 per cent of reptiles, 37 per cent of freshwater fishes, 70 per cent of plants, and 35 per cent of invertebrates. The report emphasizes that ecosystem management, of which biodiversity is the building block, has an important role to play in mitigating and adapting to the impacts of climate change. Managing ecosystems for resilience, and protecting biodiversity to support this resilience, is critical both to meet development objectives and to address the challenges of climate change. Disasters and conflict In 2009, progress was made towards understanding how climate change, environmental degradation, and mismanagement of natural resources increase vulnerability to both disasters and conflicts, also within the context of the International Strategy for Disaster Reduction. Equally how sustainable natural resource management may reduce vulnerability to disasters and conflict while supporting peacebuilding. . Forty per cent of intra-state armed conflicts have been shown to be directly linked to competition over natural resources. Disasters and conflicts are linked to the environment in two important ways. First, environmental degradation often results in the loss of natural defences and environmental services, increasing communities’ vulnerability to environmental hazards and weakening their resilience. Second, climate change is expected to exacerbate environmental degradation and increase disaster risks as storms, floods, and droughts become more frequent and more intense. The year 2010 will see further work and research into this area, including new guidance on natural resource management, peacebuilding and ways to minimize conflict risks from natural resources while maximizing opportunities from economic development and livelihoods. ———————- The Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency (D. van Vuuren and M. den Elzen), Ecofys (N. Höhne), Potsdam Institute of Climate Impact Research, Germany (M. Meinshausen and J. Rogeli), Climate Analytics (M. Schaeffer), UNEP Risø Centre on Energy, Climate and Sustainable Development, Risø National Laboratory for Sustainable Energy, Technical University of Denmark (Jorgen Fenhann and John Christensen), National Center for Atmospheric Research, United States (B. O’Neill), International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis (K. Riahi), Met Office Hadley Center, United Kingdom (J. Lowe), Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment at the London School of Economics, United Kingdom (C. Taylor, A. Bowen, N. Ranger.) ———————- The UNEP Year Book 2010 is available online at www.unep.org To order the Year Book 2010, visit www.earthprint.com For more information on the 11th Special Session of the UNEP GC/GMEF, visit: www.unep.org For More Information Please Contact: Nick Nuttall, UNEP Spokesperson/Head of Media, Nairobi, at tel: + 254-733-632755 or +41-79-596-5737, e-mail: nick.nuttall at unep.org Anne-France White, UNEP Information Officer, +254 (0)20 762 3088, or anne-france.white at unep.org ———— Further Resources How Close Are We to the Two Degree Limit? Permalink |
| ### |
|
Posted on Sustainabilitank.info on February 22nd, 2010 Saturday, February 20, 2010, Funchal and most of the the Portuguese holiday island of Madeira was hurt by torrential rains that caused massive floods and mud slides. Casualty numbers rose to at least 42 as search teams began digging for survivors and environmentalists blamed greed and overbuilding for the scale of the tragedy. For full article: —————– I also provide here a link to “Rediluvism as a distinct eco-faith.” This is an effort to turn Global Warming into a flooding issue so it is easier understood by Climate Change Skeptics. Please Join http://cli.gs/REDIS http://tr.im/REDIS Permalink |
| ### |
|
Posted on Sustainabilitank.info on February 20th, 2010 Yvo de Boer, the new free man, gives to The Financial Times his first interview as elder statesman – and we gleaned three elements in his statement as his very balanced views after 20 years of experience with the climate international problematics. (1) The Copenhagen non-binding outcome has nevertheless provided us with a good basis for a treaty. It Copenhagen accord has for the first time drown from from both – rich and poor countries pledges to limit their GHG emissions, and promised financial assistance from the developed to the developing world to do so. (we did in effect earlier today post already such an agreement between Japan and Kenya.) (2) There is no practical hope that a binding treaty that has both form and content – can be signed at the meeting of December 2010 in Mexico. (Mr. de Boer has removed the smiley face that the UNSG has imposed on him these last two years) (3) While governments provide the necessary policy framework for addressing climate change, the real solutions must come from business. As such there are two stages in the process: (a) Governments must use Taxes or a Cap & Trade methodology to limit emissions. No corporation can justify the investment required to reduce their carbon intensity without confidence that carbon emissions will become and remain much costlier than today, with few loopholes for those unwilling to pay. Only government can provide that predictability. As we see it today – the EU failed in its effort because of the permit system that allowed for too many permits to float around, and for the US – even the bill that is stalled in Congress is useless as it was emasculated by emission permits giveaways to favored sectors. (what he is saying is what we say all the time – government is there in order to govern – without this nothing logical will evolve from plain empty handed competition.) (b) If governments dared to embark on real efforts to limit emissions – as long as it is more then just a token idea – the private sector would take it in its stride, it would even thrive, especially the low-carbon companies and sectors that would emerge to replace those unable to kick the carbon habit. ——— We knew already that Yvo de Boer will join KPMG consulting. We know that he is not the first to jump the public policy wagon for the private sector. Al Gore, former US Vice President and father of The Inconvenient Truth” has shown the way He is doing very well – thank you – in the corporate world. We know of people that were formerly with Greenpeace that make now a good living supporting renewable energy corporations. What we did not know before this interview is that in the academic world, Mr. de Boer chose Yale University and the University of Utrecht that will benefit from his direct involvement. ——— Strange remarks we saw from some that did very little to help the climate cause earlier, but now look down at Mr. de Boer as if he were a traitor to that lost cause to which they did not put their honest heart earlier. Specifically we found the mention to Paul Bledsoe the policy director at the Washington – US National Commission on Energy Policy and former White House adviser. He said: “This resignation is simply dispiriting – if someone as politically adept, dedicated and charismatic as Yvo de Boer can’t bring the UN process to heel, then the process is broken and has to be reformed.” That is true but disingenuous – why did he not work harder at creating the US government solution that could have been helpful to that UN process? After all, there were times that even the UN was trying to achieve climate goals. On the other hand, the fact that BP and ConocoPhillips walked out from a business pro-climate group this week, came about because they found that the White House will subsidize nuclear power so the price of energy stays low – but oil companies are not electric utilities to be subsidized under this plan – so why should they be part of a program that can only harm them. This was clearly a give-away to the nuclear lobby on the back of the oil lobby – and thus two out of the only three progressive oil companies, that dream of becoming energy companies, found it completely irrational of participating in the backing of an Administration that did not think through all aspects of the issues. Now, just two nights ago, at a meeting at a top University here, I saw people from Academia and Businesses (the AB of the process) trying to spread the word about what they are doing, but did also not understand the basic policy logic on which they were trying to sell – but on this on a different posting. Here it will suffice to say that we will look forward at what Mr. de Boer will do for Yale University with the strong hope that from now on he will be ready to stand up for what he believes, without bowing to UN or business interests that will flock on him like vultures trying to push him in their preferred directions. We had our difficulty with his bowing to the UN bosses, but we expect to see no future problem in his AB role. Permalink |
