At the UN a good journalist, not the ever-wish of the UN – the kind that just reports on the UN Press releases, can have fun indeed and throw some light on what goes on in the world.

We bring here the essence of the EU charade as seen by Matthew Russell Lee in his reporting of March 18 and February 4, 2010.

Matthew looks at the personal involvements of the IMF head Dominique Strauss-Kahn who might run against President Sarcozy – thus making an internal rivalry of France into one of the centrifugal powers active in the EU. So it is this rather then a German – French rivalry that puts in motion the threat of IMF undoing the EU with its involvement in the crisis named Greece. Could you imagine California going to the IMF, or as a matter of fact, Rhode Island or even Puerto Rico?

—————–

With Euro Tanking On Reports of Greece Turning to IMF, of Half Answers, on Dodd Bill and Sri Lanka

By Matthew Russell Lee, UNITED NATIONS, March 18, updated.

Strauss-Kahn, ready to “intervene” in Greece, could leave IMF – “hypothetically”

As Angela Merkel speaks darkly about ejecting from the Euro zone non compliant countries like Greece, that country’s renewed threat of turning for help to the International Monetary Fund has the market selling off the Euro.

Near the end of the IMF’s fortnightly press briefing on Thursday morning, spokesperson Caroline Atkinson, beyond saying the IMF has not had a request for financial assistance, declined to describe various aspects of Greece’s relations with the IMF. Her boss, Dominique Strauss Kahn, previously bragged that the IMF would “intervene” in Greece upon request.

France’s finance minister Lagarde, belatedly added to the UN’s climate finance group after Secretary General Ban Ki-moon was confronted with the fact he’d named men to all 19 positions on the panel, has said the EU can still be Greece’s interlocutor and helper, not the IMF.

Her president Sarkozy has a personal motive to oppose IMF help to Greece: Strauss Kahn is polling ahead of him for the next French election.

Inner City Press submitted to the IMF during its briefing, but without answer yet, questions about financial reform and the Fund’s apparently stalled consideration of a third tranche to Sri Lanka. It was mostly Greece on Thursday, with few answers from the IMF.

Update: later these two answers came in from the IMF:

Re Senator Dodd’s bill, overall, we support the thrust toward comprehensive reforms that would address the gaps in financial regulation illustrated by the crisis. Strong and prompt implementation would both help to secure financial stability going forward.

Re Sri Lanka, not much update. As you know, staff will visit Colombo after the parliamentary elections and the formation of the new cabinet, to discuss with the government its plan for a 2010 budget.

Best regards,
Yoshiko Kamata
Media Relations, IMF

IMF’s Strauss-Kahn Coy on Opposing Sarkozy and Intervening in Greece, IMF and Greek Denials, Yemen Deferrals

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, February 4, updated — The managing director of the International Monetary Fund Dominique Strauss-Kahn bragged Thursday to radio station RTL in his native France that he might leave the IMF early — and perhaps challenge Nicolas Sarkozy for the French presidency — and that if asked by Greece, the IMF could “intervene” in the country.

Questions about both comments were dodged later on Thursday by the spokesperson for Strauss-Kahn and the IMF, Caroline Atkinson. Strauss-Kahn is quoted that “As it stands… I am planning to see out my mandate. But if you ask me whether in certain circumstances I could reconsider this question, the answer is yes, I could reconsider this question.”

This is consciously leaving open the door to reconsider and leave. But Ms. Aktinson emphasized only his “planning to see out my mandate” and called everything else “hypothetical.”

On Greece, Strauss-Kahn said regally, “I have a mission on the ground to provide technical advice requested by the Greek government. And if we’re asked to intervene, we will.” He added, “I understand that the Europeans don’t want this for the moment.”

Inner City Press on Thursday morning asked Dimitris Droutsas, Alternate Foreign Minister of Greece, to describe his government’s thinking about IMF help. Mr. Droutsas responded on the record, “Categorically may I state, any idea of the IMF… there is no idea about that.”

Still, at Thursday’s IMF biweekly briefing, Ms. Aktinson emphasized the “the IMF” — not just Strauss-Kahn — “had a technical team in Athens because the Greeks are very interested in getting any help from us on the technical implementation of the plan.”

Later on February 4 Droutsas told Inner City Press, on camera, that he was unaware of any IMF team having been in Athens. Video here, last question. One wag wondered, has the IMF become like the CIA, or Xe / Blackwater, whose presence is alleged and denied?

But the IMF under Strauss-Kahn brags about being present. As with the wider UN, the rush to be relevant.

It was surprising, then, that when Inner City Press asked Ms. Aktinson about Yemen — using as the lead in a quote by UK Foreign Secretary (Ivan Lewis) that “we address the economic problems that face Yemen, especially through the IMF program” — Ms. Atkinson said she didn’t have information about Yemen and would have to respond later to Inner City Press. But as February 4 hit midnight, no information was provided. Yemen is in the news, and one would expect the omnipresent Strauss-Kahn to be all over it. We’ll see.

Ms. Atkinson gave a pro-IMF spin in responding to Inner City Press’ question about the IMF’s new loan to Haiti, but we’ll be writing about that later, along with the IMF’s Yemen response.

———————

from Romy Sato <romy.sato@pluto.uni-freiburg.de> date: Fri, Mar 19, 2010 subject Invitation: Freiburg Forum on Environmental Governance 2010

The Freiburg Forum on Environmental Governance 2010 will be held on 16th April in Freiburg, Germany. This year the forum will focus on “The Role of New Media in Environmental Governance”. Speakers from different continents will share their experiences on the potentials and challenges of new media tools to help address pressing environmental problems such as climate change. The forum is organized by students of the Master in Environmental Governance of Freiburg University.

Participation is free of charge, but there are limited places. For registration and further information about the forum, please access: https://www.megforum.uni-freiburg.de

Romy Sato
MSc candidate – Environmental Governance
Albert-Ludwigs Universität Freiburg
DAAD fellow

Merkel says errant states should be kicked out of eurozone.

Angela Merkel says the eurozone’s current rules are not sufficient.

ANDREW WILLIS

17.03.2010 @ 17:45 CET

EUOBSERVER / BRUSSELS – German Chancellor Angela Merkel has said the eurozone must be able to expel members that repeatedly break the club’s fiscal rules in the future.

In a speech to the German parliament on Wednesday (17 March), the chancellor stressed that such an option would only be used “as a last resort”, but added that the EU’s current Stability and Growth Pact rules are no longer sufficient to deal with the euro area’s difficulties.

“In the future, we need an entry in the [Lisbon] Treaty that would make it possible, as a last resort, to exclude a country from the eurozone if the conditions are not fulfilled again and again over the long term,” Ms Merkel said. “Otherwise co-operation is impossible.”

