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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

————–
The Association Letter:

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

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

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

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

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

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

—————

Climate Change Directorate:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Cordially invites you to its New York Luncheon Panel

The Business of Climate Change: Post-Copenhagen Opportunities

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

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

Wednesday February 24, 2010
12 to 2pm

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

BOARD OF DIRECTORS

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

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

Dianne Dillon-Ridgley
Director, Interface Inc.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

———-

ADVISORY COUNCIL

Ray Anderson
Founder and Chairman, Interface Inc.

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

Paula Di Perna
Former President, Joyce Foundation.

Eileen Fisher
Founder, Eileen Fisher Co.

Joyce Haboucha
Director, Social Investment, Rockefeller.

Noreen Harrington
Former Managing Director, Goldman Sachs.

Stuart Hart
Director, Sustainable Enterprise Institute, Cornell University.

Terri Ludwig
President, Merrill Lynch Community Development Company.

———–

SPONSORSHIP INFORMATION

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

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

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

Recent Sponsors

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

Participation

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

———–

WNSF Leadership Circle

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

Recent WNSF sponsors include:

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

Initial web site design and hosting provided by Netting Solutions

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

- Any last questions – or tips?

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

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

In a room where members of the Security Council met after us, the subject was “GLOBAL CRISIS, MORE THAN JUST ECONOMICS,” and we learned it is actually a Triple Crisis – Finance, Food, Climate – Crises – a global security problem.

The introducer/moderator was Dr. Jean-Marc Coicaud, Director of the United Nations University Office in New York.

The Presenters were from the World Institute for Development Economics Research (WIDER) of the UNU-WIDER in Helsinki: Professor Finn Tarp the Director of WIDER who is also Chair of Development Economics at the Department of Economics at the University of Copenhagen, and Professor Tony Addison the Chief Economist/ Deputy Director of WIDER who hails from the Universities of Manchester and London.

The Discussant was Joseph H. Melrose Jr., a retired US Ambassador with an illustrious career and stays with the UN during the 61st to 64th UNGA Sessions (2006-2009) and now Professor of International Relations at Ursinus College in Pennsylvania.

The Event Brief read: “As the global economy is passing through a period of profound change, the immediate concern is the financial crisis, originating in the developed world. The global South is affected by lower demand and decreasing prices for their exports, reduced private financial flows, and remittances. Simultaneously, climate change remains unchecked with the growth in greenhouse gas emissions exceeding previous estimates. Finally, malnutrition and hunger are on the rise, propelled by the recent inflation in global food prices. Seeking potential policy solutions, the discussion will address threats to development arising from the global economic crisis, food shortages and climate change.

To put this in simple words – there is a Triple Crisis:

(1) a Finance Crisis
(2) a Food     Crisis
(3) a Climate Crisis.

These three crises sit in their separate “POLICY SILOS” and undermine World Peace. A voice must be heard that this is not just a question of economics but it is a series of social problems that undermine World Peace.

The present economic downturn is the deepest in 60 years and let us remember that the UN is only 65 years old. Just a short few weeks ago we used to say that the world crisis has engulfed the whole world except MENA – now came the Dubai crisis and we see that nobody is safe. I would like to add here that the globalization process got us to this situation and now clearly – when there is a sneeze in one corner of the world its echo will thunder all over. Will the North respond to the need of increased assistance for development? The World Pie, or cake, has shrunk – but that means that the percentage for foreign aid must increase if the pace is to be held in place in what regards the needs by the poorer peoples of the world. Their needs become a question of security for all – Is it likely that the richer countries will increase their aid percentage wise? But see – aid did not increase since the late 80’s. We even look now at a world that will call for CARBON TAXES because of the need to react to climate change. What will be the impact on the economic development in the emerging countries?

Dr. Melrose pointed out that the US funded since 2006 activities on nutrition – last year there was a seminar on the subject. Good ……but?

A question from the room – Nobody mentioned demography & population increase – the population explosion!

Tony Addison – on the global food architecture & population – at $80/barrel of oil going to $200 – biofuels becomes attractive – so global food architecture calls for higher efficiency. 1.5 billion people in high poverty – institutions are needed – even remittance flows are drying up.

Fossil fuels subsidies are much higher then is the ecosystem aid. Watch the origins of conflict and energy resources and follow the lines of fossil fuels. That was the greatest finale I witnessed at a UN show. This could happen only in a Think tank environment and one would wish every country to send someone to these sessions – they might learn something about what makes human disasters happen. You just cannot paint man made catastrophes with the natural disaster hazard colors.

I am also thinking of our recent posting about Ethiopia, a country with 5.2 million people needing food help from abroad, while plans are being made to turn it into a new bread-basket for exports. Is this something that we should also look at closely? Is there someone who will help integrate local needs with export potential?

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.

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.

“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.

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.

Border tariff:

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.

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.”

Zero Carbon Caravan newsletter #4

Chris Keene , January 29, 2010.
The Zero Carbon Caravan finally made it to Copenhagen – see the blog zerocarboncaravan.blogspot.com (although it isn’t quite complete yet – we still have some audio recordings of meetings to upload).

You can follow Zero Carbon on Twitter http://twitter.com/0co2caravan

We got quite a bit of media coverage, they say  – three TV interviews and four on radio, mentions in the Times, Independent, Guardian and Telegraph and dozens of local newspapers, and lots of coverage on the internet.

We visited lots of interesting places showing solutions to climate change – in transport, energy, buildings, lifestyle and food production, as well as interviewing lots of people and visiting some really inspiring places demonstrating such ideas to the public.

We had four zero carbon concerts – two acoustic, one using solar electricity, and the other using electricity generated by a bicycle, and we held an international telephone conference at the University of East Anglia, as well as numerous public meetings.

In Copenhagen, the information collected on the journey was put onto datasticks and presented to two parliamentarians, Colin Challen, the chair of the All Party Parliamentary Climate Change Group in the UK, and Ingrid Nestle, the spokesperson on energy economics for the Greens in the German Parliament.

Unfortunately we failed in our objective – to get a good deal in the Copenhagen climate summit. But all is not lost. The Kyoto Protocol doesn’t end until the end of 2012, and there is a chance to influence the negotiators before the next COP (Conference of the Parties to the Kyoto Protocol) in Mexico starting in late November this year.

AND THIS TIME WE NEED TO MAKE SURE WE SUCCEED in replacing the Kyoto Protocol with a new treaty which is adequate to the challenge of avoiding runaway climate change (like the situation at the end of the last ice age, when temperatures suddenly shot up 5C in 20 years – contrast that with the global warming we have had so far – less than 1C, which has already led to massive instability of the climate) and which is also fair.

So we’ve come  up with an idea which should get more attention than the caravan – a zero carbon world concert for a zero carbon world, some time in autumn 2010. Below are a few ideas we’ve had about how to organise it.  Tell us what you think of them – they are by no means set in stone yet, and it would be nice to get some more input into our plans.

The concert would be run over a 24 hour period, moving around the world as the day progresses (starting New Zealand, finishing Alaska?). All musicians would use only renewable electricity, and we could have a variety of different kinds, solar power, wind power, bicycle power etc, so it would be an opportunity for the different suppliers of green energy to showcase their products.

We would also use renewable electricity to put the concerts on the internet (there are internet service providers who use renewable electricity), so it would be a world concert, which would reinforce the idea of international solidarity, and the fact that global warming is a global problem which needs a global solution.

It would be nice to have 350 of something (different bands, or musicians, or, if we are able to manage it, different venues) to bring the public’s attention to the 350 ppm CO2 (carbon dioxide) in the atmosphere, which is the maximum safe level <http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/2008/TargetCO2_20080407.pdf>. I believe it would be useful to have some celebrities involved, in order to get maximum attention (though when I spoke to Bill McKibben of <http://www.350.org> in Copenhagen he said they didn’t work with celebrities).

Any celebrities participating would need to be very green in their lifestyles in order to avoid the accusations of hypocrisy levelled at the super rich celebrity rock stars with massive carbon footprints who took part in Live Earth, but we wouldn’t need many of them (assuming they each played for 2 hours it would just require 12 acts to cover the 24 hour day).  And I think needing to be super green could be useful to persuade people to take part – they would be seen to be the greenest musicians in the world, which would be very useful for their branding.

Getting the equipment to the venue in a zero carbon way is likely to prove difficult. They could use biodiesel made from waste vegetable oil (though definitely not palm oil, or anything else especially grown for fuel), though the trouble with this is there is not nearly enough for everyone to adopt this alternative to oil.  The truly progressive way forward for transport is to use electricity (see www.zerocarbonbritain.com), but as far as I know there are very few electric vehicles capable of carrying large loads (though I did investigate one, the cargo hopper in Utrecht, http://www.cargohopper.com/ on my zero carbon journey cycling and sailing to Copenhagen).

Finally,  watching the concert on the internet has to be done in a zero carbon way, and this is very easy to do – simply switch to a renewable electricity provider (it’s simple in Britain, though I’m not sure of the situation elsewhere).  In my view the best is Good Energy <http://www.goodenergy.co.uk/> but there are a number out there. Let me know what you think of the others.

ANY THOUGHTS, COMMENTS ON THE IDEAS ABOVE, CONTACTS (WITH MUSICIANS, ORGANISERS, RENEWABLE ENERGY SUPPLIERS ETC) OR ADVICE ON THE CONCERT WOULD BE VERY WELCOME

Please email me at  chris.keene at tiscali.co.uk or phone 0044 (0) 1603 614535 or 0044 (0) 7801 250982

Chris Keene
Coordinator, Zero Carbon Caravan <zerocarboncaravan.net>

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.”

From: Franny Armstrong <franny@spannerfilms.net>

Date: Wed, Jan 13, 2010
Subject: [Age-of-Stupid] Waving goodbye to The Age of Stupid + Piers needs you

<< STOP PRESS – Piers the Stupid windfarm man is back in Bedford Town Hall all this week, making one last attempt to get some wind turbines stuck up at Airfield Farm. ie in the very same spot he was fighting to get them up in the film, back in 2005. He’d greatly appreciate any support from anyone who can turn up at the hearings dressed in blue. See his letter at the bottom of this message. >>

Hello and Happy New Decade,

So I thought this was rather symbolic: my friend bet a thousand quid that I couldn’t go one year without uttering the words “climate change”. Now I was feeling pretty confident, come Dec 31st, what with having any number of alternatives up my sleeve: you know, “global warming”, “greenhouse effect”, “anthropogenic warming”. So, anyway, there we were at my granny’s house in Dorset, watching Jools Holland count down to the new decade, and, on the stroke of midnight, in come 12 pipers piping, followed by a man dressed in a polar bear suit. “What do you think that’s all about then?” says friend, at precisely 7 seconds into the new year. To which I reply “Surely it’s got to be climate change”.

And therein lies the problem.

When we finished making The Age of Stupid eighteen months ago (eighteen months ago!), you see, Lizzie and I agreed we would promote it all the way to Copenhagen in December 2009 and then go our separate ways, patting ourselves on the back at a job well done and at a small contribution to keeping the atmosphere habitable to human life. With 18 months being 17 months more active promotion than yer average documentary gets to shake its bootie at. So off we went to Copenhagen – sponsored by many of you fine people, thanks again – and threw ourselves into The Stupid Show, which I will be going on about at great length in the next message, just as soon as we’ve sorted all the videos into some comprehensible order, but which was kind-of brilliant in a madcapedly underresourced way.

What the hell happened at Copenhagen?