| ### |
|
Posted on Sustainabilitank.info on February 20th, 2010 The case of accession of Macedonia is no laughing matter. It is still unknown how Greece’s current financial and economic troubles will have an impact on the Macedonian name dispute. Athens is currently under tremendous pressure from big eurozone countries such as Germany and France to cut back spending and provide accurate data on its deficit, while facing unprecedented scrutiny by the European Commission. Some diplomats suggest that this offers a window of opportunity for clearing the name dispute and should be seized, while others say that because of the painful economic measures, Athens will be even less inclined to compromise on the name issue, a matter of national pride. But neither are some gestures from the government in Skopje of any help, such as naming the airport and a major highway after Alexander the Great, a king of the ancient Greek kingdom of Macedon – moves which prompted fierce criticism in Greece. Brussels officials familiar with the matter say that if a solution is found, Macedonia’s membership could be coupled with Iceland’s, which has also applied to join the club. Their accession would happen after Croatia’s, which is the closest to EU membership at this stage. “Once we open negotiations, people are in for a big surprise. Everybody thinks Iceland will have no problems in joining, but actually it is Macedonia who will be flying through the negotiating chapters. Apart from some classical problems with the judiciary and fight against corruption, Macedonia has harmonised its legislation and implemented a lot of EU requirements,” one EU source told this website. As for Iceland, although it is part of the EU’s internal market, negotiations are likely to run into trouble over fisheries and other topics dear to the Nordic islanders. The current financial dispute with Great Britain and the Netherlands is also not looking good for the EU prospects of Reykjavik. And contrary to the situation with the Balkan country, some parts of the Icelandic political establishment are against EU membership. For now, both Macedonian and Greek officials, despite the declared willingness to find a solution, have not yet inched closer to a result. The UN mediator on the issue, Matthew Nimetz, is due in Skopje next week. The UN is just the bigger international body to stir the EU soup. OK, more important to us seems the Financial Times comment from Washington about “Baroso’s man goes to Washington.” The comment is by Tony Barber who runs a Brussels blog and he addresses the EU appointment of Joao Vale de Almeida to be EU’s next Ambassador to the US. The outgoing Ambassador is John Bruton who was a former Irish Prime Minister and well known to Congress and the White House when he got his appointment in 2004. The incoming Ambassador is a Portuguese Eurocrat who worked for Mr. Baroso and is totally unknown to Washington. Indeed some in Washington have seen him as involved as a by-stander to the G8 and G20 meetings, but when faced with him, following the EU elected so called Permanent President and sort of Foreign Ministers, both of whom are totally unknown to Washington, all what they see as qualifications for Mr. Vale de Almeida is that for five years – 2004 – 2009 he was Chief of Staff for the EU Commission’s President Mr. Baroso – the non-permanent and non-rotating – third EU President – of that nebulous intractable – so called European Union – the symbol of its refusal to be united, even though he was the one that did in effect push for the Lisbon rules for creating that goal of a United Europe. The laughs come up when the author of the note points out that the perception is reinforced by the fact that Baroso has engineered the Ambassadorial appointment for his man in advance of the newly being created EU foreign service under Dame Ashton – who will have her job as who chooses ambassadors. OK, we hope the EU helps squeeze Greece into allowing its neighbors to chose their own names, and to squeeze Island of allowing its fish to be caught by Greek fishermen. The mess in Cyprus can then be left to the UN to handle that other tough issue and in the meantime – the EU of 27 will require from the world to be seen as an EU of 28 – with the EU itself being the added state that enlarges meeting tables with one more unproductive participant. The sad thing is that the world needs an EU that amounts to the missing G3 with which China and the US can sit down at a small table before inviting over India, Brazil, South Africa, Turkey, Mexico, Japan, Australia, Russia . . . one or two more, and start looking at what is of highest importance for the future of the Planet – issues such as global warming and climate change. Permalink |
| ### |
|
Posted on Sustainabilitank.info on February 19th, 2010 from: Prof. Jinyue Yan The International Conference on Applied Energy (ICAE) looks set to become a truly integrated forum on research, development and application of energy technology and policy. ICAE2010 aims to facilitate debate on a wide range of topics under the theme, “Energy Solutions for a Sustainable World”. Besides the usual technical presentations and posters, the Conference will feature a number of keynote lectures and special focused sessions incorporating panel discussions and Q and A sessions. We invite specialists from all over the world to come and share experiences and contribute towards building the framework for sustainable development in the 21st century. As authors proceed to develop the full papers for the conference, I wish to inform all that a selection of the papers presented at ICAE2010 will be reviewed for publication in a special issue of Applied Energy and a number of other international peer-reviewed journals. In addition, best paper awards will be presented at the Conference. International Conference on Applied Energy, April 21-23, 2010, Singapore CONFERENCE TOPICS Renewable and Green Energy Resources and Technologies Energy Conservation in Buildings Advanced Energy Technologies Energy Systems for Power Generation Energy, Environment and Sustainable Development Please visit at www.icae2010.org for your registration to attend the conference. Professor J. Yan Editor-in-Chief of Elsevier Int. Journal, Applied Energy
International Conference on Applied Energy, Singapore April 21-23, 2010 ### |
|
Posted on Sustainabilitank.info on February 19th, 2010 from: Anna Karklina FIELD’s new briefing note entitled ‘Adaptation under the Copenhagen Accord’ is now available in PDF at http://www.field.org.uk/highlights/adaptation-copenhagen-accord. The note focuses specifically on the treatment of adaptation in the political declaration known as the Copenhagen Accord – the most discussed outcome of the December 2009 Copenhagen climate change conference. ? The FIELD Team The Foundation for International Environmental Law ans Development. ### |
|
