|
Posted on Sustainabilitank.info on February 16th, 2013 .(These irregularities in the title are in the original that seems to be guarded from us being able to correct it) Source: New York,15 February 2013 I would like to thank the distinguished Permanent Representatives of Pakistan and the United Kingdom for organizing this informal meeting of the Security Council to discuss the security dimensions of climate change. I would like to thank the panelists for their presentations and commend the Secretary General for his commitment to engage the United Nations in the global adaptation and mitigation effort against climate change. Now I would like to stress a few points: 1-Climate change is a clear and present danger. Climate change is a reality. It leads to sea level rise that threatens the very existence of nations that are members of this organization. It leads to extreme weather events that have affected us here at the headquarters of the United Nations. Hurricane Sandy was a vivid example of what many Carribean and Pacific states endure every single year. 2-Climate change is an issue of vulnerability, equity, responsibility, accountability, sustainability, development, and therefore security. It has devastating implications that may trigger conflicts or exacerbate them. It has a very particular nature since those responsible for it are not necessary the ones who are mostly affected by it. 3-Africa, the continent to which Egypt belongs, is the continent that has less contributed to global climate change. Yet it is the most vulnerable to its adverse implications. It is not a coincidence that Africa occupies more than 70% of the Security Council agenda. It is the only continent where one of its worst conflicts has been directly linked to climate change. I am speaking about Darfur, where the Security Council has sent one of its biggest Peace keeping operations. The increasing drought and desertification is definitely exacerbating the causes of conflict in the Sahel. The Middle East, the other region to which Egypt belongs, is the most water scarce place in earth. Studies have predicted that future wars in these two regions would be water wars. The persistent practices of the occupying Israeli forces and settlers in the occupied State of Palestine include a systematic effort to dominate water resources and drive the Palestinians out of their arable land. These are all real conflicts that cause real loss of life and property. 4-Climate change is a disaster, yet it is man-made. The reasons behind it are well known. It is a very special phenomenon, since it hits more the ones that have not participated in causing it. This is why it needs special solutions. The special solution has been developed by the international community in a universal legally binding framework: the United Nations framework Convention on Climate Change. 5-This legal framework contains the agreed principles that address the special nature of climate change. These include the principles of common but differentiated responsibilities and respective capabilities; historical responsibility and equity in the distribution of atmospheric space, the priority of development for developing countries. The Kyoto Protocol with its “Clean Development Mechanism” is an attempt to implement some of these principles. 6-This legal framework has passed through a number of important milestones in the last four years. The Copenhagen Accord that failed to convince the vast majority of countries that were not consulted during its negotiation. The Cancun Agreements that salvaged the valid points of the Copenhagen Accord, including the Green Fund that is supposed to gather 100 billion US$ a year by 2020 to adapt to and mitigate, climate change effects. The Durban Platform that aims at developing an additional legal instrument by 2015. The Doha Outcome that included the extension of the Kyoto Protocol. 7-This legal framework aims to redress the imbalance between those responsible for the bulk of climate change provoking emissions and those affected by it. This was a historical breakthrough that attempted to resolve sustainability and equity issues, compared to other frameworks that just formalize the status quo. We hope that the instrument that will be reached in 2015 does not divert from the “redressing approach”. 8-This legal framework has a compliance mechanism that has not worked properly so far. Despite the fact that the Convention and the Kyoto Protocol are the only legal framework available to address climate change in a collective manner, the international community did not exert enough efforts to ensure the universality of the Kyoto Protocol. It did not react to non-compliance with its provisions. It did not react to the withdrawal of one country from the Protocol in 2010. This encouraged others to follow suit. 9-Now we are in a situation where small island states face an existential threat. Where in Africa, the Middle East, and all other continents, conflicts are exacerbated and natural disasters are proliferating, while the international community is still thinking about the shape of the new agreement in 2015, while we all know but do not want to say, that the pledges of the second commitment period of the Kyoto Protocol will not be enough to stop the global increase in emissions and global warmth, and that the financial cost of adaptation and mitigation exceeds by far the targeted 100 US$ a year by 2020, if the target is reached at all. HERE THE EGYPTIANS HAD A COUNTING PROBLEM – OR AN EDITING PROBLEM WITH THE INTRODUCTION OF TWO ADDED POINTS THAT BRING THEIR TOTAL TO 11. THESE LAST TWO POINTS TELL US THAT EGYPT SPEAKS FOR THE DEFENDERS OF OIL AND NOT FOR TRULY IMPOVERISHED AFRICANS. THE TRUE ISSUE IS THAT WHEN FIGHTING FOR BOMBASTIC MULTILATERAL AGREEMENTS THIS DOES NOT BRING RESULTS, BUT JUST KICKS THE SOLUTION FURTHER DOWN THE ROAD. THE SOLUTION IS IN SUSTAINABLE ENERGY AND HIS PRESENTATION IS RATHER ONE OF POLITICAL FIGHTING AND NOT SOLUTION FINDING. BRINGING THE TOPIC TO THE SECURITY COUNCIL IS AN EFFORT TO BREAK THE LOGJAM THAT HE SEEMS TO FAVOR. The positive presenter at the meeting was the New Zealand lady, Ms. Stephanie Lee, who simply asked those in the room to listen to the affected countries and to deal with their needs. 9-The danger of climate change might not be as visible as that of a potential nuclear war. Yet it is definitely more imminent as it is affecting all of us today. We are enduring the impact of the climate war in our daily lives in the form of food insecurity, water scarcity, conflicts over natural resources, increasing costs of energy and the status of the global economy; this in addition to the brutal effects of natural disasters. Yet, in many cases we are looking the other way. The countries that have both the financial and technological capability to lead the global efforts to contain climate change are distracted by trade and competitiveness wars that prevent them from focusing on the real danger that is affecting us all. This is a situation similar to the one that failed to prevent world wars in the past century. 10-Finally, I would like to stress that the Security Council is not the United Nations Organ that is most relevant in addressing the issues of sustainable development including climate change. The main responsibility lies more with the General Assembly and the Economic and Social Council. We are aware that the Security Council itself is struggling to reach the necessary consensus among its members on a number of ongoing conflicts that are causing dramatic loss of life and property. Yet, we are confident that this informal discussion will at least raise the profile of climate change. It should complement the work of the General Assembly and the ECOSOC. It should contribute to mobilize the political will to act now before it is too late. Thank you for your attention. Permalink | | ### |
|
Posted on Sustainabilitank.info on February 15th, 2013 BLOOMBERG NEWS is first Large Media Network to report on the Arias method meeting at the UN Security Council, with closed doors to the Press but open door to UN Member States in general, today, Friday, February 15, 2013, which we had on our website for a while, and the previous link we got was from Matthew Lee of the Correspondents for Free Access to UN news. Also, the UN Secretary General, Mr. Ban Ki-moon, after his speech at the Council on Foreign Relations this past Monday, and his two days in Washington DC – Wednesday and Thursday, will participate at the UNSC meeting today. We hope that through his presentation the subject will become available to the public at large – that is, if the UN Department of Public Information will deem it important enough to sponsor it to the Press in general. So far we got this through UN Wire of the UN Foundation. ———– Climate Change’s Links to Conflict Draws UN Attention. By Flavia Krause-Jackson – Feb 14, 2013 10:30 PM ET
Imagine India in 2033. It has overtaken China as the most populous nation. Yet with 1.5 billion citizens to feed, it’s been three years since the last monsoon. Without rain, crops die and people starve. The seeds of conflict take root. —– This is one of the scenarios Joachim Schellnhuber, director of the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research, will present today to members of the United Nations Security Council in New York to show the connection between climate change and global security challenges. Either rich nations will find a way to supply needy nations suffering from damaging climate effects “or you will have all kinds of unrest and revolutions, with the export of angry and hungry people to the industrialized countries,” Schellnhuber said in an interview. Climate change is a “reality that cannot be washed away,” according to notes prepared for diplomats at today’s session. “There is growing concern that with faster than anticipated acceleration, climate change may spawn consequences which are harsher than expected.” The Security Council session is evidence of the increased focus on the link between climate change and global security. Yet, today’s discussions will not be held as a formal meeting of the council because China and Russia, two of the larger emitters of the greenhouse gases that scientists tie to climate change, raised objections, said two UN diplomats who asked not to be named given the sensitivity of the subject. China was the largest gross emitter of carbon dioxide in 2011, followed by the U.S., the European Union, India and Russia, according to the European Commission’s Joint Research Center. Informal Talks AT THE UN SECURITY COUNCIL – the ARIAS information gathering method:Instead, the informal, closed-door discussions will be held away from the council chamber and led jointly by the U.K. and Pakistan, where floods have left millions of people homeless in a foreshadowing of the extreme weather scientists say will result from a warming planet. “Before it was always an issue of the developed world, so the involvement of Pakistan is a very interesting sign,” said Schellnhuber, a climate change scientist who is German Chancellor Angela Merkel’s top adviser on the issue. Representatives from nations not on the 15-member Security Council are invited to the session, and UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon plans to participate. In 2011, the council agreed to a statement expressing “concern that the possible adverse effects of climate change may, in the long run, aggravate certain existing threats to international peace and security.” “It was OK, but it was rather vague,” said Schellnhuber. Hottest YearWith 2012 the world’s hottest year on record, the implications for both domestic and foreign policy of wildfires in Australia and Russia, floods in Asia and hurricanes in the Americas give today’s discussion an added sense of urgency. In the wake of Hurricane Sandy, it’s a topic that has moved higher on the list of U.S. domestic issues. President Barack Obama presented climate change as a priority for his second term during his Feb. 12 State of the Union address. “Heat waves, droughts, wildfires, and floods — all are now more frequent and intense,” Obama said in his speech. “We can choose to believe that Superstorm Sandy, and the most severe drought in decades, and the worst wildfires some states have ever seen were all just a freak coincidence. Or we can choose to believe in the overwhelming judgment of science — and act before it’s too late.” U.S. intelligence agencies said in a December report that climate change coupled with water shortages will alter global patterns of arable land, while greater demand for energy may curb the amount of raw materials available to make fertilizers. Critical ResourcesClimate change will complicate resource management, particularly in Asia where monsoons are crucial to the growing season, according to the 140-page Global Trends 2030 report, produced by the U.S. intelligence community. It will worsen the outlook for availability of critical resources of food, water and energy, the report said. Rising global temperatures may provoke conflict between the European Union and Russia as Arctic ice melts, easing access to fossil-fuel deposits in that area and opening new sea routes, Schellnhuber said. The conflict in the Sudan’s western region of Darfur has generated headlines over the years as the first climate war because drought and the advancing desert stoked tensions. “Many developing and fragile states — such as in Sub- Saharan Africa — face increasing strains from resource constraints and climate change, pitting different tribal and ethnic groups against one another,” according to the Global Trends report. Environmental RefugeesThe millions of environmental refugees, such as those displaced by natural disasters and rising sea levels due to melting ice, will be one focus of the UN session, as will be the potential for conflicts. The UN’s decision-making body will discuss the challenges from reduced water availability, a critical issue in the Middle East and Africa, and also explore the implications of glacial melting. Melting ice caps has led to a push to strengthen the Law of the Sea, an accord granting countries bordering the Arctic rights to economic zones within 200 miles (322 kilometers) of their shores. Russia, for example, has staked a claim to a North Pole seabed worth billions of dollars in oil and natural gas. “The impacts of climate change, such as sea-level rises, drought, flooding and extreme weather events, can exacerbate underlying tensions and conflict in part of the world already suffering from resource pressures,” according to the U.K.- Pakistan notes. ————– – With assistance from Alex Morales in London. Editors: Terry Atlas, Michael Shepard To contact the reporter on this story: Flavia Krause-Jackson in United Nations at fjackson@bloomberg.net Permalink | | ### |
|
Posted on Sustainabilitank.info on February 15th, 2013 I TESTIFY TO MY PERSONAL EXPERIENCE WITH THE GENERAL ACCOUNTING OFFICE OF THE US COMPTROLLER GENERAL – THEY DO AN HONEST DAY OF WORK AND THEY ARE AS NON-PARTISAN AS ONE SHOULD EXPECT FROM THEM. Pincas Jawetz =========================================================== Climate change could burn a hole in the government’s finances, GAO says.By Lisa Rein and Juliet Eilperin,Feb 15, 2013 - The Washington PostAs climate change leads to more frequent and destructive natural disasters and threatens crop yields, bridges and other infrastructure, the federal government faces big financial risks that it is poorly positioned to address, auditors said Thursday. These risks, along with the threat of gaps in critical weather forecasting satellites that could last years, topped a biennial list released Thursday of federal programs at high risk of waste, fraud, abuse or financial loss. “The federal government is terribly exposed to this change,” Gene L. Dodaro, comptroller general and director of the Government Accountability Office, said in announcing why climate change made his agency’s high-risk list. “The government needs a much more strategic and centralized approach.” The government owns vast swaths of land, runs flood and crop insurance programs with millions of policyholders and regularly pours billions of dollars into emergency aid. But it has no system to address these costs as global warming escalates them, the GAO said in a report on the high-risk list. A White House task force “has no mechanisms for making or enforcing important decisions and priorities,’’ the report said. Gaps in accurate weather forecasts are expected because a program to launch the next generation of polar satellites has a “troubled legacy of cost overruns, missed milestones, technical problems, and management challenges,” auditors wrote. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration is predicting a gap of up to two years after existing satellites wear out, but GAO said the new ones could be delayed as long as 53 months. In the meantime, weather forecasts will be less accurate, with shorter warning times on hurricanes, floods and storm surges, auditors said. Although NOAA is looking for ways to compensate, its steps “are only the beginning,” the report said. The high-risk list, released at the start of each Congress, is a to-do list for committees that oversee government operations. This year’s list of 30 problem areas includes federal oversight of food safety, management of government real estate and federal oil and gas resources, several military management systems, fraud in the Medicare and Medicaid programs, and a shortage of federal workers with crucial skills as retirements increase. Six areas have been on the list since it was created in the 1990s, including Medicare and management of the military supply chain. Two long-standing problems fell off this year: management of contracting among federal agencies and the Internal Revenue Service’s modernization of its business systems. Dodaro said contracting has improved since the days when “there was no appropriate competition and interrogators in Iraq came from an information technology contractor.” The IRS, “mired in technological and management programs for years,” has made “slow, steady progress” updating taxpayer records and using industry best practices, he said. Lawmakers in charge of government oversight said that while Americans may disagree about the science of climate change, Congress must address its financial fallout. “Let’s assume for a moment that there is no such thing as climate change,” said Rep. Elijah Cummings (D-Md.), ranking member of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee. “If we see an escalation in these types of catastrophes, we need to be prepared because it’s going to cost [the government] money.” Several experts said the GAO has underscored what scientists and economists already have suggested: Even developed countries will have to devote significant resources to coping with global warming’s impact. “It really highlights the true cost of climate change on federal assets, as well on other national interests like agriculture and responding to disasters,” said Bruce Stein, the National Wildlife Federation’s director of climate change adaptation. Under an executive order signed by President Obama, each federal agency must specify plans to address future climate impacts, and during his State of the Union address on Tuesday, Obama reiterated he would instruct agencies to take steps “to prepare our communities for the consequences of climate change.” “It’s another sign that it’s finally sinking in that this is the new normal, that sea level, extreme weather and the impact of climate change is something that’s going to cost us both today and long into the future,” said Vicki Arroyo, executive director of the Georgetown Climate Center. Still, not all agencies are responding with the same fervor. Stein noted that while the Interior Department has focused intensely on the issue, “there’s clear and present danger to Department of Defense facilities, but they have not been moving as aggressively on this as we hope to see.” Robert Stavins, who directs the Harvard Environmental Economics Program at the John F. Kennedy School of Government, said that while the issue of global warming remains politically polarized, the GAO report may have an impact because “they’ve always had a reputation for sound analyses unaffected by who’s in the White House or which parties are in the majority.” NOAA spokeswoman Ciaran Clayton said in an e-mail that the agency has done its best to keep the satellite program “on track” despite inheriting in 2009 “a failed management structure, cost overruns and schedule delays that jeopardized its mission.” She said funding shortfalls have hampered the agency’s effort to get the program back on track. “Our top priority is ensuring NOAA’s National Weather Service is able to maintain the accuracy and timeliness of its forecasts and warnings,” Clayton wrote.