I can’t explain better than:

- The final message that Lizzie and I filmed at 7pm on the last Sunday, after two long weeks inside the Bella Centre

- The final Stupid Show featuring Tony Juniper, Mark Lynas, Ed Miliband, Kumi Naidoo and President Nasheed from The Maldives in various states of exhaustion after we’d all been awake since Friday and everyone else had gone home.

- The Climate Scoreboard, which calculates that the Copenhagen accord (a weaker thing than a deal or an agreement, specially cos we don’t yet know whether anyone is going to sign up) would commit us to a 3.9 degree global temperature rise, which would mean something like: all coral dead, most forests dead, Southern Europe a desert, Australia with no agriculture and Africa uninhabitable. So not great then.

Radiohead’s Thom Yorke with The Stupid Show team shortly after he’d signed up to 10:10

The Age of Stupid, the film, is all over, therefore we can retire?

-> Team Stupid has done a fantastic job over the last few months putting everything in place so that the film will continue to be watched all around the world for years to come. Distribution deals are signed & sealed from Australia to Armenia. The DVDs are flying off the shelves. The Stupid shop has moved to its new home in a big warehouse. Indie Screenings is being handed over to our UK distributors Dogwoof. The downloads are winging their way through cyberspace and the pirates are swopping bittorrents for free on the internet, feeling smug whilst they do it (how come they get the best of all worlds? Couldn’t they at least feel bad as they nick our hard work?). There’s plenty more TV screenings coming up, including Discovery in America in March or April. We’re thinking that the prize for keenest country goes to the Netherlands, where 200,000 viewers watched it on mainstream TV the other week, 120,000 DVDs have been printed (70,000 given away in Belgium and the rest ordered by shops in Holland) and, according to several Dutch friends telling me independently, “Age of Stupid” has become a must-say phrase in the mainstream media, even when not talking about the film.

-> Cash-wise, the first of ten annual payments to our crowd-funders & crew went out last week. Sorry that we just missed Christmas: the problem was that 100+ of the 400 people wrote in to change their details, so that slowed things down considerably. But you should have got your cash now and if you haven’t please contact our accountant Kevin Lyons on theageofstupid@mklp.co.uk. About 40 people said they were delighted and/or surprised with their payment and one said he was totally regretting ever getting involved with the film, so that’s not such a bad ratio. Sorry we haven’t quite yet made you all millionaires.

-> Team Stupid has now disbanded. Many have packed their laptops and headed upstairs to 10:10 (Dan, Leo, Mal), one has gone to film school (Ben), two back to their old dayjobs (Sylvia, Sara), two unaccounted for somewhere in Copenhagen (Tom, Luke), one last seen heading off in a campervan surrounded by Danish police (Rop), one to a great job at the Carbon Trust (Andrew), one to musical adventures (Nick) and one to continue internationally coordinating NGOs (Jahlia).

-> Which therefore means that the winner of the lucky draw to captain the good ship Spanner Films solo from now till eternity is…. Rhiannon Roberts. Round of applause please. Yes, the poor gal will be all alone in Stupid Towers from now on – except we’re getting kicked out of Stupid Towers so will have to find a desk for her to squat somewhere else. So all Stupid or Spanner Films-related enquiries should now go to the hardy lass on rhiannon@ageofstupid.net. She’s only got 400 emails in her inbox at the moment, so sure she’ll get back to you real soon.

-> Having said all that, Andy Moore is also popping in from time to time, finishing up the American DVD, sorting out the Stupid Show, archiving all the used teabags and whathaveyou. He’s on andy@ageofstupid.net

-> Miss Lizzie doesn’t yet know whether she’ll do more filmmaking, more campaigning or more politicking but you can rest assured you haven’t heard the last from her… As for myself, I guess I fall into the next paragraph…

Rhiannon Roberts realises that where once there were nine she now stands alone

The Age of Stupid, the era, is not all over, therefore we cannot retire?

The deal they were supposed to agree in Copenhagen is meant to replace the Kyoto Treaty, which ends at the end of 2012. They didn’t manage in Copenhagen (the UN meeting called COP15), but all is not lost, as there is another shinding happening in Mexico next December, called, you guessed it, COP16. So if the deal can be done then, it can still come in in 2013, as Kyoto finishes, and that would be pretty much the same difference. We just lost a year of preparation time, which isn’t the end of the world.

So what can we, the humble citizens, do to help ensure that the deal gets done in Mexico?

Stupid is dead! Long live 10:10!

As The Guardian’s New Year’s Day 10:10 special edition headlined, “The politicians failed at Copenhagen. Now it’s over to you.”

When the politicians meet again next in Mexico in December, they need to be confronted by the news that the people – and businesses and schools and churches and table tennis clubs – have gone ahead on their own and started cutting emissions. Not in a changing-a-few-lightbulbs way, or in setting more long-distance targets, but in terms of actually knocking a few percent off the total emissions of whole countries in less than a year. Quite a task. To quote myself quoted in the Guardian (much easier than re-writing): “I think Copenhagen marks the end of traditional campaigning on climate change. Enough banners, enough websites, enough shouting in the streets. Now we need to roll up our sleeves and start solving the problem, all together. If we wait until the politicians get their act together, it will be too late.”

There is no way that the politicians would be able to ignore the people plonking, say, 2% cuts from, say, UK, Australia, Germany, Iceland, Norway and the Maldives down on the Mexico table, just as they’re having their first coffee. Or, to put it more positively, the politicians would realise that the citizens are ready to build the low-carbon future and this will give them the political space they need to make the deal as strong as the science demands.

10:10 is absolutely storming ahead in the UK, so the major mission now is to get at least 7 or 8 other countries up to speed, out of the 33 which have contacted us wanting to set up their own version of 10:10 (rather hilariously, the main national broadcaster in the Netherlands launched their very own 10:10 last week. Not sure how we feel about this, but we have anyway now bought in super-star coordinator Susan Alzner – she of the UN climate week triumph (and Stupid Show laugh-o-meter, fact fans) – who will be presenting her world domination plans at the first 10:10 Board Meeting, er, tomorrow and then starting to implement the plan on Friday).

Here’s how you can get involved:

-> If you haven’t yet committed to cut your 10% this year, sign up now at http://www.1010uk.org. If you’re not in the UK, sign up at http://www.1010global.org. You’ve already missed the first 13 days of 2010, so have a little bit of catching up to do. Then persuade your kids’ school, your workplace, your girlfriend’s college and your grandfather’s knitting circle to sign up too. You’ll be joining: 53,874 people, 2,041 businesses, 1,051 Schools, Unis and Colleges and 1,424 other organisations. Big name sign-up of last week: Sony. Plus 116 local councils who between them cover a third of the UK population, which means that 20.45 million people will be getting their services (housing, waste, street lighting etc etc) with 10% less emissions than they did this year. Bloody amazing.

-> If you’re not on the 10:10 mailing list (regardless of whether you’ve signed up to cut your emissions), join by sending an email to addtolist@1010uk.org. All the 10:10 news goes out on there, I just send a few titbits occasionally.

-> Join 10:10’s Facebook page and follow us on Twitter (#1010)

-> Give 10:10 some of your cash by donating here or by entering the competition to win a genuine Picasso artwork, as the main thing slowing the campaign down is having to waste loads of effort on fundraising. And how much would you impress your new girl/boyfriend by casually giving them a Picasso for their next birthday?

-> Any questions or thoughts about 10:10, please write to hello@1010uk.org

So that’s where we’re at

I wanted to end this message with the rather delightful news that Channel 4 picked McLibel as the 14th best film of the last decade. But their website seems to have deleted all mention of it… there was honestly a big feature all about the best films and we even made it into the opening paragraph, which has somehow survived the cull: “As this most clunkily-named decade, the Noughties, goes gently into that good night, we’ve seen fit to round-up our pick of the best films from the cinematic era that gave us Steve Coogan Hollywood movie star, saw a postman taking on McDonald’s and winning in McLibel, while a splatstick horror director from New Zealand by the name of Peter Jackson changed the face of cinema with a story about some plucky midgets.”

So that’s it then: we made a film, which was called The Age of Stupid, and then we distributed it as best we could and then we turned our attentions to 10:10 in a bid to help usher in, er, The Age of Sense? The Age of Reason? The Age of Clever?

Hope all’s well with you,

Franny

Last two coats in the COP15 cloakroom at 8pm on the final Sunday… Nobody can say we didn’t try…

- – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - -

Public Inquiry for Airfield Wind Farm, as featured in ‘The Age of Stupid’, 12-> 15th January 2010

-> Please come to Bedford to show your support

Hello Age of Stupid fans,

Piers Guy from the film here.

If consented, Airfield Wind Farm will consist of 3 x 2MW wind turbines, located in Bedfordshire. These three turbines, proposed next to the Santa Pod drag racing strip, will produce around 14,000GWh of clean electricity per year, which is the equivalent to the usage of around 3,000 homes, savings thousands of tonnes of CO2 per year.

In the summer of 2009, Nuon Renewables appealed the planning application on the grounds of non determination. The Public Inquiry has been set for 10am on Tuesday the 12th of January at Bedford Town Hall, St. Paul’s Square, Bedford, MK40 1SJ. The inquiry will last until the 15th of January.

We really want the Planning Inspector to see the strength of support for the wind farm. We know CLOWD, the anti group featured in The Age of Stupid, will be there in large numbers trying to monopolise the proceedings, so it is vital that the we have as many supporters present as possible.

A strong turnout would send a very positive message to the Planning Inspector, we also would like as many people as possible to drop in throughout the week so that the inspector is continuously reminded of the support that exists for this project and also to boost the morale of the wind farm team at the enquiry.

At all times please wear bright blue (hats, scarves, t-shirts, jumpers etc.) if possible to show your support for the wind farm We will also have blue rosettes for people to wear.

Feel free to make banners, and make yourselves heard.

Hope to see you in Bedford!

Cheers,
Piers Guy

Any queries please contact:

Will Watson, Project Manager

Email: will.watson@nuonrenewables.com

Tel: +44 (0)1736 330171

Web: www.nuonrenewables.com

_______________________________________________
Age-of-Stupid mailing list
Age-of-Stupid@aos.dh.bytemark.co.uk
http://aos.dh.bytemark.co.uk/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/age-of-stupid

To submit content for this list, email listcontent@ageofstupid.net. Content is not posted automatically.

Daimler eyes alliance with Nissan, Renault.
DETROIT (Kyodo), January 13, 2010,  The head of Daimler AG says the German carmaker is considering forming a partnership with Nissan Motor Co. if it can reach a deal on a proposed technological tieup with Renault SA.

“We have confirmed that we are in discussions with Renault. It is not just discussion, but there are other discussions going on as well,” Daimler Chairman Dieter Zetsche said Monday at the North American auto show in Detroit.

“If the discussions (with Renault) would come to any results, then obviously the potential expansion with Nissan is something to consider,” he said.

Zetsche said Daimler wants to strike a deal with Renault in the first half of this year.

Nissan and French maker Renault formed a capital tieup in 1999. If Daimler ties up with Nissan, the two are likely to work together on environmentally friendly vehicles, including electric cars, according to industry watchers.

—————————–

Earlier in the day, Ford Motor Co. Chief Executive Officer Alan Mulally said his firm will maintain the current capital and business alliance with Mazda Motor Corp.

“We treasure our relationship with Mazda. It’s been very useful and beneficial for both of us even though we had to take down our equity position,” Mulally said.

Ford has had an 11 percent equity stake in Mazda since selling part of its shareholding in fall 2008.

The share sale was due to Ford’s financial plight amid the recession, Mulally said.

“Our relationship with Mazda will keep going,” he added.