Posted on Sustainabilitank.info on February 19th, 2010 The correction – Yes – the Press Conference was at 7:30 am with the UNSG and four journalists present, but the two leaders – Gordon Brown and Meles Zenawi were present only via video-conference. They were at confortable hours back there in London and Addis Ababa. =============== The most important issue in our opinion that the following shows that the UN is incapable to address, is the question if it will be unavoidable to bribe China into being more effective in its efforts to curb CO2 emissions in its development and manufacturing-for-export policies – and use for this the funds that the UN tries to raise for helping developing countries in joint projects with the old industrialized nation. We think that the UN Secretary-General owes the funding countries a clear answer on this and the UN needs an open PRESS CORPS that is capable of asking such questions. Obviously, Matthew Lee points out also other issues – some of which in our opinion are really non issues – but nevertheless they become issues if clear answers are not provided by the UN – such as the IPCC problems. Also, the snow-in-New York issue could have been handled better by turning it into science from the intended background of a joke. This is why we will post the following also in our “cartoons” categoty on our website. ——– At UN, Climate Change Financing Discussed, IPCC Glacier and Pachauri Questions Not Taken, China Eligibility Debated. By Matthew Russell Lee UNITED NATIONS, February 12, 2010 — At an ill-attended press conference held at 7:30 am Friday in UN Headquarters in New York, Secretary General Ban Ki-moon introduced Ethiopian prime minister Meles Zenawi and his UK counterpart Gordon Brown as chairs of an Advisory Group on Climate Change Financing. In a tightly controlled media Q &A session that followed, Mr. Ban did not address the controversy swirling about the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s scientific blunders and chairman Doctor Pachauri. Rather, Mr. Ban took on a straw man question, about whether the snow in New York undermined climate science. He also said that he will ask the heads of state of Guyana and Norway to join. Of the four journalists at the UN in New York who raised their hands to ask questions, three were called on by Ban’s spokesman Martin Nesirky. Before a softball question about the snow outside, one asked repeatedly if any of the climate change financing would be given to China. As Mr. Ban looked uncomfortable, both Prime Ministers denied it. Despite hand raised from the beginning of the question and answer session to the end, Inner City Press was not allowed to ask a question. In fact, the question had back on February 3 been asked and dodged by Nesirky: Inner City Press: There has been a lot of controversy around the finding of the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) about the Himalayan glaciers, and they have essentially back-tracked and said that they apologized; it was unverified information. Mr. Pachauri has said he won’t apologize. But, I wonder what, given the importance of climate change and the IPCC to the Secretary-General’s agenda, what does he make of this controversy and how can the IPCC process be reformed to not create this kind of controversy on the issue? Spokesperson: The Secretary-General is obviously aware of these reports and what’s been happening in the last few days and weeks. But, you know, ultimately it’s for the IPCC to address this. It’s for the IPCC to talk about this, and they have talked about this in some detail. They have said that they regret what happened, and reaffirming their strong commitment to a high level of performance in their reporting and so on. So, therefore, it’s not really for the Secretary-General to weigh in on this specific report. There are many reports, there are many other aspects to the work on climate change, which is absolutely vital, as you’ve mentioned; it’s one of his priorities. So, I think that the most important thing is to focus on the road to Mexico and how you can improve the prospects for that meeting and what needs to be done between now and then. Inner City Press: [inaudible] because… in the last 24 hours… Mr. Pachauri…. Spokesperson: IPCC regrets, Matthew, IPCC regrets. Question: So, I mean, Mr. Pachauri says he wasn’t responsible for it. So, I guess what I’m saying is, who is in charge of the agency on which Ban Ki-moon rests his, you know, the case has been made by that agency [inaudible].
Spokesperson: No, no, Matthew, the Secretary-General does not rest his case purely on the IPCC. There is an enormous body of evidence and information out there from various different sources, not just from the IPCC, however important that may be. And an error in one report does not undermine the entire science that is clearly proven. So who apologized — the IPCC’s website? To have nothing to say about the various scandals surrounding the IPCC and Pachauri seems strange. To not allow the question a week later is worse. Update: in the hallway after the press conference, away from the screen of the Spokesperson, UN climate advisor Janos Pasztor at least took Inner City Press’ other question, on the way to Ban’s next appearance, signing compacts with some senior officials, on which we will later report — how this UN Panel would interact with the IMF’s idea of using SDRs. It will consult, Pasztor said. Possible duplication of effort? Also after the press conference, a senior Chinese official told Inner City Press that the question about China taking climate change funding was “stupid” and “insulting.” He said, “We are entitled to it!” * * *
UN’s Ban Has No Comment on Himalayan Glacier Gaffe, Doesn’t Rely on IPCC By Matthew Russell Lee UNITED NATIONS, February 3 — With various ice research related scandals opening up around UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon’s signature issue of climate change, Inner City Press on Wednesday asked his spokesman Martin Nesirky for Ban’s views on the misleading of the public about the melting of Himalayan glaciers. While Nesirky dodged the question, Ban’s climate change advisor later in the day told Inner City Press that Ban may have something to say later on the topic. Meanwhile Doctor Pachauri, with no guidance from Ban, it attacking those who question him, refusing to answer questions or apologize. From the UN’s transcription of its February 3 noon briefing, video here: Spokesperson Nesirky: Last question, Matthew. Inner City Press: There has been a lot of controversy around the finding of the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) about the Himalayan glaciers, and they have essentially back-tracked and said that they apologized; it was unverified information. Mr. Pachauri has said he won’t apologize. But, I wonder what, given the importance of climate change and the IPCC to the Secretary-General’s agenda, what does he make of this controversy and how can the IPCC process be reformed to not create this kind of controversy on the issue? Spokesperson: The Secretary-General is obviously aware of these reports and what’s been happening in the last few days and weeks. But, you know, ultimately it’s for the IPCC to address this. It’s for the IPCC to talk about this, and they have talked about this in some detail. They have said that they regret what happened, and reaffirming their strong commitment to a high level of performance in their reporting and so on. So, therefore, it’s not really for the Secretary-General to weigh in on this specific report. There are many reports, there are many other aspects to the work on climate change, which is absolutely vital, as you’ve mentioned; it’s one of his priorities. So, I think that the most important thing is to focus on the road to Mexico and how you can improve the prospects for that meeting and what needs to be done between now and then. Inner City Press: [inaudible] because… in the last 24 hours… Mr. Pachauri…. Spokesperson: IPCC regrets, Matthew, IPCC regrets. Question: So, I mean, Mr. Pachauri says he wasn’t responsible for it. So, I guess what I’m saying is, who is in charge of the agency on which Ban Ki-moon rests his, you know, the case has been made by that agency
Spokesperson: No, no, Matthew, the Secretary-General does not rest his case purely on the IPCC. There is an enormous body of evidence and information out there from various different sources, not just from the IPCC, however important that may be. And an error in one report does not undermine the entire science that is clearly proven. So who apologized — the IPCC’s website? To have nothing to say about the various scandals surrounding the IPCC and Pachauri seems strange. It’s why some say Ban is now shifted to rolling the dice on a trip to North Korea — our next story, forthcoming. Footnote: The UN’s and Ban’s climate unit under Janos Pasztor, which was told there was no room for it in the UN’s Temporary North Lawn Conference Building where Ban has his office, is now looking at space in the Alcoa Building on 48th Street, Inner City Press is told. For now, they are left behind in the nearly empty UN skyscaper where asbestos removal has already begun. Meanwhile, Pachauri has wished asbestos on his critics…. * * * Permalink |
| ### |
|