Josh Hicks contributed to this report. Discuss this topic and other political issues in the Post’s Politics Discussion Forums. ———————————————————————– Permalink | | ### |
|
Posted on Sustainabilitank.info on February 14th, 2013 Join the #ForwardOnClimate Rally on 2/17!Crippling drought. Devastating wildfires. Superstorm Sandy. Climate has come home — and the American people get it. Who: 160 organizations and tens of thousands of activists like YOU What: The largest climate rally in U.S. history. When: February 17, 2013, Noon – 5:00 p.m. (please arrive by 11:30 a.m.) Where: The National Mall in Washington, D.C. This really is getting huge — we’re up to over 100 buses from 28 states, and are on track to have a crowd of over 20,000 fired-up activists! Check the Forward on Climate bus page to see if there’s a bus near you. You can also look for (or offer!) a car pool on Ridebuzz or housing on CouchSurfing.* Once you’re in D.C., you should know that the rally will start in the northeast quadrant of the Washington Monument at 11:30 a.m. before marching around the White House, and the closest Metro stops are Federal Triangle and Smithsonian. ————————————————————– LATEST ON THE EVENT: Sierra Club, Washington DC, announces a new addition to the speaker lineup: “We’ll hear from U.S. Senator Sheldon Whitehouse of Rhode Island.” Sen. Whitehouse is a true champion who speaks about the climate crisis on the floor of the Senate almost every week. On Sunday, he’ll bring that message to the National Mall with us. His home state is sending several busloads of activists to the rally! We recommend bringing a charged cell phone, some snacks, water, and warm clothing including layers, a coat, two pairs of warm socks, hats, gloves, and scarves. If you are riding a bus, make sure your bus captain has your cell phone number. Please note that there will be no civil disobedience at this event. The rally now has over 160 partner organizations — this is huge! We’re updating the Forward on Climate blog all throughout the day with their content. Take a look at these great videos with Robert Redford from NRDC, and with parents and kids talking about the climate from the Sierra Club, Climate Parents, and Mom’s Clean Air Force! I also wanted to let you know that we just announced Eve will be performing at the rally! Eve is a Grammy winning, multi-platinum recording artist and a talented actress & fashion designer. She joins inspiring speakers Michael Brune, Bill McKibben, Saik’uz First Nation Chief Jacqueline Thomas, Van Jones, and more. And remember that you can check the Forward on Climate FAQ for any other questions you have. This will be a remarkable day to make history For other details and updates, check out the Forward on Climate website. ————————————————————————— Further: from the LA Chapter of Sierra Club we got: We encourage everyone to attend the D.C. rally (act.350.org/signup/presidentsday), but for those unable to make the journey you can still stand in solidarity and make history right here in Los Angeles. * Starting Place: South-West Side of Paseo De La Plaza in Olvera Street. (Between North Los Angeles St. & Main St.) * Destination: City Hall Los Angeles – 200 North Spring Street, Los Angeles, CA (South Side Steps) * City Hall Events: Prayer for the Earth, music, dance, speakers, and closing ceremony (details to come) WHY MARCH ~ Tell President Obama and the rest of Washington that it’s time to lead in the fight against climate change, beginning with the Keystone XL tar sands pipeline. It is time for a Renewable Energy Future – one that doesn’t include dirty and dangerous fuels like Coal, Fracking, Tar Sands and Nuclear. This demonstration is in solidarity with the Washington D.C. march happening the same day organized by 350.org, Sierra Club and Hip Hop Caucus. Thousands of Americans will head to Washington, D.C. to make “Forward on Climate” the largest climate rally in history. ———————————————————— WE SAY: YES, IT WILL BE A HOLIDAY WEEKEND AND OBVIOUSLY NOT A WORK DAY. DON’T FORGET AND THINK WHAT YOU WANT TO ACHIEVE! ———————————————————————————————– The December posting: From: Michael Brune, Sierra Club sierra at sierraclub.org via bounce.convio.net
Permalink | | ### |
|
Posted on Sustainabilitank.info on February 13th, 2013 The President’s State of the Union Presentation at the start of his Second Term in office – as we predicted on this website – was mainly about the economy and a major ingredient was about how to improve the economy he mentioned as drivers Climate Change and the need to decrease the US dependence on foreign energy. The President was elected only by a minority of those seated in the hall – it showed – and at the end rebuttal came from Senator Marco Rubio in the name of the Republican Party in general, and Senator Rand Paul (son of House Representative Ron Paul) in the name of the Tea Party faction of the Republican Party. This divided Republican Party shows that in the two chambers of Congress the President is on one side of the issues, but the Republican Party of the Speaker John Boehner – who presided over the event – is in the Center. This obviously is not what goes on among the people of the Nation – those that have the title CITIZENS – as the President called them. Because of this the State of the Union – thanks to the TV technology – was not addressed to those in the Hall, but to the audience at large watching TV – and it is meant that the CITIZENS apply pressure on their representatives in order to move legislation that otherwise is expected to remain stuck in Congress. As such, the State of the Union we watched on TV will be fodder to the People’s Assembly on the Washington Mall this coming Sunday – February 17th – and our website has postings on that as well. The State of the Union address will then be concluded only after the President reacts to what the CITIZENS will present on Sunday. Rand Paul, considered likely to run for president in 2016, blasted both Democrats and Republicans for perpetuating growth of government: “Both parties have been guilty of spending too much, of protecting their sacred cows, of backroom deals in which everyone up here wins, but every taxpayer loses,” he said. Further – “It is time Democrats admit that not every dollar spent on domestic programs is sacred. And it is time Republicans realize that military spending is not immune to waste and fraud.” Having said the above – let us see now the main points of this hour long presentation of Tuesday, February 12th. The QUOTATION OF THE DAY of the New York Times: “Every day, we should ask ourselves three questions as a nation: How do we attract more jobs to our shores? How do we equip our people with the skills to get those jobs? And how do we make sure that hard work leads to a decent living?” PRESIDENT OBAMA, in his State of the Union address.That was an operative dictum that was braided together with a promise not to increase the budget deficit and to those that at the end were saying that this was not possible – the President had a built in answer – he will ask Congress to close loopholes that allow the rich not to pay taxes and he will move execution with the help of EXECUTIVE ORDERS to brake the trap of inaction by Congress. But it is not just Congress that does not give full support to the President – we observed yesterday that media’s main outlets do not do justice to the issues either. Take for instance the CNN channel that announced it will start its program on the State of the Union at 7 PM, then instead spent the whole pre-event time from 7 PM till 9 PM covering the on-going hunt in California after Christopher Dorner, the California Cop who went on a rampage against police because he got fired from his job. The implication of following that story was that gun control will not work because you could not take a gun away from someone like Dorner who would pass all gun-licensing tests. So what, did this justify the sensationalism of the media to divert its attention from the terrible things that happen to this Nation because one aberrant case that does not get anywhere close to the atrocity of a Sandy Hook elementary school? Of all Channels on US TV it was only the Public program of PBS and the Shields & Brooks show on Channel 13 in New York, that did not allow itself being derailed from that occasional piece of news. It continued to present the prepared program and the discussions that help understand the real issues facing this country and the world. Funny was one Channel that flaunted its US of Bacon show – at least they did not just cater to sensationalism. The PBS program explained how winning the elections in November means that what the President was ready to accept before the elections in compromise with the Republican Congress, but got rejected by the Republican Senate minority wielding the self imposed Senate powers of the filibuster, is now water that is long gone under the bridge. Elections have consequences. Those unconsummated agreements are no starting points anymore. Speaker Boehner saying that the Republicans also won by retaining the House is weakened by his Majority Leader Harry Cantor of the Tea Party, nevertheless Boehner deposed some of the most extremists from committee chair positions, and for the sake of his party will have to readjust. The Executive Orders tool in the hands of the President is an excellent means to keep him focused at least for the upcoming first two years. When discussing these points, “Cabin on Fire” as written bellow the points – referring to Christopher Dorner – made good backdrop to the description of the woes of the Republicans. From the Supreme Court Members seated at the President’s Presentation were missing the most extreme Republican Justices – the relatively very young Alioto and Scalia. This, seen on the screen, ought to be remembered not just when next time a vacancy on the bench becomes available – it ought perhaps be good reason to rethink the “for Life” sentence America imposed on itself with the rules that govern the Supreme Court as well. The President reminded those in the hall and those glued to the TV, that 51 years ago President Kennedy in this Chamber said that the Constitution makes us partners in progress.” I would say this ought to include justices as well and if it is not the case some redress ought to be found. The President said that the State of the Union is stronger – we buy now more cars then in the last 5 years, but buy less foreign oil then in the last 20 years, and emit less green-house gas. But while corporate profits have skyrocketed, wages have barely budged. The unfinished task is the missed great bargain of taxes (revenues) and expenditures (mainly on defense and entitlements). American people expect from their leaders to put the Nation’s interest before Party. In term of figures, he said that while the deficit was reduced by 2.5 trillion, the need is to reduce it by a further $1.5 trillion – but austerity is not the answer. Deficit reduction alone is not the answer. The answer is in making America a magnet for manufacturing and the recent success stories are Ford and Caterpillar returning production lines to the US ans Apple starting to make first Macs in the US. Ge expects DEFENSE and ENERGY to create new jobs in America. To get there he will spend more on the education and research and development networks because skills and know how are what is needed both for production and consumption. Infrastructure and Energy are next in line. Here the President got to CLIMATE CHANGE and his winning formula was: DO WE CHOSE TO BELIEVE ALL IS COINCIDENCE OR TO FOLLOW BEST SCIENCE? Here the President can do a lot with Executive Orders and he mentioned some of what he actually can do: a – Cut in half energy waste in homes and buildings. b – Fix the infrastructure – start with the repair of bridges. c – Develop modern ports, pipelines that do not leak, schools d – Refinance houses with a $3,000/year on the mortgage. e – Go for training to field for the better jobs – start from pre-school level in cooperation with the States and as a bi-partisan example he noted the success that Georgia and Oklahoma had in this area. He also noted that Germans get trained in high-school to the level the US attains only in the Community Colleges. Redesign high-schools to stress science, math, technology and engineering. Moving to Congress the President mentioned a $9/hour minimal wage and linking this to inflation. He wants to see reduction of poverty in order also to encourage raising a child. He also wants to reassure Americans that they have the right to vote and remove obstruction to voting. The President proceeded with a long list of topics and clearly Immigration and Gun Control were part of this – topics he needs the Congress in order to deliver the goods. It is now for the people to push on the Members of Congress in order to move on them. Much of the above was then attacked by the two rebuttals that followed. Green energy programs seem like waste to Republicans and increasing minimum wage is opposed by business. Obviously there will be much opposition to his ideas. Politics is King in Washington and there is nothing new about that. Turning to the International scene – the US wants to maintain the military supremacy but will not get involved with troops overseas, but by other means, while keeping watch in areas like Libya, Yemen, Mali, Somalia, and the fight against terror. The right thing to do is join with allies. The US will be involved in helping eradicate poverty in other countries. America must remain a beacon in this era of change – he said. The US has worked on establishing Trans-Pacific Free Trade and now with the EU will work on Trans-Atlantic Free Trade as well. ———————————————————————– WHAT NOW? THE PRESIDENT DID NOT UTTER A WORD ABOUT THE UNITED NATIONS – DOES THAT MEAN DISINTEREST? Our answer is a short and clear NO! But the ball is in the UN court and the UN Secretary-General could pick up the ball if he is ready to speak for the people of the World and not just for bombastic phrases uttered by Heads of State. Remember the R2P – The Responsibility to Protect – this principle goes very far in the Washington of President Obama. —– We already reported about the meeting yesterday with UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon, his four topics, and the fact that immediately after the Presidential speech he is going to Washington. In the State of the Union he has now quite a few places he can hang his, and his organization’s, hat. A. Climate Change and Renewable Energy B. Involvement to reduce poverty overseas. C. Involvement with allies to help countries in transition where the opponent tries to set back progress, and becomes a breeding ground for terrorism. —– The UN can help in all these areas if it can gets its act together, so it moves to request Member States to act in the true interest of their people, rather then succumb to empty rhetoric that benefits nobody. On Climate Change the UN has two great ideas that the US can cooperate with – the SE4All (Sustainable Energy for all) concept and the GREEN ECONOMY. But the UNSG has to take notice that the US will work on specific programs that are technology based, and not on vague grandiose concepts of multi-lateral involvements that have killed those subjects at the UN so far. The US will not compensate the Saudis for keeping their oil in the ground. The US Administration will be interested to work with the Saudis if they want to talk about solar energy or water desalination. The US will not get bogged down in pursuing efforts at enlarging on the Kyoto Protocol, but will be ready to help with technology needy countries in establishing Sustainable Energy goals. The US can help with practical Sustainable Development goals based on Sustainable Energy means – and will love to see advances in a Global Green Economy. The US Administration will not be interested in empty duels of words on differences between civilizations. The US Administration will want to see an end to Islamic acts of terror enacted even against former colonial powers, and clearly not when it comes to American interests. The Arab Spring will be something to talk about if it does not lead to Jihadism; the Palestinian-Israeli dispute can be solved only by an Arab League that steps up to recognizing the State of Israel ahead of negotiations about borders, and the problems in the Korea peninsula will be solved only within the context of a US-China get together in ways that eliminate threats from nuclear power in the hands of the governments of North Korea, Iran, and Pakistan. A follow up on global agreements on Weapons of Mass Destruction control is a good possibility for the UNSG to pick up in Washington – but it is premature to do this during the present trip. The other topics seem to grow easier from the fertile soil of The State of the Union speech. ————————————————————————————–
Links to our previous articles in the run-up to the State of the Union speech by President Obama at the start of his Second Term:
o————— Posted on Sustainabilitank.info on February 10th, 2013 —————— Posted on Sustainabilitank.info on February 9th, 2013 —————– Posted on Sustainabilitank.info on February 8th, 2013 ===——-=== Permalink | | ### |
|
Posted on Sustainabilitank.info on February 11th, 2013 Security Council, in Statement, Says ‘Contextual Information’ on …Jul 20, 2011 … Implications of Climate Change Important When Climate Impacts Drive … In a statement read out by Council President for July, Peter Wittig of Germany, the 15-member …. The full text of presidential statement S/PRST/2011/15 reads as …. Germany on the UN Security Council: a look back – Auswärtiges Amtwww.genf.diplo.de/…/2013-01-03-DEUImSicherheitsratRueckbl-en.html – Cached
Jan 3, 2013 … Germany’s term as a non?permanent member of the UN Security Council … of German Missions in the United States – Security Councilwww.germany.info/Vertretung/usa/…/20-SecurityCouncil.html – Cached
Dec 20, 2012 … Looking Back on Germany’s Term in the UN Security Council … of Presidential
Climate Security Debate Enters the Security Council“The Security Council expresses its concern that possible adverse effects of climate change may, in the long run, aggravate certain existing threats to international peace and security.” The wording of the Presidential Statement agreed by the Security Council during its session on climate change on 20 July truly is less clear than simply calling climate change a “threat multiplier” – an expression used by many analysts and decision makers in the context. The meaning, however, may go beyond the debates that have taken place in academia and among policy makers so far. As Peter Wittig, Germany’s Ambassador to the United Nations (UN), commented on the outcome: “This is a good day today for climate security.” This may be true for a couple of reasons. First, the debate in the Security Council encouraged an unusually high number of interventions by member states indicating the deep concern of many representatives – even of those against discussing the issue in the Security Council for fear of overloading the Council’s agenda. Second, after a lively debate with seemingly unbridgeable differences between proponents and opponents of addressing climate change in this Council setting, a consensus was finally achieved. In other words, the major emitters of greenhouses gases around the world agreed that these emissions may partly be responsible for further exacerbating instability and conflict. Surprisingly, Ambassador Susan Rice of the U.S. joined the proponents by framing opposition to an agreement on the threat of climate change to peace and security during the debate as “pathetic”, “short-sighted” and “a dereliction of duty”. China and Russia, with substantial resistance before, but also Brazil and India finally joined a compromise – all of them emphasizing the outstanding role of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) as the key arena to address climate change. It probably will be useful to remind all these countries of highlighting the outstanding role of UNFCCC at the UN climate change conference in Durban later this year. Third, in the Presidential Statement, the Secretary-General is asked to provide conflict analysis and so-called ‘contextual information’ when climate change trends are endangering the process of consolidating peace. In this case, the mandate of the Security Council most obviously is at risk. It will be interesting to see how the required conflict analysis will be provided. However, regular peace and conflict assessments of climate change impacts can be a crucial step towards mainstreaming climate change in the field of foreign and security policy and contribute to strengthening crisis and conflict prevention. (Dennis Taenzler) For the Presidential Statement, please see ======================================== To find more information on the debate, please see www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2011/sc10332.doc.htm The Press Release by UN DPI follows: 20 July 2011
Security Council 6587th Meeting (AM & PM) Security Council, in Statement, Says ‘Contextual Information’ on Possible Security Implications of Climate Change Important When Climate Impacts Drive Conflict.‘Make No Mistake’, Says Secretary-General, ‘Climate Change Not Only Exacerbates Threats to Peace and Security, It Is a Threat to International Peace and Security’ The Security Council this afternoon expressed concern that the possible adverse effects of climate change could, in the long-run, aggravate certain existing threats to international peace and security and that the loss of territory in some States due to sea-level rise, particularly in small low-lying island States, could have possible security implications. In a statement read out by Council President for July, Peter Wittig of Germany, the 15-member body, following a day-long debate on “maintenance of international peace and security: the impact of climate change”, noted that “conflict analysis and contextual information” on, among others, the “possible security implications of climate change” was important when climate issues drove conflict, challenged implementation of Council mandates or endangered peace processes. In that context, the 15-member body asked the Secretary-General to ensure that his reporting to the Council contained such contextual information. Moreover, the Council recognized the responsibility for climate change and other sustainable development issues conferred upon the General Assembly and the Economic and Social Council, and it underlined the Assembly’s 2009 resolution that reaffirmed the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) as the key instrument for addressing climate change. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon, who opened the Council debate, pointed to the devastating impact of extreme weather and rising seas on lives, infrastructure and budgets — an “unholy brew” that could create dangerous security vacuums. “We must make no mistake,” he said. “The facts are clear: climate change is real and accelerating in a dangerous manner,” he said, declaring that it “not only exacerbates threats to international peace and security; it is a threat to international peace and security”. Events in Pakistan, the Pacific islands, Western Europe, China and the Horn of Africa, among other areas, illustrated the urgency of the situation, he said, adding that just today, the United Nations had declared a state of famine in two regions of southern Somalia. Worldwide, hundreds of millions of people were in danger of food and water shortages. Environmental refugees were “reshaping the human geography” of the planet. He called for ambitious steps to reduce climate change and make “sustainable development for all” the defining issue of our time. That meant, among other things, expediting implementation of the agreements made during the 2010 United Nations Climate Change Conference in Cancún, Mexico, including on forest protection, adaptation and technology; providing “fast start” financing and agreement on sources of long-term funding; and setting ambitious targets to ensure that any increase in the global average temperature remained below 2° C. Climate change was a “threat multiplier”, asserted Achim Steiner, Executive Director of the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), and that, he said, would have fundamental implications for weather, settlements, infrastructure, food insecurity, livelihoods and development. Competition over scarce water and land, exacerbated by regional changes in climate, was already a key factor in local conflicts in Darfur, the Central African Republic, northern Kenya and Chad. As many as 10 Council-mandated peacekeeping operations costing $35 billion — half of the global peacekeeping budget — had been deployed to countries where natural resources had played a key role in conflict, he said. Science showed that the quantity and quality of those resources would be at increasing risk from climate change and that broad, cooperative action was needed to prevent irreversible tipping points, leading to sudden, abrupt shocks to communities and countries. “Indeed there is no reason why the international community cannot avoid escalating conflicts, tensions and insecurity related to a changing climate if a deliberate, focused and collective response can be catalysed that tackles the root causes, scale, potential volatility and velocity of the challenges emerging,” he said, citing recent efforts towards that end. Speaking on behalf of the Pacific small island developing States, the Maldives, Seychelles and Timor-Leste, Marcus Stephen, President of Nauru, said the very survival of many countries was threatened by the adverse impacts of climate change. Some islands could disappear altogether, forcing large numbers of peoples to relocate — first internally and then across borders. While Council members understood such security challenges, solidarity demanded more than sympathetic words. “Demonstrate it by formally recognizing that climate change is a threat to international peace and security,” he said, calling climate change as great a threat as nuclear proliferation or terrorism. The Council, he insisted, should start by requesting the appointment of a special representative on climate and security, as well as an assessment of the United Nations capacity to respond to the security impacts of the phenomenon. The Council would render itself irrelevant if it chose to ignore the biggest security threat of our time, he said, imploring it to “seize this opportunity to lead”. Echoing those concerns was Richard Marles, Australia’s Parliamentary Secretary for Pacific Island Affairs, who said the sea, long a source of food, sustenance and comfort, was being transformed into a source of anxiety and threat. Sea-level rise could reach one metre by the end of the century, resulting in more severe storm surges, coastal inundation and loss of territory. Islands and low-lying territories might become inhabitable, and as much of 80 per cent of the Marshall Islands’ Majuro Atoll, the nation’s capital, could erode and be lost. During the debate, in which some 65 speakers took the floor, delegates gave opposing views over whether the Council should consider climate change or leave it to other United Nations organs traditionally charged with sustainable development matters, notably UNFCCC (United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change), the General Assembly and the Economic and Social Council. Some representatives applauded the Council’s emerging role as a necessary complement. But others saw it as an encroachment, and said the Council members could better contribute by making good on their international development commitments, promoting the green economy and ensuring a second commitment period under the Kyoto Protocol with measurable and more ambitious goals on emissions reduction. Bolivia’s representative went a step further, calling for creation of an international tribunal for climate and environmental justice to sanction those nations that did not comply with emission reduction commitments. He also proposed a Council resolution to cut global defence and security spending by 20 per cent and channel the subsequent savings into steps to tackle climate change. Also speaking in today’s debate were the representatives of the United States, Brazil, China, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Nigeria, United Kingdom, Russian Federation, Colombia, France, Lebanon, South Africa, Gabon, India, Portugal, Germany, Egypt (on behalf of the Non-Aligned Movement), Argentina (on behalf of the Group of 77 developing countries and China), El Salvador, Slovenia, Denmark, Luxembourg, Costa Rica, New Zealand, Republic of Korea, Chile, Kyrgyzstan, Mexico, Ecuador, Cuba, Honduras, Ireland, Japan, Singapore, Iceland, Canada, Papua New Guinea, Iran, Kuwait (on behalf of the Arab States Group), Kazakhstan, Belgium, Peru, Bangladesh, Palau, Hungary, Finland, Barbados (on behalf of the Caribbean Community), Turkey, Philippines, Kenya, Sudan, Ghana, Venezuela, Fiji, Poland, United Republic of Tanzania, Israel, Spain, Italy and Pakistan. The Acting Head of the Delegation of the European Union also spoke. The meeting began at 10:20 a.m. and suspended at 1:10 p.m. It resumed at 3:10 p.m. and ended at 7:14 p.m. Presidential Statement The full text of presidential statement S/PRST/2011/15 reads as follows: “The Security Council reaffirms its primary responsibility under the Charter of the United Nations for the maintenance of international peace and security. The Council stresses the importance of establishing strategies of conflict prevention. “The Security Council recognizes the responsibility for sustainable development issues, including climate change, conferred upon the General Assembly and the Economic and Social Council. “The Security Council underlines General Assembly resolution 63/281 of 3 June 2009, which: reaffirms that the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change is the key instrument for addressing climate change; recalls the provisions of the UNFCCC, including the acknowledgement that the global nature of climate change calls for the widest possible cooperation by all countries and their participation in an effective and appropriate international response, in accordance with their common but differentiated responsibilities and respective capabilities and their social and economic conditions; and invites the relevant organs of the United Nations, as appropriate and within their respective mandates to intensify their efforts in considering and addressing climate change, including its possible security implications. “The Security Council notes General Assembly resolution 65/159 of 20 December 2010, entitled ‘Protection of global climate for present and future generations of humankind’. “The