Market doubts over Greece’s ability to meet refinancing needs in the coming months have plunged the euro area into its greatest crisis in its 11-year history, with the possibility of a sovereign debt default weighing heavily on the euro currency.

With a deficit of 12.7 percent of GDP last year, Athens is grossly in breach of the three-percent limit laid down by stability and growth pact. Other member states have proved little better however, raising the prospect of contagion spreading to other EU countries with weak finances such as Portugal or Spain.

Ms Merkel’s comment’s echo plans outlined by Germany’s finance minister, Wolfgang Schaeuble, earlier this month, under which a European IMF-style monetary fund would be set up to aid struggling eurozone countries, but backed up by much tougher fiscal rules including the possibility of expelling repeat offenders.

With German public opinion strongly against a Greek bail-out, to which Berlin would be a main contributor, a number of analysts have interpreted Mr Schauble’s plans as a means of avoiding such aid transfers in the future by making it easier for eurozone members to leave the single currency.

At least one senior euro area official greeted Ms Merkel’s statements with sympathy on Wednesday. “An alternative view of ’safeguarding financial stability’ in the eurozone, [a stated desire of EU leaders], is to look for mechanisms that would facilitate an orderly exit of a consistently ‘misbehaving’ member state,” the official told EUobserver.

Greek situation

With the likely need for a treaty change ruling out the quick establishment of such an exit mechanism, Ms Merkel said no member state should be “left on its own” in a crisis.

But she added that: “A quick act of solidarity is definitely not the right answer,” confirming the German line that no aid will be offered to Greece unless absolutely necessary.

That date may arrive at some point over the months of April and May when roughly €20 billion of Greek debt is set to mature. Athens has indicated that the interest rate of 6.3 percent, offered to investors during the country’s last bond issuance, is unsustainable.

On Tuesday, EU finance ministers agreed much of the detail of a mechanism to provide financial aid to Greece, but the political decision to announce the plans has yet to be taken.

A Greek spokesperson said on Wednesday that the country’s centre-left Pasok administration is looking for “clear support” next week from EU leaders at a summit in Brussels, adding that Athens could turn to the IMF if the EU support is not forthcoming.

“I believe the summit is when it will become evident whether the European partners want to support a country … or whether we have to resort to some other solution,” Mr George Petalotis said, report newswires.

Greece has used the threat of turning to the IMF as a means of putting pressure on euro area governments in the past, with EU officials previously indicating their desire to solve eurozone problems internally.

However, reports suggest a number of eurozone countries are softening their stance on potential IMF aid to Greece, with the international organisation already providing technical advice.

“It would be good if the IMF were a part of the package. Finland supports both technical and economic aid [from the IMF]“, Finnish finance minister Jyrki Katainen reportedly said this week.

———————

EU economic governance inevitable, Belgian PM says

Leterme: “It’s about Europe’s financial stability and it’s not an ideological debate about federalism.”

ANDREW RETTMAN

16.03.2010

EUOBSERVER / BRUSSELS – Belgian Prime Minister Yves Leterme has said that joint economic governance among some or all EU member states is an inevitable consequence of the creation of the euro.

Speaking in an interview with EUobserver about the prospects for setting up a future European Debt Agency (EDA) and a European Monetary Fund (EMF), Mr Leterme predicted that current resistance to the plans will melt away in the coming year.

“You can have doubts about the political will today …but the idea of strengthened economic government has been put on the table and will make progress. In the end, the EDA or something like it will become a reality. I’m convinced of this,” he said.

“It’s about Europe’s financial stability and it’s not an ideological debate about federalism. I myself am a federalist. But more integration and deeper integration are simply logical consequences of having a single currency.”

Mr Leterme floated the debt agency proposal in the press on 5 March.

The agency would be a new EU institution based at the European Investment Bank in Luxembourg. It would help EU governments to borrow money more cheaply by selling bonds guaranteed by all participating states and channeling funds to national treasuries, within a set of limits.

A back-of-the-envelope calculation shows that if markets bought the bonds at an interest rate just 0.1 percent lower than today, the EU as a whole could save €6.6 billion.

The EMF plan was put forward by Germany and involves the creation of a new fund to grant emergency loans to countries at risk of sovereign default.

Both proposals would require EU states to give up fiscal decision-making powers and to co-ordinate national budgets at the EU level to a far greater extent than today. They could also require financially sound EU countries to prop up their insolvent cousins.

The EMF would most likely need a new EU treaty, which forbids eurozone bail-outs as things stand. But the EDA could be set up on the basis of Article 136 of the existing treaty on “the proper functioning of economic and monetary union,” Mr Leterme’s advisors say.

The Belgian leader may raise the debt agency plan at the EU summit on 25 March. It would be “interesting” for EU leaders to discuss it further at the informal, monthly summits proposed by EU Council President Herman Van Rompuy, he said.

The EDA could initially be set up outside EU structures if need be. “We can do a lot of things on an intergovernmental basis, a kind of coalition of the willing, a coalition of the willing of most of the eurozone countries,” Mr Leterme explained.

‘Doubt in their eyes’

The global financial crisis and the more recent Greek debt crisis have caused a shift in EU thinking.

Recalling an extraordinary EU summit in October 2008, which took place a few weeks after the collapse of the US investment bank, Lehman Brothers, the premier said: “We saw the doubt in the eyes of [French and German leaders] Mr Sarkozy and Mrs Merkel. You could feel that they were thinking that sharing the risks, the common approach is not necessary because they were big enough as countries to save their own banking systems.”

But today, he said: “Even Mr Sarkozy and Mrs Merkel realise that if this was to happen again and there was a problem for one of their banks, it would not be easy to avoid a common approach.”

Mr Leterme cautioned that on the one hand, pro-integration countries must strike while the iron is hot: “[The Greek crisis] creates a momentum which we have to seize.”

But on the other hand, the EDA requires a deep technical analysis best made away from the volatile emotions and media glare surrounding the Greek bail-out case. “The problem is that you should not do this at the moment when it is at the core of the public debate. You have to be able to do it in a more theoretical way, a scientific way,” he said.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

munchau@eurointelligence.com

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

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

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

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

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

—————

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

Executive Secretary Yvo de Boer leaves United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change Secretariat.
We knew Yvo since his work for the Dutch government and held him in high esteem. The problem with Yvo was that he fell in for the nothingness of the UN and was not ready to stand up and fight for his subject in face of that nothingness. The UN is nothing more then the lowest common denominator of its member states and on climate it was the oil industry of the major industrial states and the monarchs of the oil exporting states that colluded in holding the subject under the table. The Rio UNCED ghost of Maurice Strong was still around and pushing for the importance of the conventions signed at the 1992 UN meeting on Environment and Development, so the subject could not be killed, but then most countries were ready to push it under the table. The US did not ratify any of those conventions anyway. Morris Strong is now active in China – we saw him last December in Copenhagen outside the UNFCCC compound.