Posted on Sustainabilitank.info on February 19th, 2010 According to 2007 data released in 2010 – Prague outranks Paris and Stockholm among EU’s richest regions – But The EUobserver points out that pre-crisis data is pre-History. To be relevant – the EU must advance to the Computer Age and harmonize data collection. the very interesting article is by VALENTINA POP 18.02.2010, EUOBSERVER / BRUSSELS – Prague outranked Paris, Stockholm and Vienna in a list of the EU’s richest regions published on Thursday (18 February) by Eurostat, the bloc’s statistics office. The chart is however based on 2007 data, at the height of an economic boom in the central European state. Prague ranked fifth among Europe’s 271 regions in terms of gross domestic product per inhabitant, up from the 12th place last year {that is 2006}. It is the only region from the new member states to feature in the upper ranks of EU’s richest areas. Top of the list continued to be London, Luxembourg, Brussels and Hamburg, as it was the case in the last Eurostat ranking published in 2009, also based on three-year old data. The poorest regions are still those in the newest member states – Bulgaria and Romania, but also Hungary and Poland. Prague’s performance may be a one-off, as it happened in 2007, when the Czech Republic registered its record economic growth level since 1989, mostly driven by manufacturing industry and a high domestic consumption level. It was also the year when for the first time Czech exports overtook imports, production of car, electronics and computers was booming, while inflation and unemployment were at the lowest levels in 10 years. In particular, the Belgian politician pointed to certain Eurostat decisions relating to accounting practices used by telecommunication companies in Europe. “The decisions did not seem quite the same,” in different countries, he said. Commission economy spokesman Amadeu Altafaj Tardio said on Wednesday it was unclear whether new Eurostat powers would be accompanied by internal reforms, although he did not rule out the possibility of some increase in staff numbers. The statistics agency has not been immune from controversy in the past. In 2003, three senior officials were removed from their posts and a number of contracts with outside companies were cancelled after it was alleged that a double accounting system had been used during the 1990s to transfer large amounts of money to secret bank accounts. Permalink |
| ### |
|
Posted on Sustainabilitank.info on February 19th, 2010 « Rencontre Régionale: Adaptation aux changements climatiques au Maghreb: Bilan et Perspectives » from: Prof. Dr. Med-Saïd KARROUK to African Le Comité National IGBP, et l’Université Hassan II, Faculté des Lettres et des Sciences Humaines Ben M’Sick, Casablanca (Maroc) – Avec le soutien du programme ACCA du CRDI et du DFID Organisent : La « Rencontre Régionale: Adaptation aux changements climatiques au Maghreb: Le 16 et 17 mars 2010, FLSH Ben M’Sick, Casablanca Préambule : En réponse aux défis environnementaux et socio-économiques majeurs liés aux changements climatiques, placés actuellement au cœur de l’ordre du jour des grandes réunions internationales, et dans la perspective d’une contribution à l’effort mondial de sensibilisation sur les enjeux du changement du climat, que cette rencontre sur l’adaptation aux changements climatiques au Maghreb est organisée, à laquelle seront invitées des personnalités de très haut niveau et d’éminents scientifiques et experts. D’autre part, un plan d’action concret sera proposé pour la mise en place de projets prioritaires d’adaptation pour les gouvernements, les entreprises et la société civile. Ceci permettra en même temps d’imprimer une dynamique nouvelle aux actions jusqu’ici timides des pays maghrébins sur le plan international dans le domaine des changements climatiques. La diffusion de l’information recueillie durant cette conférence sera effectuée par le réseau « ClimDev » qui desserve plus de 10 000 lecteurs francophones à travers le monde. A cela s’ajoutera la publication des actes de la conférence qui seront adressés aux différents acteurs visés par la conférence : les décideurs, les scientifiques, les ONG, …etc. Objectifs de la rencontre : Cette rencontre a trois objectifs : Les axes de cette rencontre sont les suivants : Enjeux : Gravement préoccupés par la vulnérabilité des systèmes socioéconomiques et de production du Maghreb au changement climatique et aux faibles capacités de riposte de la région, les décideurs politiques ont retenu le changement climatique comme l’une des préoccupations prioritaires et ont lancé un appel de coopérations aux partenaires pour appuyer leurs pays et les communautés économiques régionales afin qu’ils puissent intégrer de façon efficace la problématique du changement climatique dans leurs plans de développement. Les négociations actuelles sur le changement climatique recherchent un nouvel élan pour l’après 2012 qui prendrait en compte les leçons du Protocole de Kyoto et la nécessaire convergence des priorités des diverses Parties. Dans cette perspective elles ont identifié quatre domaines-clés pour un dialogue de haut niveau, pour la coopération et l’action de long terme sur le changement climatique. Il s’agit : Le Maghreb se doit d’y inscrire sa spécificité et ses priorités et d’en saisir les opportunités pour son développement. La Rencontre de Casablanca s’intègre dans cet élan et souhaite participer à l’aide à la décision pour une adaptation efficace par la recherche et le renforcement des capacités vis-à-vis de ce crucial problème, celui des Changements Climatiques au Maghreb. Public cible : Comité scientifique : KARROUK Mohammed Saïd, Faculté des Lettres et des Sciences Humaines Ben M’Sick, Casablanca Comité d’organisation : KARROUK Mohammed Saïd, Faculté des Lettres et des Sciences Humaines Ben M’Sick, Casablanca Date-limite et directives pour soumettre des résumés : Nous voudrions inviter les participants à présenter des communications orales et des affiches basés sur les thèmes de la rencontre, liés à la région du Maghreb. Les résumés doivent être soumis avant le 31 janvier 2010 par courriel, en anglais, français ou arabe. Aide aux participants : La rencontre fournira l’aide de voyage, d’hébergement et de restauration, partielle ou totale, à un nombre limité de participants qui sont dans le besoin d’aide financière. On s’attend à ce que les participants puissent financer leurs propres dépenses et ou recevoir l’appui d’une autre organisation pour couvrir les frais. Conditions : Frais de participation : Conférences invitées : Programme Prévisionnelle : Programme : 09:00 – 09:30 *************** Directeur Exécutif du Comité National IGBP (Global Change) Permalink |
| ### |
|
Posted on Sustainabilitank.info on February 18th, 2010 Based on the same Press Release from Bonn as we did, The Washington Post put on the following: U.N. climate chief resigns: Yvo de Boer to quit in July. We bring here the Washington Post note and our further analysis at the end of it. ———– By Juliet Eilperin Yvo de Boer, the United Nations’ top climate official, announced Thursday that he would step down from his post in July to work in the private sector on environmental sustainability. De Boer has overseen international climate talks for nearly four years, laboring without success to produce a legally binding pact to reduce global greenhouse gas emissions. His departure comes amid uncertainty as to whether the 193 member nations of the U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change can produce a final treaty in Mexico in December. “Working with my colleagues . . . in support of the climate change In recent weeks it has become unclear whether the Copenhagen accord, In his statement, de Boer, a former government official in the “I have always maintained that while governments provide the necessary The United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, which ———- What is… KPMG? KPMG is a really huge, long established accounting firm. It formed in 1987 following the merger between the accounting firms of Peat Marwick International (PMI) and Klynveld Main Goerdeler (KMG), however, the history of the combined business can be traced back to 1870. What do the letters “KPMG” stand for? The name of the firm, KPMG, is not actually an initialism. However, the roots of the name stem from four partners in the firms that merged to form KPMG. The “K” in “KPMG” stands for “Klynveld”. In 1917, Piet Klynveld founded the accounting firm Klynveld Kraayenhof & Co. in Amsterdam. The final merger formed the firm in 1987, when Peat Marwick International (PMI) and Klynveld Main Goerdeler (KMG) merged as KPMG – and its global network of professional firms providing Audit, Tax, and Advisory services operates operate in 148 countries and has more than 113,000 professionals