Security Council notes that, in response to the request contained in General Assembly resolution 63/281, the Secretary General submitted a report to the General Assembly on ‘Climate change and its possible security implications’ (A/64/350). “The Security Council expresses its concern that possible adverse effects of climate change may, in the long run, aggravate certain existing threats to international peace and security. “The Security Council expresses its concern thatpossible security implications of loss of territory of some States caused by sea-level rise may arise, in particular in small low-lying island States. “The Security Council notes that in matters relating to the maintenance of international peace and security under its consideration, conflict analysis and contextual information on, inter alia, possible security implications of climate change is important, when such issues are drivers of conflict, represent a challenge to the implementation of Council mandates or endanger the process of consolidation of peace. In this regard, the Council requests the Secretary-General to ensure that his reporting to the Council contains such contextual information.” Background The Security Council met this morning to hold an open thematic debate on “Maintenance of international peace and security: the impact of climate change”. To frame the discussion, the Permanent Representative of Germany, whose country holds the Council presidency for July, prepared a concept note (document S/2011/408), which states: “It is time to bring the security implications of climate change to the attention of the Council again.” The Council first debated the link between energy, security and climate in April 2007, the note recalls. Debate on this topic is consistent with the Council’s mandate to maintain international peace and security, and would be an opportunity to advance the intense dialogue on the issue from its specific security perspective, it says. Moreover, since that first debate, in which more than 50 Member States participated, the global political and scientific discourse has evolved significantly, and awareness of the potential security implications of climate change has increased. The note finds that the changing climate — one of the key challenges facing the international community — is occurring at a time when the planet is under pressure from a raft of other challenges, such as rapid population growth, increased demand for natural resources and depletion of fertile soils and unspoiled waters. “The impacts could potentially drive social tensions, political unrest and violent conflict”, and thus, the effects of climate change go beyond the mandate of the United Nations Framework Convention, the main intergovernmental instrument dealing with that phenomenon. The potential security implications of climate change were highlighted, according to the note, when the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change received the Nobel Peace Prize in 2007. Shortly thereafter, the General Assembly, in its resolution 63/281, invited the relevant organs of the United Nations to intensify efforts in considering and addressing climate change, including its possible security implications, and requested the Secretary-General to submit a comprehensive report to the Assembly on the possible security implications of climate change. Drawing upon the best available science at the time and the views of Member States and international organizations, the Secretary-General, in his 2009 report (document A/64/350), clearly outlined the link between the risk multiplier effects of climate change and security, including with respect to armed conflict, the note recalls. For its part, the Security Council has increasingly acknowledged that sustainable peace requires a comprehensive approach to security. The note goes on to say that only recently, the Council stated that in matters relating to the maintenance of international peace and security under its consideration, conflict analysis and contextual information on, inter alia, social and economic issues were important, when such issues were drivers of conflict, and requested the Secretary-General to ensure that his reporting to the Council contained such contextual information (document S/PRST/2011/4). The paper before the Council today highlights the security implications of sea-level rise and emphasizes that while complete inundation may take years and the rise in the sea level may vary in different regions, this is not only a future risk, but a current reality; on some islands, the situation is already dire enough to require the evacuation of the resident population now. Furthermore, even before rising tides actually submerge an island, their impact may render it uninhabitable, requiring permanent resettlement. “This raises profound questions regarding the very survival of several Member States,” the note continues, and adds that receding coastlines could furthermore incite disputes over maritime territories and access to exclusive economic zones. This is not limited to small island developing States, but affects all island nations and countries with low-lying coastal areas as well, thus affecting the majority of Member States. “These are threats that are so far unknown in the history of the United Nations”, and current legal and political arrangements and the Organization’s preparedness to deal with these situations may prove insufficient. “Millions of people will be affected on all continents.” As for the security implications of food insecurity, the note says that climate change is likely to reduce food production globally, with large parts of Africa and Asia suffering particular negative impacts. Although some countries in northern latitudes may theoretically benefit from climate change in the short term, the wildfires and crop failures in Australia and the Russian Federation in recent years have shown that developed and developing countries alike can be negatively affected. Following the recent food crisis, the note states, social protests and unrest occurred in a number of countries and cities around the world. Populations in post-conflict countries or those suffering from instability can rarely afford escalating global food prices following droughts and similar events; this challenge and the fact that they have access to only a few substitutes makes them even more vulnerable to climate change impacts. Further, the note says that a number of fragile States are especially susceptible to increasing food prices owing to their dependence on food imports. In some countries on the Security Council’s agenda, including Afghanistan, Côte d’Ivoire, Haiti, Liberia, Sierra Leone, Somalia and the Sudan, nearly half or more of the labour force is employed in the agricultural sector. Major droughts, an increase in extreme weather events and a rising number of large-scale inundations causing a decrease in crop production may degrade the social-economic fabric of these and other countries, and may be detrimental to peacebuilding. Thus, food insecurity caused by climate change and related developmental impacts make countries more fragile and vulnerable to conflict risks, and may create a threat to international peace and security. It is necessary to consider these issues in all efforts related to conflict prevention, crisis management, peacebuilding and post-conflict stabilization. Opening Statements Opening the Security Council’s thematic debate on “Maintenance of international peace and security: the impact of climate change”, Secretary-General BAN KI-MOON, recalled that when the Security Council first had taken up the issue of climate change in 2007, he had argued that the debate was not only appropriate but essential. Today, he welcomed that the right debate was being held: on what the Council and all States could do to confront the “double-barrelled challenge” of climate change and international security. “We must make no mistake,” he said. The facts were clear: climate change was real and accelerating in a dangerous manner. “It not only exacerbates threats to international peace and security; it is a threat to international peace and security”, he stressed. Extreme weather events were growing more frequent and intense in rich and poor countries alike, devastating lives, infrastructure and budgets — an “unholy brew” that could create dangerous security vacuums. Events in Pakistan, the Pacific Islands, the Russian Federation, Western Europe, the United States, China and the Horn of Africa were just some examples that should remind the world of the urgency of the situation, he said, adding that just today, the United Nations had declared a state of famine in two regions of southern Somalia. Around the world, hundreds of millions of people were in danger of going short of food and water, undermining the most essential foundations of local, national, and global stability. Competition between communities and countries for scarce resources — especially water — was increasing, he said, exacerbating old security dilemmas and creating new ones, while environmental refugees were “reshaping the human geography” of the planet, a trend that would only increase as deserts advanced, forests were felled, and sea-levels rose. Since his report to the General Assembly in 2009, certain agreements had been reached in Copenhagen and Cancún in the context of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), he said, providing an important — albeit incomplete — foundation for action on reducing greenhouse gas emissions and enabling all countries to adapt. What was needed now was accelerated operationalization of the agreements made at Cancún, including on forest protection, adaptation and technology. Moreover, climate finance, the sine qua non for progress, must move from a conceptual discussion to concrete delivery of “fast start” financing and agreement on sources of long-term financing, he said. The next Conference of Parties (COP) meeting in Durban this December must be decisive in that regard. “Minimalist steps will not do,” he stressed, as ambitious targets were needed to ensure that any increase in the global average temperature remained below 2 degrees Centigrade. The Durban meeting also must provide a clear step forward on mitigation commitments and actions by all parties, according to their responsibilities and capabilities. Developed countries must lead, while emerging economies must shoulder their fair share. Given that the first commitment period of the Kyoto Protocol expired next year, a political formula also must be found to ensure that existing and future commitments were not delayed by negotiating gamesmanship, he said, noting that the Council could play a vital role in making clear the link between climate change, peace and security. It bore a unique responsibility for mobilizing national and international action to confront the security threat of climate change, and others that derived from it. Recalling that nothing would build a foundation for a more peaceful world than securing sustainable development, he urged all States to use next year’s “Rio+20” Conference on Sustainable Development to “join the dots” between energy security, food and nutrition security, water security, climate security and development. While he had called climate change “the defining issue of our time”, he said States now must go further to make “sustainable development for all” the defining issue, as it was only in that broader framework that climate change could be addressed. “Re-writing this history falls to us all,” he concluded. ACHIM STEINER, Executive Director of the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), discussed climate change’s profound implications for global stability and security, noting that it was a threat multiplier that could result in simultaneous and unprecedented impacts on where people could settle, grow food, maintain infrastructure or rely on functioning ecosystems. Managing the potential disruption, displacement and adaptation to sea-level rise or extreme weather events was profoundly challenging to sustainable development. The fourth assessment report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) in 2007 concluded that it was “unequivocal” that the Earth was warming and that humans played a role in that. It noted that 11 of the last 12 years ranked among the 12 hottest years on record. The Panel’s fifth assessment report would be released in 2013-3014. But already many teams of scientists had claimed that forecasts and scenarios of future climate change cited in the fourth report had been overtaken. Citing examples in the regard, he said that a one-meter rise in sea-level, along with storm surges, could flood 17 per cent of Bangladesh’s land area; threaten large parts of coastal cities such as Lagos, Cape Town and elsewhere; and overwhelm small island developing States from the Maldives to Tuvalu. The Copenhagen Diagnosis of 2009 identified the potential for a temperature rise by 2100 of as much as seven degrees Celsius if there was no action to cut emissions. A 2011 paper in Nature Climate Change had concluded that roughly 65 per cent of present maize-growing areas in Africa would experience yield losses for a one degree Celsius warming even under optimal rain-fed management. The science suggested continuing, expediting and “tipping point” trends linked to climate change, which would have fundamental implications for weather, settlements, infrastructure, food insecurity, livelihoods and development, he said. It was happening in a world of rapidly emerging resource constraints and close to 7 billion people that would rise to more than 9 billion by 2050. “In a world where population is rapidly rising, the sustainable use of resources becomes an imperative,” he said, pointing to findings by UNEP’s International Resource Panel, which showed that consumption of several key natural resources could triple by 2050 to 140 billion tonnes unless that consumption was decoupled from economic growth. That gave rise to security concerns, as evidenced by public protests in Argentina, Burkina Faso, Cameroon, Egypt, Haiti, India, Indonesia, Mauritania and Peru in 2008 where a range of factors had caused price spikes and food shortages, he said. Many experts argued that climate change would aggravate or amplify existing security concerns and give rise to new ones, particularly in already fragile and vulnerable nations. It could also sharply intensify human displacement, bringing communities into increasing competition for finite natural resources with global repercussions for global economic stability. Last month, the Norwegian Refugee Council and the Internal Displacement Monitoring Centre estimated that “sudden natural disasters” had displaced 42 million people in 2010, he said. The Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA) and the IDMC had suggested that at least 36 million people were displaced in 2008 due to the “sudden onset” of natural disasters, including weather-related disasters. Competition over scarce water and land, exacerbated by regional changes in climate, were already a key factor in local level conflicts in Darfur, the Central African Republic, northern Kenya and Chad. When livelihoods were threatened by declining natural resources, people fled or innovated, or could be brought into conflict, he said. UNEP was partnering with the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) on the Scientific Committee on Problems of the Environment to frame a response to climate change and food challenges with the Global Environmental Change and Food Systems Initiative hosted by Oxford University, he said. Earlier this month, the Environmental and Security Initiative, a partnership between several United Nations agencies and the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE), published a comprehensive assessment of the Amu Darya river basin in Central Asia and measures for improved cooperation between Afghanistan, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan. Countries in the Sahel, including Burkina Faso, Gambia and Mauritania, also recognized the security implications of climate change and natural resource conflicts in their national policies and adaptation plans, he said. Several developed and developing countries had also reflected those risks in their national security strategies and defence plans. Working towards a low-carbon economy, or green economy, would be a key focus of the Rio+20 Conference next year. Ten Council-mandated peacekeeping operations costing $35 billion had been deployed to countries where natural resources had played a key role in conflict, he said. That figure represented half of the total peacekeeping budget ever spent. Science showed that the quantity and quality of those resources would be at increasing risk from climate change and its impact, and that without broad, cooperative action, irreversible tipping points could occur with perhaps sudden and abrupt shocks to communities and countries. “The question is less and less of whether climate change is a security threat or a threat multiplier. But one of how we can assess and manage the risks associated with climate change and its security implications as an international community,” he said. The international community’s ability to manage climate change’s consequences and avoid its most dangerous possibilities would depend on a proactive strategy and new global platforms, mechanisms and institutional responses that anticipated security concerns and facilitated cooperative responses. “Indeed there is no reason why the international community cannot avoid escalating conflicts, tensions and insecurity related to a changing climate if a deliberate, focused and collective response can be catalyzed that tackles the root causes, scale, potential volatility and velocity of the challenges emerging,” he said. Statements SUSAN RICE (United States) said climate change had very real implications for international peace and security. Those were as powerful as they were complex, and many of them were already upon us, reducing water and food, and threatening biodiversity in some regions. As more intense storms uprooted populations, climate change could increase pressure on scarce resources, exposing people to greater insecurity. Post-conflict countries already struggling to rebuild infrastructure and overcome instability now must often grapple with extreme weather and drought. Climate change also could slow or reverse crucial development gains for people to break the shackles of poverty. As sea levels rose, small island developing States might well see their territory literally drowned, raising unimagined forms of statelessness. Recalling the recent birth of South Sudan as the newest Member State, she said agricultural production was among its highest priorities. Yet, that challenge had been magnified by the unfolding humanitarian disaster in the wider Horn of Africa. A decade ago, drought and desertification were thought to have contributed to the humanitarian crisis in Darfur, as it had in Somalia. “The Security Council needs to start now — today and in the days to come — to act on the understanding that climate change exacerbated the risks of conflict,” she stressed, underlining the need to sharpen the tools available to respond to them. She went on to say that while the Council had an essential responsibility to address the clear-cut international peace and security implications of climate change, this week it had been unable to reach consensus on a presidential statement that climate change had the potential to impact international peace and security — despite “manifest evidence” that it did. Dozens of countries whose very existence was threatened had asked the Council to recognize their security was being threatened. But because of the refusal of a few, the Council, by its silence, was saying “tough luck”. “This is more than disappointing. It’s pathetic,” she said. It was a dereliction of duty. The Council had shown an impressive ability to combat new peace and security threats, she said, and in adapting peacekeeping tools to address more complex peace and security crises around the world. Climate change was no different. Improved early warning systems, more collaboration on the effects of climate change, especially at local and national levels, and more information on food and water were needed to help prevent resource-driven conflicts. The Council must prevent the risk of conflict by building local and national capacities. “Our goal is clear,” she stressed. “This Council needs to be prepared for the full range of crises that may be deepened or widened by climate change.” It must be much better prepared to tackle one of the central threats of our age. MARIA LUIZA RIBEIRO VIOTTI (Brazil), aligning with the Group of 77 developing countries and China, said the Council must take a holistic view of conflict, as violence was born not only of ethnic or religious disputes, but also out of hunger, poverty and competition for scarce resources. The links between climate change and development, and between security and development, had been explicitly recognized by the United Nations, but the possible security implications of climate change were far less obvious, as environmental impacts did not threaten international peace and security on their own. However, that indirect relationship between security and climate change in no way diminished the urgency of supporting the most vulnerable countries. Those challenges required political, economic and humanitarian approaches, not necessarily a security response. Expressing solidarity with small island developing States, she agreed that expressions of concern or political declarations were no substitute for concrete action. Adaptation programmes must be prioritized and funded. On food security, she called for redoubling efforts to eliminate hunger, while political will was needed to improve market access to food products from developing countries by reducing agricultural subsidies. Where food insecurity aggravated instability in conflict or post-conflict situations, the Council should coordinate efforts with other actors, including the World Bank. WANG MIN (China) said solving climate change and achieving sustainable development were pressing tasks that required all countries to make long-term efforts. Common but differentiated responsibilities were necessary. Climate change could affect security, but it was fundamentally a sustainable development issue. The Council did not have the means and resources to address it. Its discussions did not contribute to putting together a broadly accepted programme. Nor could the Council’s discussions substitute for the UNFCCC negotiations. Most developing countries believed the Council’s discussion on climate change did not contribute to mitigation efforts. The international community should give full consideration to developing countries’ stage of development and specific needs and circumstances, and accordingly, give them the requisite assistance. The international community should adopt effective measures to help small island developing States, especially by giving them capital, technology and capacity-building support. China would work with those small island nations to actively implement the Mauritius Strategy to advance sustainable development worldwide. MIRSADA ?OLAKOVI? (Bosnia and Herzegovina) said that in certain circumstances, the adverse impacts of climate change might aggravate existing threats to international peace and security, and the Council must be aware of the potential security implications that could be entailed, including humanitarian crises, migration pressures and external shocks. On the other hand, it was necessary to respect the mandates of United Nations bodies addressing climate change. A coherent and holistic response by the United Nations was the only way to address the issue, he said, and the Secretary-General, when appropriate, should alert the Council on climate-related crises that could imperil peace and security. It was crucial that United Nations bodies strengthen their capacity to deal with different crises, including those stemming from climate change, with efforts focused on predicting, preventing or handling climate change issues. Mainstreaming climate change within the Organization’s relevant bodies should be strengthened and information-sharing improved on early warning assessments. U. JOY OGWU ( Nigeria) said today’s debate was timely and it could contribute to preparations for the 2012 Earth Summit. The food crisis in the Horn of Africa showed that threats to water management, animal health and crop production exacerbated food insecurity. It was necessary to take concerted action to mitigate and adapt to climate change, otherwise the risks would only increase. It would cost $3 billion to protect Nigeria from the sea-level rise that could occur, according to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report. Nigeria was working with bilateral and multilateral partners to identify solutions to those challenges and it sought to mainstream mitigation and adaptation strategies. At the same time, she said, Nigeria was committed to the Millennium Development Goals and the Green Wall Sahara Programme. Every nation must do its part. She expressed concern over the slow rate of progress in implementing mitigation and adaptation agreements. Such failures had repercussions everywhere. Natural disasters undermined efforts of developing countries and small island developing States to adapt. The struggle to minimize climate change impacts should be part of wider peacebuilding frameworks. The United Nations was unequivocally placed to guide implementation of existing commitments outlined in the Kyoto Protocol, the Mauritius Declaration and other frameworks. She called for enhanced efforts for the equitable distribution of climate change adaptation funds and the promotion of the Global Environmental Facility. MARK LYALL GRANT (United Kingdom) said the number of countries speaking today demonstrated the importance of the topic being discussed. Extreme weather events would be felt most keenly in those countries where there was a shortage of food, water and energy, and where Governments did not always have the capacity to respond. Climate change must be seen as a “threat multiplier”, exacerbating tensions and increasing the likelihood of conflict. The Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) had estimated that global demand for food would increase 70 per cent by 2050. Where food security was a source of instability, climate change had the potential to fuel tension. He said that resource scarcity, flooding and drought would likely result in movements of people across national boundaries in such areas as the Horn of Africa, increasing the risks of tension and conflict. While some had voiced concern at the Council’s mandate to discuss the issue, the United Kingdom believed the mandates of those United Nations bodies dealing with climate change were being respected. The Council’s debate did not undermine them. The Council should consider emerging threats to international peace and security, and — as conflict prevention was an element in its work — it was through discussion of new and cross-cutting challenges, including climate change, that it could best prevent conflict. Voicing hope that agreement could be reached on a presidential statement, which would send a signal on the importance of mitigating the security risks posed by climate change, he said history would not judge the Council kindly if it “ducked” that responsibility. Three areas required attention. First, the United Nations must continue to work to achieve a globally binding agreement on climate change, and the United Kingdom would do its all to support preparations for the seventeenth Conference of Parties in Durban. The Council must build a deeper understanding of the interface between climate change and conflict drivers, and then capture it by building tools and taking actions to prevent conflict. Finally, better information-sharing was needed among United Nations bodies and programmes. VITALY CHURKIN ( Russian Federation) said his Government had always viewed combating climate change as a priority area for global cooperation, having advocated for a global instrument covering all countries and for more attention to be paid to the idea of Russian forests acting as carbon sinks. The Russian Federation’s policy had been seen in its decision to cut by 2020 greenhouse gas emissions by 10 to 25 per cent over 1990 levels, within the framework of a new global climate agreement. In the transition to a low-carbon economy, the Russian Federation would give attention to nuclear energy. The priority role in combating climate change lay with the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, he explained, as it contained measures to respond to new threats. The Russian Federation shared the concerns of small island developing States at rising sea levels. To address climate change, States must effectively use the potential of the climate convention, the most fundamental area of which was adaptation, which included the Adaptation Fund. He called for urgent and targeted aid in that regard. His Government was sceptical about the repeated attempts to place climate change on the Council’s agenda, he said, noting that as a compromise, his Government had agreed to join consensus in the adoption of General Assembly resolution 63/281 (2009). The Council’s consideration of the climate change issue was not right, as many countries were not prepared to see climate change placed on its agenda. Additionally, the Secretary-General’s report did not contain “serious arguments” to support those advocating its placement on the Council’s agenda. Rather, it merely discussed the hypothetical nature of climate change. While there also was a lack of empirical data to establish correlations, the report did contain “balanced” conclusions and observations on further work in that area. The Security Council was not referred to once in the report, and involving the Council in a regular review of climate change would not be of any added value; it would merely lead to more politicization of the issue and disagreement among countries. NÉSTOR OSORIO (Colombia) said immediate challenges caused by climate change must be discussed by the Council. While responses to minimize the effects of climate change were not within the Council’s mandate, the Council had been called upon to play a role in conflict cases that were exacerbated by climate change’s impact, in order to provide humanitarian protection measures, which should not extend to other issues. The Council would be called upon to raise the visibility of the problem under the consolidation of trust among nations, based on respect for the mandates of the