When Yvo de Boer – the Executive Secretary of the UNFCCC, headquartered in Bonn, thanks to a wish of the  German government to find some use for that city after moving its capital back to Berlin, a UN body run by delegates of UN Member States that was located in Bonn together with the Secretariats of the other Rio Conventions Secretariats, according to UN rules set up in New York, came for the first time to New York as a UN official, back in 2006, when I was still  an official  member of the UN Press Corps, I fought for having UN Department of Public Information set up a Press Conference with the head of this important new UN body. He was given about 10 minutes in the Press briefing-room – that infamous S-226. I organized a few correspondents to demand more time with him, and we did have the chance to talk with him, officially,  further using the UNCA room (UN Correspondents Association) as a venue. The Pakistani head of UNCA did not like it. Neither  The New York Times nor the CNN came. Their correspondents at the time did not believe yet in climate change – actually very few – but the best journalists came – those that were the budding internet breed. Just four years ago – the UN was still considered as the place where one should be able to explain the global aspects of CO2 emissions. The problems with not being able to do so were palpable. I thought then that Yvo understood where his main opposition will be – in this  New York spirit of the UN – and thanks to his EU base Yvo de Boer will be ready to fight for the cause and not be just another UN bureaucrat.

But I was disappointed. He did become a UN bureaucrat and smiled – ear to ear – along with UNSG Ban Ki-moon in that “SEAL THE DEAL” – when there was no deal – CHARADE. The following press release that is being released by the official UNFCCC Press officers that worked along his side all those years, shows that Yvo de Boer understood the reality of the situation all along – but does not explain why he did not try to manage the subject with personal pride in what he was doing there. Though personal, but this is nevertheless something that throws a shadow on Mr. de Boer, is the fact that when under the new UN Secretary General, Mr. Ahmad Fawzi managed finally the feat to declare our website as non-UN-Press under his rules, something he fought for but was rejected by Mr. Sashi Tharoor, the Under Secretary General under UNSG Kofi Annan, Yvo de Boer bowed to the decision – though he knew well that our website is fighting for what should have been his cause in his job. Yvo de Boer ran an organization that was lacking positive press because he bowed to those in New York that did not want climate change positive press. It is as simple as that – so he is responsible for failures by not having fought strong enough for success.

Yes, we knew all the time that it will eventually be the industry and business that will, come the day, move on climate change work. We knew all the time that China is in the lead despite everything that they were saying in public – climate change does work well for innovative business and that is why it will win in the end. We knew that the meeting in Poznan is a waste of time and there is no deal for Copenhagen. We had misgivings about going to Bali, and when I came to Vienna to participate at a pre-Bali meeting Mr. De Boer bowed to a note from Mr. Ahmad Fawzi and was not ready to let me in as Press. Had he been ready to show backbone for the subject he was in charge off – he could have found ways to resolve the conflict by granting limited accreditation – for God’s sake – he knew me, knew what I was doing, knew the problems, where was his fighting spirit?

Yes, we think that Yvo de Boer will be a good addition to the climate consultancy business, and lobby within the States that can start implement such programs internally, and within business relationships, in context of more limited groupings – like a G2 – a possible G5 or G7 – a United EU, etc. They need the experience he has accumulated, and we hope that in these contexts he will indeed develop his career and find himself as well. KPMG is a good outfit for this. Work with Universities is good as well, and personally would love to see him involved at the Earth Institute at Columbia University where he could still be around at the UN periphery and finally not be hindered from speaking  truth.

Also, let me repeat once more – Copenhagen was not the disaster as the UN contends. It was thanks to President Obama’s trip to Beijing that it has become the start to moves in the real world – with China and The White House officially on board. Will the new Secretary General of the UNFCCC be chosen so that he leads within the context of the reality that is now open for all to see? Pitty that Mr. Yvo de Boer did burn himself out by putting himself too much in those losing dancing shoes – though we see now that the dance was not unknown to him.

——————–

A UNFCCC PRESS RELEASE

Executive Secretary leaves United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change Secretariat

<http://unfccc.int/press/press_releases_advisories/items/4712.php>

(Bonn, 18 February 2010) – Mr. Yvo de Boer has announced today that he will
resign his position as Executive Secretary of the United Nations Framework
Convention on Climate Change as of 1 July 2010. Mr. de Boer will be joining
the consultancy group KPMG as Global Adviser on Climate and Sustainability,
as well as working with a number of universities.

“Working with my colleagues at the UNFCCC Secretariat in support of the
climate change negotiations has been a tremendous experience”, said Mr. de
Boer who has led the organisation since September 2006. “It was a difficult
decision to make, but I believe the time is ripe for me to take on a new
challenge, working on climate and sustainability with the private sector
and academia,” he explained.

“I have always maintained that while governments provide the necessary
policy framework, the real solutions must come from business,” said Yvo de
Boer. “Copenhagen did not provide us with a clear agreement in legal terms,
but the political commitment and sense of direction toward a low-emissions
world are overwhelming. This calls for new partnerships with the business
sector and I now have the chance to help make this happen”, he added.

Mr. de Boer will remain in his current position until 1st July and help
negotiations move forward ahead of the Climate Change Conference in Mexico
in November this year. “Countries responsible for 80% of energy related CO2
emissions have submitted national plans and targets to address the climate
change. This underlines their commitment to meet the challenge of climate
change and work towards an agreed outcome in Cancun”, he said.

Mr. de Boer (1954) was appointed Executive Secretary of the UNFCCC in
September 2006. Before that he was extensively involved in European Union
environmental policy as deputy Director General of the Dutch Environment
Ministry.  Mr. de Boer has also served as Vice-chair of the U.N. Commission
on Sustainable Development, acted as an advisor to the Government of China
and the World Bank and worked closely with the World Business Council on
Sustainable Development.

About the UNFCCC

With 194 Parties, the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change
(UNFCCC) has near universal membership and is the parent treaty of the 1997
Kyoto Protocol. The Kyoto Protocol has been ratified by 190 of the UNFCCC
Parties. Under the Protocol, 37 States, consisting of highly industrialized
countries and countries undergoing the process of transition to a market
economy, have legally binding emission limitation and reduction
commitments. The ultimate objective of both treaties is to stabilize
greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere at a level that will
prevent dangerous human interference with the climate system.