working in member firms around the world – one could easily say that this is a giant mini-UN multi-national on professional economic auditing issues. http://www.kpmg.com One can say that KPMG in many ways had its roots in the Netherlands. * * * KPMG – Corporate citizenship: “This is an exciting and critical moment in the debate around the role of business in tackling the world’s most pressing problems. Problems such as climate change, food and water scarcity, poverty, security, development and economic growth. “We have a clear vision of the role of KPMG firms. We believe we should use our skills and our resources to become fully involved in finding sustainable solutions to global and local issues, working alongside governments, civil society groups and international agencies. This vision is in line with our values — where we make a commitment to the communities in which we work. “Locally, member firms around the world are using their skills to support local community initiatives and projects. Globally, we are using our capacity and capability as an international network to support the Millennium Development Goals, working strategically with governments, non-governmental organizations and charities to make an impact. To help combat the effects of climate change, we have developed the KPMG Global Green Initiative, which includes an ambitious target to reduce our combined global carbon footprint by 25 percent by 2010. “These are often big and complex challenges, but I see, first hand, truly remarkable examples of KPMG people making a difference in the world. While there is still much to do, we are confident we are making a significant contribution in creating a more sustainable world and we are proud to share some of this with you.” Michael Hastings * * * KPMG International established the Global Development Initiative. This innovative program takes KPMG commitment to corporate citizenship to a new level, bringing together KPMG people from around the world so they can tackle global issues. Jane Smallman To achieve this, KPMG firms have partnered with numerous International Development Agencies and Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs) to pioneer a model of professional collaboration. The aim is that we apply our people’s skills, knowledge and resources to sustainable enterprises in pursuit of the United Nation’s Millennium Development Goals (MDGs). By working with a number of organizations, KPMG people have already made an impact on some pressing global issues. Some of the organizations include The Millennium Promise, Oxfam, Save the Children, UNICEF and World Vision. KPMG says it is already involved in climate change issues via its 2008 started GREEN INITIATIVE that as they say -” which, amongst other progressive strategies, includes the ambition to reduce our global carbon footprint by 25 percent by 2010.” ? ? ? ———— Yvo de Boer will still be at the helm of the UNFCCC for the coming four months when one expected the UN to rev up its efforts for the December 2010 meeting in Mexico – Mexico City or Cancun – we got as of now different indications. Without prior agreements, it is again unrealistic to expect a clear UN mandate to come out from a UNFCCC COP, but it is important that someone out there manages the travel time-tables of the UN folks for the preparatory meetings. Also, there is the need to discuss where the UN wants to take the UNFCCC institution, and if there is an intent to appoint a new Secretary-General – and if so – who shall he be? It seems that time has come to pass the batton to a South American considering the need to come up with someone from the South, and the clear Asian increase in CO2 emissions. So – what will it be? Will this new debate come instead of the search for an agreement of substance? Permalink |
| ### |
|
Posted on Sustainabilitank.info on February 18th, 2010 Climate Change and Business Success Tuesday 23rd February 2010
This Earthcast will examine the challenges posed by measuring, reducing, and offsetting emissions and the innovative solutions to common challenges currently being employed by businesses across the world. Practical tips will cover everything from the easy actions that will cut waste of materials, water and energy and save you money, to the big changes in processes, products and business models. Join the authors of The Three Secrets of Green Business and Doing Business in a New Climate for an event focusing on the challenges and opportunities that climate change poses for businesses of all sizes. Gareth Kane, an environmental consultant, has worked with hundreds of organizations to improve their environmental performance. He has appeared as a media pundit on sustainability issues on the BBC Six O’Clock News, Countryfile and The Politics Show. In 2008 The Journal newspaper named Gareth as a ‘Rising Star, Future Leader’ for his work on sustainability. Paul Lingl and Deborah Carlson both work for The David Suzuki Foundation, developing climate change solutions and greenhouse gas management strategies for businesses and other organizations. 20% Discount by typing EARTHCAST when ordering any book at www.earthscan.co.uk. Praise for the Earthcasts Series: “Earthscan is performing a really valuable public service by enabling us all to listen to some the world’s best sustainability consultants and to be able to ask them questions.” “Brilliant! I found the session to be informative and very relevant to current events. Keep up the good work.” “Well timed, well chaired, well presented – smoothest webcast I’ve seen!” “An excellent way of hearing about recent developments from leading thinkers in the field.” Further information To view an archived version of all previous events, visit www.earthscan.co.uk/earthcasts The slides used in each presentation are also available. Permalink |
| ### |
|
Posted on Sustainabilitank.info on February 18th, 2010 Executive Secretary Yvo de Boer leaves United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change Secretariat. When Yvo de Boer – the Executive Secretary of the UNFCCC, headquartered in Bonn, thanks to a wish of the German government to find some use for that city after moving its capital back to Berlin, a UN body run by delegates of UN Member States that was located in Bonn together with the Secretariats of the other Rio Conventions Secretariats, according to UN rules set up in New York, came for the first time to New York as a UN official, back in 2006, when I was still an official member of the UN Press Corps, I fought for having UN Department of Public Information set up a Press Conference with the head of this important new UN body. He was given about 10 minutes in the Press briefing-room – that infamous S-226. I organized a few correspondents to demand more time with him, and we did have the chance to talk with him, officially, further using the UNCA room (UN Correspondents Association) as a venue. The Pakistani head of UNCA did not like it. Neither The New York Times nor the CNN came. Their correspondents at the time did not believe yet in climate change – actually very few – but the best journalists came – those that were the budding internet breed. Just four years ago – the UN was still considered as the place where one should be able to explain the global aspects of CO2 emissions. The problems with not being able to do so were palpable. I thought then that Yvo understood where his main opposition will be – in this New York spirit of the UN – and thanks to his EU base Yvo de Boer will be ready to fight for the cause and not be just another UN bureaucrat. But I was disappointed. He did become a UN bureaucrat and smiled – ear to ear – along with UNSG Ban Ki-moon in that “SEAL THE DEAL” – when there was no deal – CHARADE. The following press release that is being released by the official UNFCCC Press officers that worked along his side all those years, shows that Yvo de Boer understood the reality of the situation all along – but does not explain why he did not try to manage the subject with personal pride in what he was doing there. Though personal, but this is nevertheless something that throws a shadow on Mr. de Boer, is the fact that when under the new UN Secretary General, Mr. Ahmad Fawzi managed finally the feat to declare our website as non-UN-Press under his rules, something he fought for but was rejected by Mr. Sashi Tharoor, the Under Secretary General under UNSG Kofi Annan, Yvo de Boer bowed to the decision – though he knew