respective bodies of the international system, and based on a unifying spirit. Curbing greenhouse gas emissions required coordinated global action. Colombia had just suffered two cold spells, unprecedented in history, in less than eight months. Experts said that destruction was equal to 10 hurricane Katrinas and that Colombia had to mobilize extra resources to get help victims and preserve the integrity of natural ecosystems. Colombia had the political will to help save the planet. GÉRARD ARAUD (France) said he particularly regretted the fact that the Council could not respond to Nauru’s appeal. He expressed concern especially over the threat to food security. France had made agricultural security a priority. He was also concerned about the subsequent threat to water resources and the viability of coastal resources that housed more than one-third of the world’s population. The international community must respond quickly and on a global scale. It must make the Cancun gains operational and it must move forward by developing a broader legal instrument to address climate change. He pointed to the “Clean Water for All” forum to be held in Marseille in March 2012. France and Kenya had launched the Paris-Nairobi initiative last April. During next year’s Rio+20 Conference, an ambitious road map to create a green economy must be adopted and it must account for the implications of climate change on maintaining global peace and security. The Council did not intend to replace the UNFCCC; it was simply facing up to new, complex, varied threats. Last February, the Council held a useful debate on peace, security and development, he said. He regretted that, today, but was not responding in a similar way and was not ready to make a collective statement on climate change’s implications for maintaining international peace and security. However, today’s debate was a first step. Climate change threats meant the international community must mobilize in Durban and Rio. The Council must come back to that and, in the future, express itself with a single voice. That was not overly ambitious; it was just addressing today’s sad realities. NAWAF SALAM (Lebanon), aligning with the Group of 77 developing countries and China, as well as the Non-Aligned Movement, said responsibility for sustainable development issues, including climate change, had been conferred upon the General Assembly and the Economic and Social Council. While UNFCCC was the main instrument for addressing climate change, today’s discussion would not be an encroachment on the mandates of those other organs. Rather, it should be viewed as an expression of complementarity among United Nations bodies. The Secretary-General had identified climate change as a “threat multiplier”, with emerging threats like accelerated desertification, which could lead to more food insecurity and migratory flows. That, in turn, could be a source of more tension and water scarcity, which could exacerbate competition for natural resources. He said that climate change impacts would be greater where factors for instability existed, especially in least developed countries. The cooperation of all countries, respecting the principle of common but differentiated responsibilities, was needed. Indeed, the international community could not win against climate change without putting into action all the instruments in its possession. All resources should be mobilized in the areas of adaptation, mitigation, finance and capacity-building, to reduce the negative effects of global warming. For its part, the Council should play a critical role in conflict prevention by addressing the security implications of climate change. DOCTOR MASHABANE (South Africa), aligning with the Group of 77 and the Non-Aligned Movement, reaffirmed the relevance of General Assembly resolution 63/281 (2009). Reiterating that climate change threatened development prospects and the very existence of societies, he said the fourth report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change had made clear that without action, there would be dire consequences, particularly for small island developing States. South Africa joined calls for the full implementation of commitments contained in the Barbados and Mauritius Programmes of Action. He said that while developing countries were working to eradicate poverty, they were confronted by a lack of resources and, thus, less able to deal with the negative impacts of climate change. As such, he called for a scaling up of resources, technology transfer and strengthened capacity to help those countries deal with climate change. The UNFCCC and the Kyoto Protocol were the best instruments to deal with the broad aspects of the challenge, and all must honour their obligations under them, in line with the principle of common but differentiated responsibilities. The Council could ensure that the architecture was strengthened and not fragmented. The UNFCCC and the Kyoto Protocol should be bolstered and a second commitment should be finalized as soon as possible. South Africa would spare no effort to ensure that parties achieved a balanced outcome in Durban. ALFRED MOUNGARA MOUSSOTSI (Gabon) said fighting climate change was a priority of Gabon’s President. Without efficient cooperation climate change could lead to cross-border movements and make energy, biology and water resources more scarce. As that was a cross-cutting issue, the Council’s involvement was all the more important. The military aspect remained important, but that was not the only way of dealing with the complexity of the threat. Given new threats to international peace and security, the global community must have the necessary tools available. Preventive diplomacy was one tool to reduce new threats. He commended the United Nations assistance to States to help them create and implement new strategies. It was vital that the Council define a framework for cooperation, with a view to more effectively combating the phenomenon. He called the international community’s attention to the need to help Africans, noting that their very survival depended on the commitment to act with increasing urgency. HARDEEP SINGH PURI (India) said that while the Council could discuss the vulnerabilities and threats induced by climate change, it did not have the wherewithal to address the situation. The existential threat to island States or food insecurity due to climate change could not be resolved or remedied by the Council, under Article 39 of the Charter. Such issues needed a broader approach, anchored in development, adaptive capacity, risk assessment and institutional build-up. “We, therefore, have some difficulty in accepting the assertion made that the effects of climate change go beyond the mandate of the UNFCCC,” he said. Those historically responsible for climate change must come forward with firm commitments to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and adequate resource and technology aid to developing countries, particularly small island developing States, he said. Sustainable economic development and growth must be pursued to enable developing countries to reduce poverty and meet basic standards of living for all. He called for urgent attention to address agricultural protectionism, excessive speculation in food commodity trading and diversion of crops for non-food purposes, which had led to an unsustainable global food situation. JOSÉ FILIPE MORAES CABRAL ( Portugal) said his country did not see the Council as the forum for climate change negotiations or for discussions on measures to mitigate and adapt to environmental vulnerabilities. Those issues belonged to other “contexts” which had the legitimacy and the appropriate tools to address them. The Council’s role was to address new challenges and ensure they did not lead to tensions or conflict. Thus, there was an added value in its discussions of the impact that certain consequences of climate change might have for international peace and security and, thus, he regretted that the Council had not been able to reach consensus on an outcome for today’s discussion. A statement to be presented later today had his strong support. Finding solutions to specific security problems arising from climate change required a link between different perspectives and instruments, and could benefit from the combined contribution of different United Nations agencies. Desertification and its effects on food production and water availability also should merit the Council’s attention, he said, as the consequences were often felt across national borders. It also contributed to the involuntary displacement of populations, which was, first and foremost, a humanitarian and development issue. But the strongest impact of desertification was felt in countries with social and economic vulnerabilities, some of which were emerging from conflict. If properly addressed, the security challenges whose effects were amplified by climate change might not necessarily lead to conflict. The Council should give priority to a preventive approach and to the development of early warning mechanisms. It also should be in a position to use existing mechanisms of dialogue to discuss the security impact of climate change with other international organizations. Regional and subregional mechanisms also should be assisted in managing shared resources. Council President PETER WITTIG (Germany), speaking in his national capacity, aligned with the statement to be made by the European Union and recalled that, more than one year ago, the Pacific small island developing States had urged the Council to consider the security implications of climate change, and, thus, fulfil its mandate. Those countries were already suffering from the security implications of climate change: they were resettling their people and ensuring that the redistribution of basic commodities did not turn into fights for survival. Their situation was a compelling reason, in itself, to discuss the topic in the Council. Another reason was that events in some countries today might well occur in others tomorrow. Most national security establishments considered global warming as among the biggest security challenges of the century, he said, underscoring there was no doubt that environmental degradation often acted as a driver of conflict. Such conflicts were not isolated in one country but tended to destabilize all regions. But not all States had the same capacity to adapt to dramatic environmental changes and it was the Council’s duty to “act with foresight” by doing its best to prevent crises before they became acute. For example, it had debated the interrelatedness of development with security. Germany did not want the Council to infringe on the competencies of the UNFCCC, or others, nor did the country seek to advance any such kind of encroachment. He regretted that the Council had been unable to find consensus on an outcome document for today’s meeting. While he still would prefer it to find common ground, the strong interest in today’s debate had made clear that members wished to see the topic on the Council’s agenda. MARCUS STEPHEN, President of Nauru, speaking on behalf of the Pacific small island developing States, the Maldives, Seychelles and Timor-Leste, said many countries faced the single greatest security challenge from all the adverse impacts of climate change — their survival — which was why he had come to the Security Council today. Pacific islands faced potentially catastrophic impacts that threatened to destabilize their societies and institutions. Food and water security, as well as public safety, all were being undermined, which could eventually lead to some islands disappearing altogether, forcing large numbers of peoples to relocate — first internally and then across borders. The Council had recognized its role in preventing conflict, he said, noting its recognition of the need to address unconventional security threats that could give rise to civil unrest, such as poverty and development. It had evaluated such problems, and in concert with other United Nations organs, deployed a variety of tools to address them. “We ask no less of you today,” he said. While UNFCCC must remain the primary forum for developing a strategy to mitigate climate change and mobilize resources, the Council had a clear role in coordinating the response to the security implications of the phenomenon. An effective international response required disaster planning and preparedness, risk assessments, and more effective multilateral coordination and preventive diplomacy. While Council members understood the security challenges faced by Pacific and other island nations, solidarity demanded more than sympathetic words. “Demonstrate it by formally recognizing that climate change is a threat to international peace and security,” he urged. It was as great a threat as nuclear proliferation or terrorism. It should start by requesting the appointment of a special representative on climate and security, as well as an assessment of the United Nations capacity to respond to the security impacts of the phenomenon. The Council must reflect on current geopolitical realities if it was to remain relevant; it would render itself irrelevant if it chose to ignore the biggest security threat of our time. “Seize this opportunity to lead,” he implored. RICHARD MARLES, Parliamentary Secretary for Pacific Island Affairs, Australia, said he had travelled to some of the countries most affected by climate change, but least responsible for it. Twenty of Australia’s 22 closest neighbours were developing countries, mostly small island developing States. Sea-level rise, the most significant impact of climate change in his region, could reach one metre by the end of the century, resulting in more severe storm surges, coastal inundation and loss of territory. Islands and low-lying territories might become uninhabitable, and as much of 80 per cent of the Marshall Islands’ Majuro Atoll, the nation’s capital, could erode and be lost. The sea, he said, long a source of food, sustenance and comfort, was being transformed into a source of anxiety and threat. In the short- to medium-term, a mix of sea-level rise, more intense storms and inundation would put greater pressure on coastal settlements and might lead to further localized population displacements. In the long-term, if internal resettlement was no longer an option, climate change could cause destabilizing populations as people’s lives and livelihoods were put at risk. Australia’s commitment to the UNFCCC was demonstrated by its domestic policy reform, he said. On 10 July, the Australian Prime Minister announced that Australia would legislate a carbon price, to take effect from 1 July 2012. While a difficult political debate, it was a critical piece of public policy reform. In 2020, Australia’s carbon price would have reduced the country’s carbon pollution by 160 million tonnes, the equivalent of taking 45 million cars off the road by that year. Australia was a strong proponent of Assembly resolution 63/281 (2009), which specifically stated that the Assembly and the Economic and Social Council had the overarching responsibility for sustainable development issues. However, the Council’s focus on climate change’s potential security implications was relevant to the Council’s mandate and did not compete with the other bodies. Least developed countries, small island developing States and Africa had been given the highest priority in Australia’s fast-start package because their needs were the most urgent, he said. Thus far, Australia had allocated $498 million — more than 80 per cent — of the $599 million in fast-start funding to which it had committed in Copenhagen. He also supported calls for a Secretary-General report on the United Nations capacity to respond to the impact of climate change on global security and how to improve that capacity. MAGED A. ABDELAZIZ (Egypt), speaking on behalf of the Non-Aligned Movement, pointed to General Assembly resolution 63/281 on climate change and its possible security implications, which recognized the respective responsibilities of the principal organs of the United Nations, including the primary responsibility for the maintenance of international peace and security conferred upon the Security Council, and the responsibility for sustainable development issues, including climate change, given to the General Assembly and the Economic and Social Council. In that regard, the continued encroachment by the Security Council on the functions and powers of the General Assembly, the Economic and Social Council and the relevant subsidiary organs through addressing issues which fell traditionally within the competence of those organs remained a source of deep concern for the Non-Aligned Movement. Stressing that the Security Council’s need to fully observe all Charter provisions establishing the delicate balance in competence between all principle organs, he said the Movement believed that close cooperation and coordination among all principal organs was indispensable to enable the Organization to effectively meet the existing, new and emerging threats and challenges. Further, the Movement stressed that climate change and its adverse impacts had to be addressed from the perspective of sustainable development, promoting a comprehensive approach to confront the root cause of the problem. The Movement, therefore, underlined its hope that the Council’s decision to hold today’s debate would not be considered a precedent and that the debate would not result in any form of outcome that undermined the authority or mandate of the relevant bodies, processes and instruments of wider membership that already addressed climate change. JORGE ARGÜELLO (Argentina), speaking on behalf of the Group of 77 developing countries and China, said all Member States must promote sustainable development in line with the Rio Principles and fully implement Agenda 21 and other relevant instruments. He stressed the international community’s critical role in giving adequate, predictable and more financial resources, technology transfer and capacity-building to developing countries. The UNFCCC was the main global inter-governmental forum for negotiating the global response to climate change. An appropriate response must address the consequences and root causes of the problem. There was a strong case for developed countries to reduce emissions and take mitigation steps. He was “extremely concerned” that under current climate change negotiations, developed countries had given no clear indication that they would adopt a second commitment period under the Kyoto Protocol. Current mitigation pledges from developed countries’ parties in the UNFCCC negotiations were not sufficient to reduce global greenhouse gas emissions to a level that would limit global temperature rise to that called for by international scientific experts. Indeed, developed countries must raise their level of ambition. He reiterated the need to coordinate global efforts and mobilize partners to help the observation networks throughout regional initiatives such as the South Pacific Sea Level and Climate Monitoring and Caribbean Community Climate Change Centre. He called on relevant United Nations bodies to reinforce regional broadcasting systems to help island communities during a disaster and increase the effectiveness of observation in those regions. Any measure taken in that context must ensure an integrated approach in responding to environmental emergencies. Support for developing countries must be bolstered. He called for full implementation of the Barbados Programme of Action for the Sustainable Development of Small Island Developing States and the Mauritius Strategy. He strongly reiterated his expectation that the Council’s initiative to hold today’s debate would not create a precedent that undermined the authority or mandate of relevant bodies, processes and instruments that already addressed climate change. CARLOS ENRIQUE GARCÍA GONZÁLEZ(El Salvador), underscoring the negative consequences of climate change for small-scale rural subsistence economies in Asia, Africa and Latin America, said small island developing States also were affected by coastal flooding, reduction of drinking water and crop loss. Developed countries must commit to the goal of reducing greenhouse gasses. Latin America was among the most vulnerable regions to climate change. In that context, he said no State could use its territory in a way that caused serious environmental damage to others, he said, welcoming the appeal by the Group of 77 for the main United Nations organs to do more to deal with the impacts of climate change, including its security repercussions. The Council should recognize the threat of climate change to international peace and security and respond with appropriate measures. The issue required significant political will within the ambit of multilateral talks to ensure it was addressed in the longer term. PEDRO SERRANO, Acting Head of the Delegation of the European Union to the United Nations, fully shared the view that small island developing States were among the hardest-hit by climate change. In the Pacific area, the Union had a longstanding development partnership with 15 countries, addressing climate activities through a comprehensive mix of Union policies and instruments. “We should reflect on a common strategy for the region, while considering tailored actions to meet specific needs,” he said, noting that meaningful measures could be taken. Support to the poorest countries should come first and disaster preparedness should be enhanced. He went on to say that ensuring food security was among the major challenges to be addressed, noting that climate change stood at the centre of pressures that would impact it in the coming decades. The cost of not addressing climate change would mean more food supply instability, volatility in food prices, and pressure on both water resources and migration, all of which threatened the political stability of fragile States. Two issues merited more research: access to water and water availability, which could threaten regional stability; and deforestation, which could lead to the displacement of peoples. SANJA ŠTIGLIC (Slovenia) said climate change was “the ultimate global challenge” that called for global responsibility. Although it was already a reality, with collective effort, there was still time to secure the world’s future. The European Union was at the forefront of the climate change debate, which had led to the presentation in March 2008, during Slovenia’s Presidency, of the Joint Paper by the Union’s High Representative and the European Commission on Climate Change and International Security. That document remained a reference guide for European Union action. Success in addressing climate change depended foremost on the international community’s ability to achieve an ambitious post-2012 climate agreement and to limit global warming to below 2° C. Furthermore, building climate resilience was a priority for the most vulnerable countries and regions. UNFCCC negotiations should deliver a new climate deal that would reduce emissions and provide adequate financing and technology transfer for adaptation in developing countries. But neither could prevent climate change on their own. Close cooperation among relevant United Nations organs was needed to bolster efforts to address climate change and its potential security implications. Today’s debate was an important contribution towards that end. CARSTEN STAUR (Denmark) said that in order to find a solution to the global threat of climate change, it was necessary to follow a multipronged strategy that incorporated climate and security in the work of all United Nations agencies as well as that of the relevant international, regional and national institutions. As developing countries were the most vulnerable, the issue must also be an integral part of international development cooperation. Such efforts had to include capacity-building to deal with security threats and political tension caused by climate change, as well as immediate adaptation activities, including improved disaster preparedness and warning systems. Also, he said, mitigation actions must be started without delay, including further development of renewable sources and strategies on greening the economic development. Efforts to promote “global climate diplomacy” also needed strengthening, with all aspects of climate change addressed through a dialogue that promoted a coherent understanding of that issue and a common vision of its solution. In that regard, Denmark welcomed the recent European Union Foreign Affairs Council conclusions to strengthen the European Union’s climate diplomacy. To be efficient, it was important for relevant information on developments related to climate change and its security implications to be made easily accessible. He also stressed the crucial need to ensure a joint response from the international community to the global challenge of climate change to secure international peace and security. SYLVIE LUCAS (Luxembourg), aligning with the European Union, underscored that the adverse impacts of climate change had repercussions on the security of many States, especially small island developing States, exacerbating poverty and the fault lines of mistrust between communities and nations. As early as 2005, the Council had underlined the need to adopt a comprehensive strategy of conflict prevention, dealing with the underlying causes of armed conflict as well as the political and social crises in a global manner. She said that it was paramount that the implications of climate change on security be factored into the reflections and mandates of the Council, as well as into the activities of the entire United Nations. Climate change, with its potentially drastic consequences on the displacement and transfer of populations, would grow more crucial as an underlying cause of conflict. EDUARDO ULIBARRI (Costa Rica) said the primary responsibility for dealing with climate change should be with the UNFCCC. All efforts to deal with the issue should take that into account and aim to support work plans and goals within that framework. To tackle more than just the peripheral actions, an agreement must be reached to reduce greenhouse gas concentrations to levels established in the Convention. That could be achieved with the firm participation of the main emitters, all of which were “present around this table”, and many of which had an historic responsibility to that end. All of them should undertake a clear commitment to reduce greenhouse gasses. The Council, he said, should concentrate on actions to avoid conflicts that could arise from climate change, including fights for water resources, forced displacements and the risk of a country disappearing. Such actions went beyond the Council’s mandate and they should be managed under the provisions of the Convention. Adaptation to climate change should be strengthened, with the major economies increasing their financial flows to those impacted by the problem, especially small island developing States. Developing countries required direct investments in early warning systems and technology transfers. Developing nations must act transparently, with good governance and respect for the rule of law. Headway would not be made if political decisions were not taken to ensure the Convention achieved its objectives. ANTHONY SIMPSON (New Zealand) said that for low-lying small island States, including several in the Pacific, for whom climate change posed the ultimate security risk — that of ceasing to exist as States and as communities — discussion over whether today’s debate was a legitimate one for the Council seemed abstract and deeply divorced from reality. In the past few years, the Asia-Pacific region had faced a devastating series of natural disasters. In the coming years, such events would become even more frequent and severe. Those forecasts were deeply worrying. Several steps were needed to prevent and address the security impact of climate change, including building developing countries’ adaptive capacity so they could better cope with future climate-related events before they became security challenges. Resilience to climate change must take into account existing and future resource use to reduce pressures on resources, thus building necessary buffers to offset the perils and threatened supplies. He also called for measures to mitigate and reduce greenhouse gas emissions, stressing that the importance of this year’s Durban meeting and implementation of the Cancun agreements. He said his country was working on adaptation and mitigation projects through bilateral, regional and multilateral initiatives. New Zealand’s climate change assistance in the Pacific placed strong emphasis on “climate-proofing” new infrastructure. It was important to share best practices. New Zealand’s initiative to set up the Global Research Alliance on Agricultural Greenhouse Gases aimed to ensure that efforts to reduce agricultural emissions did not compromise global food security. He supported the call by the Pacific small island developing States for possible mechanisms to support the early identification of climate-related security challenges and to promote comprehensive and cohesive research, analysis and action to address their underlying causes. KIM SOOK ( Republic of Korea), recalling the Council’s “fruitful” open debate in February on the interdependence between security and development, said today’s debate could marshal compelling arguments to encourage world leaders to reduce carbon emissions and invest in adaptation to guard against insecurity. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change had estimated that between 350 and 600 million Africans would be at risk of increased water stress by the middle of the century, while yields from rain-fed agriculture could be slashed by up to 50 per cent by 2020. Given the global nature of climate change, responses to it called for the widest possible cooperation. He said that while the UNFCCC was the key instrument for addressing climate change, relevant United Nations organs, as appropriate and within their mandates, should intensify their efforts to address climate change and its possible security implications. Due to its link to other global issues like poverty, underdevelopment and the food and energy crises, climate change should be addressed in the broader context of sustainable development. That approach had his Government’s strong support. He hoped that today’s debate would jumpstart the search for wise solutions and help lead to a breakthrough in climate change talks. OCTAVIO ERRÁZURIZ (Chile) said his country had strong links with small island developing States in the Pacific and shared their concerns regarding climate change. Today’s debate should not divert the authority and efforts of relevant processes dealing with such an important matter. Nor should it prevent the international community from strengthening mitigation, adaptation, and economic, social and environmental development. Global cooperation and the exchange of relevant information as well as increased scientific research would lead to solutions to climate change. In dealing with serious matters such as the spread of desertification, it was necessary to reaffirm that the UNFCCC was the fundamental instrument to address climate change. He stressed the importance of common but differentiated responsibility, advancing towards a broad, legally binding agreement and concluding negotiations as soon as possible on the Kyoto Protocol in order to avoid a vacuum between commitment periods. TALAIBEK KYDYROV (Kyrgyzstan) said food insecurity, due to food price hikes, in least developed and developing countries was especially complicated for mountain countries like Kyrgyzstan and could eventually lead to food shortages followed by conflict. It was important, therefore, to implement Assembly resolution 64/205 on sustainable mountain development in terms of ensuring food security for mountain countries. Fresh water supplies from the glaciers of Kyrgyzstan had been rapidly decreasing, owing to the 20 per cent reduction of glacier surface in the last 30 to 40 years. It could decline further by 35 per cent in 20 years, causing critical freshwater shortage and negative consequences for global peace and security, and fully disappear by 2100. Effective inter- and intra-State water use and allocation measures were needed, as well as forestry conservation, natural disaster prevention, and environment-friendly renewable energy source development. Natural disasters must be taken into account when implementing conflict prevention, crisis management, peacebuilding, and post-conflict stabilization measures. YANERIT MORGAN ( Mexico) said climate change was far from being a threat to international peace and security in the strictest sense, however, science had illuminated the risks associated with that challenge. Commitments taken eight months ago in Cancún must be adhered to, while the international legal framework should be strengthened and “adjusted to the task”. Without reducing emissions, the impacts of climate change would limit agricultural production, increase soil degradation and produce changes in the vectors of disease transmission — all of which would be felt most strongly in the poorest countries. The effects of climate change also would affect social stability. Such challenges could not be solved with one single solution, she said, but rather involved participation of all actors in society. In Cancún, results had been achieved. For its part, Mexico was implementing its commitments, which had allowed the country to reduce its emissions as much as possible in the short- and medium-term. In Durban, the collective ambition must be further developed. The Kyoto Protocol was a rules-based system to achieve goals and it must be complemented by another protocol for countries that had not committed to it. DIEGO MOREJÓN (Ecuador), aligning with the Group of 77 developing countries and the Non-Aligned Movement, agreed that the UNFCCC was the mandated body to steer climate change issues. The Kyoto Protocol should be respected, as must Annex I commitments. The General Assembly, as the United Nations universal body, was the ideal forum for recommending ways to address the repercussions of climate change. Indeed, climate change was affecting ecosystems around the world, to which developing countries were most vulnerable. That called for a cohesive response, which included technology transfers. Also essential was to boost political support for the second Kyoto Protocol period. Existing instruments should be used as a basis for that work, and agreements adopted under the Convention should be strengthened. RODOLFO ELISEO BENÍTEZ VERSÓN (Cuba) expressed serious concern over the Council’s growing, excessive encroachment of the functions of other principal United Nations organs. Climate change must be discussed under the sustainable development cluster. Therefore, it must be addressed in the General Assembly, Economic and Social Council and their relevant subsidiary bodies. The main reason why the UNFCCC and its Kyoto Protocol had not been achieved and the existence of small island developing States was threatened was the lack of political will of developed countries to pay their historical debt to the planet. If the Council wanted to contribute seriously to the search for solutions, it should begin with a statement that stressed, among other things, the principle of common but differentiated responsibility, underscore the importance for developed countries to meet their international development commitments, call upon industrialized nations to assume a second commitment period under the Kyoto Protocol with measurable and more ambitious goals on emissions reduction, and recognize that the main cause of climate change was the unsustainable production and consumption patterns in developed countries. MARY ELIZABETH FLORES (Honduras) said that limiting today’s debate only to the impacts of rising sea levels and food security was simplistic, as each time nature rebelled against humans, its predatory actions provoked chain reactions. Some degree of preparedness, in the form of identifying solutions to vulnerabilities, had proven helpful in mitigating the consequences. In designing policies, it was imperative to consider the differences among countries in terms of geography, politics and culture. Honduras was devising a mitigation strategy and building awareness around the belief that only by safeguarding its natural richness would it be able to preserve its ecosystems. Honduras’ vulnerability also was related to peoples’ lack of ability to find decent work and live under a safe roof. Its reality was very different from that of more privileged nations and required a precise understanding to ensure that solutions suitable to others were not mistakenly transferred to Honduras. ANNE WEBSTER (Ireland), aligning with the European Union, said rising sea levels presented the ultimate security threat to States whose very existence was at stake. A stark picture of the grim reality had been brought home at a conference of Women Leaders on Climate Justice, at which speakers from Papua New Guinea’s Carteret Islands described how unprecedented high tides had destroyed the soil for food production, forcing the evacuation of all 1,500 islanders to Bougainville. Statelessness and territory loss had become a realistic prospect rather than theoretical possibility. The United Nations could foster a global response to such phenomena. Perhaps the greatest impact of climate change was an increase in the scale and intensity of hunger, she said, noting that millions of people were at risk of starvation in some of the most hostile conditions imaginable. More than 78,000 Somalis had fled their country in the last two months. The security implications of more frequent, more extreme weather events included hunger, coupled with failing yields and escalating food prices. The case for the Security Council to recognize the threat of climate change to international peace and security was clear and compelling. Its work in that area was supported by various instruments, including resolution 1625 (2005). Ireland supported the mandates for the Council to request the Secretary-General to report on contextual information involving the drivers of conflict. Climate change was one such driver. TAKESHI OSUGA (Japan) said the anticipated timeframe for dealing with climate change was different than that for dealing with armed conflict, even though climate change would have indirect adverse effects on security. At the same time, he urged caution in considering what role the Council could play in global warming as it related to international peace and security. Receding coastlines would affect territorial waters. Those impacts that would not be limited to small island developing States, and thus, could incite disputes. Sea-level rise would aggravate the vulnerability of coastal States to environmental hazards, which also could raise the risk of conflict. Food security, the distribution of water resources and global health all would be impacted, weakening communities’ ability to resolve existing disputes. The poorest countries, and the poorest people and communities within a country, were the most vulnerable to climate change, he said. Japan understood the nexus between climate change, development and security. A fair, effective international framework in which all major economies took part must be established, while agreements reached under the UNFCCC should be built upon. Japan would engage in preparations for the seventeenth Conference of Parties. In Copenhagen, Japan had pledged to provide $15 billion to developing countries to 2012 and had implemented $9.7 billion up to this year. His Government was fully committed to supporting small island developing States. To promote global cooperation on disaster risk reduction, a new global strategy must be devised to succeed the Hyogo Framework for Action (2005-2015). Japan was willing to host a third world conference on that topic. VANU GOPALA MENON (Singapore) stressed the need to recognize that the UNFCCC was and would remain the primary forum for climate change negotiations. The aim of today’s debate was not to prejudice the ongoing negotiations, but he saw a need for the UNFCCC to work closely with other United Nations agencies, funds and programmes, especially concerning adaptation and capacity-building. The Council could also make an important contribution to climate change discussions by helping to build greater awareness of the catastrophic long-term consequences of climate change, including the possible security consequences. It could also help reinforce ongoing efforts to inject political momentum into the UNFCCC negotiating process for a successful outcome in Durban. In that regard, Council members must show leadership. The success of multilateral negotiations must be a collective effort. Developed countries clearly had a historical responsibility to address climate change, but all countries must participate and act with a sense of urgency. GRÉTA GUNNARSDÓTTIR (Iceland) said it was timely and important for the Council to address the security implications of climate change. The UNFCCC framework was the primary forum for addressing climate change internationally, but the Council should recognize the threats to global peace and security and seek ways to address them. Climate change magnified existing inequalities. Women were especially vulnerable. Rural areas in developing States, emerging economies as well as sectors and activities traditionally associated with women were disproportionately affected by climate change. Women faced greater hardships with household activities and the daily struggle for survival. Fewer water resources also negatively effected health, sanitation and food security, additionally burdening women. Due to their social roles and responsibilities, women were also more vulnerable to natural disasters than men. The principles guiding the Council when it adopted resolution 1325 (2000) on women, peace and security must guide its work when addressing today’s topic. The Council must ensure that the response to climate change took the gender perspective into account and that both sexes were included in decision-making and implementation. GILLES RIVARD (Canada) said his country strove to be an accountable and reliable partner of small island developing States and had consistently supported effective responses by the Security Council to new and emerging security challenges. While climate change had the potential to act as a stressor in failed and fragile States, it would not be the driver of conflict. To support mitigation and adaptation efforts in developing countries, least developed countries and small island developing States, Canada had contributed $400 million in new and additional climate financing for the 2010-2011 fiscal year alone. He went on to say that Canada also had played a lead role in supporting responses to food crises, notably in 2009, when it pledged to more than double its investment in sustainable agricultural development. Food security was also among its five international assistance priorities. Such solutions could enhance resilience, build institutions and reduce economic devastation, which, in turn, built a strong foundation for the maintenance of peace and security. ROBERT GUBA AISI (Papua New Guinea) reiterated the unequivocal statement made by the President of Nauru that the UNFCCC was and must remain the primary forum for developing an international strategy to mitigate climate change, mobilize financial resources and facilitate adaptation planning and project implementation. He also strongly supported the President of Nauru’s call for the General Assembly to continue addressing the links between climate change and sustainable development. He called for a “whole United Nations approach” to address climate change that would involve all relevant United Nations organs. Each must play its respective role, be it to set up the relevant policy framework moving forward or to finance the various climate change response mechanisms. The Council also had an important role to play. It must exercise its mandate to address the security implications of climate change, including future contingencies. The same purposeful approach employed by the Council to tackle HIV/AIDS and development issues should be used to address the security implications of climate change. ESHAGH AL HABIB (Iran) said the Council’s repeated encroachment into Charter-defined mandates of other principal United Nations organs was a matter of serious concern. While the Council had not been able or willing to genuinely address the well-established causes of insecurity and conflicts worldwide, its insistence on delving into issues outside its competence that were not generally believed or proven to threaten world peace and security was reprehensible. Overstretching the Council, with its current exclusive structure and non-transparent working methods, would have grave consequences on the functioning of other United Nations bodies. Rather, Council members could best be of service in combating climate change by honouring their commitments to capacity-building, the unconditional transfer of climate-friendly technologies and the provision of financial resources to countries most in need, particularly small island developing States, least developed countries and Africa. They should also commit to meaningfully reducing greenhouse gas emissions. MANSOUR AYYAD SH A ALOTAIBI (Kuwait), speaking on behalf of the Group of Arab States, and supporting the statements delivered on behalf the Non-Aligned Movement and Group of 77, stressed that the responsibility to maintain international peace and security fell primarily on the Security Council. He cited resolution 377 (1950) in that regard. The Council should not encroach on the mandates of other principal United Nations bodies. Climate change, integral to sustainable development, must be tackled in a holistic manner, and responsibilities for that issue were borne by the General Assembly, the Economic and Social Council and their subsidiary bodies. He stressed the need for all States to support sustainable development in line with the Rio principles, especially that for common but and differentiated responsibilities. The UNFCCC was the best forum for dealing with the dangers of climate change and for measures to be taken in accordance with the Convention. Developed countries that had yet to adhere to the Kyoto Protocol must do so. He also emphasized that no Security Council presidential or press statement should be issued after today’s open debate, especially any that would undermine relevant organs or processes. BYRGANYM AITIMOVA (Kazakhstan) said that while climate change deliberations were within the purview of the General Assembly and the UNFCCC, her Government understood the rationale for discussing the topic in the Council, as its effects seriously threatened human security. The vast number of emergency appeals for humanitarian aid as a response to climate-related crises was leading to irreversible security scenarios. The security risks directly affected national and international interests, requiring a comprehensive policy response to deal with food, water and energy shortages. The areas most affected would be those under demographic pressure and a massive influx of “environmental” migrants, which would lead to political, religious and ethnic radicalization. As such, she recommended strengthening the UNFCCC to address the impacts of climate change on international security. It was critical to enhance knowledge, assess the capacities of regional bodies and Member States, and improve early disaster response. The financial implications for such responses should be considered by the United Nations and donors. Also, the security dimension of climate change could strain international relations, as well as donor capacity, but it was becoming a positive driver for reforming global governance in the United Nations and its specialized agencies, as well as the regional political structures. She urged that international climate change negotiations continue, with a due focus on the General Assembly in tandem with all the system’s organs. THOMAS LAMBERT (Belgium), aligning with the European Union, said that since the Secretary-General’s 2009 report, the issue of climate change had not been present in debates in New York. While the UNFCCC was the adequate forum for dealing with that phenomenon, other organs, like the Security Council and the Assembly, should remain seized of the matter. Some might argue that the threats of climate change were remote, but that was not the case. Abrupt climate change could lead to the rapid “die-back” of tropical forests and to higher sea levels. As the first avenue for prevention was mitigation, he urged that UNFCCC negotiations be stepped up to make more progress. Beyond that, he said it was essential for States to increase their readiness to cope with the effects of climate change, including the relocation of people in small and low-lying islands, which had already begun. Climate change was also threatening the very resources vital for human life: water, fertile land, food and energy. Scarcity might lead to a breakdown of coping mechanisms of groups or individuals, and carry with it a growing risk of instability and conflict. Climate change would become a more important factor among the root causes of conflict. In response, a framework for preventive diplomacy was needed, as were steps towards a coherent approach within the United Nations system. ROBERTO RODRÍGUEZ (Peru) said there was historic need to combat climate change. Peru’s population lived in a highly diverse ecosystem. El Nino had caused coastal flooding and several droughts in the Andes, with grave social and economic consequences. The rapid melting of Peru’s glaciers, which accounted for half of the tropical glaciers worldwide, reduced the availability of water for human consumption, agriculture and energy. The Peruvian Amazon forest, Latin America’s second-largest forest, was an incalculable biodiversity reserve. The threat to climate change was by no means a foreign concept to Peru. Global concerted action through the UNFCC, particularly based on common but differentiated responsibility, was needed to address it. It was urgent to adopt specific measures to contain greenhouse gas emissions, and he called for creation of lower carbon intensity processes, financing and cooperation mechanisms. Peru was highly dependent on agriculture, most of which relied exclusively on rainfall. It was extremely vulnerable to climate change, and he called for global measures to ensure food security worldwide, particularly through effective strategies, financing mechanisms, extended North-South cooperation and other measures. ABULKALAM ABDUL MOMEN (Bangladesh), aligning with the Group of 77 and the Non-Aligned Movement, said climate change-induced food insecurity, the uprooting of populations and related adversity threatened international peace and security. He called on parties concerned to implement pledges in the Joint Statement on Global Food Security, adopted at the 2009 L’Aquila Summit. Sea-level rise was another concern for Bangladesh, as it could displace 30 to 50 million people from the country’s coastal belts by 2050, depriving those people of their livelihoods. The effects of climate change would be severe on least developed countries and small island developing States, he explained, calling for the full implementation of the Istanbul Programme of Action, the Mauritius Declaration and the Mauritius Strategy for the Further Implementation of the Programme of Action for the Sustainable Development of Small Island Developing States. Agenda 21, adopted at the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development, also should be fully implemented by all stakeholders. Developed countries should ensure provision of adequate and predictable resources, and transfer technology to developing nations, while the United Nations must have an integrated approach to mitigating the adverse impacts of climate change. RAFAEL ARCHONDO (Bolivia) expressed solidarity with the island States. Climate change was a real threat to humanity and Mother Earth. But the Council should not deal with it because some of the main emitters of global greenhouse gases were permanent Council members and they had the right to veto. The security implications of climate change should be dealt with in a forum where the guilty parties did not have seats for life or the right to veto. The main victims — including island States at risk of disappearing, countries with glaciers, Africa and developing nations — must have adequate representation. The only forums that could provide that were the UNFCCC and the General Assembly, which should deal with all aspects of climate change. Developed countries should increase their commitment to reduce global greenhouse gases. According to the World Humanitarian Forum, 350,000 people died annually due to climate change events. For that reason, he said, a body should be set up to guarantee the rights of nature as well as to judge and sanction those guilty of not complying with their commitments to reduce emissions, because they were provoking genocide and “ecocide” against Mother Earth. He called for the creation of an international tribunal for climate and environmental justice. Developed countries only gave $10 billion annually to address climate change, just 1 per cent of their defence and security spending. They should redirect defence funds to address development in island States, Africa, mountain countries, and all affected poor regions. The Council should adopt a resolution that would cut defence and security spending by 20 per cent and use that money instead to address the impact of climate change. STUART BECK (Palau), associating with Nauru, said the Security Council was responsible for carrying out the most crucial international tasks and had been accorded extraordinary powers by the Charter. When a threat to international peace and security arose, it had the mandate and “limitless” ability to act, a basic function that should be uncontroversial. Palau, therefore, was surprised to hear any opposition to an outcome from today’s debate, as the best available science clearly had shown clearly that the Western Pacific region had already undergone twice as much sea-level rise as other regions. Pacific small island developing States were “in the red zone”. Perhaps if others stood on its vanishing shores they would appreciate its situation, he said. While the causes of that threat were novel, its effects — which endangered sovereignty and territorial integrity — fit squarely within the Council’s traditional mandate. The Council had before it modest, constructive and achievable proposals and he requested that it adopt them. If not, he pledged that Palau would continue to call on every United Nations organ to intensify its efforts to address climate change and security. CSABA KÖRÖSI (Hungary), aligning with the European Union, discussed the direct threats from rising water levels, saying that for some countries, the loss of territory might be fatal. In Europe, 20 to 30 million people could be forced to leave their homes in the next 50 to 70 years, and globally, more than 300 million could be relocated. Vulnerable societies could be overburdened by such events. The indirect threats could involve a challenge to fishing and mining rights if territorial waters and exclusive economic zones changed significantly. Traditional donors should spend more on mitigation projects and less on assisting other areas. In addition, there would be inland security consequences, he said, citing dramatically changed conditions for food production and increased volatility of rivers, which would result in uncontrollable floods. “Food security in the last 60 years has never been as fragile as today,” he said, urging that an analysis of peacekeeping and peacebuilding activities of the Council, as well as other bodies, be carried out to prevent States from relapsing into conflict. The international community should spare no effort in responding to the impacts of climate change. With that, he urged that the Council “maintain its vigilance” on the security implications of climate change. JANNE TAALAS (Finland), aligning his country with the statement of the European Union, said it was clear that climate change would have significant security implications, noting that sea-level rise and food security were directly linked to international peace and security. Only 20 years ago it was unimaginable that small island nations could be submerged due to sea-level rise. Today that prospect was all too real, and climate change would have an adverse impact on food production and freshwater resources. That impact would be worse in areas already under environmental stress. That situation could lead not only to population shifts, but to political unrest as well. While the impact of climate change varied from region to region, the small island developing States were most at risk, said Mr. Taalas, explaining that although they were not the cause of climate change, they could well become its first victims unless remedial action was taken as a priority. For its part, Finland was partnering with many small island developing States to build their capacity to act internationally and to adapt locally. In that regard, his country supported the capacity development of the Alliance of Small Island States and the Pacific Small Island Developing States and had meteorological cooperation projects in the Pacific and Caribbean regions. Concluding, he said that the Security Council, given its pre-eminent role in maintaining international peace and security, should keep an eye on emerging security implications of climate change. He pledged that if his country was elected to the Council next year, it would contribute actively to any such assessment and action. JOSEPH GODDARD (Barbados), speaking on behalf of the Caribbean Community (CARICOM) and aligning with the Group of 77, as well as the Non-Aligned Movement, said the possible security implications of climate change must be addressed at the multilateral level by bodies that were inclusive, representative and transparent. The Security Council should refrain from encroaching on the functions that the United Nations Charter or tradition had placed within the General Assembly’s purview. That said, urgent actions taken to address climate change would reduce the security implications associated with it. With leadership, a bold response to climate change was possible, he said, underlining that it was morally and ethically unacceptable to fail to respond to the needs of peoples facing hunger, drought, extreme weather events and the loss of life, when the means and tools were at States’ disposal to address those problems. No effort was being spared to avert a global financial meltdown and a similar effort was required to avert a climate catastrophe. In that context, he urged developed countries to take the lead in reducing greenhouse gas emissions and increasing financial and technological assistance to poor countries. The Barbados Programme of Action and the Mauritius Strategy must also be fully and quickly implemented. FAZLI ÇORMAN ( Turkey) said climate change posed a risk too great to ignore, which could not be met by any single State alone. Turkey was fully committed to contributing to global efforts to address climate change and considered the UNFCCC the central multilateral instrument to guide collective actions. Indeed, States must work together to define the elements of the post-2012 regime. Climate change posed a severe risk to political and social stability, especially in overpopulated and underdeveloped regions, such as water shortfalls, declines in agricultural productivity, sea-level rise and spikes in the rates and geographic scope of malaria, to name a few. He explained that those effects would curtail sustainable development, and that small island developing States and least developed countries would be hit hardest, with their structural constraints and limited resources. Given such circumstances, adaptation merited further consideration. A key issue was the identification of successful cases of adaptation. Stressing that sufficient long-term financing and novel technologies were needed, he said it was clear the international community must speed its efforts to combat climate change. Such efforts would contribute to prosperity, peace and security. LIBRAN N. CABACTULAN (Philippines), aligning himself with both the statements of the Non-Aligned Movement and the Group of 77, pointed out that his country, like many developing island States, was highly vulnerable to the adverse impact of climate change. The increasing frequency and severity of floods, droughts and typhoons were already stretching to the limit his Government’s capacity and resources to aid the victims of natural disasters. Global warming also had affected the country’s yield of staple crops such as rice and corn; and even marine resources had felt the effects of the phenomenon. The recent toll in the fish kill in some provinces of the Philippines continued to mount, endangering the livelihood of thousands of fisher folk, he noted. The rise in the sea-level was another threat to the integrity of the Philippine archipelago, and to that end, he shared the grave concern of the small island developing States about the short- and