For further information, please contact:

Mr. Eric Hall, Spokesperson/Manager of Communications and Media
Tel.: (+49-228) 815-1398; mobile: (+49-172) 259-0443; e-mail: ehall
(at)unfccc.int

Mr. John Hay, Media Information Officer
Tel.: (+49-228) 815-1404; mobile: (+49-172) 258-6944; e-mail: jhay
(at)unfccc.int

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

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

“This resolution should be considered as a first step.

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

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

Mr Davies, ALDE Environment Spokesman added:

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

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

Spain pushes for common strategy on electric cars.
VALENTINA POP

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Arava Power Gets Deals For 15 Mid-Size Solar Fields

Date: 08-Feb-10
Country: ISRAEL
Author: Tova Cohen, Reuthers

TEL AVIV – Israeli solar energy developer Arava Power said on Sunday it signed long-term contracts with 15 agricultural cooperatives to build mid-size solar fields at an investment of 2 billion shekels ($533 million).

The fields will produce a total of 100 megawatts of solar energy using photovoltaics, for an average of 6.5 megawatts per field.

Arava said it is advancing rooftop solar installations on cowsheds and factories in the signatory cooperatives.

Last year German conglomerate Siemens invested $15 million in Arava Power to build 10 five-megawatt solar fields.

In December the Public Utilities Authority decided to allow mid-size solar fields at a nationwide capacity of 300 megawatts but many in the industry believe this cap will be filled quickly.

“The goal to produce 300 solar megawatts is an important step toward implementing the government’s decision to produce 5 percent of Israel’s energy consumption from renewable sources by 2014, but it’s not enough,” Arava Power Chief Executive Jon Cohen said.

“In order to achieve this goal, at least 1,000 megawatts are needed, and the market indicates that … mid-size solar fields can fill the gap faster than any other source.”

Arava Power President Yosef Abramowitz said that in each of the 15 mid-size field locations the company plans to build a large-size field, adding another 500 megawatts to its pipeline.

“Together with our partners from Siemens, we are weighing additional proposals from investors,” he said, without providing further details.

Siemens also acquired Israel’s Solel Solar Systems in October for $418 million.

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

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

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

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

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

———————–

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

e-consultation on setting of an independent scientific body on land degradation/desertification

from: Pam Chasek

Dear Colleagues,

We invite you to participate in a global scientific e.consultation on the needs, usefulness and options of an independent, international, interdisciplinary scientific advisory body on land degradation/desertification. The proposed body would primarily provide scientific advice to the United Nations Convention on Combating Desertification (UNCCD) to aid decision-making to combat land degradation and to achieve sustainable land management and development in drylands. It may also be relevant to various on-going efforts to harmonize knowledge on land matters.

DesertNet International and UNU-INWEH have developed this e.forum to canvass contributions from different regions and interested parties on this issue and as an input into the decision made at COP9 that requests the Committee on Science and Technology (CST) to assess how to organise international, interdisciplinary scientific advice. This activity thus, supports the follow-up of the first scientific-style UNCCD conference to the CST SS-2 in 2010 which will be making recommendations to COP10 of the UNCCD.

You can register to participate in the e.forum at: redmine at example.net. You will have to activate your account by clicking on the link that is given in this e.mail.

If you have any problems registering or answering the questions please let us know.

Please note that in the e.forum survey questionnaire you have to press the <save> button before proceeding to the next question!

Please forward this e.mail also to other experts.

The e.forum starts on 25 January 2010 and will end on 25 March 2010.

We acknowledge the generous assistance and sponsorship of the GTZ CCD Project in this exercise.

Best regards,
also on behalf of the DNI Bureau members Richard Escadafal and Giuseppe Enne who are members of the international steering committee of the E.forum.
Mariam Akhtar-Schuster and Richard Thomas

********************************************************************
Dr. Mariam Akhtar-Schuster
Sekretariat DesertNet International (DNI)
c/o Biocentre Klein Flottbek and Botanical Garden
University of Hamburg
Ohnhorststr. 18, 22609 Hamburg, Germany
Tel  +49 (0)40 42816 – 533
Fax +49 (0)40 42816 – 539
E-mail:  makhtar-schuster at botanik.uni-hamburg….
********************************************************************

Richard Thomas
Assistant Director (Drylands)
United Nations University
Institute for Water, Environment and Health
(UNU-INWEH)
175 Longwood Road South, Suite 204
Hamilton, ON  L8P 0A1
CANADA
Tel: +1 905 667 5511
Tel: +1 905 667 5490 (direct)
Fax: +1 905 667 5510
Email:  rthomas at inweh.unu.edu
Web: www.inweh.unu.edu

Pamela S. Chasek, Ph.D.
Executive Editor, Earth Negotiations Bulletin
IISD Reporting Services

300 East 56th Street #11A New York, NY 10022 USA
Tel: +1 212-888-2737- Fax: +1 646 219 0955
E-mail:  pam at iisd.org
International Institute for Sustainable Development (IISD)
 http://www.iisd.ca/email/subscribe.htm

.

The Best at the UN ends up reflecting also on the worst: The UN Headquarters have many people of value – of compassion and of hope for a better future – this besides of some in the bureaucracy that might be innocents with no vision, others might be plants from Member States that want no part of human rights, dignity, or even of plain truth – so be it.

The good people under the leadership of Eric Falt and Kimberly Mann came up with a very interesting program that we posted earlier so people from outside the UN could know how to find their way in order to participate at these events. The list is in our following link:
 http://www.sustainabilitank.info/2010/01…

Later we found out that the information about these events was sent to parties outside the UN, was made available to the Press accredited to the UN, but as it turned out – from the 6 events listed by UN Outreach – only two events were printed in the Daily Journal of the UN. That journal is not made available now to NGOs – only to the diplomats – but then NGOs get their information from reading the Journal on the internet – so you can say that the UN Department of Information – the source of the Journal – even though it can contend that it made the information available to the PRESS – can in no way justify why it did not make available the information to the in-house members of the UN – except may-be say that some of those were not interested in the Holocaust as more pressing issues are at hand. But what about the educational aspects that were so important to the good people of the UN Outreach Division?

The day after the main event of Wednesday, a head of an NGO Committee that is daily at the UN, asked me – how did you know about the concert? I did not see it listed anywhere. And trust me – that was neither a question of space nor of security. Then what?

The UN In-House events numbered six, and participation was being granted by various sources – some of them outside the UN.

Let us start with the two events that appeared continuously in the Journal announcements:

These were the Wednesday January 27, 2010 event organized by the Jewish B’nai Brith International NGO in cooperation with the UN Permanent Mission of the Czech Republic. It dealt with the “Inter religious responses to the Holocaust – 65 years after liberation.” Tickets to this event were sent out by the B’nai Brith organization. There was no problem obtaining them after the appropriate phone call.