well that our website is fighting for what should have been his cause in his job. Yvo de Boer ran an organization that was lacking positive press because he bowed to those in New York that did not want climate change positive press. It is as simple as that – so he is responsible for failures by not having fought strong enough for success. Yes, we knew all the time that it will eventually be the industry and business that will, come the day, move on climate change work. We knew all the time that China is in the lead despite everything that they were saying in public – climate change does work well for innovative business and that is why it will win in the end. We knew that the meeting in Poznan is a waste of time and there is no deal for Copenhagen. We had misgivings about going to Bali, and when I came to Vienna to participate at a pre-Bali meeting Mr. De Boer bowed to a note from Mr. Ahmad Fawzi and was not ready to let me in as Press. Had he been ready to show backbone for the subject he was in charge off – he could have found ways to resolve the conflict by granting limited accreditation – for God’s sake – he knew me, knew what I was doing, knew the problems, where was his fighting spirit? Yes, we think that Yvo de Boer will be a good addition to the climate consultancy business, and lobby within the States that can start implement such programs internally, and within business relationships, in context of more limited groupings – like a G2 – a possible G5 or G7 – a United EU, etc. They need the experience he has accumulated, and we hope that in these contexts he will indeed develop his career and find himself as well. KPMG is a good outfit for this. Work with Universities is good as well, and personally would love to see him involved at the Earth Institute at Columbia University where he could still be around at the UN periphery and finally not be hindered from speaking truth. Also, let me repeat once more – Copenhagen was not the disaster as the UN contends. It was thanks to President Obama’s trip to Beijing that it has become the start to moves in the real world – with China and The White House officially on board. Will the new Secretary General of the UNFCCC be chosen so that he leads within the context of the reality that is now open for all to see? Pitty that Mr. Yvo de Boer did burn himself out by putting himself too much in those losing dancing shoes – though we see now that the dance was not unknown to him. ——————– A UNFCCC PRESS RELEASE Executive Secretary leaves United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change Secretariat <http://unfccc.int/press/press_releases_advisories/items/4712.php> (Bonn, 18 February 2010) – Mr. Yvo de Boer has announced today that he will About the UNFCCC With 194 Parties, the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change For further information, please contact: Mr. Eric Hall, Spokesperson/Manager of Communications and Media Mr. John Hay, Media Information Officer Permalink |
| ### |
|
Posted on Sustainabilitank.info on February 17th, 2010 The problem with our media is that the reporting does not highlight what is really important. I happened to watch President Obama’s speech and what stroke me was his assertion that while coming to an understanding with the Republicans on the inclusion of nuclear power in the new energy mix – he wants them to help him make nuclear power economical by putting a price on CO2 emissions – as simple as that – nuclear power being uneconomical – causes at this time an increase in deficit that the economy cannot afford. So – President Obama took his decision knowing that Nuclear is Snake Oil and he passes the onus on the Republicans to help him avoid the blow to the economy that comes from doing anything that increase the deficit and does not create an industry that stands on ite own – private – feet. What kind of Conservatives could go for this program only half-way? President Obama does not seem to have in his pocket the Republicans agreement to go for a complete solution that he points out, and it seems that by going with them just half way – that is how far they are ready to go – he left behind the environmentalists that backed him to his starting point. If the Republicans do not join for the whole trip – he ends up losing also politically by losing the environmentalists. Nobody assumed that being a President is going to be easy, but life for the President could be made easier by taking a guiding map first and starting to walk according to the path he draws on that map for all to see. The first step on that map could start with a regulatory move that puts a clear cost on carbon – drives up the cost of polluting energy sources and then allows private enterprise to swim on their own. These first steps will surely create enemies but also friends. Not taking these decisive path – only enemies. Further evidence to day came from two oil companies that President Obama had on board when promising to fight for a clear price of carbon, have left him right after his pro-nuclear statement of yesterday. These are BP America and ConocoPhillips that left the US Climate Partnership (USCAP) of industry, some Environmentalists, and labor interests that came out for a Climate legislation that includes a Cap&Trade element. The only Oil company that is still on board is Royal Dutch Shell Oil PLC, while the other majors – ExxonMobil and Chevron were never part of it. So why did BP and Conoco leave? That is clear – without an effort of providing a level playing field that comes from a CARBON TAX why should they just stand by watching an Administration that is ready to buy Republicans by serving them as breakfast subsidized nuclear power as a way to decrease the dependence on oil? The oil companies that were ready to move into the renewable energy market, and know that nuclear is hopelessly uneconomic, have no interest in nuclear, so they will just join now rather the other US oil sisters to oppose the President. The Wall Street Journal reporting, to help befuddle the issue, mentions also Caterpillar as third company that left USCAP – true as it might be – it just hides the true reason of what is going on. The Editorial is better, but does not believe in the whole CAP & TAX idea – so it campaigns against it. General Electric Co. and Honeywell International Inc. continue their membership in USCAP – makes sense. The Washington Post has good reporting – but the crucial paragraphs are somewhere at the end of the article in the follow up page. You know, lots of people read the headlines and the front page piece only – they will never know that Obama spoke also beyond those billions he throws into a fire that is yet to catch on for a couple of years hence – this while jobs are needed before November 2010 – and the Republicans may or may not want to help him before that. From the Washington Post: ———————— Obama backs loans for new nuclear plant – President Barack Obama announced a guarantee of $8.3 billion in loans for the first new U.S. nuclear power plant in nearly three decades, underscoring the administration’s efforts to reduce dependence on foreign oil. (Feb. 16) By Michael D. Shear and Steven Mufson President Obama seized a key Republican energy initiative as his own Tuesday, promising $8.33 billion in federal loan guarantees for a pair of Georgia reactors that he said would give new life to the U.S. nuclear power industry and create a surge of high-skill jobs. By helping to finance the construction of the reactors — the first new U.S. nuclear power units in more than 30 years — Obama is hoping to jump-start his efforts to pass comprehensive climate-change legislation, which has stalled in Congress in the face of GOP opposition. The president is also casting the nuclear initiative as a centerpiece of his plan to produce clean-energy jobs, although construction on the two reactors would not begin for more than a year. Nonetheless, after touring a Maryland training facility for energy jobs, Obama said the competition for those positions worldwide will be fierce. But Obama’s announcement set up a clash with environmentalists who remain worried about the safety of nuclear power and waste disposal. And it drew criticism from some conservatives who called it a risky move that could cost taxpayers billions if construction costs spiral, electricity demand sags and utilities default. Jack Spencer, a fellow at the Heritage Foundation and a supporter of nuclear power, warned: “Loan guarantees do not a nuclear renaissance make.” He said the guarantees would “perpetuate the problems that have plagued nuclear energy for 30 years: the regulatory structure and nuclear waste [disposal] and too much government dependence.” The loan guarantees announced Tuesday would sharply lower borrowing costs to finance new reactors at the Alvin W. Vogtle Electric Generating Plant in eastern Georgia near the South Carolina border, where two units are being operated by the Atlanta-based Southern Co., a large utility. The loan guarantees would cover part of the $14 billion in financing needs; Japanese export loan guarantees would cover another portion. Southern, which owns 46 percent of the plant, and its partners would have equity interests as well. The companies would “definitely have skin in the game,” said Energy Secretary Steven Chu. Administration officials said that the loan guarantees would not cost taxpayers anything and that companies would pay fees to cover the risk of default. But critics said the administration was vastly underestimating the likelihood of the loans going bad. Jobs would be created, but not right away. The nuclear units would require 3,500 construction positions and later 800 jobs for operating the plant. But Southern chief executive David Ratcliffe noted that the company would not draw the loan guarantees and begin construction until the NRC grants a license, which it does not expect until late 2011. Moreover, the Energy Department and Southern are still negotiating terms of the guarantees. To deflect critics, the president promised efforts to make the technology even safer and asserted that nuclear power must be a significant part of global attempts to reduce reliance on polluting, carbon-based fuels. “It’s that simple,” he said. “This one plant, for example, will cut carbon pollution by 16 million tons each year when compared to a similar coal plant. That’s like taking 3.5 million cars off the road.” The reactors would be able to power 550,000 homes, providing electricity to 1.4 million people. Obama has long been amenable to new nuclear power and said throughout the presidential campaign that it had to be part of a comprehensive energy strategy. The loan guarantee he promised Tuesday would come from $18.5 billion in money authorized during President George W. Bush’s administration under the Energy Policy Act of 2005. But in the latest budget proposal, Obama has proposed tripling that to $54.5 billion, an amount that Chu said could help jump-start seven to 10 new nuclear power reactors. The United States has 104 commercial nuclear reactors. White House press secretary Robert Gibbs acknowledged later that the push for an increased use of nuclear power “might not make everybody in [the president's] party completely comfortable.” But he said the announcement demonstrates to Republicans Obama’s “willingness to be part of this dialogue.” “The president believed throughout the campaign, and said as much, that we need a balanced approach,” Gibbs said. “He made good on that balanced approach today.” After a meeting with Republican leaders at the White House last week, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) cited construction of nuclear power plants as one of the areas that “we might be able to work on together.” In his speech at a training center in Lanham run by the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Obama called the new loan guarantees “just the beginning” and noted that his budget proposal calls for billions more in federal subsidies. But he urged Republican supporters of nuclear power to “recognize that we’re not going to achieve a big boost in nuclear capacity unless we also create a system of incentives to make clean energy profitable.” He said that “as long as producing carbon pollution carries no cost, traditional plants that use fossil fuels will be more cost-effective than plants that use nuclear fuel.” That, he said, is why Congress should pass comprehensive energy and climate legislation. After talks last week with GOP congressional leaders, Obama said, “I believe there’s real common ground here, and my administration will be working to build on areas of agreement.” But, he said, the money would be better spent retrofitting buildings and reducing energy consumption. “The loan guarantees announced today may ease the politics around comprehensive clean-energy and climate legislation, but we do not believe that they are the best policy.” Permalink |
| ### |
|
Posted on Sustainabilitank.info on February 16th, 2010 HIGH COURT IN TEL AVIV FLEXES ITS LIBERAL MUSCLES. On many issues, from human rights to social mores, Israel’s high court is well out in front of society at large. Israeli politicians now want to clip the court’s wings. Tel Aviv, an apartment building from the Ottoman era on the edge of the Karmel market. The Sabbath is about to end, and a casserole is baking in the oven in the apartment of the Berner-Kadisch family. The three sons are playing in their rooms, while the parents drink tea in the living room. The parents are Nicole, 44, an attorney, and Ruti, 45, an academic with a doctorate in Middle Eastern studies. The two women alternated having children, with the help of a sperm bank and a reproduction clinic. Their first son, Matan, was born in 1995. Ruti was his biological mother and Nicole adopted him, which is permitted in some states of the United States. Their problems began when they moved to Israel a year later. Both women had Israeli citizenship, but the consulate general in Los Angeles refused to recognize Nicole as the adoptive mother. The two women contested the decision in an Israeli court and, after 10 years, the Israeli Supreme Court recognized the adoption. The birth certificate of their youngest son, 6-year-old Segev, is lying on the coffee table in the living room. Nicole and Ruti are listed as his parents, under Israel’s national coat of arms. The Interior Ministry issued the document only recently. Once again, the Supreme Court was more progressive than the country. The court’s ruling on the parenthood of Nicole and Ruti is only one of many sensational decisions in recent years. “If the Supreme Court didn’t exist, who would safeguard democracy in Israel?” asks Ruti Berner-Kadisch. Insisting on Compliance The court takes an interventionist approach. For instance, it prohibited the country’s attorney general from dropping rape charges against former President Moshe Katsav in return for a confession of other, lesser offences. In the conflict with the Palestinians, the judges have resisted pressure from the military and the government and are insisting on compliance with human rights regulations. Is it legal to use force on a Palestinian if he has information about an imminent terrorist attack? No, the high court ruled in 1999, when it imposed a torture ban on the military and the intelligence services. In 2006, the judges set narrow limits on the practice of preventive liquidation of presumed terrorists. Under the new rules, the targeted killings are only allowed if no civilians are harmed and there is no possibility of arrest. The Supreme Court has also issued several orders to move the security wall with which Israel protects itself against terrorists along its border with the West Bank. Arguing that there is no such thing as absolute security, the judges limited the Israeli government’s ability to seize land owned by Palestinians. “In no other country in the world has a high court dealt with issues of international law as much as it has in our country,” says Aharon Barak, the former president of the Supreme Court. This is precisely why the judges have made so many enemies with their liberal administration of justice. For some rabbis, the court’s rulings are nothing short of blasphemy. Some generals consider the judges to be a security risk, and politicians see them as rivals. Doris Beinisch, 67, an elegant woman wearing gold earrings and a scarf draped over her shoulders, has been the president of the Supreme Court for more than three years. From her office, she has a view of the Israeli parliament, the Knesset, while the prime minister’s office is on the other side. Beinisch points out that her office sits right in the middle, both physically and symbolically, between the legislative and the executive branches of government. No Constitution The families of Palestinian terror attack victims recently appealed to the Supreme Court to force the