long-term consequences of climate change and the havoc it would bring if nothing was done to mitigate its pernicious consequences. ”It is ironic that small island and developing States, particularly those in the tropical areas like the Philippines, are the least responsible for this global problem and yet they face and bear the most adverse consequences,” he observed. Climate change, particularly global warming, would continue unless significant gains were achieved in the campaign to immediately reduce greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. Thus, he called for the involvement of the entire international community in the search for the best course of action to take now, instead of waiting for “a major catastrophic event to happen”. Following a readout of a presidential statement by the Security Council President, MACHARIA KAMAU (Kenya) said climate change impacted Kenyans’ lives and livelihoods in ways that were difficult to describe, as lives were lost and children suffered. Food security, the water situation, the drying up of rivers and access to shelter — driven by the disappearance of forests — all were conditions directly related to the human security of Kenyans. Health and education also were directly affected, as people found themselves forced out of their homes by drought or the lack of food. Today, Kenya faced another drought, following that of 2008. It was a weather-based economy, depending on agriculture — the backbone of the economy — and wildlife. It had suffered a 3 to 5 per cent loss in economic growth due to climate change. He said Kenya had truly scarce resources, as less than one third of the country was arable, making land a “premium product”. In the last month, 1,300 people had entered Kenya, joining Somalis who had already sought refuge in the country, driven by the lack of food, water and security. “This is a real concern for us and the correlation between that and climate change is direct,” he stressed. Indeed, the Horn of Africa was experiencing the most severe drought in years, and Kenya was conscious of what efforts it would take to achieve peace and stability, and the kind of economic growth that would allow it to overcome poverty. In that context, he underlined the need for a clear, determined long-term solution. The Security Council, and by extension, the General Assembly, was starting to understand that climate change was a serious enough situation to require solutions that everyone could use to change the opportunities for their children. DAFFA-ALLA ELHAG ALI OSMAN ( Sudan) underscored the need to coordinate United Nations bodies and agencies dedicated to conflict prevention in order to combat the security effects of climate change. Aligning with the Non-Aligned Movement, the Group of 77, and the Arab Group, he said Sudan had suffered from a conflict in the Darfur district. Drought and desertification brought on by climate change were among the basic reasons for that conflict. There was a saying that a shepherd could not see his cow die, but rather, could see his son die before his eyes. He said that if the international community had helped Sudan address the basic reasons for conflict — a lack of economic development stemming from drought and desertification — Sudan would not have needed the $3 billion spent on peacekeeping operations in Darfur. It would have been better to spend those funds on addressing the problems emanating from desertification and drought. Sudan, within the Doha round of trade talks, had reached a basic document accepted by all stakeholders in Darfur, which he hoped would bring a rapid end to the conflict there. Sudan also had established a bank. If the United Nations concentrated on the basic causes of the conflict, peace and security could be achieved. HENRY TACHIE-MENSON (Ghana) expressed his country’s firm belief that investment in adaptation activities that provided information on vulnerability, climate risk and early warning signals, and the building of States’ adaptive capacities through measures such as co-management of water resources as well as support to domestic and regional conflict resolution institutions, would enhance security and reduce the potential for conflicts. Similarly, responses to “environmental wars” should not focus mainly on military solutions to secure resources or erect barriers to migration, but instead on the cost-effective alternative of adaptation. He further expressed the hope that putting climate change in that “high politics category” of security would not draw attention away from such development challenges such as extreme poverty, access to education, and HIV/AIDS, all of which posed an urgent threat to vulnerable societies. They all needed to be addressed together. In that context, it was Ghana’s fervent hope that today’s debate would lead to actions that complemented and acted as a boost to the work of the relevant institutions tasked with handling sustainable development issues, and that such actions would be timely, concerted and sustainable. JORGE VALERO BRICEÑO (Venezuela), aligning with the Group of 77 and the Non-Aligned movement, said the Council’s growing “invasion” of the functions and responsibilities of other United Nations organs was a “distortion” of the purposes and principles of the United Nations Charter, an abuse of authority that affected the rights of the majority of Member States. Matters of sustainable development belonged to the General Assembly, Economic and Social Council and auxiliary organs, including the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP). Venezuela refused any climate change initiative presented outside the scope of the UNFCCC, he said, as that would deeply affect multilateral institutions focused on that issue. Climate change had not been ruled a mandate of the Security Council. Venezuela would cooperate on the cause of sustainable development of small, insular States. Within the UNFCCC, his Government had called for strengthening the institutions and mechanisms that would contribute to the creation of State capacities to counteract the effects of climate change. With that, he urged States to promote sustainable development by joining the principles of the Rio Convention, and to fully apply Agenda 21. LUKE DAUNIVALU (Fiji) said the territorial integrity of small island developing States — and their very existence as sovereign nations — faced far greater threats from climate change than from human conflict or other atrocities. The nature of the security implications of climate change should demonstrate the need for attention from all principal United Nations organs. In requesting the Council to deal with today’s topic, Fiji did not consider there to be any encroachment on the mandates of other relevant United Nations organs and bodies. “What we are asking the Council to do is fulfil its responsibilities conferred upon it by the Charter,” he said. Fiji also requested that the Council fully respect the mandates of other principle United Nations organs, as well as other relevant bodies, processes and instruments addressing climate change, he said, reaffirming that UNFCCC was the primary forum for developing an international strategy to mitigate climate change and mobilize resources. The General Assembly also should continue to address the links between climate change and sustainable development. As a cross-cutting issue, climate change should be given the necessary attention it deserved. The price of inaction would be immeasurably high, as history taught there would be severe security implications arising from the great challenges ahead. ?UKASZ ZIELI?SKI (Poland), aligning with the European Union, said climate change could weaken fragile Governments and increase migratory pressures, while its potential consequences for water availability and food security, among other things, could aggravate existing tensions and generate new conflicts. Water should be at the centre of climate adaptation efforts, as water shortage had the potential to cause civil unrest and significant economic loss. Investments and water management policy changes should be prioritized. Moreover, competition over access to and control over energy resources was among the most significant sources of potential conflicts, he said, as much of the world’s strategic reserves were in regions vulnerable to climate change. The main threat to energy security came from reliance on imports and lack of infrastructure, and transforming energy systems to reduce emissions would be indispensable to reaching mitigation actions. “Urgent action at the global level is needed to face the security challenges of climate change,” he said, which required new thinking in foreign policy “outside the environmental box”. Countries’ capacity for early warning must be strengthened. A global framework of risk management also was needed, as was enhanced international cooperation to monitor the security threats related to climate change. OMBENI Y. SEFUE (United Republic of Tanzania) said poor countries like his had the least capacity to mitigate the impact of climate change. The solution to climate change was sustainable development. Climate change was best handled by entities mandated to deal with sustainable development, and not the Council. During a similar discussion in 2007, most Member States felt that the Council should avoid treading on the mandates of other United Nations entities such as UNFCCC and the Economic and Social Council. The threat of possible loss of land mass and the subsequent creation of climate refugees was a threat that his country shared with Pacific islands. For that reason, he attached great importance to the ongoing multilateral negotiations aimed at amicable solutions. Isolating climate change could weaken a possible early conclusion of UNFCCC negotiations. The Secretary-General should be asked to conduct a comprehensive study to determine the size and scope of the threat facing Pacific islands and others in similar positions, as well as present various options and solutions for the Assembly’s consideration. Countries that provided carbon sequestration services must be given incentives. His country had dedicated more than 30 per cent of its land mass for forest reserves and national parks. RON PROSOR (Israel) said today’s debate provided a timely opportunity to “think outside the box” on the effects of climate change on peace and security, which were real and would become more evident in the years to come. Israel recognized that climate change held particular significance for Pacific small island developing States. The challenges associated with climate change required an immediate, coordinated and wide-ranging international response. For its part, Israel continued to work towards achieving a 20 per cent reduction in greenhouse gas emissions by 2020, he said. It was also working to improve the efficiency of energy systems and increasing the use of renewable energy sources. Knowledge in those fields would be critical in adaptation efforts. In addition, Israel would again initiate a resolution on “agricultural technology for development” in the General Assembly, which would promote the use of sustainable agricultural technology. JUAN PABLO DE LAIGLESIA (Spain) said that today, “hazy” security threats stemmed from lack of access to drinking water, global pandemics and environmental issues, to name a few. The Council had spent time on development and HIV/AIDS issues, as they constituted threats to international security. Climate change must be tackled from the same point of view, and he was pleased that agreement had been reached on a presidential statement. Aligning with the European Union, he said that Spain, on 28 June, had adopted a new security strategy in which climate change was among the main vectors of security risks. It anticipated conflicts to be generated by lack of access to resources and poverty. On a global level, climate change required joint coordination and responsibility, and Spain was committed to actively participating in multilateral forums, including the UNFCCC and the Security Council. In sum, he reiterated Spain’s commitment to combating climate change. CESARE MARIA RAGAGLINI (Italy), aligning with the European Union, noted that climate change was a “threat multiplier” and pointed out that the international community had yet to fully activate the “threat minimizers” that could lower the risk of climate-related insecurity, such as a globally-shared climate mitigation and adaptation mechanism, and a system of strengthened international cooperation, preventive diplomacy and mediation. Sea-level rise was among the most dramatic and tangible climate-related insecurity factors as it seriously endangered the living conditions of millions of people. He went on to say that small island developing States must be adequately supported in their efforts at adaptation and disaster preparedness and in drafting sustainable development policies. Careful consideration must also be given to situations in which sea-level rise threatened to significantly alter the coastline, impacting territorial borders and the division of maritime zones. In addition, food security, though not a direct consequence of climate change, could be aggravated by global warming and extreme weather. As such, he called for doubling efforts to increase food supply and stabilize food prices. In sum, action on the security-related aspects alone would be in vain unless the root causes of climate change were addressed. ABDULLAH HUSSAIN HAROON ( Pakistan), associating with the Group of 77, considered today’s debate an important contribution to the search for solutions within the UNFCCC-led process. In a wide-ranging description of the perils of global warming, he said that conflict, and not cooperation, was fast becoming the world condition. “If we are to have any chance at disaster prevention or consequence management, we must act quickly and decisively,” he said, as coming catastrophes would exacerbate current conflicts. Today, he said, climate change was an inescapable reality for Pakistan, which was manifesting itself with increasing ferocity. His country was among the worst victims of “climate injustice”, and dealing with the phenomenon was an imperative. Against that backdrop, climate change affected almost all sectors of the country, including water resources, energy and agricultural productivity. With that, he underlined the vital work undertaken by the UNFCCC, stressing the importance of the mandates of the United Nations principal organs and the need for the Assembly and the Economic and Social Council to retain their pre-eminence. * *** * For information media • not an official record Permalink | | ### |
|
Posted on Sustainabilitank.info on February 11th, 2013 Global warming to bring more rain to hydro-dependent Norway.Date: 11-Feb-13 Global warming is likely to bring more rain to hydro-dependent Norway, giving a further boost to power production that reached a record high last year due to ample rainfall, the government said in a report on Friday. Norway’s power generation reached 146 terawatt-hours (TWh) in 2012, as hydro inflows from rain and snow melt were 5 TWh above normal, Norway’s Water Resources and Energy Directorate (NVE) said. Hydro power accounted for 97 percent of production. During the past century, precipitation in Norway has risen by about 20 percent, and that trend is expected to continue. “The extent of the flooding and landslides in Norway is expected to increase as a result of more precipitation and more intense rainfall,” the government said in the report on long-term challenges. “Meanwhile, more precipitation can result in higher production of hydroelectric power, and milder winters will lead to lower fuel costs,” it added. “Most studies show that climate change will lead to an increase in the average annual inflow to power plants in Norway, and thereby increase the production potential for hydropower,” said Hege Hisdal, head of hydrologic modeling at NVE. Weekly precipitation levels, measured in terms of hydro energy available for power production, rose by about 13 percent from 1995 to 2013 in Norway, data from Point Carbon, a Thomson Reuters company, showed. “So there is a clear increasing trend,” said Bjorn Sonju-Moltzau, a hydrologist at Point Carbon. “We expect precipitation levels that can be used for power generation to increase by 10-15 percent during the next 10-20 years.” About half of all electricity production in the Nordic power market comes from hydro power. Hydro production in the region could increase by about 10 percent during the period 2021-2050 from 1961-1990, a reference period to measure climate change, a study commissioned by the Nordic Council of Ministers, showed last year.N Permalink | | ### |
|
Posted on Sustainabilitank.info on February 10th, 2013
The battle over Keystone XL was initially joined in the summer of 2011, when environmental writer and climate activist Bill McKibben and 350.org, which he helped found, organized a series of non-violent anti-pipeline protests in front of the White House to highlight the links between tar sands production and the accelerating pace of climate change. At the same time, farmers and politicians in Nebraska, through which the pipeline is set to pass, expressed grave concern about its threat to that state’s crucial aquifers. After all, tar-sands crude is highly corrosive, and leaks are a notable risk. In mid-January 2012, in response to those concerns, other worries about the pipeline, and perhaps a looming presidential campaign season, Obama postponed a decision on completing the controversial project. (He, not Congress, has the final say, since it will cross an international boundary.) Now, he must decide on a suggested new route that will, supposedly, take Keystone XL around those aquifers and so reduce the threat to Nebraska’s water supplies. Ever since the president postponed the decision on whether to proceed, powerful forces in the energy industry and government have been mobilizing to press ever harder for its approval. Its supporters argue vociferously that the pipeline will bring jobs to America and enhance the nation’s “energy security” by lessening its reliance on Middle Eastern oil suppliers. Their true aim, however, is far simpler: to save the tar-sands industry (and many billions of dollars in U.S. investments) from possible disaster. Just how critical the fight over Keystone has become in the eyes of the industry is suggested by a recent pro-pipeline editorial in the trade publication Oil & Gas Journal: “Controversy over the Keystone XL project leaves no room for compromise. Fundamental views about the future of energy are in conflict. Approval of the project would acknowledge the rich potential of the next generation of fossil energy and encourage its development. Rejection would foreclose much of that potential in deference to an energy utopia few Americans support when they learn how much it costs.” Opponents of Keystone XL, who are planning a mass demonstration at the White House on February 17th, have also come to view the pipeline battle in epic terms. “Alberta’s tar sands are the continent’s biggest carbon bomb,” McKibben wrote at TomDispatch. “If you could burn all the oil in those tar sands, you’d run the atmosphere’s concentration of carbon dioxide from its current 390 parts per million (enough to cause the climate havoc we’re currently seeing) to nearly 600 parts per million, which would mean if not hell, then at least a world with a similar temperature.” Halting Keystone would not by itself prevent those high concentrations, he argued, but would impede the production of tar sands, stop that “carbon bomb” from further heating the atmosphere, and create space for a transition to renewables. “Stopping Keystone will buy time,” he says, “and hopefully that time will be used for the planet to come to its senses around climate change.” A Pipeline With Nowhere to Go? Why has the fight over a pipeline, which, if completed, would provide only 4% of the U.S. petroleum supply, assumed such strategic significance? As in any major conflict, the answer lies in three factors: logistics, geography, and timing. Start with logistics and consider the tar sands themselves or, as the industry and its supporters in government prefer to call them, “oil sands.” Neither tar nor oil, the substance in question is a sludge-like mixture of sand, clay, water, and bitumen (a degraded, carbon-rich form of petroleum). Alberta has a colossal supply of the stuff — at least a trillion barrels in known reserves, or the equivalent of all the conventional oil burned by humans since the onset of commercial drilling in 1859. Even if you count only the reserves that are deemed extractable by existing technology, its tar sands reportedly are the equivalent of 170 billion barrels of conventional petroleum — more than the reserves of any nation except Saudi Arabia and Venezuela. The availability of so much untapped energy in a country like Canada, which is private-enterprise-friendly and where the political dangers are few, has been a magnet for major international energy firms. Not surprisingly, many of them, including ExxonMobil, Chevron, ConocoPhillips, and Royal Dutch Shell, have invested heavily in tar-sands operations.
Extracting and processing tar sands is an extraordinarily expensive undertaking, far more so than most conventional oil drilling operations. Considerable energy is needed to dig the sludge out of the ground or heat the water into steam for underground injection; then, additional energy is needed for the various upgrading processes. The environmental risks involved are enormous (even leaving aside the vast amounts of greenhouse gases that the whole process will pump into the atmosphere). The massive quantities of water needed for SAGD and those upgrading processes, for example, become contaminated with toxic substances. Once used, they cannot be returned to any water source that might end up in human drinking supplies — something environmentalists say is already occurring. All of this and the expenses involved mean that the multibillion-dollar investments needed to launch a tar-sands operation can only pay off if the final product fetches a healthy price in the marketplace. And that’s where geography enters the picture. Alberta is theoretically capable of producing five to six million barrels of tar-sands oil per day. In 2011, however, Canada itself consumed only 2.3 million barrels of oil per day, much of it supplied by conventional (and cheaper) oil from fields in Saskatchewan and Newfoundland. That number is not expected to rise appreciably in the foreseeable future. No less significant, Canada’s refining capacity for all kinds of oil is limited to 1.9 million barrels per day, and few of its refineries are equipped to process tar sands-style heavy crude. This leaves the producers with one strategic option: exporting the stuff. And that’s where the problems really begin. Alberta is an interior province and so cannot export its crude by sea. Given the geography, this leaves only three export options: pipelines heading east across Canada to ports on the Atlantic, pipelines heading west across the Rockies to ports in British Columbia, or pipelines heading south to refineries in the United States. Alberta’s preferred option is to send the preponderance of its tar-sands oil to its biggest natural market, the United States. At present, Canadian pipeline companies do operate a number of conduits that deliver some of this oil to the U.S., notably the original Keystone conduit extending from Hardisty, Alberta, to Illinois and then southward to Cushing, Oklahoma. But these lines can carry less than one million barrels of crude per day, and so will not permit the massive expansion of output the industry is planning for the next decade or so. In other words, the only pipeline now under development that would significantly expand Albertan tar-sands exports is Keystone XL. It is vitally important to the tar-sands producers because it offers the sole short-term — or possibly even long-term — option for the export and sale of the crude output now coming on line at dozens of projects being developed across northern Alberta. Without it, these projects will languish and Albertan production will have to be sold at a deep discount — at, that is, a per-barrel price that could fall below production costs, making further investment in tar sands unattractive. In January, Canadian tar-sands oil was already selling for $30-$40 less than West Texas Intermediate (WTI), the standard U.S. blend. The Pipelines That Weren’t: Like an army bottled up geographically and increasingly at the mercy of enemy forces, the tar-sands producers see the completion of Keystone XL as their sole realistic escape route to survival. “Our biggest problem is that Alberta is landlocked,” the province’s finance minister Doug Horner said in January. “In fact, of the world’s major oil-producing jurisdictions, Alberta is the only one with no direct access to the ocean. And until we solve this problem… the [price] differential will remain large.” Logistics, geography, and finally timing. A presidential stamp of approval on the building of Keystone XL will save the tar-sands industry, ensuring them enough return to justify their massive investments. It would also undoubtedly prompt additional investments in tar-sands projects and further production increases by an industry that assumed opposition to future pipelines had been weakened by this victory. A presidential thumbs-down and resulting failure to build Keystone XL, however, could have lasting and severe consequences for tar-sands production. After all, no other export link is likely to be completed in the near-term. The other three most widely discussed options — the Northern Gateway pipeline to Kitimat, British Columbia, an expansion of the existing Trans Mountain pipeline to Vancouver, British Columbia, and a plan to use existing, conventional-oil conduits to carry tar-sands oil across Quebec, Vermont, and New Hampshire to Portland, Maine — already face intense opposition, with initial construction at best still years in the future. The Northern Gateway project, proposed by Canadian pipeline company Enbridge, would stretch from Bruderheim in northern Alberta to Kitimat, a port on Charlotte Sound and the Pacific. If completed, it would allow the export of tar-sands oil to Asia, where Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper sees a significant future market (even though few Asian refineries could now process the stuff). But unlike oil-friendly Alberta, British Columbia has a strong pro-environmental bias and many senior provincial officials have expressed fierce opposition to the project. Moreover, under the country’s constitution, native peoples over whose land the pipeline would have to travel must be consulted on the project — and most tribal communities are adamantly opposed to its construction. Another proposed conduit — an expansion of the existing Trans Mountain pipeline from Edmonton to Vancouver — presents the same set of obstacles and, like the Northern Gateway project, has aroused strong opposition in Vancouver. This leaves the third option, a plan to pump tar-sands oil to Ontario and Quebec and then employ an existing pipeline now used for oil imports. It connects to a terminal in Casco Bay, near Portland, Maine, where the Albertan crude would begin the long trip by ship to those refineries on the Gulf Coast. Although no official action has yet been taken to allow the use of the U.S. conduit for this purpose, anti-pipeline protests have already erupted in Portland, including one on January 26th that attracted more than 1,400 people. With no other pipelines in the offing, tar sands producers are increasing their reliance on deliveries by rail. This is producing boom times for some long-haul freight carriiers, but will never prove sufficient to move the millions of barrels in added daily output expected from projects now coming on line. The conclusion is obvious: without Keystone XL, the price of tar-sands oil will remain substantially lower than conventional oil (as well as unconventional oil extracted from shale formations in the United States), discouraging future investment and dimming the prospects for increased output. In other words, as Bill McKibben hopes, much of it will stay in the ground. Industry officials are painfully aware of their predicament. In an Annual Information Form released at the end of 2011, Canadian Oil Sands Limited, owner of the largest share of Syncrude Canada (one of the leading producers of tar-sands oil) noted: “A prolonged period of low crude oil prices could affect the value of our crude oil properties and the level of spending on growth projects and could result in curtailment of production… Any substantial and extended decline in the price of oil or an extended negative differential for SCO compared to either WTI or European Brent Crude would have an adverse effect on the revenues, profitability, and cash flow of Canadian Oil Sands and likely affect the ability of Canadian Oil Sands to pay dividends and repay its debt obligations.” The stakes in this battle could not be higher. If Keystone XL fails to win the president’s approval, the industry will certainly grow at a far slower pace than forecast and possibly witness the failure of costly ventures, resulting in an industry-wide contraction. If approved, however, production will soar and global warming will occur at an even faster rate than previously projected. In this way, a presidential decision will have an unexpectedly decisive and lasting impact on all our lives. ——————- Michael Klare is a professor of peace and world security studies at Hampshire College, a TomDispatch regular and the author, most recently, of The Race for What’s Left, just published in paperback. A documentary movie based on his book Blood and Oil can be previewed and ordered at www.bloodandoilmovie.com. Permalink | | ### |
|
Posted on Sustainabilitank.info on February 10th, 2013 Plugging In, Dutch Put Electric Cars to the TestBy ELISABETH ROSENTHALThe Netherlands, with its small size and $8.50-a-gallon gas, may be the ultimate feasibility test for electric vehicles. ======================================== We will keep updating this post and we will be suggesting that good government will be pushing people to renounce wasteful motor-vehicles. Permalink | | ### |
|
Posted on Sustainabilitank.info on February 7th, 2013 please see the link: For more information or to unsubscribe from the distribution list for WPP publications, please contact wpp@worldbank.org
Permalink | | ### |
|
Posted on Sustainabilitank.info on February 6th, 2013
|
|
Posted on Sustainabilitank.info on February 3rd, 2013  How to Classify the Climate Change Disinformation Campaign. Ethical Distinctions Between Skepticism and Disinformation.