The other event was on Thursday January 28, 2010 – titled “The Moroccan Jews and Their legacy of survival.” The Journal does not mention that it was organized by the Moroccan Government but directed those interested to contact the DPI/NGO section as it was booked as a regular, weekly, DPI briefing to the NGOs. When approached – the appropriate UN officials said – send us a letter on NGO letterhead. So – this event was being treated as a regular NGO event – not as the important message that the Moroccan Government intended to put forward before members of the UN, and others who actually had no knowledge that during the terrible days of the Holocaust – there was indeed one Arab King – H.M. King Muhammad V of Morocco – who told the Nazis – the Jews of Morocco are my subjects and I do not discriminate between Jews and other Moroccans. Now that was a powerful message that deserved to be heard at the UN – and if not – the organization does not deserve the funds the world sends its way. I had no doubt that I had to take a stand on this issue – and I did.

———

The other four events of the week, none of them listed in the Journal, included two quentesential exhibits organized by Non-Governmental factors outside the UN.

On Monday, January 25, 2010,  there was a show of hope – it was actually called “Generations: Survival and Legacy of Hope,” for which entrance was obtained from the Shoa Foundation Institute in Los Angeles. This organization, funded initially by Mr. Steven Spielberg from Schindler’s list funds, has documented on video the stories of survivors and their descendants. Two families were present at the showing of material. Despite the terrible material it is the hope that shows through in the success of having picked up their lives again – this is what gives a reason for having hope in institutions that were established under the “Never Again” logo. This event – paired up with the following day opening – together form the raison d’etre for the UN institution – but you would not know this from the way the UN kept these two events of its Journal.

On Tuesday. January 26, 2010, the Exhibit – “Architecture of Murder: Auschwitz-Birkenau,” for which entrance was obtained from the Yad Vashem – Holocaust Martyrs’ and Heroes’ Remembrance Authority. At this event participated also the UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon, The Israeli Minister for Public Diplomacy and Diaspora Yuli-Yoel Edelstein, and US Ambassador Rick Barton.

——–

The other two events that were not listed in the Journal are:

- The main Holocaust Memorial Ceremony and Concert in the General Assembly Hall for which one needed special tickets – so it was clearly a more controlled participation, and that was the event that the lady I mentioned earlier asked me about as she would have wanted to come had she known about it.

- The Thursday January 28, 2010 screening of the film “Defiance” that was co-sponsored by the Permanent Mission of the US and had present the lady that wrote the book, Nehama Tec, and her son who made the movie. The great thing about this movie is that it depicts the true story of the Bielski brothers – a story of Jewish fighters in the forests of Belarus – as the UN release says correctly – it depicts  “the struggle of a group of brave Jews who fought against overwhelming odds thus providing a sharp contrast to the countless WWII movies that portray Jews just as victims.” The two Bielski Brigades – the one under one brother that fought with the Russian partisans, and the other – under another brother that guarded the Jewish families in the forest. When the two groups fought together – they turned around the Nazi effort to clear the forest. 1200 people survived thanks to the Bielskis’ leadership. Two of the three Bielskis survived and eventually owned a small trucking business in the US.

On November 1, 2005, SIXTY YEARS SINCE THE END OF WORLD WAR II, THE LIBERATION OF THE AUSCHWITZ EXTERMINATION CAMP BY THE SOVIET ARMY, AND THE ESTABLISHMENT OF THE UN, finally, the UN that in major part came about because of the fact that the world realized that walking in the ashes caused by anti-Semitism and other isms, is not the will of the human race; the UN was created to learn from that experience – but did it? It took 60 years, the creation of the State of Israel, the travails of Zionism is Racism abomination, and one strong Ambassador of humanity to the organization – US Professor/ Senator/Ambassador Moynihan, to start to beat the anti-Semitic UN steel into compliance.

—————

UN Designates International Holocaust day
November 1, 2005, release:

The UN General Assembly has decided by acclaim to designate January 27 as international Holocaust Day.

This is the first time ever that a resolution introduced by Israel has been adopted by the UN General Assembly. Some not inconsiderable distance has been traveled from the infamous “Zionism is Racism” resolution to this resolution. At least, the world can be united in condemning genocide, even if “Zionists” propose the initiative. The vision of Austria and Germany co-sponsoring and approving of such a resolution is certainly heartening to the surviving victims of Nazi persecution, to the Jews, gypsies and others whose families died in the Holocaust and to the state of Israel.

Unfortunately, it is not at all certain how some countries will mark this day. Some of the rhetoric of the UN discussion is ominous: Several Muslim and Arab governments expressed “reservations.” Some countries believe that the Holocaust, in which a state turned against noncombatant civilians, was the same as bombing the cities of enemy countries at war. In many of the countries that approved of this resolution and even among those whose representatives spoke kind words about humanitarianism, Mein Kampf and the Protocols of the Elders of Zion are best sellers. Some of those countries have been accessories after the fact to genocide, or committed it themselves. In those countries, every day is Holocaust day. From the remarks of the Ukrainian representative, you would not know that the Jews of the Ukraine were rounded up by Ukrainian SS, or that the gas chambers at Auschwitz were run by a Ukrainian nicknamed “Ivan the terrible.”

What public activities will mark Holocaust day in Iran, where President Ahmedinejad has called for a world without Zionism and America? In Syria, a book about the Blood Libel (the accusation that Jews kill Christian children in order to use their blood for baking Matzot) was written by the former minister of Defense. Syria also made notable contributions to the history of racial persecution in its treatment of the Kurds. Will Syria mark this day in sympathy with the victims, or will they celebrate it by showing, perhaps, a screening of Lenni Riefenstahl’s Triumph of the Will? Will this day become an occasion for so-called “anti-Zionists” to trot out Holocaust denial and accusations that Israel is committing a Holocaust against the Palestinians, or that the Zionists collaborated with the Nazis?

Will the world again stand aside at the next genocide, as it did in Rwanda, and as it did for a very long time in Darfur, and as it continues to do in Tibet? In the discussion, each state was quick to accuse others of genocide, but unwilling to accept responsibility for crimes of their own states and governments. The Venezuelans spoke about Hiroshima and Nagasaki. The Chinese alluded to Japanese crimes. The Ukrainians alluded to Soviet crimes. The discussion would have more meaning if the Americans had spoken about Hiroshima and Nagasaki, the Chinese had spoken about their activities in Tibet, the Japanese had spoken the rape of Mongolia and the Turks had spoken of the Armenian genocide.

The implementation of the resolution will be of more consequence than the paper or the words themselves,  and the reality of the actions of states will be more important than either.