government to release the names of the Palestinian prisoners it intends to set free in exchange for Gilad Shalit, the Israeli soldier abducted by Hamas in 2006. Beinisch rejected the appeal. It is only one of 12,000 cases the Supreme Court hears each year (by comparison, the US Supreme Court hears fewer than 100 cases a year). Every Israeli citizen can appeal to the court to raise doubts about government decisions or laws enacted by the Knesset. The “High Court of Justice” (known by the Hebrew acronym “Bagaz”) also serves as a court of appeal for the lower courts. The central problem, says Beinisch, is that Israel doesn’t have a constitution. Although the 1948 declaration of independence expressly stipulates the creation of a written constitution, it hasn’t been formulated yet — in deference to the ultra-orthodox Jews, who refuse to recognize any constitution other than the Torah. This frequently gives the government and members of parliament an excuse to question the sovereignty of the highest court — for political expediency, of course. In addition, because there is no constitution, there is nothing that clearly states whether each citizen has certain inalienable rights. The country only has its so-called basic laws, which, like any other laws, can be amended with a simple majority. According to the basic law on “human dignity and freedom,” Israel aims to be a Jewish state and a democracy at the same time. But what does this mean for its roughly 1.3 million Arab citizens? Not Allowed for Arabs Adel Kaadan, 54, lives in Baka al-Gharbiya, a small Arab city of 30,000 people halfway between Tel Aviv and Haifa. He wanted to move away years ago, he says, citing problems like bad roads, a lack of waste disposal services and asbestos in schools. He saw an advertisement for a new community, Kazir, which was being planned a few kilometers north of Baka al-Gharbiya. It sounded appealing: new roads, inexpensive land, his own house. But when Kaadan went to see the town council, he was told that Arabs were not allowed to move to Kazir. “I thought I was a citizen of Israel,” says Kaadan, who works as a nurse in a hospital. “In school, we were taught that discrimination on the basis of race, gender or religion was not allowed.” The Association for Civil Rights in Israel took on Kaadan’s case. Eleven years and two trials later, Kaadan finally won the case, when the town of Kazir was ordered to sell him a piece of land. Meanwhile, the house is almost finished, and in six months Kaadan plans to move in, together with his wife and their five children. “It’s good that the court exists,” says Kaadan, “but why do you have to go through the trouble of going to court just to assert your rights?” Even when it comes to the major conflict in the region, between the Palestinians and Israelis, the judges insist on compliance with human rights laws. In Nilin, for example, a small town in the West Bank. The security wall separates the village from the Israeli settlement of Hashmonaim — and Palestinian farmers from their olive plantations. Every morning, the residents of Nilin protest against the wall, usually peacefully. On July 7, 2008, the military stopped the protestors and a few activists were arrested, including Ashraf Abu Rahma. The soldiers blindfolded him, tied his hands behind his back and let him sit in the sun for one-and-a-half hours. Then He Shoots “Suddenly something hit my right foot,” says Abu Rahma. “I had the feeling that my leg was flying away from my body.” He is sitting, smoking a cigarette, in the courtyard of the Amira family’s house, at the entrance to Nilin. Journalism student Salam Amira, 18, is sitting next to him. She filmed the events of the day from her window, using a digital camera. On the video, the Israeli commander holds down Abu Rahma while one of his soldiers points his gun at the Palestinian’s feet. Then he shoots. The Israel human rights organization Betselem published the video. A military judge merely reprimanded the soldiers for their “improper behavior” and suspended the commander from duty for 10 days. Betselem took the case to the Supreme Court, which ordered that both soldiers be punished more severely. The incident, the court argued, was a “serious deviation from the moral norms incumbent upon all soldiers in the Israeli army, particularly senior commanders.” “Although it is a Jewish court, it issued a fair verdict,” says Abu Rahma. These words of praise don’t come easy for Rahma, whose brother was killed when he was shot in the chest during a demonstration a few months ago. Journalism student Amira says that she was positively surprised by the verdict. Palestinian judges, she says, rarely demonstrate such independence. ‘Illegal to Attack the Courts’ Israeli politicians, particularly the conservatives, feel that the court is too independent. To address this concern, the administration of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu plans to propose a law that would limit the power of the judges on Jerusalem’s high court in an important way: The court would no longer have the power to invalidate laws enacted by the parliament. The government also wants to supervise the selection of judges more strictly in the future. The court’s decisions often go too far for many Israelis, as well. Judge Beinisch has become a target of their indignation, so much so that she now has several bodyguards. In a hearing at the end of January, an older, balding man stood up and threw his shoe at the judge. Beinisch was hit in the head and fell, unconscious, from her chair. Although the man who had thrown the shoe was only expressing his dissatisfaction over his divorce decree, the opposition in the parliament claimed that the right wing, with its many reproaches of judges, had made the attack possible in the first place. Ironically, this left Prime Minister Netanyahu with no choice but to express his solidarity with the judge. He called Beinisch and confirmed publicly: “It is illegal to attack the courts.” Permalink |
| ### |
|
Posted on Sustainabilitank.info on February 16th, 2010 We believe that America was not created by God and that Theocrats have no place among its bureaucrats. America was incorporated by groups of free people – not Peoples – but men and women. We believe that the EU should take the America as intended – as its example; and we believe that the UN will eventually also be replaced by this sort of incorporation that is based on the concept that all people were created with the intention to live as equals. ——————– The New York Society for Ethical Culture Believes in Secular Humanism as the driving Force In The American Constitution. Sunday Meeting, February 21, 2010 “One Nation Under the Constitution: Moral Values through Humanistic Government” Faircloth served for 10 years in the Maine legislature, and was elected to the post of Majority Whip of the Maine House of Representatives by his colleagues. An attorney whose duties include lobbying in Washington on behalf of the Secular Coalition’s 10 member organizations, he will show how injustices in American law based on religion are not a historical artifact but a stark current reality. He argues that all Americans have a moral obligation to address these injustices through rejuvenation of our government’s secular heritage and legal system. Faircloth is a strong advocate of the separation of church and state and has received many awards for his work, including the 2006 Legislator of the Year Award from the Maine People’s Alliance. Permalink |
| ### |
|
Posted on Sustainabilitank.info on February 15th, 2010 from f.urban@ids.ac.uk The China Low Carbon Platform (CLCP) has been launched by the Climate Change and Development Centre at the Institute of Development Studies IDS. CLCP is a new knowledge-sharing platform for low carbon energy and low carbon development for China. The aim of CLCP is to disseminate and share information in Chinese and English on low carbon energy systems and low carbon development strategies that reduce poverty and tackle climate change in China. A specific focus of the platform is on Chinese communities. The platform is open to practitioners, researchers, policy-makers, businesses and everyone who is interested in energy and low carbon development in China. Members are encouraged to contribute to the platform by posting blog items, participating in discussions and uploading their own publications in English and/or Chinese. ———- Permalink |
| ### |