Multidisciplinary International Scientific Conference on Energy, Environment and Health – Optimisati – Optimisation and Future Energy Systems.     Copenhagen, May 31 – June 2, 2010.

from: Kenneth Karlsson

First Announcement

Dear Colleagues,

The “International Conference on Energy, Environment and Health – Optimisation of Future Energy Systems” will take place in Copenhagen from May 31 to June 2, 2010. The conference which brings researchers from atmospheric physics and chemistry, air pollution modelling, environmental sciences, energy systems, human health and environmental economy scientific communities together, will take place at the Carlsberg Academy at the former resident of the Danish Nobel Price winner Professor Niels Bohr.

The aim of the conference is related to future energy scenarios and the consequences for health, environment, climate change and economy. Focus will be on interdisciplinary support systems for assessment of future energy production and consumption, including direct and indirect costs.

The conference consists of five successive sessions (more info on the sessions is available at the conference website – http://ceeh.dmu.dk):

1: Energy System Modelling
Keynote speaker: Professor Henrik Lund, Aalborg University, Denmark
2: Environmental and Health Impacts
Keynote speaker: Professor Steffen Loft, University of Copenhagen, Denmark
3: Economic Valuation
Keynote speaker: Professor Susan Chilton, Newcastle University, United Kingdom
4: Integrated Modelling
Keynote speaker: Markus Amann, IIASA, Austria
5: Future scenarios for energy production and consumption
Keynote speaker: Dr. Maryse Labriet, President of ENERIS

Deadlines
Abstract submission, April 1, 2010
Extended abstract submission, May 15, 2010
Early bird registration, April 1, 2010
Final registration, May 1, 2010

For more information please visit the website at http://ceeh.dmu.dk.

Hope to see you in Copenhagen!

Best regards from the Organising Committee,
Lise Frohn, Kenneth Karlsson, Allan Gross, Eigil Kaas and Jørgen Brandt

For more information please contact:

Lise Marie Frohn, Ph.D., Senior Scientist, Strategic Research Coordinator
National Environmental Research Institute, University of Aarhus
Department of Atmospheric Environment
Frederiksborgvej 399
DK-4000 Roskilde
Denmark
Phone: +45 46 30 11 78
Fax: +45 46 30 12 14
Email:  lmf at dmu.dk

From the latest news coming from Washington – “Under the new airport
rules, all citizens of Afghanistan, Algeria, Lebanon, Libya, Iraq,
Nigeria, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Somalia and Yemen must receive a pat
down and an extra check of their carry-on bags before boarding a plane
bound for the United States, officials said. Citizens of Cuba, Iran,
Sudan and Syria — nations considered ’state sponsors of terrorism’ —
face the same requirement.”

That means Cuba and thirteen Muslim states: Afghanistan, Algeria,
Lebanon, Libya, Iraq, Iran, Nigeria, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Somalia,
Sudan, Syria, and Yemen.

These news caused a lot of comments, but we think the wrong comments.

We assume obviously that Washington is ready finally to address the
terrorism issue. Airplane terrorism, as we learned on 9/11, is not
about transport of weapons but about terrorists – to be specific since
9/11 – we speak here about Islamic terrorists. If you want to catch
terrorists you must look for terrorists. Looking for baby formula is
not the answer – but looking for those passengers whose profiles are
suspicious might be a better bet. Sure, obviously, not all Muslims are
terrorists, and profiling is terrible – even illegal, but if you want
to catch terrorists you start with the profile that most fits Islamic
terrorists, and you bet – they are Muslims of any color. Even though
they may be traveling with documents issued by non-Islamic States,
i.e. the UK, Sweden, Denmark, Norway, France, Switzerland, or even the
US.

So, it is not easy to define exactly what papers are carried by the
terrorists, but you can have some guidelines to increase your chance
of catching them. looking for a profile of an Asian or African Muslim.
Then, learn from the Israelis how to talk to them – you may even find
out that they are so convinced that their cause is the right one, that
they will lower their guard and just plainly disclose that what you
see is all they got.

There may be a Jamaican convert to Islam who preached terrorism in the UK
and resides now in Kenya – a case in point. Kenya does want him either and
he will be sent back to Jamaica a second time. yes, this is a problem if you
are American and Jamaica does not cooperate – but he is a Muslim and no
Anti-Defamation league is enrtitled to tell you Mr. President that he should
not be stripped and searched if he wants to travel via the US to Jamaica.
This is simple.

But what about Cuba? Fidel Castro is more atheist then Catholic, surely
no Muslim. Whatever went on in the past is history to me and I do not believe
prologue to Mr. Castro. So why mix him and his country up with 13 Islamic
States involved in Islamic Terrorism? That is unless someone in the US longs
to see him give cover to such terrorists in the future so they get new reasons
to be after him? If the Jamaica case has anything to teach us – it is that the
US is better off reinsuring its rear parts from anger caused by mistreatment
and friendship is not achieved by mulling over past grief. Specially, as several
hundred former sugar baron families living in Florida should not be allowed to
hold hostage the US when it comes to real US interests.

Mr. President, I watched Bolivia and Venezuela leaders speak in Copenhagen,
they fumed and brimmed with words – no stones or missiles. Their ALBA is,
I think, the natural ally of a US that manages to disengage from the Islamic
world of oil. So, it is the US self interest that calls for you, Mr. President, to
invite Fidel Castro to Washington for a tete-a-tete and start on a way that
eventually will give the US the wall of safety it needs when addressing the 21st
Century centers of terror – the Islamists’ terror cancer that will continue to ooze
as long as we use oil.

Please start by taking him of that list!

The thirteen on that list include the obvious Iran – Syria – Lebanon
trio of the Shii’a Islam, it includes the Afghanistan/Pakistan US
theater of operations and Iraq, as well as the other US theater Saudi
Arabia, Yemen, Somalia, Sudan that misses Egypt and the Gaza strip. A
fourth historic region includes Libya and Algeria, then with Nigeria,
these are newer sources of oil for the US, and as such clear potential
sources of unhappy Islamists who complain about the changes in their
countries as fueled by oil money. In very few countries terrorism
against the US was actually started by rulers decree. Libya, Iran,
Syria, Sudan, Somalia may be the exceptions, but Saudi Arabia and
Yemen may have seen rulers who deflected anger against themselves into
anger against foreigners. In the majority of cases the terrorist is a
person of convictions and the situation could have been avoided had
the US and the rest of the Western World, tried to be less squanderous
with the oil we got addicted to.

Having said the above – let us get now to the point – MR PRESIDENT -
PLEASE – TAKE CUBA OFF THAT LIST BECAUSE THEY DO NOT BELONG ON THAT
LIST IN 2010.

* * * *

Please look – I am posting here four reference – links to news
articles of today’s New York Times.
 http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/05/us/05t…

New Air Security Checks From 14 Nations to U.S. Draw Criticism
 http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/05/world/…

In Yemen, U.S. Faces Leader Who Puts Family First
 http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/05/world/…

Behind Afghan Bombing, an Agent With Many Loyalties
 http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/05/world/…

Kenya Seeks to Deport Muslim Cleric to Jamaica

————————

THE UPDATE:

We have received a comment on this post and it presents a very valid point supposedly made at the UN General Assembly by the Foreign Minister of Cuba: “I mean if they were going to include us, then they should have at least thrown in North Korea.”

Even if the e-mail we received from ajay -   akazif at gmail.com  as presented by www. eggplantpost.com in http://eggplantpost.com/2010/01/05/cuba-… were a made up story, the argument holds water nevertheless. DID THE US INCLUDE CUBA ON THAT LIST BECAUSE IT WANTED TO AVOID BEING SEEN AS GOING AFTER A RAG-TAG OF ISLANIC COUNTRIES? Now, we believe that US security should be spoken here – not again US appeasement-for-oil please!

We spent half a day in Copenhagen with the Philips of Denmark company and saw their terrific inroads in European bulb exchange industry that is now practically eliminating incandescent lamp bulbs and even the conventional fluorescent. They gave me as a present one of their bulbs – a 7 Watt  50-60Hz bulb that provides in Europe at 230-240V light  like our 100W bulb – an 80% saving on energy input. The bulb works also in the US at 110V but obviously provides much less light. Anyway, the super in our building was all in owe when he saw the bulb that provides warm shade light and does not look like the contraptions sold now in the US that are being rejected by people because of the light color and contorted shape.

I also took a tour of an environmentally active neighborhood of Copenhagen and their climate conscious community businesses are actively promoting the exchange of bulbs to the Philips LEDs. No wonder that Philips was a main backer of the City of Copenhagen “Hopenhagen” festivities and the meeting of the world Mayors.

I intended to write all that up in length, but did not get yet to do it, when this morning I found in my e-mail the following that was picked up by my friend from the days we fought the global forces of oil – at the UN – to bring to attention that the world needs a future not based on oil – Dr. Harris Schoenberg. We see even the Phillips MASTER GLOW LEDbulb MV is not the latest and best. There is already in the works some new organic paint that will be LED activated and no bulb whatsoever! Just let lose the scientific sense of good people that want also to make a buck, and we will get the convenient answers we need – just put in cages those that tend to keep us chained to the old and scream murder when we want progress.

————

THE UPDATE: Our posting about LOMOX has become one of our most-read postings of 2010 and we have even been asked by entrepreneurs to establish for them the contact with the LOMOX Corporation. As we are not in this sort of business, we will nevertheless attach to this post one such show of interest in the hope that it does reach LOMOX anyway.

Also, we were made aware that there may be two methods of applying this ingenious wall cover – there is a method using the material as wall paper that contains the active ingredients, and that several floors in the new “Burj Babel” – that is the Burj Dubai / Burj Khalifa of Dubai tower – are rumored to be covered with this new material, and there is this newer futuristic paint.

———

From The Times of London
December 30, 2009

Glowing walls could kill off the light bulb: Organic LEDs could kill off the light bulb, first created by Thomas Edison.

Ben Webster, Environment Editor

Light-emitting wallpaper may begin to replace light bulbs from 2012, according to a government body that supports low-carbon technology.

A chemical coating on the walls will illuminate all parts of the room with an even glow, which mimics sunlight and avoids the shadows and glare of conventional bulbs.

Although an electrical current will be used to stimulate the chemicals to produce light, the voltage will be very low and the walls will be safe to touch. Dimmer switches will control brightness, as with traditional lighting.

The Carbon Trust has awarded a £454,000 grant to Lomox, a Welsh company that is developing the organic light-emitting diode technology. The trust said it would be two and a half times more efficient than energy saving bulbs and could make a big contribution to meeting Britain’s target of cutting carbon emissions by 34 per cent by 2020. Indoor lighting accounts for a sixth of total electricity use.

The chemical coating, which can be applied in the form of specially treated wallpaper or simply painted straight on to walls, can also be used for flat-screen televisions, computers and mobile phone displays.
As the system uses only between three and five volts, it can be powered by solar panels or batteries. Lomox, which will use the grant to prove the durability of the technology, believes it could be used in the first instance to illuminate road signs or barriers where there is no mains electricity.

Ken Lacey, the chief executive of Lomox, said that the first products would go on sale in 2012. “The light is a very natural, sunlight-type of lighting with the full colour range. It gives you all kinds of potential for how you do lighting,” he said.

Although organic light-emitting diodes (LEDs) have been available for several years, Mr Lacey said that concerns over cost and durability had prevented further development. He said that Lomox had developed a much cheaper process and discovered a combination of chemicals that were not vulnerable to the oxidation that shortened the operating life span of other types of organic LEDs.

Mr Lacey said the technology could be used to make flexible screens that could be rolled up after use, or carried into a presentation, for example.