The proliferation of vile Web sites and articles about the “Holocaust Myth,” claiming the Holocaust never happened and is yet another Jewish plot, points up the urgent need for this day of remembrance.

Alert readers of what was said that say will note some bitter ironies in the remarks of representatives of some states, whose people and governments were active collaborators or passive accessories in the crime of the Holocaust.

The date – January 27 – was picked as that was the date the Auschwitz-Birkenau extermination machine was closed by the Soviet army. http://www.zionism-israel.com/news/holocaust_day.htm

The first commemoration was held at the UN in 2006 and this year we have thus the fifth such event – or actually a series of events, that traditionally start on the Saturday before the actual date with a ceremony at the Park East Synagogue located on Manhattan’s East Side – Midtown.

The list of this year’s events at the UN, as provided to parties outside the UN – and published on our website is:
 http://www.sustainabilitank.info/2010/01…

But besides the UN itself, the fact that the UN has thrown the light upon the Holocaust atrocities, and the world’s need to remember these atrocities by having an International day of Remembrance, it is now that even in unexpected places in the civilized world, we find events being organized for the purpose of remembering and of learning from that experience. We thought thus to mention here one such event in a place we hardly expected to find it – the main Carnival city of the North-East of Brazil – Recife, Pernambuco, Brazil.
 http://www.sustainabilitank.info/2010/01…

We will be reporting on this year’s week-long series in several postings that will involve also other related events – for now we will put up the clear Jewish angle to the comemoration – as it reflected in the Park East Sybagogue events and in the political official presentation at the UN main event of January 27, 2010

REMARKS AT PARK EAST SYNAGOGUE IN MEMORY OF THE VICTIMS OF THE HOLOCAUST

by H.E. Srgjan Kerim President of the 62nd session of the United Nations General Assembly.

Park East Synagogue
New York, 26 January 2008

Rabbi Schneier,
Excellencies,
Members of Park East Synagogue,
Dear Friends,

I am very grateful to Rabbi Schneier for inviting me to the Park East
Synagogue – a historic architectural treasure in the heart of
Manhattan.

I am sure that you are all very proud of Rabbi Schneier for his
commitment and spiritual leadership that has brought this synagogue
international recognition.

It was only five years ago that I had my first opportunity to attend
and participate in a Jewish ceremony, here at the Park East Synagogue.
The experience inspired me to write a poem entitled ‘Temple’. I would
like to share a short extract with you today. I hope you will
appreciate it;

Nowhere in the world is it possible
To find such a grandiose temple
That would keep for ages
The layers of human sin
And all our shame.

I’ve always believed
There’s nothing greater in a temple
Than the final sounds melting
In the concluding Amin
Until I heard the word
Of a great friend of mine
Who walked in the steps of Moses
And is called a Rabbin.

Park East Beit Knesset,

I wish there would not have been such an occasion for me to address
you today. However, as we all know the Holocaust happened. It is
definitely one of the darkest pages in the history of mankind.

Unfortunately, we are still facing some lonely, desperate attempts to
blur the horrifying dimensions of the Holocaust.

We gather here today to remember and pay homage to those who lost
their lives in the Holocaust; the atrocities that they were subjected
to can never be forgotten.
The perpetrators of the Holocaust fed man’s ego with delusions of
supremacy and tried to erase the bonds that all human beings share.

The liberation of the Nazi concentration camps over 60 years ago
revealed one of the most evil crimes against humanity. The
consequences still reverberate in the present.

Elie Wiesel – Nobel Laureate, a Holocaust survivor and champion of
moral responsibility – has best put this into perspective:

“Let us remember, let us remember the heroes of Warsaw, the martyrs of
Treblinka, the children of Auschwitz. They fought alone, they suffered
alone, they lived alone, but they did not die alone, for something in
all of us died with them.”

We must also remember to pay tribute to those who survived and bravely
carried on with their lives – and in doing so inspired others. I would
like to salute the strength and perseverance of all Holocaust
survivors and their families.

I know that some of you are with us today.

Not only have you survived, but you have rebuilt communities all over
the world, become stronger, and enabled future generations to thrive.
You just have to look around at all the people gathered here today to
recognize this fact.

The recognition of this day of Holocaust remembrance by the
international community heralded a change of tide at the United
Nations; and, a step forward in the collective memory and conscience
of our world.

Dear Friends,
Remembrance of the Holocaust is more than the recognition of a tragic
past – or the darker side of human nature.

Remembering is an ethical act; it has ethical value in itself.

Remembrance is also a means through which we can understand ourselves:
an engine for change that should enable us to create and sustain a
better, more just future.

I am reminded of my father and his family. During the Second World War
he bravely helped to save and protect the family of Isac Sion – his
school friend – amidst the terror of occupation.

At the age of twenty my father and Isac subsequently joined the
National Liberation Movement of Macedonia to fight for freedom,
against the Nazi dictatorship, alongside the Allies.

Isac Sion subsequently went on to become Vice-governor of the Central
Bank of the Former Yugoslavia and following this was appointed as
Yugoslavia’s trade representative to the United Kingdom.

My father and many others like him served the Jewish people in their
hour of need. Their actions epitomize the practical meaning of
something profound that the famous Irish politician and philosopher
Edmund Burke once said, and I quote;

“All that is needed for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing.”

When I had my first opportunity, in some small way, to redress the
atrocities committed during the Holocaust – as foreign Minister of
Macedonia – in 2000, I appointed Elie Wiesel as our first Special
Envoy and Goodwill Ambassador. He then became the United Nations
Messenger of Peace for Human Rights and the Holocaust.

And, in honour of the Jewish community, my country will soon complete
the construction of a Holocaust Memorial Centre. This is a symbolic
gesture to bring back the memory of the victims from Treblinka to
Skopje.

Looking back at the turbulent history of the Balkan region there are
some bitter lessons that we must learn: war begins when the perception
of the pain of others ends. We can also turn this around to say that
when the perception of the pain of others begins there is no room for
war.

We must remember that every religion and culture must be tolerant of
the legitimate right for others to assert their difference in freedom.

Furthermore, intolerance of other religions or cultures is often a
sign of the degree of intolerance within a particular religion or
culture.

Dear Friends and members of Park East Beit Knesset,

The United Nations was founded on the ashes of the Holocaust, when the
world was in need of hope for a better future.
It was created to embody that hope as a promise to humanity. However,
most disturbingly, since the Holocaust there have been genocides and
serious crimes against humanity in Cambodia, Rwanda, and Yugoslavia.

That these atrocities occurred is not necessarily the failure of the
United Nations as an organization; but rather, represents the lack of
collective will of its Member States to take the decision to act or
intervene.