Skepticism in science is a good thing that should be encouraged. The philosopher Diderot said that skepticism in all things is the first step on the road to truth. Yet the phenomenon that a growing sociological literature calls the “climate change disinformation campaign” is arguably some new kind of assault on humanity It has been at least partially responsible for a 25 year delay in the United States for taking action on climate change. Two new papers seriously examine how to classify the climate change disinformation campaign while distinguishing this phenomenon from responsible skepticism. The papers are:
Part One: Is The Disinformation Campaign a Crime Against Humanity or A Civil Tort? Part Two: Is The Disinformation Campaign a Human Rights Violation Or A Special Kind of Malfeasance, Transgression, Villainy, Or Wrongdoing ? – Permalink | | ### | |||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Posted on Sustainabilitank.info on February 3rd, 2013
Real Sustainability Versus Activist Sustainability. Companies everywhere extol their sustainable development programs and goals. Sustainability drives UN programs like Agenda 21, EU and US green energy initiatives, and myriad manufacturing, agricultural, forestry and other efforts. But what is sustainability? What is – or isn’t – sustainable? Former Prime Minister of Norway Gro Harlem Brundtland said sustainability means we may develop … and meet the needs of current generations … only to the extent that doing so “will not compromise the ability of future generations to meet their needs.” At first blush, that sounds logical, perhaps even ethical. But on closer examination, it is neither. It’s right out of Alice’s encounter with an anthropomorphic egg in Lewis Carroll’s Through the Looking-Glass. “When I use a word,” Humpty Dumpty said in a rather scornful tone, “it means just what I choose it to mean, neither more nor less.” “The question is,” said Alice, “whether you can make words mean so many different things.” “The question is,” Humpty Dumpty replied, “who is to be master. That’s all.” Obama presidential science advisor John Holdren has said we cannot talk about sustainability without talking about politics, power and control. That troubling reality is at the core of growing debates about Washington, DC central power versus state federalism, individual rights and liberties, United Nations and European Union attempts to make decisions for sovereign nations, and the growing power and influence of activist nongovernmental organizations on energy, environmental, economic and other matters. Because those who define the terms of debate increasingly determine public policies, they also determine who is to be master: those who must live with the consequences of their personal choices, or unaccountable mandarins who impose policies, regulations, decisions and consequences on others. Putting that vital discussion aside for another day, one can discern three kinds of sustainability. The public relations variety promotes corporate images and inspires flattering ads and press releases, but is largely devoid of real substance. A favorite example is a consulting company’s annual sustainability report, which boasted of having reduced the number of – paper cuts among employees. Real sustainability seeks constantly improving technologies and practices: conserve energy, be more efficient, cut costs, to keep companies profitable and employees employed; tune up cars, keep tires inflated, and improve traffic light sequencing, to move traffic along, increase gas mileage and reduce pollution; use high yield farming to get the most crops per acre, reduce water use and improve nutrition. This is tikun olam (repair of the world); the precept that you are not obligated to complete the task, but neither are you free to abandon it; the Boy Scout prescription that we must leave our world better than we found it; the Judeo-Christian principle of stewardship of creation: or Robert Kennedy’s declaration: I dream things that never were and say, Why not? This brings us back to sustainability á la Gro Brundtland, the UN, Rio+20 and environmental activists: We may meet the needs of current generations only to the extent that doing so “will not compromise the ability of future generations to meet their needs.” The concept it inherently unworkable and inequitable. No one predicted, certainly not years in advance, that the Hearthstone House in Appleton, Wisconsin would suddenly be lit with hydroelectric power, or that electricity would safeguard and enhance our lives and economy in the numerous ways it does today. No one foresaw widespread natural gas use for electricity generation and home heating, ubiquitous laptop computers, flash drives, fiber optic cables replacing copper, or little mobile phones with far more power than a 1990 desktop computer. Today, the pace of technological change has become mind-numbing. And yet, under sustainability dogma, we are supposed to predict future technologies – and ensure that today’s development activities will somehow not compromise those technologies’ unpredictable energy and raw material requirements. Sustainability dogma also demands that we base policy decisions on knowing how many years energy, metal or other resource deposits will last, and to determine whether developing and using them will be sustainable. But what if new technologies let us find and develop new deposits, or make existing deposits last decades or centuries longer: 3-D and HD seismic, deepwater drilling and production, instant metallic mineral analysis gear in a backpack, or horizontal drilling and hydraulic fracturing, for instance? How long must those expanded reserves last, before using them won’t be sustainable? And who decides? How can politicians, regulators and environmental activists decree that oil and gas are not sustainable – even as seismic, fracking, drilling and other technologies unlock a century of new deposits? And then insist that corn ethanol is sustainable, even though this year’s US ethanol quota requires 40% of our corn crop, corn grown on an area the size of Iowa, billions of gallons of water, huge quantities of hydrocarbon-based pesticides, fertilizers and tractor fuel, and vast amounts of natural gas to run the distilleries … to produce a fuel that drives up food prices and gets one-third less mileage per gallon than gasoline?How can they decree that wind energy is sustainable, despite killing millions of birds and bats every year? How is it sustainable, ethical or “environmental justice” for the United States to use so many of the world’s oil, gas, rare earth, platinum, gold and other resources – because we refuse to allow exploration and development of our own vast energy, metallic and other deposits right here in the United States? How is it ethical to safeguard the needs of future generations, even if it means ignoring or compromising the needs of current generations – including the needs, aspirations, health and welfare of the most impoverished, energy-deprived, malnourished, politically powerless people on Earth? How much longer must 700 million Africans, 400 million Indians and another 300 million people in other countries continue to live without electricity and all its countless blessings, because eco-activists obsess about global warming, insist on wind and solar, and oppose coal, gas, nuclear and hydroelectric power plants? How long must billions of people remain destitute, diseased and malnourished, because environmental activists and UN bureaucrats don’t like economic development, insecticides or biotechnology, either? Does anyone suppose human ingenuity, creativity and innovation (what Julian Simon called our ultimate resource) will suddenly stop functioning? Assuming there is no government restriction on or confiscation of our God-given rights to innovate, create, invest and build – will human beings ever stop doing so? The fundamental problem with UN/activist/EPA “sustainability” is that it is infinitely elastic and malleable. No one can really know what it means, and it’s the perfect weapon in the hands of anti-hydrocarbon, anti-development activists. Whatever they support is sustainable. Whatever they oppose is unsustainable. To the extent that their agendas foster “social justice” and “poverty eradication,” they will do so only in the context of climate protection, biodiversity, green growth, renewable energy, and an end to “unsustainable patterns of consumption and production” – as defined, evaluated and implemented by UN or EPA-approved scientists, regulators and activists, assisted largely by assumption-laden, agenda-driven computer models. Worst of all, this UN/activist/EPA version of sustainable development would mean unelected regulators will increasingly control energy use, economic growth, wealth redistribution, and people’s lives, living standards, health and well-being. And they would do so without the essential safeguards, checks and balances of robust science, independent courts, democracy, transparency, honesty and accountability. We should and must always strive to conserve energy, water and other resources, reduce dangerous air and water pollutants – and be sustainable. But we cannot afford to let “sustainable development” become just one more pretext for ceding more power to unelected, non-transparent, unaccountable overseers. —————————————————————- en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Driess… Paul Driessen is senior policy adviser for the Committee For A Constructive Tomorrow (CFACT), which is sponsoring the All Pain No Gain petition against global-warming hype. He also is a senior policy adviser to the Congress of Racial Equality and author of Eco-Imperialism: Green Power – Black Death.
By him – Breaking on TOWNHALL
More from the Paul Driessen PartnersNew comments on this article – click to refresh
============================================================================================================ OK – NOW YOU KNOW WHO DOES NOT REPRESENT YOUR INTERESTS AND MISREPRESENTS WHAT YOU WANT TO ACHIEVE – JUST READ THEIR LIPS – IT IS A SIGN OF OUR FAIRNESS IN MEDIA.
Paul Driessen (born January 21, 1948) is an American author and lobbyist a short biography: Driessen received his bachelor’s degree in geology and field ecology from Lawrence University, JD from the University of Denver College of Law, and accreditation in public relations from the Public Relations Society of America. Driessen is currently a senior policy advisor for the Congress of Racial Equality and a senior fellow with the Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow, Center for the Defense of Free Enterprise and the Atlas Economic Research Foundation. During a 25 year career that included staff tenures with the Department of the Interior and an energy trade association, he has spoken and written frequently on energy and environmental policy, global climate change, corporate social responsibility and other topics. He has also written articles and professional papers on marine life associated with oil platforms off the coasts of California and Louisiana – and produced a video documentary on the subject. In 2001, Driessen edited Rules for Corporate Warriors: How to fight and survive attack group shakedowns. In 2003, Driessen published Eco-Imperialism: Green Power, Black Death, in which he details problems with the environmental movement. In 2007, Driessen appeared on The Great Global Warming Swindle, addressing policies being promoted to prevent global warming he noted: “The precautionary principle is a very interesting beast. It’s basically used to promote a particular agenda and ideology. It’s always used in one direction only. It talks about the risks of using a particular technology, fossil fuels for example, but never about the risks of not using it. It never talks about the benefits of having that technology.” His Pro-Corporation horse is called ECO-IMPERIALISM. Eco-imperialism is a term coined by Paul Driessen to refer to the forceful imposition of Western environmentalist views on developing countries. The degree to which this occurs is a topic of debate, as is whether such imposition would be ethically justifiable. In his book Eco-Imperialism: Green Power, Black Death, Paul Driessen argues that like the European imperialists of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, today’s eco-imperialists keep developing countries destitute for the benefit of the developed world. By advocating for the precautionary principle, corporate social responsibility and sustainable development, Driessen claims, environmental groups legitimize their demands on government but often engender poverty and death in the process. Driessen also asserts that environmentalists’ demands can sometimes cause environmental degradation. Arguing for the corporations as lobbyist he advocates hot terms like: Driessen’s arguments are similar to those of environmental critic Bjørn Lomborg. Some commentators maintain that eco-imperialism has a racial dimension, and occurs when environmentalists place the well-being of the environment over the well-being of humans, particularly non-whites, living in developing countries. Roy Innis, chairman of the Congress of Racial Equality has argued that European Union restrictions on the use of the pesticide DDT to combat malaria are killing ‘black babies’. Environmental historian Ramachandra Guha has accused ‘authoritarian’ biologists of valuing the protection of endangered species over the well-being of local people in India and other developing countries.
Permalink | | ### |
Paul Driessen
Chris Matthews: John McCain had Vietnam Flashback During Hagel Hearing 
Levin: Obama ‘Is Hagel’, Muslim Brotherhood ‘Sympathizer’ 
Inhofe: Hagel’s Views ‘Very Troubling And Out Of The Mainstream’
Repub & Dem Insist Hagel “Reconsider” Signing Israel Solidarity Letter|
Posted on Sustainabilitank.info on January 30th, 2013 www.nytimes.com/imagepages/2013/0… www.nytimes.com/2013/01/30/busine… The problems are very real, but who will have the political courage to propose the right thing for the US? 
Economic SceneIn Energy Taxes, Tools to Help Tackle Climate Change.By EDUARDO PORTERPublished by The New York Times on-line: January 29, 2013To understand the complicated politics of climate change in the United States, you may want to talk to Pamela Johnson, president of the National Corn Growers Association’s Corn Board. She is concerned about the weather. The drought that parched the lower 48 states cut the harvest at her northern Iowa farm by about 40 bushels an acre. For the first time in memory, she says, she had to rely on the federally subsidized crop insurance program to stay afloat. And yet Ms. Johnson’s main concern, and that of most other growers in the association, is not about how to deal with a changing climate — how to slow the pace of warming and how to adapt to a warmer world with more erratic weather. Rather, growers worry that political support for crop insurance might flag after a year in which taxpayers paid billions in subsidies to farmers while virtually everybody else faced deep budget cuts. “We are Americans before we are farmers,” Ms. Johnson said. “We know we have budget problems.” Still, she added: “For our farmers, crop insurance is the main concern. It helps keep us in business.” The erratic weather across the country in the last couple of years seems to be softening Americans’ skepticism about global warming. Most New Yorkers say they believe big storms like Sandy and Irene were the result of a warming climate. Whether climate change is directly responsible or not, the odd weather patterns have underscored the risk that it poses to all of us. What’s yet to be seen is whether this growing awareness of the risks will translate into sufficient political support to address climate change, especially after we figure out the costs we will have to bear to do so. In his inaugural address, President Obama wove Hurricane Sandy and last year’s drought into a stirring plea to address climate change. “The failure to do so would betray our children and future generations,” the president said. But even as he put global warming at the top of his agenda, he avoided dwelling on how much it would cost to address. And nowhere in his speech {President Obama} did he allude to the most powerful tool to address the problem: a tax on the use of energy. Dealing with global warming will be expensive. The price tag last year for the drought was about $35 billion, according to the reinsurer Aon Benfield. Hurricane Sandy cost a further $65 billion. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration said that last year ranked as the second-costliest in terms of natural disasters since 1980 — lagging only 2005 when Hurricane Katrina swamped New Orleans. And yet this is nothing compared with what the future will bring. “The impact to date has been pretty small,” said William Nordhaus of Yale, one of the leading economists studying the impact of climate change. Nicholas Stern of the London School of Economics, another expert on the costs of climate change, said: “What we are seeing is on the back of warming of only 0.8 degrees centigrade” since the second half of the 19th century. “What we risk is 4, 5, 6 degrees even by the end of this century.” For all the damage wrought by Sandy and Katrina, weather disasters in recent years have cost us probably less than a tenth of 1 percent of our economic product. Yet, according to Professor Nordhaus, “Damages will rise more sharply than the temperature curve.” The president’s speech notwithstanding, the cost of dealing with these looming disasters is not to be found in the budgets discussed by the White House and Congressional Republicans, which would shrink much of the government to its smallest share of the economy since the early 1960s. Neither is the cost of steering the economy away from the fossil fuels that are to blame for a warming atmosphere. A report from the World Economic Forum estimated that would cost $700 billion a year in public and private investment. The reluctance is not because we have no idea how to finance these efforts. We do. Top economists agree a tax on fuels and the carbon they spew into the atmosphere would be the cheapest way to combat climate change. Most advanced countries rely on some variant of this tax. The question is whether the prospect of more droughts and more powerful hurricanes will push Americans to embrace it, too. Among the 34 industrialized nations of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, these taxes average about $68.4 per metric ton of carbon dioxide. The United States, by contrast, has a gas tax to pay for highway improvement, and that’s about it. Total federal taxes on energy amount to $6.30 per ton. Some states add excise taxes — California has a gas tax equivalent to about $46.50 per ton of carbon dioxide and a $2.33-per-ton tax on jet kerosene. But, according to a review by the O.E.C.D., the federal government is unique in imposing no taxes on other energy use, from residential heating to power generation. A tax on energy could single-handedly take on climate change. For starters, it would encourage people and businesses to burn less, reducing emissions at a stroke. One study found that a carbon tax of $15 per ton would reduce greenhouse emissions by 14 percent as people sought to save energy by driving less, insulating their homes and switching to renewable fuels, among other things. What’s more, it would raise lots of money. Estimates reviewed in a report by the Tax Policy Center ranged from 0.6 percent of the nation’s gross domestic product — for a tax of $20 per ton of carbon dioxide — to 1.6 percent of G.D.P. for a tax of $41 per ton. Consider this: 1.6 percent of G.D.P. is $240 billion a year. And $41 per ton amounts to an extra 35 cents a gallon of gas. By way of comparison, the Swiss economy does fairly well even while shouldering an effective carbon tax rate of more than $140 per ton. Some of the money raised through more taxes on energy could be spent steeling communities to cope with more intense hurricanes and moving others out of harm’s way. It could even help ease the fiscal squeeze that so consumes our elected officials. There are drawbacks. A carbon tax would fall more heavily on the poor — the Congressional Budget Office estimates that the poorest fifth of Americans spend 21.4 percent of their income on gas and utilities while the richest 20 percent spend only 6.8 percent. But economists at the budget office have pointed out that there are several ways to compensate lower-income Americans. For all the merits of an energy tax, the United States seems a long way from embracing one. It was only three years ago that the corn growers and the rest of the farm lobby allied with energy producers and other corporations to derail President Obama’s first shot at climate change legislation, which would have set a limit on carbon emissions and required businesses to buy permits to emit. As things stand, drought is unlikely to change their minds. Farmers are still covered by crop insurance, and they have powerful allies in Congress who will fight to keep the subsidies in place. They may see little reason to support legislation that would make energy or fertilizer more expensive. “Farmers would be deeply affected by an energy tax,” Ms. Johnson said. As things stand for them, it is probably cheaper to deal with the occasional drought. E-mail: eporter at nytimes.com; She is concerned about the weather.
Permalink | | ### | ||||||||
|
Posted on Sustainabilitank.info on January 27th, 2013
Ethicsandclimate.org is making available a paper about the scale of the climate change problem and the relative lack of understanding of magnitude of the problem even among educated members of civil society. This paper attempts to describe what people need to know to understand the scale and urgency of the threat and to explain why this understanding is necessary to evaluate the acceptability of any national commitment on climate change. Although this paper looks primarily at the US, the method of evaluation contained in the paper is relevant to the evaluation of any country. What You Need To Know to Understand the Scale of the Climate Change Problem and The Continuing US Press Failure to Report on the Urgency of this Civilization Challenging Threatblogs.law.widener.edu/climate/2013/01/22/the-continuing-us-press-failure-to-report-on-the-urgency-of-the-climate-change-threat/ —————————————————————
In the wake of Hurricane Sandy and reports that 2012 was the warmest year in US history, climate change has been more visible in the US press recently. Yet despite this increased attention, for the most part, the urgency and magnitude of the need to reduce greenhouse gas emissions entailed by the mainstream scientific understanding of this civilization challenging problem is not being covered by the US press. In fact, some of the recent climate change reporting could be understood as actually misleading US citizens that the United States is making acceptable progress in reducing the threat of climate change. For instance, a Scientific American Report of October 2012 was titled: “U.S. May Come Close to 2020 Greenhouse Gas Emission Target“. This article said that the United States is likely to reduce its greenhouse gas emissions by 16.3 % from 2005 levels by 2020, falling just shy of the 17 % target pledged by President Obama at the 2009 climate talks in Copenhagen, Denmark. Other projections of US emissions have found, however, that although the US emissions are dropping compared to 2005, it is not likely that the US will come close to achieving the 17% reduction goal without further legislative action because current reductions will lead a best to a 9% reduction by 2020.