Mark Williamson, director of innovations at the Carbon Trust, said: “Lighting is a major producer of carbon emissions. This technology has the potential to produce ultra-efficient lighting for a wide range of applications, tapping into a huge global market.

“It’s a great example of the innovation that makes the UK a hotbed of clean technology development.”

———————

The Attachment to Lomox and others:

Dated: 6th January 2010

Sub : LED PAINT
Dear Mr. Jawetz,
I found the article on LED PAINT development by LOMOX, Wales very interesting. I am ex Philips and have some knowledge of the lighting market. Since leaving Philips I founded Mishanti Consultancy Services Pvt. Ltd. We have implemented over the years a number of cutting edge technology projects that have been successful.

We have been recently approached by a well known Middle East investor willing to fund viable projects. Substantial funding is possible.
We were thinking of a Solar Energy Project along with LED. The article on LOMOX shows the advantages of LED paint over the conventional LED.
We would be interested to discuss with LOMOX possibility of tie-up in respect of further funding and promotion. As we all know, it requires great deal of investment to take a product from Lab to market.
I shall be grateful for your help in starting a dialogue with LOMOX, Wales.
Best Regards & Happy New Year

N. Roy

Director
Mishanti Consultancy Services Pvt. Ltd.

8, Camac Street, 5th Floor, Room no. 11
Kolkata – 700 017
India
Phone : 91 33 2282 2299 / 2282 6905
Mobile : 9831289873
Mail :  mishanti at cal.vsnl.net.in

“Full-body scanners on display at Reagan National Airport: Many experts say the full-body scanners would have detected the explosives carried aboard Northwest Airlines Flight 253 on Christmas Day, but the
machines have also raised privacy concerns over the detailed body image that is displayed as part of the screening.”

TSA – Transportation and Security Administration – tries to assuage privacy concerns about full-body scans.

By Philip Rucker
Washington Post Staff Writer
Monday, January 4, 2010
It has come to this.

Already shoeless, beltless and waterless, more beleaguered air passengers will be holding their legs apart, raising their arms and effectively baring it all as they pass through U.S. airport security
checkpoints.

Add the “full-body scan” to the list of indignities that some travelers are confronting in the post-Sept. 11, 2001, era of vigilance.

Federal authorities, working to close security gaps exposed by the thwarted Christmas Day terrorist attack on a Detroit-bound airliner, are multiplying the number of imaging machines at the nation’s biggest
airports. The devices scan passengers’ bodies and produce X-ray-like images that can reveal objects concealed beneath clothes…….

- – - – - -

now add the “me-au” from the American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee, ADC Legal Director   nshora at adc.org

Washington, D.C. | January 5, 2010 | www.adc.org |

The American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee (ADC) is deeply concerned by the new Transportation and Security Administration (TSA) directives, which went into effect on January 4th at midnight.  According to news sources, these directives will require citizens from 14 countries, all Arab or Muslim countries, with the exception of Cuba, to go through enhanced security screening. Such screening can include full pat-downs, scans, delays, and anything associated with secondary screening – an extra search of the passenger’s carry-on luggage may also be required.  News sources also stated that the directives are applicable to any travelers, including US CITIZENS, who have passed through one of these 14 countries, or who have taken flights that have originated from these 14 countries.

ADC is very troubled as such directives will have negative ramifications on Arab-Americans, citizens of the 14 countries, and all Americans who visit these countries. A disparate segment of the Arab-American community will be scrutinized because of these new guidelines. The blanket labeling of hundreds of millions of civilians based solely on their country of citizenship or travel is not only unfairly discriminatory based on national origin, but also improperly labels millions of innocent people as somehow suspect or possible terrorists.

The new directives came following the Christmas Day attempted airline attack that threatened our national security, and which ADC has strongly condemned. Implementing an effective and productive counterterrorism tool is paramount. However, casting a wide net against individuals based on their country of origin, race or religion is not an effective counterterrorism tool. During the past decade, similar racial, ethnic and religious profiling tactics and practices have time and again misdirected precious counterterrorism resources, damaged foreign relations with key allies, fueled the fires of extremists by giving them an excuse, stigmatized communities, and most importantly did not have any discernible impact on security. Based on precedent, these new directives will be no different than these past practices and their adverse consequences; and while such directives may appear to make us feel safer, the reality is that they discriminate against innocent persons and divert attention from real threats.

Resources must instead be focused on high-risk individuals based on proper intelligence, better coordination and communication between different governmental agencies. In addition, continued engagement with the Arab, Muslim, Sikh, and South Asian community groups must be strengthened, and must not be discouraged by ethnic profiling tactics.

ADC has been in contact with TSA and the Department Homeland Security (DHS) and is planning to file a complaint and request for additional information with the Department.  ADC urges all travelers affected by these new guidelines to always comply with the Transportation Security Officer’s (TSO’s) request.  In the event of any abuse or misuse of authority, please request the TSO’s name and badge number, and file a complaint with ADC’s Legal Department at  legal at adc.org.

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

Honestly, I feel the pain of decent members of the ADC, but am appalled at the chutzpah to announce the complaints of that organization without a single word attached saying that as loyal citizens to this country they are ready to organize themselves in units of informers when it comes to transgressions by people from their country of birth, that are endangering the security of the country that gave to the ADC members the privilege of life under a secular democracy.

Yes, I know that the ADC has members that are Muslim, Christian or atheists. I know they have no Jews in ADC, but that is not the issue. The Arab countries, other Asian countries, and the African Arabized countries, on the list of 13, are all Islamic countries – in all of them Christians and Jews face very serious difficulties. Further, I know of good Muslims in the US and overseas, that participate with enlightened Jews in order to build bridges between communities. in Copenhagen I actually participated during the Climate conference at a pilgrimage that took us to places of worship that were Jewish, Buddhist, Christian, and Muslim (that last meeting was held in the rooms of a Danish humanist society) – in this time sequence. Yes – good relationships are possible, but that will happen only when, and if, there is a clear understanding, and voiced recognition, that Islamic terrorism originates with Muslim individuals, and that in order to safeguard ourselves, profiling in search of instruments of terror is not a dirty word, but a means of self defense.

Also, in order to avoid needless friction, I suggest that the ADC moves front and center in the global effort to disengage from the addiction to oil.

And one more item – this website does speak up for Cuba as they surely are not part of the group of countries responsible for Islamicists performing acts of terror. So, they do not belong on that list of 14.

THE DEATH OF THEOCRACY – TEHRAN’S THUGS CANNOT LAST
3 January 2010
BY CHRISTOPHER HITCHENS
Newsweek

The term “theocracy” trips readily enough off the tongue and is an accurate description of a system where mortals claim the right to dominate other mortals in the name of God. But it is also a word that has uncomfortable implications for those who hope to stay out of the “internal affairs” of other societies. The Iranian theocracy, and the crisis of its regime, is a near-perfect illustration of this dilemma.

By the rule laid down by the mullahs, the Iranian people are not even allowed to meddle in their own internal affairs. They are counted as wards of the state, as children in the care of a paternal priesthood. (It’s for this reason that the humiliation of dictatorship is felt with especial and stinging keenness by the rising generation of young Iranian adults.) The immediate result of theocratic policy when measured by the standard of repression is pretty clear and getting ever clearer: any government that imagines it has a divine warrant will perforce deal with its critics as if they were profane and thus illegitimate by definition.

But now see how this plays out in the ordinary human world, and watch what happens to a state or society that forbids itself the secular catharsis of self-criticism. In 1988 a certain Mr. Rafsanjani paid an urgent call on a certain Mr. Khomeini in order to tell him that Iran had no serious choice but to sign a U.N.-sponsored peace deal with Saddam Hussein. Not even the consecrated martyrs of the Revolutionary Guards could go on taking the catastrophic casualties of the war. Khomeini had resisted Rafsanjani’s “realism” for a long time, claiming that God was on the side of Iran and that his will would therefore prevail. But he was obliged to sign.

Then, desperate to recover religious credibility and honor, and noticing that there were angry protests against an Indian-born novelist living in England, Khomeini doubled and quadrupled the cultural stakes and pronounced a death sentence on Salman Rushdie. Thus the West came to hear and understand the words ÒfatwaÓ and “jihad,” as exported to non-Muslim societies by bribery and force. To this day—as evidenced by the Danish cartoon controversy and other crises—there is a palpable fear of printing or broadcasting anything that may offend Islamic extremist “sensibilities.”

My colleague and friend Fareed Zakaria wrote not long ago in these pages that there was a significant difference between, say, the Taliban takeover of the Swat Valley and the launching of suicide attacks on the non-Muslim world. I said to him then and I say once more that in the long run this is a distinction without very much difference. A country that attempts to govern itself from a holy book will immediately find itself in decline: the talents of its females repressed and squandered, its children stultified by rote learning in madrassas, and its qualified and educated people in exile or in prison. There are no exceptions to this rule: Afghanistan under the Taliban was the worst single example of beggary-cum-terrorism, and even the Iranians were forced to denounce it—because of its massacre of the Shia—without seeing the irony.

But when the crops fail and the cities rot and the children’s teeth decay and nothing works except the ever-enthusiastic and illiterate young lads of the morality police, who will the clerics blame? They are not allowed to blame themselves, except for being insufficiently zealous. Obviously it must be because the Jews, the Crusaders, the Freemasons have been at their customary insidious work. Thus, holy war must be waged on happier and more prosperous lands.

If you think I exaggerate even slightly, consult the Web sites of the Iranian theocracy and of its Hamas and Hizbullah surrogates and proxies.

These exhorting leaders are not content to inflict their doctrines only on their “own” people. A failed state that cannot allow any grown-up internal debate, or any appeal against the divine edict, will swiftly become an even more failed state and then a rogue one because its limitless paranoia and self-pity must be projected outward. Thus we have a very direct interest in having the Iranian people permitted to interfere in their own internal affairs, and a very immediate reason to insist that the regime’s thugs not make their next appearance on the historical stage with nuclear weapons with which to undergird their claim of unfailing righteousness and conviction that they alone know what it is to be a victim.

We find the following a good summary of movements by people and of the description of the locale which we did not get to see ourselves from the inside, but which we know well from gleaning information from were we could. But having said that, we must add immediately that we have strong disagreements with the assumption that the UN was, and is, the right place to deal with a problem that needs an immediate solution. If one is ready to remove his blinders when analyzing the UN as a problem solver, rather then the nest of intrigue it really is, then one could also figure out when and how to use the UN’s services. One could also be free to initiate the needed process to change this institution from the club of victors of WWII into a potential super-government structure as needed in a world that has become so inter-dependent – that whatever afflicts a remote corner of the world becomes very soon a menace to everyone were we live right here.

Ban Ki-moon and Yvo de Boer are civil servants within the UN system, they are no gods, and now we can say also, they proved that they are no leaders. Flying around the world declaiming with a smiling face SEAL THE DEAL did not create a deal that one can seal.
Yvo de Boer got of the mantra in October, but Ban Ki-moon just declared today at the UN that he sealed a deal in Copenhagen. Does this negate in any way the lamentations we hear from our friend Bates, or it simply turns the UNSG into plain laughing stock?

When it became quite clear that going to Poznan in December 2008, without active US participation, and thus no way to have also China, India, Brazil etc. at the table was counterproductive. Why the Europeans did not speak up is beyond me – and I can say at least that I personally raised that question with Denmark Prime Minister Rasmussen in September 2008, and can say that I did not walk away with the feeling that success was the goal of organizers of the December 2009 Copenhagen meeting.