Even while we gather here, there are places – like Darfur – where
people suffer from the very crimes, which, time and time again, we
have vowed would never again happen.

For the dignity of all humanity, we must strengthen our ability – our
collective resolve – to prevent such atrocities, whenever and wherever
they might occur.

Indeed, terrorism, violence, rape, murder, poverty and discrimination
on the grounds of race or religion continue to be part of the everyday
lives of many people. This fact alone should jar us with indignation.

Despite the tragic failures of the international community to prevent
crimes against humanity since the founding of the United Nations,
there is hope – failure is not an option.

In 2005, the General Assembly passed a resolution that included the
‘Responsibility to Protect’. In doing so, all nations signaled their
commitment to take action – to hold themselves accountable – to
recognize that with sovereign rights come responsibilities to their
peoples.

In fact all of us here today can add our voice, with the United
Nations, to ensure that this new paradigm within international
relations comes to life.

Rabbi Schneier offers us an example of what we can do. He has been a
great advocate for human rights, and the promotion of religious and
ethnic tolerance. He has worked tirelessly to strengthen ties with
communities from different faiths and backgrounds through his good
works and publications.

In 2003 we jointly organized the first ever South East European
regional conference on ‘Dialogue among Civilizations’, at Lake Ohrid
in Macedonia.

In this spirit, and as we have just celebrated the life of the great
Martin Luther King Jr., I think it is fitting that I should recount
something he once said. It captures the same call to action that needs
to be instilled in the world today if we are to prevent a repeat of
the Holocaust;

“injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere….. Whatever
affects one directly, affects all directly.”

Dear Friends,

On the occasion of the International Day of Commemoration in memory of
the victims of the Holocaust, as well as of the 60th Anniversary of
the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, let us embrace our
diversity, and honor our interdependence, as the only path to peace
and justice.

Together, it is our common challenge to eliminate all distorted
notions that deepen barriers and widen divides: for they all originate
in the discriminatory practices of the mind.

We can achieve this by promoting intercultural dialogue and
cooperation for peace as a means to replace misunderstanding with
mutual respect and acceptance.

But we must also move from words to action, from principled intentions
to deeds that promote human security, human rights, the responsibility
to protect and sustainable development. For herein lies the hope of a
new culture of international relations with the United Nations as its
centerpiece.

Members of Park East Beit Knesset,
And, all those gathered here today,

Let me wish all of you and the wider community peace, health and prosperity.

Let all our thoughts honour the victims of the Holocaust, and let us
spare no effort to ensure that we never again witness such evil. We
may not be able to change the past, but we must have the courage and
vision to change the future.

In order to do so, it is not enough to reiterate solemn gestures; we
must do everything possible to transform our attitudes to have full
regard for the dignity of all individuals, communities and nations.

Thank you. Shalom.

————–

But that was the last President of the UN General Assembly to be welcome

to speak before a Jewish Audience – in those 5 years. Before him were: Mr. Jan Eliasson of Sweden #60,

and Sheikha Haya Rashed Al Khalifa of  Bahrain #61.

Now it is UNGA’s 64th session: On 10 June 2009, Ali Abdussalam Treki

of Libya was elected by acclamation at a plenary meeting of the

192-member body of the United Nations General Assembly.

Treki assumed office as president of the 64th session on 15 September 2009,
succeeding General Assembly president, Miguel d’Escoto Brockmann of
Nicaragua who was 63rd President of the UNGA. Both these gentlemen
have made anti-Israeli statements and were also mentioned in this
context as plain anti-Semites, thus making it impossible to listen to
their linguistic expressions when it comes to the commemoration of the
liberation of Auschwitz. Thus, these last two years, the presentations
at the UN, it was Vice Presidents of the UNGA that spoke in their
place, and the UN General Assembly as such was not represented at the
Saturday pre-commemoration service at the Park East Synagogue.

But in 2009, The Park East Congregation had the honor to host the UN
Secretary General.

—————-
Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon
24 January 2009

Remarks at Holocaust Remembrance Day Ceremony at the Park East Synagogue:

Thank you very much, Rabbi [Arthur] Schneier, for that kind introduction.

I especially appreciate you for calling me a mensch. With apologies to
those of you who do not speak Yiddish, I have to say: thank goodness
he didn’t call me meshugenah.

To all, I wish you Shabat Shalom.

Excellencies, distinguished Ambassadors to the United Nations,

Ladies and Gentlemen,

Today we mark the International Day of Commemoration honoring victims
of the Holocaust. This is a most important and solemn occasion.

As you know, my friend, the late Tom Lantos, died shortly after last
year’s observance. Some of you may have met him when he came to this
Synagogue. He was dear to me, as he was to you. He made an
extraordinary journey from a Nazi labor camp to the halls of Congress.
He became a leading champion of truth and justice. Like those of you
who also lived through the Holocaust, he was never defeated by the
unspeakable horrors that he survived.

I can only imagine what he endured. Yet I, too, have witnessed man’s
inhumanity to man. I have seen it as Secretary-General, traveling in
places torn by war. And I saw it as a six-year old boy fleeing to the
mountains to escape fighting in my own country.

The UN helped South Korea to recover. Like Tom Lantos, like many of
you, I came to believe in the transformative power of the United
Nations.

Today, the UN is on the cusp of a great transition. Never have global
challenges been so large. Climate change, terrorism, the global
financial crisis – these troubles transcend borders. They affect all
countries, rich and poor. They will be overcome only when all
countries come together in response. That’s why we have a United
Nations.

Yes, the UN has its imperfections. It’s not perfect. Because of this,
from day one since I took office, I have pushed to change it. I have
insisted on a new culture of transparency and accountability. I have
worked to make the UN more efficient, effective, modern. In short, we
have tried to make it a better instrument to serve mankind.

We are here to mark the Holocaust. Like you, the United Nations is
determined to tell its timeless lessons.

Precisely two years ago, the UN General Assembly adopted a resolution
condemning, without reservation, any denial of the Holocaust. I quote:
“Ignoring the historical fact of those terrible events increases the
risk they will be repeated.”

With you, I stand in saying: never again. Never. When I paid tribute
to Holocaust victims at Yad Vashem, I wrote in the book there, “Never
again. Never.”

Memory speaks. That is why it must be preserved and passed to future
generations.

Our Holocaust Outreach Program sponsors exhibits, workshops and panel
discussions. The aim: to confront deniers, or those who would minimize
the importance of the Holocaust.

When President Ahmadinejad of Iran declared that Israel should
“disappear,” or be “wiped off the map,” I strongly condemned his
remarks – twice.

We at the United Nations stand for human rights.

We stand for democracy and the rule of law. By working for economic
and social development, we build the foundations for peace.