The bottom lines of these comments are that the fact that we would have wanted to see a much better outcome does not give us the right to blame President Obama for the lack of agreement to what was nothing more then a bundle of wishes.

Whatever the critics may think, Obama took a dead issue with lots of quasi-leaders running around and spreading accusations, but not ready to negotiate a deal, and for the first time managed to move the issue quite a few squares ahead. Yes – he did get China, India and South Africa to say for the first time ever that they also have responsibility to think of limits to the human mischief committed against the planetary environment. This is clearly not something they will easily wiggle away from.

Further, the Europeans are already starting to review their own positions and look for internal change having found out that the world of the 21st century may look very different with China, India and Brazil commanding much more power then any one European State if not aggregated in a real EU. Having three out of five seats at the UN Security Council in 2010 means absolutely nothing while the new comers are not part of the game.

Now about Mexico City, please remember that there is on the way another stop in Bonn, and there is not even a Conference Building ready for a May 2010 meeting in Bonn. I would suggest that NGOs and the Press get used to the idea that the difficulties in Copenhagen will turn out nothing to what expects them in Bonn.

But again, this is not yet our evaluation of the Copenhagen meeting – this posting is intended only as a further elaboration to the fact that we think Obama achieved much more then could have been expected from him. His further moves will involve cooperation with those countries that in his mind count indeed when it comes to make efforts to curb the GHG effects.

Also, I believe in the people – and Copenhagen was a clear success story when one realizes that it publicized the issues. The people will take on the ball that is thrown at them by the Islamists and combine in their thoughts their needs with what they heard about Copenhagen. I assume for instance that the people will create the demand for rails in order to avoid flying short distances. With the Unions coming on board it might even allow for some new tax on fuels – this will be perhaps have also social aspects and a reaction against oil imports. Could there be a positive change in US attitude towards Latin America? After all not everyone is a friend of the US, but some relationships can be improved easier then others.

The outcomes from Copenhagen are varied and complicated – the only thing that is sure is that tomorrow is different from yesterday.

————–
 http://www.culturechange.org/cms/index.p…

30 December 2009

Copenhagen’s Fateful Friday and Obama’s Real Role.

by Albert Bates
27 December 2009, published December 30, 2009.
“Cokenhagen” blog’s last day
Leaving Copenhagen before sunrise, we passed into the airport terminal revolving doors, each panel emblazoned with the “Hopenhagen” logo, but beneath it was revealed Hopenhagen’s corporate sponsor, Coca Cola, taking credit for the advertising campaign. Hope has died but Coke survived.

Upstairs from the revolving doors was a TckTckTck/Greenpeace billboard with Nicolas Sakozy, Premier of France, reading, “I’m Sorry. We could have stopped catastrophic climate change… We didn’t.”

We are still mulling the meaning of humanity’s giant step away from survival. No targets, no timetables, no firm commitments, a crash of the carbon market, massive disinvestment in renewables and a switch back to coal and gas – all of these are the “Copenhagen Outcome.”

Perhaps the strangest and most serious outcome was the damage wrought to the UN negotiation process itself. One needs to go back and re-read the 1972 Stockholm principles, the document that emerged from the 21st plenary session of the United Nations Conference on the Human Environment. From the preamble, authored by Maurice Strong:

“Man is both creature and moulder of his environment, which gives him physical sustenance and affords him the opportunity for intellectual, moral, social and spiritual growth. In the long and tortuous evolution of the human race on this planet a stage has been reached when, through the rapid acceleration of science and technology, man has acquired the power to transform his environment in countless ways and on an unprecedented scale.
“The natural growth of population continuously presents problems for the preservation of the environment, and adequate policies and measures should be adopted, as appropriate, to face these problems.

“A point has been reached in history when we must shape our actions throughout the world with a more prudent care for their environmental consequences. Through ignorance or indifference we can do massive and irreversible harm to the earthly environment on which our life and well being depend. Conversely, through fuller knowledge and wiser action, we can achieve for ourselves and our posterity a better life in an environment more in keeping with human needs and hopes. There are broad vistas for the enhancement of environmental quality and the creation of a good life. What is needed is an enthusiastic but calm state of mind and intense but orderly work.”

With our laptop and a wall socket at JFK, we were able to watch Rachel Maddow’s interview with Andrea Mitchell and learn how freakish and noir the COP-15 talks really were. Looking for Premier Wen Jiabao of China, President Obama followed a lead to a back room at the Bella Center, his press pool in tow.

Before the COP, the United States and China had been sniping at each other over demands that Beijing agree to international monitoring, ostensibly to verify its pledge to reduce by 40% the carbon intensity of its economy (the rate of emissions per unit of economic activity, something that is easy to do if you are growing your GDP by 10% annually).

After the President and Hillary Clinton made some snarky remarks about China’s transparency, Premier Wen used diplomatic finesse to express his official displeasure. Twice on Friday, Mr. Wen sent an underling to represent him at meetings with Mr. Obama. Each time it was a lower-level official.

The White House made a point of noting the snub in a statement to reporters. According to an aide who passed it to the New York Times, Mr. Obama confided to his staff: “I don’t want to mess around with this anymore. I want to talk to Wen.” The story the Times then began spinning has formed the official frame of the talks — China was the bad actor, the US President stood tall and went dragon hunting, he slew the beast in its lair, and emerged with a new Accord, which was not the best, but the best that could be salvaged. “This progress did not come easily, and we know that this progress alone is not enough,” he said. “We’ve come a long way, but we have much further to go.” The carpenters then moved in to break the site down and make way for a trade show of home furnishings.

What actually appears to have happened is that the US came into the UN meeting with all the style and substance of John Bolton, Dubya’s UN ambassador. Arriving on the final day with a lame, lowball proposal, Obama tried to ram a strictly voluntary, symbolic pledge system down the throats of the delegates, who despite the media clouding, were actually close to several important agreements.

China backed Africa. Africa did not want voluntary, symbolic pledges. So the White House tried to set up a third meeting between Obama and Wen. It also set up a separate meeting with Jacob Zuma of South Africa, Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva of Brazil, and Manmohan Singh of India. China apparently got wind of this sequence of meetings and called those players together on its own, before the Obama meeting.

When Denis McDonough, the national security council chief of staff, and Robert Gibbs, the White House press secretary, learned of the Chinese pre-meeting, they passed the word to the President and he rushed to China’s room.

It bears mentioning here that the Bella Center has a very curious layout, thanks to the Danish hosts. All of the national delegations were assigned a Bella Center office and display space for administration, conferencing and receptions, which was typically a plastic-walled Star Wars battlecruiser cubicle between 24 and 48 square meters in size. There were no distinctions based on population size, GDP, or emissions, but there were some differences in both placement (near or far) and size between G-77 (130 poor countries, green in the image), G-30 (the industrial economies headed by Merrill Lynch’s William McDonough, no relation), and a few VIP countries who rated special treatment.

China, with a quarter of the world population and emitting 20% of GHG emissions, was given a 2-room box in the back row of offices. The US, with 5% of the population and also about 20% of the emissions, got a glass skybox suite with conference rooms, communications center and a mini-Oval Office. This was the safe home for climate deniers James (Torture-9) Inhofe and Marsha (No Czars, No Death Panels, Demand Obama’s Birth Certificate) Blackburn, as well as the travel office for high-level junketeers Nancy Pelosi, Bart Gordon, Henry Waxman, John Kerry, Ed Markey, Arnold Schwarzenegger, Jim Doyle and many, many other USAnians needing photo ops in the Restaurant at the End of the Universe.

Locating China’s tiny room at the downstairs back, just behind the boiler room, under the steam vents, where the greenish neon lights flash intermittently through a high window and there is a faint odor of solvents, Mr. Obama called from the doorway. “Mr. Premier, are you ready to see me? Are you ready?” From inside a room that was already stuffed with Presidents Zuma, Lula, Singh and their top aides and translators, Wen, surprised, beckoned Obama to enter.

The Chinese, who had to send their people out to make room for Obama and his aides, balked at admitting the White House press pool to the fluorescent-lit craps game. Gibbs pressed forward with the pool’s photographer. “My guys get in or we’re leaving the meeting.” They squeezed Gibbs in, which yielded this (hands over head) photo from Doug Mills at the NY Times:

Despite whatever had been discussed by Zuma, Lula, Singh and Wen before Obama arrived, the US got its wish for a barebones “accord.” Danish hosts Rassmussen and Hedegaard, and UN leaders Ban Ki Moon and Yvo de Boer, none of whom had slept more than 2 hours in the previous 48 trying to broker a highest denominator deal, were not invited.

Obama, seated, started by asking what they could agree on. That settled a number of issues, including changing the wording on monitoring and verification to satisfy Mr. Wen. The other 188 countries were not asked for an opinion, although Mr. Obama then shopped his “Copenhagen Accord” around to a few European leaders, who each declined to join such an outrageous outlaw process. Ban Ki Moon and Yvo de Boer tried to put a nice face on it, but had to be steaming inside. They said the next COP in Mexico would resume the process, but as George Monbiot opined, Mexico is where negotiations go to die.

Having destroyed the whole notion of consensus negotiations carefully crafted over the 37 years since Stockholm, Mr. Obama joined his waiting motorcade and exited. In 8 hours, he had done more to destroy the fabric of the United Nations than his predecessor had accomplished in 8 years.

As for the $10 billion dollar per year pledge Hillary Clinton offered to support clean green economies in the 2/3 world, beginning in 2012, the US knows it will simply borrow that money from China and the loan will vanish in the slippage of the dollar against the huan.

Hugo Chavez told Amy Goodman, “We have to transition ourselves to a post-petroleum era, and that is what we must discuss.”

Goodman asked him about reducing Venezuela’s emissions. Chavez replied, “We must reduce emissions 100 percent… We are in agreement — we must reduce all the emissions that are destroying the planet. However that requires a change in lifestyle, a change in the economic model. We must go from capitalism to socialism, that’s the real solution.”

“How do you throw away capitalism?” Goodman asked. Chavez replied, “They way they did it in Cuba. The way we are doing it in Venezuela. Give the power to the people and take it away from the elites. You can only do that through revolution.”

Being more evolutionary than revolutionary, we are still betting on the dolphins. They can survive even without T-mobile and a laptop.

* * * * *

Read all about Albert’s observations and adventures in Copenhagen and Hopenhagen on his blog. For more on his peak oil work, see the Culture Change article Albert Bates, guide for our post-petroleum, globally warmed future. For more articles on or by Albert on this website, visit this listing

Cokenhagen propaganda

His latest book is The Post-petroleum Survival Guide and Cookbook: Recipes for Changing Times, published in 2006.^[2] In it Bates examines the transition from a society based on abundant cheap petroleum to one of “compelled conservation.” The book looks at the ways of preparing for this transition. He regards the coming change as an opportunity to “redeem our essential interconnectedness with nature and with each other.”

In his introduction, Bates outlines the realities of declining fossil energy and global climate change. He puts forward a “twelve step petrochemical recovery program,” from post-growth economics through methods to conserve fresh water, manage wastes, generate energy, produce and store food, and travel without the aid of fossil fuels. As a review by Ryan McGreal states: “The central message in this book is sustainability and permaculture. A recurring theme is that every waste product is something else’s food, and that the most sustainable arrangement works with the prevailing conditions, not against them.”^[3] McGreal summarizes Bates’ proposals for human adaptation as follows:

“Instead of wasting energy trying to fight nature, it makes more sense to understand nature and use it to your mutual benefit. This, of course, means the end of one-size-fits-all industrial solutions and a return to decentralized, idiosyncratic plans based on local conditions.”^[3]

1. ^ Ecovillage Training Center. The Farm, Summertown, TN. Retrieved on 20067-06-22.
2. ^ .The Post-petroleum Survival Guide and Cookbook: Recipes for Changing Times (2006). New Society Publishers.
3. ^ ^{a b} McGreal, Ryan (January 10, 2007) “Reviews.” Raise the Hammer, Hamilton, Ontario. Retrieved on: February 25, 2007.

Bates went to Copenhagen and posted a list of 16 daily reports on his blog as posted on Jan Lundberg’s www.CultureChange.org

We will re-post here two of that series of 16 articles – the last one #16, and the the #13 article of his series, the one about Christiania, which is a part of Copenhagen that started going green before this was even made fashionable through Agenda 21 – at the UN conference on the Environment and Development of the Rio 1992 fame. In effect it was Christiania that became an example for Agenda 21.

by Albert Bates

22 December 2009

My COP15 Journal: Day Sixteen, Dec. 19

“Goodbye Africa, goodbye south Asia; goodbye glaciers and sea ice, coral reefs and rainforest; it was nice knowing you, not that we really cared. The governments which moved so swiftly to save the banks have bickered and filibustered while the biosphere burns.” — George Monbiot, The Guardian, Dec. 18, 2009

Last Day: When we arrived in Copenhagen 16 days ago, we were met by Ross and Hildur Jackson, our hosts at a farm near Birkerød, just outside the city. Hildur had been organizing the Windows of Hope meeting at Christiania and Ross had been drafting white papers and talking points for the Global Ecovillage Network to share with delegates during the negotiations. Ross intends to expand his central position paper, The Breakaway Strategy, into a book soon, and the core of that document turned out to be remarkably prescient as to the outcome of COP-15.

In The Breakaway Strategy, Ross prescribed the ideal components of a fair and binding climate treaty:

1. It should guarantee that the adopted CO2 emissions target will be met with 100% certainty. We will not have two chances to avoid runaway warming. We must get it right the first time;
2. It should be effective and cost-efficient;
3. It should be equitable in order to get the backing of all 7 billion world citizens who are the ultimate owners of the biosphere; and
4. It should be simple and transparent.

The “Kyoto approach” of negotiating CO2 reduction targets, credit bargaining, technology transfer and who pays what to whom — fails all four criteria. If there was any doubt, we need only revisit these past two weeks.

Ironically — and the irony was heightened by the decision of the Danish government 4 days ago to exclude the non-governmental organizations (“NGOs”) from the Bella Center — at least three proposals had been put forward by the NGO community over the last two years that fulfill all four criteria. They are:

1. The Earth Atmospheric Trust: earthinc.org
2. Kyoto2: kyoto2.org
3. The Carbon Board*

To Ross’s three we would add two Irish NGO proposals, Cap and Share and the Carbon Maintenance Fee, based on New Zealand’s prototype Land Use and Carbon Analysis System (LUCAS) to provide a robust and comprehensive carbon reporting and accounting system. Admittedly both of these additions involve more government involvement (and potential for corruption) than the simpler Carbon Board solution cited in The Breakaway Strategy.

The strategy has two components, a top-down political initiative, and a bottom-up civil society initiative. Recognizing that the major powers are locked into a national interest battle and unable to act in the global interest, the strategy turns to some of the smaller nations, such as Maldives and Tuvalu, that are freer and more committed to take on leadership. The Carbon Board, which allocates pollution on a per capita rationing system, is just one example of how such a partnership can function in practice. It administers a reward and punishment system for policing the atmosphere, but could as easily be applied to rationing everything humans are ruining or depleting to extinction — fisheries, food, water, or phosphorus, for instance.

The first step would be for the organizers to leave the World Trade Organization (WTO), hence the name breakaway. The WTO is a major part of the problem because it prevents individual nations from introducing environmentally friendly production methods and subsidizing industries that go green.

From the start of the COP-15 meetings it became evident that a very different agenda was being worked than the Kyoto, multilateral, inclusive, transparent, “shared but differentiated” commitment process that had evolved since the United Nations Conference on the Human Environment in Stockholm in 1972.

Within hours of the opening, the buzz in the halls was all about the secret text that Danish Prime Minister Lars Lokke Rasmussen had been circulating to just the G8 parties. Inexplicably, the UN had begun to function like the WTO. Some called it an “Am-Bush.” Others called it “Kyotic.”

Rasmussen, as head of Venstre, the right wing party, and a coalition including the rabid anti-immigrant party in Denmark, had become the official host of the meeting. Until midway through the second week of the COP, that role had fallen on the more capable shoulders of Denmark’s former environmental minister, Connie Hedegaard. With years of experience at the UN, and in the Kyoto process particularly, Hedegaard knew the players, the positions, and was respected as fair and impartial.

Rasmussen would, in contrast, become known for high-handed demands, back-room wheeling and dealing, mass arrest and detention of protestors on suspicion of future traffic obstruction, demoting Hedegaard on the eve of the final high-level talks, and then abruptly bringing her back in to try to salvage a deal, barring the civil sector IGOs and NGOs from the meeting midway through the second week, after putting them through torturous and repeated dawn-till-dark outdoor linestandings in freezing cold and blowing snow, and then breaking with the EU and G-77 to back the USA’s “coalition of the willing” approach.

Leaving the NGOs out in the cold — literally — meant that none of civil society’s detailed ideas could rise to the surface when they were most needed to break out of government sector’s impasse. Instead, the US came in and tried to bully China, and China, in a geopolitical-orbit-shifting rebuke, stood firm and did not blink. The US limped home with a spin-doctored document, while China was revealed as the emerging world power to be reckoned with. Some of that had to do with China’s massive investments in Africa and the two-thirds world over the past decade, which had built it a large store of political capital. Unfortunately, it spent a big hunk of that when it sold out Africa to the 5-party outcome.

Naomi Klein said, “Africa was sacrificed. The position of the G77 negotiating bloc, including African states, had been clear: a 2C increase in average global temperatures translates into a 3–3.5C increase in Africa. That means, according to the Pan African Climate Justice Alliance, ‘an additional 55 million people could be at risk from hunger,’ and ‘water stress could affect between 350 and 600 million more people.’”

Rasmussen and the G8 powers led by the Obama delegation, made their case for colonialism. What was being colonized and divided between occupying powers was not the G77, but the sky. For a mere ten billion dollars per year, G8 shareholders were sold a carbon market worth $1.2 trillion per year. Matthew Stilwell of the Institute for Governance and Sustainable Development said that rich countries were allowed to exchange “beads and blankets for Manhattan,” adding, “[They]‘ve carved up the last remaining unowned resource and allocated it to the wealthy.”

With a $100 billion/year buy-out (first payment — 2020, a US election year) — or one army-year in Kabul, shared out between 193 countries, citizens from the Maldives will be offered hotel rooms in Houston the way New Orleans hurricane refugees were.

Greenpeace Executive Director Kumi Naidoo said, “In a cruel irony I have just learned that the three Greenpeace activists who, posing as world leaders, entered the Danish Palace for the State Dinner on Thursday night to unfurl a banner calling for a real climate deal are to spend the next three weeks in jail. They will be away from their families over Christmas and the New Year. The real leaders, who attempted to get real action are now in jail, while the alleged ‘leaders’ got clean away, and are fleeing the Copenhagen climate crime scene in private jets and 747s.”

In the end, just five countries signed the “Copenhagen Outcome,” a mushy mishmash of voluntary pledges. They left some serious heavy lifting for November 2010, when COP-16 convenes in Mexico. There the chair will be Felipe de Jesús Calderón Hinojosa, a man to whom Lars Lokke Rasmussen must surely have looked to as a role model to guide him on steering a fractious political process to the safe harbor of crystal chandeliers, overstuffed chairs before the fire, a snifter of Cognac, and a good cigar — perhaps Cuban.

If anyone can keep those solution-oriented NGO ideas out of the process at COP-16, it will be Felipe Calderón.

* Ross Jackson, “An Ideal Climate Agreement?” (Permaculture Magazine, UK, no.58 Winter 2008). See www.ross-jackson.com (Articles, English), “Climate Solutions: Part I, Comparisons” and “Climate Solutions: Part 2, The Carbon Board.

* * * * *

Follow Albert’s adventures in Copenhagen and Hopenhagen on his blog. For more on his peak oil work, see the Culture Change article Albert Bates, guide for our post-petroleum, globally warmed future. For more articles on or by Albert on this website, visit this listing

* * * * *

Christiania: Copenhagen’s Funky Jewel of Sustainability - by Albert Bates

UN Stumbles by Degrees in Nopenhagen, Stealing the Deal?

By Matthew Russell Lee of the Inner City Press.

UNITED NATIONS, December 17 — In the months leading to the Copenhagen climate talks, UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon veered back and forth between reading out specific statements on how the deal should be sealed and saying it is up to member states, the UN is just the venue.

Then he and his advisors including Janos Pasztor and top humanitarian John Holmes announced that $10 billion for adaptation — or reparations — to developing countries would be enough, or “a good start.”

Inner City Press asked each of these three about the African Union’s much higher figure and threat to walk out. Each was to varying degrees dismissive.

Now with the Danish police pepper spraying demonstrators in the street, along with a crowd of UN accredited but excluded reporters, representatives of non governmental organizations and even some UN personnel, the mainstream media coverage turns negative and Ban urges poor countries to stop pointing fingers.

He also, at least according to them, has inappropriately accepted not only the developed countries’ $10 billion figure, but now their two degree Celsius temperature rise cap, versus the 1.5 degree figure.

UN’s Ban at Bella Center, excluded and pepper spray and 0.5 degrees not shown

In New York, Inner City Press has asked Ban’s spokesman about each of these. On December 15, Inner City Press asked

Inner City Press: I just want to follow up on Copenhagen. Do you have any, a large number of us have received the complaints of people who were there, who went yesterday and were unable, both journalists and NGOs [non-governmental organizations] and even some UN staff, were unable to get into the building. And they seemed to say that the UN accredited 45,000 people, even though only 15,000 could fit in the building. If that’s true, why would the UN have done that?

Spokesperson Nesirky: Two things, the figure I’ve heard is not 45,000 but 34,000. That’s still a lot of people, absolutely.

Inner City Press: The same question.

Spokesperson: Yes, the same question. As I understand it, and as we’ve heard from Copenhagen, they have a system to try to rotate the number of people going into the building, because, obviously, they’re over capacity. Part of it is also, it’s not just NGOs, it’s journalists as well. There are large numbers. And as I’ve said here before, it clearly demonstrates the considerable interest there is in this event and in having access to this event. As for why there was an over-accreditation, I would refer you to the organizers, actually the UNFCCC [United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change], who are actually on the ground organizing this, and they have a media team there who I’m sure could help you with that.

On December 16, Ban’s spokesman Martin Nesirky answered

I was asked yesterday about the delays in accessing the Bella Centre in Copenhagen, that’s obviously where the UN Conference on Climate Change is taking place. The United Nations regrets the long delays today for people wishing to gain access or pick up accreditation, and is doing all it can to alleviate further delays.

And more than 45,000 people did indeed apply to attend the Conference. And an overwhelming number of those who applied actually arrived on Monday. This is what caused the congestion in the area outside the UN venue, which is under the control of the Danish police, and also long delays at the UN accreditation counters.

The access to the venue for NGOs will continue to be controlled by the quota system that I mentioned to allow balanced access by various NGO groups. And the NGO representatives are given over half of the capacity of the Bella Centre, and that’s more than ever for a climate change conference. As of tomorrow, only NGO organizations that have the secondary badges will be able to enter the Bella Centre. And the Danish Government and the Danish NGO Network are organizing an alternative venue for NGOs who can’t get into the Bella Centre over the next two days.