We have a new instrument in our hands. It is called the Responsibility
to Protect – the idea that every nation has a legal obligation to
protect its people from genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing and
crimes against humanity. Where nations fall short, the international
community has the right to take collective action.

Yes, it is difficult in practice. But I assure you. This is a major
advance in safeguarding mankind from crimes against humanity.

My friends,

Today is not simply a time for remembering. The Holocaust has lessons
for us, here and now. Let us heed them.

My job can sometimes be terribly painful. I see unbelievable hardship,
the worst human suffering. You are familiar with the grim catalogue of
names and places: the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Darfur,
Somalia and, of course, the Middle East.

I am just back from the region. I went to push for a cease-fire. More,
I went in search of a lasting peace.

The recurring violence between Palestinians and Israelis is a mark of
collective political failure – by both sides and by the international
community.

I saw first-hand what most people saw on television. I met a child and
his parents in Sderot, southern Israel, traumatized by falling
rockets. Never for one moment have I forgotten that a million people
in southern Israel live in a daily state of terror and fear.

In Gaza, I saw the most appalling devastation. I saw the UN compound,
still burning.

I said to all I met, on both sides: This must stop.

I left the region more determined than ever to work toward a world
where two States, Israel and Palestine, live side by side in peace and
security. War can never be an answer. We need to strengthen the forces
of peaceful coexistence and dialogue.

No one sees this more clearly than your own Rabbi Schneier. He has
devoted his life to overcoming hatred and intolerance.

You all know him as the founder and president of the Appeal for
Conscience Foundation. What you may not know, and what I am very
grateful to him for, is his pioneering work for the UN’s Alliance of
Civilizations.

He knows first-hand that no one man or nation has all the answers. He
knows the sacred value of tolerance. He has survived the greatest
trials that life can hurl at a man or a woman and emerged not only
with his humanity and spirit intact but stronger. He survived the
Holocaust. Like others among you, he never lost sight of man’s
essential humanity, our capacity for good, our inherent dignity.

So, let us be frank. We must recognize the limits of power and
goodwill. We here know that we can never entirely rid the world of its
tyrants and its intolerance. We cannot turn all extremists to the path
of reason and light. We can only stand against them and raise our
voices in the name of our common humanity.

Tom Lantos was fond of saying that even the littlest actions, the
smallest of our daily deeds, can do much to leave this earth better,
less evil, less selfish, less monstrous than we found it. And he
stressed that doing these things, even in a modest way, gives you the
energy to keep moving forward. On this day of days, that seems to me
to be good advice.

As we remember the victims of the Holocaust, let us reaffirm our faith
in the dignity of humankind and our extraordinary resilience – our
moral strength – even amid history’s darkest chapters.

Thank you very much.

—————–

On January 23, 2010, before a full house at Park East Synagogue, the
main speaker for Saturday Pre-Commemoration of the International
Holocaust Remembrance Day was  Ambassador Susan Rice of the USA, and
at the actual ceremony at the UN General Assembly Hall was German
Ambassador to the UN H.E. Peter Wittig.

The remarks were:
 http://usun.state.gov/briefing/statement…

 http://www.newyorkun.diplo.de/Vertretung…

At the Park East Service this year, a further Honored Guest was Rabbi Ricardo Di Segni, the Chief Rabbi of Rome, who has been visited at his Synagogue by the Pope, also as part of this year’s Holocaust Remembrance.

Also present were Ambassador Thomas Mayr-Harting of Austria, Ambassador Peter Wittig of Germany, Ambassador Gerard Araud of France, Ambassador Anastassis Mitsialis of Greece, Ambassador Marta Horvathne Fekzi of Hungary, H.E. Most Reverend Celestino Migliore the Permanent Representative of the Vatican, Ambassador Yukio Takasu of Japan, Ambassador Cesare Maria Ragaglini of Italy, Ambassador Mohamed Loulichki of Morocco, Ambassador Jim McLay of New Zealand, Ambassador Andrzey Towpik of Poland, Ambassador Juan Antonio Yanez-Barnuevo of Spain, Ambassador Rayko S. Raytchev of Bulgaria, Ambassador Kim Won-soo, from the UN Secretary General’s Office, and about further twenty top Diplomatic Representatives. But I must remark that from all the Islamic and African Countries only Morocco was present – and from the newly emerging States only Brazil and China were present.

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.”

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

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

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

—————–

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

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

—————-

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

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

View the program here: newsletter_impressao

The three most important Sustainable Development Key Performance Indicators for 68 industries (SD-KPI Standard 2010-2014)

22,4% of SD-KPIs are related to energy issues respectively “  -  energy and greenhouse gas efficiency of production / products / services / distribution”.

On behalf of the German Federal Environment Ministry and with participation
of leading sustainable investors/analysts, who influence sustainable assets
of c. Euro 2 trillion with offices in all important industrial countries,
Dr. Axel Hesse (SD-M) has defined the three most important Sustainable
Development Key Performance Indicators (SD-KPIs) for the business
development of 68 industries in the next five years (according to the
MSCI/S&P Global Industry Classification Standard, GICS). The participants
have been Credit Agricole Cheuvreux, Dexia Asset Management, Ethix SRI
Advisors, GES Investment Services, Hermes, imug/EIRIS, KLD Research &
Analytics, RiskMetrics Group, Sarasin, Social Investment Forum Japan,
Societe Generale, Sustainalytics and Vigeo.

SD-KPIs have been called a “minimum reporting standard” for sustainability
information in annual reports/management commentaries according to the EU
accounting law by the German Federal Environment Ministry.

For leading European pensions funds with Euro 460 billion of assets under
management long-term investments based on the SD-KPI concept offer high
outperformance potential in comparison to broader sustainable research
approaches.

The copyrighted SD-KPI Standard 2010-2014 can be downloaded for free at
www.SD-M.de in the section “SD-KPIs”. I am looking forward to your feedback
or inquiry.
———————-
Dr. rer. oec. Axel Hesse (mailto:Hesse@SD-M.de)
Senior Consultant
SD-M Sustainable Development Management (www.SD-M.de)
Am Krug 30, D-48151 Muenster, Germany
Tel.: +49 251 2394678

“Investing in Climate Change 2010: A Strategic Asset Allocation Perspective” – The Deutsche Bank, New York.

From: Bruce Kahn, Senior Investment Analyst, The Deutsche Bank, New York.

DB Climate Change Advisors published a new whitepaper – January 2010 – today-  titled:

“Investing in Climate Change 2010: A Strategic Asset Allocation Perspective.”

To view the full report, or go to http://www.dbcca.com/research
 http://www.dbcca.com/dbcca/EN/_media/Inv…

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.