Inner City Press asked two more questions:

Inner City Press: I want to ask you about two things that the Secretary-General said in Copenhagen; maybe you can clarify them. One was, he said that the goal is to cap temperature rise at 2° C, and small island States and other participants, Member States of the United Nations, had set their goal at 1.5° C. So, I guess they’re wondering where he came up with the 2° C number. Maybe you can clarify if that really is what he thinks should happen? And also he was quoted as saying that Kenya should lobby to make UNEP [the United Nations Environment Programme] in Nairobi the global environmental agency. You, know, France has a separate proposal that created a new agency. I’m wondering, does that indicate that he doesn’t support France’s proposal or what does it indicate?

Spokesperson Nesirky: Okay, on the first one, on the temperature rise, he’s made public comments on this, which we distributed this morning. The bottom line is that he has said if it’s possible to get to 1.5° C, that’s great. But if it’s not, then it’s important to have a deal that everybody can sign up to. That’s what he’s said. But I would refer you to his remarks so that you could read them in detail. On the UNEP idea, I will need to follow up on that.

Inner City Press: Just one follow-up on that, because in his press conference before he went on the trip, I think he was asked, somebody said, “What ideas are you taking to Copenhagen?” And he said that’s not his role. It’s up to the Member States to negotiate. So, I’m just wondering, I think that’s why people have this question about coming out with a 2° C number. It seems like more than leaving it up to Member States. Do you see what I’m saying? That seems to be inconsistent with what he said before he left.

Spokesperson: I don’t see any inconsistency there. He’s been consistent in saying that, yes, he has an honest broker role, but he also has firm convictions, strong convictions, about what is happening with climate change and his role in ensuring that everybody can come to the table and sign a deal. I would refer you to the remarks he made this morning, which are fairly explicit about the numbers.

And and Ban’s number is now two degrees Celsius, a figure never agreed to by developing countries. They think the UN is or is supposed to be their venue. But not anymore, it seems.

————————–

As UN Flies 700 Staff to Copenhagen, Coup Leader Set to Speak, Major Emitter Excluded.

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, December 10 — In the run up to the Copenhagen climate change conference, Inner City Press on December 4 asked UN climateer Janos Pasztor how many UN system staff, officials and consultants would be traveling to Denmark, with what carbon footprint. Pasztor said it wouldn’t be known until the conference began.

On December 10, UN spokesman Martin Nesirky finally answered the question, or part of it. He said that the Copenhagen conference has among its participants 477 people from the UN Secretariat and 309 from 19 specialized agencies and related organizations. That is, 786 people from the UN. But does this include consultants? And what is the carbon footprint and will it be offset?

Nesirky did however answer two questions Inner City Press asked on December 10, after an ill attended noon briefing held at the same time as a media stakeout by U.S. Ambassador Susan Rice. Inner City Press asked if Ban Ki-moon is aware of the request that the coup leader of Madagascar not be allowed to participate in the Copenhagen conference, just as he was barred from speaking before the General Assembly in September.

Nesirky answered, “As for Madagascar, it is scheduled to speak on next Wednesday 16 December, sometime after 6 p.m., so they seem to have been invited.” But what about the request that, as at the UN General Debate in September, they be disinvited?

On December 8, Inner City Press asked Ban Ki-moon

Inner City Press: Has Ethiopia’s Prime Minister Meles Zenawi, has he indicated to you – we’ve heard that you’ve spoken to him weekly by videoconference – he represents the African Union. Is the $10 billion enough? They threatened to walk out if not sufficient funds were committed. What’s you stance on how that issue’s going to play out?

SG: As you know I, together with Prime Minister [Lars Løkke] Rasmussen [of Denmark], have been engaging in weekly videoconferences with major stakeholders on climate change – particularly the representatives of the most vulnerable countries, including the African Union and small island developing countries. We are going to continue to do that, as we did in Trinidad and Tobago. Now the idea of short-term fast-track financial support is supported by developing countries. We had a very in-depth discussion on this issue during our Commonwealth summit meeting in Trinidad and Tobago. As you know the 53-Member State Commonwealth adopted a consensus declaration where this financial support – fast-track support – was agreed by all the Member States, including a provision that 10% of this $10 billion will be provided to small island developing countries.

So the Commonweath agreed — but has the African Union? Inner City Press asked Ban’s top humanitarian John Holmes on December 10, but he said he hadn’t been involved in setting the $10 billion figure. So who was?

UN’s Ban pre-signs Deal, coup leader coming, major emitter not shown

Inner City Press also asking about the block on participation by Taiwan, which is a major industrial emitter. Nesirky answered only that “Taiwan is not a party to the UNFCCC.” But why not? Would the UN want a major source of emission like Taiwan to participate?

The answer, of course, in China, a senior diplomat of which told Inner City Press a good joke on Thursday. He noted that U.S.’ Susan Rice had been harsh against Iran in that morning’s Council meeting. She has to play to the electorate, he said, just as Iran’s teetered regime tries to strengthen its power by being ever more hard-line. The Chinese diplomat said, “This is the problem with democracy.” And then he laughed.

ON THIS DAY – On Dec. 21, 1988, a terrorist bomb exploded aboard a Pan Am Boeing 747 over Lockerbie, Scotland, killing 270 people; now, 21 years later, remembering what addiction to oil can do to us, the New York Times starts to discern a path to a better future for the planet.

NEW YORK TIMES EDITORIAL OF December 21, 2009
Copenhagen, and Beyond.

The global climate negotiations in Copenhagen produced neither a grand success nor the complete meltdown that seemed almost certain as late as Friday afternoon. Despite two years of advance work, the meeting failed to convert a rare gathering of world leaders into an ambitious, legally binding action plan for reducing greenhouse gas emissions. It produced instead a softer interim accord that, at least in principle, would curb greenhouses gases, provide ways to verify countries’ emissions, save rain forests, shield vulnerable nations from the impacts of climate change, and share the costs.

The hard work has only begun, in Washington and elsewhere. But Copenhagen’s achievements are not trivial, given the complexity of the issue and the differences among rich and poor countries. President Obama deserves much of the credit. He arrived as the talks were collapsing, spent 13 hours in nonstop negotiations and played hardball with the Chinese. With time running out — and with the help of China, India, Brazil and South Africa — he forged an agreement that all but a handful of the 193 nations on hand accepted.

Mr. Obama aside, there were two keys to the deal. One was a dramatic offer of $100 billion in aid from the industrialized nations to poorer countries to help them move to less-polluting sources of energy and to deal with drought and other consequences of warming. The offer had an instant soothing effect on many poorer nations that had been threatening to walk out all week.

The other was China’s willingness to submit to a verification system under which all countries would agree to report on their actions and — assuming details could be worked out — open their books to inspection. Transparency is a huge issue in Congress, and Mr. Obama made clear in his opening remarks on Friday that he would not agree to a deal unless China gave ground.

An enormous amount of work lies ahead, both for the president and for the other signatories to what is now being called the Copenhagen Accord. In order to deliver on his promises to reduce America’s greenhouse gas emissions by 17 percent by 2020 and provide a chunk of that $100 billion in aid, Mr. Obama must persuade the Senate to approve a cap-and-trade bill — a huge task.

Meanwhile, there can be no letup by the rest of the world’s negotiators, no matter how tired and beat up they may be. These talks have been so chaotic and contentious that some people believe the United Nations machinery has outlived its usefulness, and real progress will henceforth be made in smaller gatherings of the big players.

There may be some truth to this, but at the moment it is hard to see how many of the arrangements agreed to in principle at Copenhagen — the verification system, for instance — can be made to work without detailed agreements. There must also be some mechanism that holds all countries responsible for doing everything they can to tackle climate change. As it is, the pledges now on the table, from both rich and poor countries, are nowhere near enough to keep atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide from rising above dangerous levels.

But for the moment it is worth savoring the steps forward. China is now a player in the effort to combat climate change in a way it has never been, putting measurable emissions reductions targets on the table and accepting verification. And the United States is very much back in the game too. After eight years of playing the spoiler, it is now a leader with a president who seems to embrace the role.

NEW YORK TIMES RECENT FURTHER ARTICLES ABOUT THE UN FRAMEWORK CONVENTION ON CLIMATE CHANGE

Mixed Bag for Obama on Climate Change Deal Amid the Recession

By JOHN HARWOOD

A victory for President Obama in Copenhagen will not necessarily help his popularity at home.

December 21, 2009

MORE ON THE UNFCCC AND: FOREIGN AID, GLOBAL WARMING, UNITED STATES ECONOMY, GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS, PELOSI, NANCY, OBAMA, BARACK, KERRY, JOHN

An Air of Frustration for Europe at Climate Talks

By JAMES KANTER

Caught off guard by the Copenhagen accord, European leaders felt pressure to back it even though they thought it did not go far enough and had a process in which they had little influence.

December 21, 2009

MORE ON THE UNFCCC AND: GLOBAL WARMING, COPENHAGEN (DENMARK),EUROPEAN COMMISSION

Copenhagen’s One Real Accomplishment: Getting Some Money Flowing

By JAMES KANTER

The accord in Copenhagen was “a big step forward” after previous talks offered no financial support mechanisms, Ban Ki-moon, the U.N. secretary general, said.

December 21, 2009

MORE ON THE UNFCCC AND: GLOBAL WARMING, ENERGY AND POWER,COPENHAGEN (DENMARK)

Compromising on 2 Issues, Obama Gets Partial Wins

By PETER BAKER

From Copenhagen to Capitol Hill, the president determined the outer limits of what he could accomplish on climate change and health care and decided that was enough, for now.

December 20, 2009

MORE ON THE UNFCCC AND: GLOBAL WARMING, HEALTH INSURANCE AND MANAGED CARE, REFORM AND REORGANIZATION, OBAMA, BARACK

A Grudging Accord in Climate Talks

By ANDREW C. REVKIN and JOHN M. BRODER

After delays, theatrics and deal-making, climate talks ended with an agreement to “take note” of a pact shaped by five nations.

December 20, 2009

MORE ON THE UNFCCC AND: GLOBAL WARMING, TREATIES

• Science and Politics of Climate Change
• Who’s at the Climate Talks, and What Do They Seek?
• Climate Change Conversations

U.N. Climate Talks ‘Take Note’ of Accord Backed by U.S.

By ANDREW C. REVKIN and JOHN M. BRODER

The agreement left open the question of whether the accord would gain the full support of the countries involved in the talks on limiting the risks of climate change.

December 20, 2009

MORE ON THE UNFCCC AND: COPENHAGEN (DENMARK)

• Science and Politics of Climate Change
• Who’s at the Climate Talks, and What Do They Seek?
• Climate Change Conversations

———————————————————————————————————-

Off to the Races

By THOMAS L. FRIEDMAN

A competitive Earth Race led by America can be a more self-sustaining way to reduce carbon emissions than a festival of nonbinding commitments at a U.N. conference.

December 20, 2009

MORE ON THE UNFCCC AND: GLOBAL WARMING, GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS, UNITED STATES, UNITED NATIONS

———————————————————————————————————

Updated Dec. 18, 2009

Representatives of 192 nations gathered in Copenhagen to seek a consensus on an international strategy for fighting global warming, in a series of meetings between Dec. 7 and Dec. 18, 2009.

Leaders concluded a climate change deal the Obama administration called “meaningful” but which fell short of even the modest expectations for the summit. The maneuvering that characterized the final week of the talks was a sign of their seriousness; never before have global leaders come so close to a significant agreement to reduce the greenhouse gases linked to warming the planet.

President Obama injected himself into a multilayered negotiation that was far more chaotic and contentious than anticipated – frozen by longstanding divisions between rich and poor nations and a legacy of mistrust of the United States, which has long refused to accept any binding limits on its greenhouse gas emissions.

The accord drops what had been the expected goal of concluding a binding international treaty by the end of 2010, which leaves the implementation of its provisions uncertain. It is likely to undergo many months, perhaps years, of additional negotiation before it emerges in any internationally enforceable form.

Read More…

We found today that the Mayor of Hopenhagen – Her Lord Mayor Ritt Bjerrgaard, City of Copenhagen, who coined before the start of the Copenhagen COP15 of the UNFCCC, the dictum “I am A Citizen of Hopenhagen, is seemingly the only believer in “Seal The Deal” at Copenhagen, the sunny front-piece of UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon.

At the Conference of US Mayors Reception  and  dinner honoring Lord Mayor Bjerregaard I had the chance to ask her excellency the Lord Mayor what she thinks about the probable outcome of a compilation of individual countries’ promises and she answered that the week is not over yet and she still hopes for the original Seal The Deal approach.

When I asked earlier in the day the same question from former Irish Prime Minister Marry Robinson said that she does not like the outcome because the real question is who will monitor the compliance, and I suggested that it will have to be done by the governments themselves, she said that ‘and who believes governments.” She is a great Lady indeed.

Now, getting to my room and my computer, I found that actually Tony Blair is already on top of the issue. He sees correctly the outcome as “DOING THE DEAL” – so, as there is nothing to seal except a compilation of individual promises, the best we can hope for is the concept of the people of each country monitoring their governments’ compliance. Now, can we trust the people?

All right, if one watches not the Bella Center procedures as such, where the governments speak – but rather the Klima Forum 09 that saw tonight Bill McKibben invite President Mohamed Nasheed of the Maldives,and the over 1,000 people in the audience kept sounding their agreement to an orderly transition to an eventual return to 350 ppm of CO2, one could see that the call to action, and the understanding of the art of the possible in order to achieve the desirable – is well alive among the people.

Anyway – this posting is about the new term as coined by Tony Blair.

Tony Blair launches report “Doing the Deal” with The Climate Group.
From Lena Ruthner:

The Office of Tony Blair and The Climate Group today launch “Doing the Deal: Key Elements for a Copenhagen Climate Agreement”, the latest report from their joint Breaking The Climate Deadlock initiative.

The report, aimed at heads of government and ministers as they arrive in Copenhagen to seal a new climate agreement, outlines three elements that will need to be at heart of the accord – emissions reduction targets, finance and the basic architecture. It argues that countries should lock in the most ambitious pledges they have made already and then use the time between now and signing a formal treaty to ratchet up commitments.

In particular, countries should agree to:

- a review mechanism that allows automatic scaling up of ambition by 2015
- commit now to deeper cuts beyond 2020
- prepare low carbon growth plans that will identify new abatement opportunities
- put money down for a fast start mechanism that starts cutting emissions immediately

Former UK Prime Minister Tony Blair said: “What countries have pledged already is a major step in the right direction. We need to bind these pledges together and get on with implementation. I’m convinced that once we get going and unleash the creativity of business, we’ll quickly find that it’s easier than people thought and be able to scale up our ambition. “

The Climate Group’s CEO Steve Howard agreed: “The businesses we work with need a long-term signal from Copenhagen. With the deal we outline we will see an unparalleled wave of investment and innovation: a clean energy and technology revolution. It is right for the planet and the right for the economy – we just need our leaders to seal the deal.”

Best wishes,

Lena Ruthner
Manager – International Policy Programme
THE?CLIMATE GROUP

Direct: +44 (0)20 7960 2977 | Mobile: +44 (0)7970 399 773| Fax: +44 (0)20 7960 2971
 lruthner at theclimategroup.org
 View Download

———————————
AND FROM THE UN PROPER:

UN DAILY NEWS from the

UNITED NATIONS NEWS SERVICE

14 December, 2009 =========================================================================

IT’S NOW OR NEVER IN BID TO CURB CLIMATE CHANGE, BAN WARNS

At the start of the most critical week in global efforts to forge a new deal to curb climate change Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon warned today that the world stood at the crossroads between a sustainable future and a path to catastrophe.

“Now is the moment to act,” he told a news conference at United Nations Headquarters in New York ahead of the culmination later this week of the UN climate change summit in Copenhagen, where some 115 heads of State and government, including the leaders of the world’s top two emitters of greenhouse gases, China and the United States, will gather to hopefully seal the deal on an agreement.

“Seldom in history has a choice been so clear. We can move toward a future of sustainable green growth, or we can continue down the road to ruin. We can act on climate change now, or we can leave it to our children and grandchildren – a debt that can never be paid, that threatens our planet and its people,” he added.

“I call on the world’s leaders to lead. Time is running out. There is no time left for posturing or blaming. Every country must do its part to seal a deal in Copenhagen.”

Mr. Ban appealed to negotiators to redouble their efforts, find room for compromise and make a final push. “If everything is left to leaders to resolve at the last minute, we risk having a weak deal – or no deal at all. And this would be a failure of potentially catastrophic consequence,” he said.

UN officials have said there are three key layers of action that governments must agree to in the course of the Copenhagen summit: fast and effective implementation of immediate action on climate change; ambitious commitments to cut and limit emissions, including start-up funding and a long-term funding commitment; and a long-term shared vision on a low-emissions future for all.

Mr. Ban voiced confidence in a successful outcome as he himself prepares to leave to join the summit, citing new commitments from industrialized countries, emerging economies and developing nations, and deploring recent efforts to derail progress by those who try to claim that the science about climate change is unconfirmed.

“They are wrong. The science is clear and settled. Climate change is real, we are the primary cause, and it is up to us – here and now – to deal with it,” he said. “Greenhouse gases continue to rise. Climate impacts are escalating. Nature does not negotiate. In Copenhagen, we must summon the moral and political will to act in a spirit of compromise and common sense.”

He acknowledged that the negotiations are difficult and complex – “among the most ambitious ever to be undertaken by the world community” – and noted the strong passions and hard bargaining under way.

“But we also see tangible progress on core issues of technology cooperation and financing. We have reached substantial agreement on ‘fast track’ funding for mitigation and adaptation,” he said, adding that governments are moving toward the common goal of laying a foundation in Copenhagen for a robust, fair and comprehensive agreement that can be turned into a legally binding climate treaty as early as possible in 2010.

“Looking ahead, we need greater clarity on a robust finance package for the middle and longer-term. It is essential that we leave Copenhagen with a clear understanding of how we will meet the financing challenge through 2020.”

Mr. Ban also announced that he would appoint Kenyan Nobel Peace Prize winner Wangari Maathai as a Messenger for Peace on climate change, calling her “an excellent choice” in light of her long record of achievement in environmental conservation and sustainable development.

* * *

UN CLIMATE TALKS BACK ON TRACK AFTER BRIEF SUSPENSION

Talks resumed at the United Nations summit in Copenhagen, Denmark, today after African nations briefly suspended negotiations over the future of the Kyoto Protocol, currently the only legally binding pact on climate change.

While many industrialized countries are hoping to merge the Protocol and the outcome of the Copenhagen meeting, which entered its second and final week today, into a single agreement.

However, their developing counterparts, among the least responsible for greenhouse gas emissions, want to extend the Protocol past 2012, when its first commitment period ends, and hammer out a separate agreement this week in Copenhagen.

“I think this is not just an African concern,” Yvo de Boer, Executive Secretary of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), told reporters today. “I think that the vast majority of the countries here want to see a continuation of the Kyoto Protocol.”

To this end, informal consultations kicked off in Copenhagen today, he said, with the Kyoto Protocol topping the list of discussion topics.

Mr. de Boer said that talks are halfway up the hill whose summit is an agreement reached by world leaders at the end of the two-week Copenhagen meeting.

“I think we’re queuing up for the cable car, but the rest of ride is going to be fast, smooth and relaxing,” he noted.

One of the remaining challenges, the official pointed out, is “how to capture countries’ commitment, countries’ willingness to act in a final agreement at the end of this week.”

The ministerial portion of the conference, to be attended by Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon, will kick off tomorrow, while the high-level segment – which will see the participation of 115 heads of State – will begin later this week.

Mr. Ban, who departs for Copenhagen today, emphasized at his end-of-year press conference in New York today that “decades of effort will come down to this one critical week” in the Danish capital.

“Seldom in history has a choice been so clear,” he said, exhorting negotiators to redouble their efforts and make the final push towards a new agreement.

“If everything is left to leaders to resolve at the last minute, we risk having a weak deal – or no deal at all,” the Secretary-General said. “And this would be a failure of potentially catastrophic consequence…

“As we depart for Copenhagen, I am confident that a fair deal is within our reach – a deal that can be embraced by all nations, large and small, rich and poor.”

Events tomorrow – Sunday, December 13:

Hopenhagen Live event: COUNTDOWN TO CO2PENHAGEN:

Archbishop and Nobel Peace Prize winner, Desmond Tutu, will hand over 300,000 signatures from the global campaign ‘Countdown to Co2penhagen’ to the Executive Secretary of the UNFCCC, Yvo de Boer. The hand-over is followed by a concert with the internationally renowned Danish band Outlandish.

WHEN: December 13, 11:30am

WHERE: Hopenhagen Live, Spillestedet no. 21, City Hall Square

Press event: 

CLIMATE FRIENDLY MOTOR PARADE.

There will be plenty of speed, varnish and power when 95 climate-friendly vehicles ranging from flashy Italian scooters to Danish sports cars drive across the Copenhagen City Hall Square as part of the world’s largest gasoline-free vehicles parade.

 The vehicles will be lined up at the City Hall Square and presented on:

2:30 pm, Sunday December 13, 2009,

WHERE: Departure from Hopenhagen Live, no. 20, City Hall Square.

We are inviting visitors to take a closer look at the flashy cars, scooters and motorcycles.

The vehicles are then sent out into the streets of Copenhagen. Among the vehicles participating in the parade are the Danish sports car “LYNX GT Extreme”, the world’s fastest electric car Tesla Roadster, the Scandinavian “Mini Hummer”, and an open off-roader.

The parade takes the vehicles to Forum, where, for a short while, they will form an integrated part of the art piece “CO2 E-Race” created by Danish artist Mr. Jacob Fuglsang Mikkelsen. The parade ends at H.C. Andersens Boulevard by the City Hall Square.

  ————————–

VISIT THE FIRST PUBLIC CARBON NEUTRAL BUILDING IN DEMNARK:  

Visit Green Lighthouse and hear how the architecture and design of the building has eliminated CO2. Green Lighthouse is part of the University of Copenhagen and is the first public carbon neutral building in Denmark.  Read more about the house.!

WHEN: December 13, 1-4 pm.

WHERE: Green Lighthouse, Tagensvej 16, 2200 Copenhagen N

Please contact the press team for facts about Copenhagen’s climate initiatives, statistics, analyses or inspiration in connection with your press work before or during the Climate Change Conference or the Mayors’ Summit.  

 THE PRESS CENTRE OF COPENHAGEN (ON THE CITY HALL SQUARE, THE BLACK GLASS BUILDING OPPOSITE THE CITY HALL). 
————————-
The Press Team of the City of Copenhagen 
www.kk.dk/english
+45 3082 8337/2711 6896
cphclimate@kk.dk