Climate Change Is Real, Yet The US Press Is Not Reporting On The Urgency and Magnitude of the Problem.One can tell by how climate change policies are being debated around much of the world that few people, including many very educated people, understand the scale and urgency of the problem now being articulated by the most prestigious scientific international institutions. Permalink | | ### |
|
Posted on Sustainabilitank.info on January 27th, 2013
UK lawmakers’ report on post-2015 development goals ignores climate change. FIELD response to report of UK Parliament’s International Development Committee - 25 January 2013 World Bank President Jim Yong Kim has called climate change “one of the single biggest challenges facing development”. Poor African countries, small islands and low-lying coastal states are among the most vulnerable. Climate change will impact essential areas such as health, food security and water resources. Also, the committee recommends merging the development agenda beyond 2015 and possible successors to the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) with the proposed new sustainable development goals under discussion following the Rio + 20 Conference, rather than having two sets of goals. FIELD agrees: “sustainability” and development should not be treated separately. Nor should climate change and development. FIELD believes that climate change, poor and vulnerable countries should be a priority in post-2015 discussions. This should include tackling unavoidable loss and damage from climate change. Jeffrey Sachs has explained why rich countries should pay for climate change: it is their fault, climate change is a development issue and without help poor countries cannot get on to a low-carbon development track. FIELD agrees. Joy Hyvarinen, FIELD’s Executive Director, says “climate change is a threat to development and human security. It should be part of any discussion about the UN’s development agenda right from the start and vulnerable countries and people should be at the centre. The lack of progress in the international climate negotiations makes this increasingly important.” ———— Foundation for International Environmental Law and Development (FIELD) FIELD’s response to a a UK lawmakers’ report on post-2015 development goals, which ignores climate change, is available at - www.field.org.uk/files/field_comment_idc_2015_report_25_jan.pdf. Permalink | | ### |
|
Posted on Sustainabilitank.info on January 26th, 2013 Republicans, including even New Jersey Governor Chris Christie, allow themselves be led by the Pied Pipers for the upper 1% – of the so fake Americans for Prosperity – the Koch Brothers fighting any notion of American progress, that are even more extreme then the Romney vision was, will dismantle whatever already got initiated on the front of Climate Change. Even this can be viewed as a political fight. ———————- Op-Ed ContributorsNortheast Faces Stark Choice on Climate Pollution.By PETER SHATTUCK and DANIEL L. SOSLANDPublished The New York Times on-line: January 24, 2013BOSTON EIGHT years ago, a bipartisan coalition of Northeast and mid-Atlantic governors joined forces to reduce pollution from electric power plants. They agreed to cap overall emissions of carbon dioxide, the major pollutant driving global warming, and require the more than 200 power plants in the region to buy permits to emit the greenhouse gas. The governors reasoned that plant operators would have an incentive to clean up their emissions if they had to pay for the carbon dioxide they discharged. Over the first three years of the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative, average annual emissions were indeed 23 percent less than in the previous three years, and auctions of allowances — or permits to pollute — raised $952 million, much of which has been invested in clean energy programs. But the future effectiveness of this market-based cap-and-trade system, the first but not the only one of its kind in the nation, is now in question. The nine states in the initiative are preparing to reset the emissions cap — or the total amount of carbon dioxide that power plants can emit — and some of the proposals would allow power plants to increase the amount of carbon dioxide they dump into the atmosphere. Cap-and-trade programs are designed to lower emissions gradually by reducing the cap and the allowances that are available. Polluters get flexibility in cutting emissions by being able to trade allowances among themselves. The idea is to achieve the reductions at the lowest cost through market forces rather than through direct regulation. But of the four cap-adjustment proposals under consideration, three would reset the cap above current emissions and allow pollution to rise through 2020. Only a fourth option would continue to drive down pollution by resetting the cap at 91 million tons, the current emissions level, and then reducing it by another 2.5 percent a year through 2020. Opponents of the initiative, known as R.G.G.I., argue that lower-cost natural gas has eliminated the need for the program by reducing the use of dirtier coal and oil. Growing investments in energy efficiency and renewable electricity have also helped to reduce emissions by cutting demand for electricity from power plants that burn fossil fuels. But those developments don’t argue against R.G.G.I., which determines what electricity generators may not do — namely, discharge unlimited quantities of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. If market forces deliver emissions reductions cheaper and faster than anticipated, then states should lock in that progress with a binding cap to ensure that emissions don’t rise and that incentives for reducing pollution remain. The proposals that would allow emissions to increase reflect the success of opponents of efforts to slow climate change, who have fought against initiatives like R.G.G.I. Americans for Prosperity, an organization backed by the billionaire Koch brothers, has been at the forefront of this effort. The group sought unsuccessfully to repeal R.G.G.I. in Maine and New Hampshire, and A.F.P. members sued but failed to extricate New York from the initiative. Gov. Chris Christie of New Jersey did pull his state out of the initiative last year, arguing that low-cost natural gas made the program unnecessary. R.G.G.I.’s economic performance tells a different story. Auctions of allowances pay for energy efficiency programs that curb power plant emissions, bring down energy prices and save consumers money. These savings flow back into the economy, increasing growth and employment in the region. An independent report published in 2011 by the Analysis Group, a consulting firm, said that electric customers would save $1.1 billion on their bills over 10 years from energy efficiency measures paid for by the sale of allowances. These savings would generate an additional $1.6 billion in economic growth, as money that otherwise would be spent on electricity generated with imported fossil fuels is instead spent in the local economy. This initiative carries broad significance. President Obama’s reaffirmed commitment to address climate change will move forward in part through regulation of greenhouse gas emissions, and R.G.G.I. could serve as a template for other states seeking to comply with new federal requirements. Gov. Andrew M. Cuomo of New York recently committed to ensuring the program’s continuing effectiveness, and we encourage all of the participating states to make the program as strong as possible and put the public good over interests vested in the dangerous status quo of unchecked pollution. Peter Shattuck is director of market initiatives and Daniel L. Sosland is president at ENE an environmental research and advocacy group focused on the Northeast. Permalink | | ### |
|
Posted on Sustainabilitank.info on January 17th, 2013 US says 2015 may be last chance for UN climate pact.Tue, 15 Jan 2013 18:15 GMT Source: reuters // Reuters Point Carbon LONDON, January 15, 2013 (Reuters Point Carbon as per UN Wire of the UN Foundation) – Ongoing talks to strike a climate deal may be the U.N.’s last chance to broker a global pact that would force nations to cut emissions of greenhouse gases, the United States’ lead climate negotiator said on Tuesday. Todd Stern {representing the Obama Administration} said the so-called Durban Platform, the pact agreed at the conclusion of 2011 U.N. climate talks in the South African city, could be the last chance for the multilateral process that poor nations said is vital to securing a deal to provide them with funds to help adapt to climate change. “The Durban Platform negotiation may be the last, best chance for the (U.N.’s climate body) to create a regime that can alter the course of climate change,” Todd Stern told the World Energy Future Summit in Abu Dhabi, according to a statement on a U.S. government website. Over 190 nations in December kicked off a process aimed at signing a deal by 2015 to legally bind all nations to cut emissions of gases blamed for warming the planet by the end the decade. Negotiators, tired of the talks’ sluggish progress, have continually complained about the time it takes to agree new laws while scientific warnings escalate about the lack of action. Faith in U.N.-led approaches to tackle climate change, ongoing since 1992, took a hit in 2009 when talks in Copenhagen to secure a deal to take effect in 2013 failed, despite more than 100 world leaders in attendance. Stern said the new agreement will “likely run to 2030 or beyond” and will need to be based on emissions targets and country classifications different to that of the Kyoto Protocol, the 1997 treaty that forced only rich countries to limit CO2. The United States, then the world’s biggest emitter, declined to ratify that treaty because it did not bind poorer nations, such as China and India. NEW DEAL: Stern’s comments are the first sign that a new deal may not focus on hard caps for all nations, and that the United States may insist on China being differentiated from some of the world’s poorest nations. That would break a 20-year old divide that has placed the world’s fastest growing economies – those of China, Brazil and India - with some of the world’s least developed nations, such as Burkina Faso and Yemen. Keeping the divide has proven to be a faultline in current talks towards a new deal. He warned that countries classified as ‘developing’ under current U.N. convention currently account for about 55 percent of greenhouse gas emissions and are projected to account for some 65 percent by 2030. “We simply cannot address climate change on the theory that all commitments must come from developed countries,” he said. —————– We feel compelled to add here that having been to Copenhagen in 2009, we beg to differ with the way the Conference of the Parties to the UNFCCC was mentioned in above article. In effect we wrote about it many times that Copenhagen COP 15 was a tremendous step forward thanks to President Obama who on the way to Copenhagen went first to Beijing and managed single-handly to bring the Chinese to the table regarding the finding of a substitute to the dead Kyoto Protocol of 1997. In effect it is the slow progress since COP 15 that led us to talk about COP 15+1. COP 15+2, and COP 15+3 because we did not see yet real advance since Copenhagen. Will 2013, with the November meeting in Warsaw, be a better year? Interesting, in the famous last day of the Copenhagen meeting – that Friday morning – when President Obama came to meet once more the Chinese, he found in the room also the Indians, Brazilians and South Africans – that is the IBSA as well. That is thus the date the new negotiations were initiated. Permalink | | ### |
|
Posted on Sustainabilitank.info on January 14th, 2013 January 11, 2013, 2:39 pm 3 Comments
Keeping Environmental Reporting Strong Won’t Be EasyBy MARGARET SULLIVAN, The New York Times Public EditorThose who care deeply about environmental issues were understandably concerned Friday after learning that The Times was dismantling its special team – or “pod” – of seven reporters and two editors. Beth Parke, executive director of the Society of Environmental Journalists, told InsideClimate News that The Times’s decision was “worrying.” “Dedicated teams bring strength and consistency to the task of covering environment-related issues,” she said. “It’s always a huge loss to see them dismantled … it’s not necessarily a weakening to change organizational structure, but it does seem to be a bad sign. I will be watching closely what happens next.” On Twitter, Dan Froomkin, a journalist, wrote: “NYT dismantles its nine-person environment desk — but says that won’t affect climate coverage. How is that possible?” And Ben Grossman-Cohen, writing for OxfamAmerica.org, joined the chorus, calling the decision “an unmitigated disaster.” Top editors at The Times say that this is a structural change only, and that the paper’s commitment to the topic will remain intact. In a memo to newsroom staff, the executive editor Jill Abramson mentioned the change in the context of overall newsroom restructuring, amid efforts to reduce newsroom numbers and cut expenses:
And the managing editor Dean Baquet offered more reassuring words: “We can tell the story just as well without the infrastructure,” he told me. As for sheer numbers, he added: “If we have fewer reporters, we won’t have far fewer. We’re still going to have tons of people on this.” He said no decision has been made on the Green blog: “If it has impact and audience it will survive,” he said. Andrew C. Revkin, a former Times reporter who now writes the Dot.Earth blog for The Times’s Opinion pages, told me that the decision does not worry him: “What works best is a group of like-minded people getting excited about something,” and then working with a strong editor to bring the ideas to fruition. He sees this change as one “about efficiency,” not quality of content. His blog post on Friday provided details. Sandy Keenan, the environment editor, told me she wishes the decision had not been made. “Of course, I’m disappointed,” she said. “I’ll try to hold everyone to their promise that the coverage won’t suffer.” She is uncertain of her next move, she said. Elisabeth Rosenthal, a medical doctor and a 19-year Times veteran reporter, who has done outstanding work as part of the environment pod, told me that she sees pros and cons to the pod structure. “The pro is that you give specific attention to a subject that needs it,” she said. “The con is that it takes the subject out of the mainstream of news flow.” The subject areas “don’t have their own real estate in the newspaper, and that can mean that it’s harder to get attention” for their stories. “There’s not a lot of news in this area – we’re watching glaciers melting – so there isn’t an urgency to get things into the paper right away,” Ms. Rosenthal said. Integration into the main desks can be a help with that. Here’s my take: Symbolically, this is bad news. And symbolism matters – it shows a commitment and an intensity of interest in a crucially important topic. In real life, it doesn’t have to be bad news. A pod’s structure, outside the major desks – Foreign, Business, National and Metro – by its nature means that the coverage is not integrated into the regular coverage of those desks, which have their own space in the paper and their own internal clout. If coverage of the environment is not to suffer, a lot of people – including The Times’s highest ranking editors — are going to have to make sure that it doesn’t. They say they will. But maintaining that focus will be a particular challenge in a newsroom that’s undergoing intensive change as it becomes ever more digital while simultaneously cutting costs. —————————————-==============================—————————————-  Media January 11, 2013, 12:21 pm70 Comments
The Changing Newsroom EnvironmentBy ANDREW C. REVKIN Nick Bilton The New York Times newsroom on election night, 2008.| Several updates below |There’s been a flurry of blog, Facebook and Twitter shock and anger following Katherine Bagley’s exclusive report for Inside Climate News on the decision by The New York Times to shut down its standalone environment “pod” and redistribute that able team of reporters and editors to other desks (not necessarily other duties). In the piece, top Times editors insist that this move will not diminish or dilute the paper’s commitment to sustained, effective environmental coverage. I believe them (with a caveat; see below). In a century when the roots of environmental problems often lie half a planet away (consider the ivory trade, or the contribution of greenhouse gases and soot to Arctic ice melting) what’s needed most is collaborative post-departmental journalism, not individual desks and editors competing for the front page. Others with lots of journalism experience have different views. My friend Dan Fagin, who teaches journalism at New York University after a long career at Newsday, posted this reaction on my Facebook item on the development this morning:
I recognize these points, but still disagree. The Times excelled at environmental coverage before there was an environment pod, continued during that phase, and, I predict, will do so going forward, within the financial constraints facing all journalism. Editors like Dean Baquet and Glenn Kramon (both quoted in the Inside Climate News post) are masters of marshaling inter-disciplinary teams to tackle complicated, persistent questions. I know they recognize the importance of global warming, the erosion of the world’s biological riches, the impacts of pollution on people and ecosystems. On the environment beat, look back at “The Big Melt” series in 2005 (along with the prize-winning “Arctic Rush” Discovery-Times documentary) and the 2006-7 “Energy Challenge” reports. Both involved reporters with foreign, business, political and science specialties. Some of the paper’s most important environmental projects, including the prize-winning “Choking on Growth” series on China’s pollution crisis, Charles Duhigg’s 2010 series, “Toxic Waters,” Jeff Gettleman’s 2012 reports on links between insurgent forces and Africa’s elephant slaughter, originated on different desks. A shift in desks is not going to prevent Elisabeth Rosenthal from covering the unanticipated impacts of the biofuel boom or the amazing benefits of distributed solar power in rural Africa. That’s not to say all’s well. And here’s the caveat. What’s happening in the paper’s newsroom (and much more so in other newsrooms!) is not specific to the environment. As today’s post noted, the religion and education desks have had a smilar fate. Revenues for conventional news operations are bound to keep shrinking. The best view of how this plays out may well be the documentary “Page One: Inside The New York Times,” which chronicles a pivotal year, 2009, when 100 newsroom positions were eliminated (I took a buyout at the end of that year and write on a contract through the Op-Ed desk now). Thirty more positions are being eliminated now. These background financial pressures, building around the industry the same way that heat-trapping greenhouse gases are building in the atmosphere, are what will erode the ability of today’s media to dissect and explain the causes and consequences of environmental change and the suite of possible responses. There are tough times ahead, one way or the other. Having fewer standalone desks does not necessarily matter as long as there is a commitment high in a newsroom (and ownership) to covering the stories that matter most on a turbulent planet dominated by a young, amazing species in full sprint mode. There’s much more to ponder, of course. I’ve long thought, for example, that it’d be better in Washington to have reporters cover risk and regulation instead of having single reporters cover particular agencies (think of cross-cutting issues like genetically modified foods, the health impacts of pollution…). But I’ll leave more to Twitter (follow my relevant conversations there at this link), or in the comment stream. 1:59 p.m. |UpdateJoe Romm, whose dad was a newspaper man, has weighed in with a comprehensive piece at Climate Progress. Here’s an excerpt:
One focal point of his piece is recent comments by Times assistant managing editor Glenn Kramon, who (as I said above) was a central force behind the paper’s sustained focus on energy and climate since the “Energy Challenge” series began in 2006. What’s notable, and disturbing, is the recent New York Magazine article on the troubles facing The Times, which discloses that Kramon “is moving to San Francisco to become the new technology editor.” With Kramon out of the newsroom, my caveats above gain more weight. Jan. 13, 1:12 p.m. |UpdateBora Zivkovic, the blog editor at Scientific American (and much more), posted a must-read analysis of the shift at The Times, noting the importance of sustaining the paper’s Green Blog. One administrative issue, of course, is who would manage that blog without a desk? In my reply to his post, I said that all roads lead to the Science desk. In a comment, Dan Fagin of New York University predicted that the paper, due to “organizational culture and especially economics,” was unlikely to adopt Zivkovic’s prescription. I hope you’ll explore the conversation and join in, there or here. (There is one odd element there, a posted comment that was removed and replaced with this note: “This comment removed by blog owner, due to inclusion of a link to ideologically-motivated anti-science site What’s Up With That.” If I censored every comment on Dot Earth that had an ideological framing, or was in some way anti-scientific — think GMO debates, nuclear power, etc. — there wouldn’t be a lot left. I know that leads to frustration and some noise, but I err on the side of free speech. On a related front, I’ll be writing up a piece this week on research finding that incivility in comments amplifies polarization.) [1:55 p.m.: I asked Bora about the comment policy. His reply is in a comment below. 5:25 p.m.: Bora has posted a comment on his blog that explains his "my blog, my rules" approach to comments.] 3:53 p.m. |UpdateMargaret Sullivan, the Times Public Editor, posted “Keeping Environmental Reporting Strong Won’t Be Easy.” Here are some snippets: Dean Baquet told her this about the Green blog: “If it has impact and audience it will survive.” She sought input from Elisabeth Rosenthal:
Sullivan closed with her own view:
Permalink | | ### |
|
Posted on Sustainabilitank.info on January 11th, 2013 Heat, Flood or Icy Cold, Extreme Weather Rages Worldwide.
Menahem Kahana/Agence France-Presse — Getty Images
Snow blanketed Jerusalem on Thursday, an example of weather extremes that are growing more frequent and intense. More Photos » By SARAH LYALL Published: January 10, 2013www.nytimes.com/2013/01/11/scienc… WORCESTER, England — Britons may remember 2012 as the year the weather spun off its rails in a chaotic concoction of drought, deluge and flooding, but the unpredictability of it all turns out to have been all too predictable: Around the world, extreme has become the new commonplace. RUSSIA In Siberia, a man braved temperatures of 47 degrees below zero last month. More Photos » Especially lately. China is enduring its coldest winter in nearly 30 years. Brazil is in the grip of a dreadful heat spell. Eastern Russia is so freezing — minus 50 degrees Fahrenheit, and counting — that the traffic lights recently stopped working in the city of Yakutsk. Bush fires are raging across Australia, fueled by a record-shattering heat wave. Pakistan was inundated by unexpected flooding in September. A vicious storm bringing rain, snow and floods just struck the Middle East. And in the United States, scientists confirmed this week what people could have figured out simply by going outside: last year was the hottest since records began. “Each year we have extreme weather, but it’s unusual to have so many extreme events around the world at once,” said Omar Baddour, chief of the data management applications division at the World Meteorological Association, in Geneva. “The heat wave in Australia; the flooding in the U.K., and most recently the flooding and extensive snowstorm in the Middle East — it’s already a big year in terms of extreme weather calamity.” Such events are increasing in intensity as well as frequency, Mr. Baddour said, a sign that climate change is not just about rising temperatures, but also about intense, unpleasant, anomalous weather of all kinds. Here in Britain, people are used to thinking of rain as the wallpaper on life’s computer screen — an omnipresent, almost comforting background presence. But even the hardiest citizen was rattled by the near-biblical fierceness of the rains that bucketed down, and the floods that followed, three different times in 2012. Rescuers plucked people by boat from their swamped homes in St. Asaph, North Wales. Whole areas of the country were cut off when roads and train tracks were inundated at Christmas. In Megavissey, Cornwall, a pub owner closed his business for good after it flooded 11 times in two months. It was no anomaly: the floods of 2012 followed the floods of 2007 and also the floods of 2009, which all told have resulted in nearly $6.5 billion in insurance payouts. The Met Office, Britain’s weather service, declared 2012 the wettest year in England, and the second-wettest in Britain as a whole, since records began more than 100 years ago. Four of the five wettest years in the last century have come in the past decade (the fifth was in 1954). The biggest change, said Charles Powell, a spokesman for the Met Office, is the frequency in Britain of “extreme weather events” — defined as rainfall reaching the top 1 percent of the average amount for that time of year. Fifty years ago, such episodes used to happen every 100 days; now they happen every 70 days, he said. The same thing is true in Australia, where bush fires are raging across Tasmania and the current heat wave has come after two of the country’s wettest years ever. On Tuesday, Sydney experienced its fifth-hottest day since records began in 1910, with the temperature climbing to 108.1 degrees. The first eight days of 2013 were among the 20 hottest on record. Every decade since the 1950s has been hotter in Australia than the one before, said Mark Stafford Smith, science director of the Climate Adaptation Flagship at the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization. To the north, the extremes have swung the other way, with a band of cold settling across Russia and Northern Europe, bringing thick snow and howling winds to Stockholm, Helsinki and Moscow. (Incongruously, there were also severe snowstorms in Sicily and southern Italy for the first time since World War II; in December, tornadoes and waterspouts struck the Italian coast.) In Siberia, thousands of people were left without heat when natural gas liquefied in its pipes and water mains burst. Officials canceled bus transportation between cities for fear that roadside breakdowns could lead to deaths from exposure, and motorists were advised not to venture far afield except in columns of two or three cars. In Altai, to the east, traffic officials warned drivers not to use poor-quality diesel, saying that it could become viscous in the cold and clog fuel lines. Meanwhile, China is enduring its worst winter in recent memory, with frigid temperatures recorded in Harbin, in the northeast. In the western region of Xinjiang, more than 1,000 houses collapsed under a relentless onslaught of snow, while in Inner Mongolia, 180,000 livestock froze to death. The cold has wreaked havoc with crops, sending the price of vegetables soaring. Way down in South America, energy analysts say that Brazil may face electricity rationing for the first time since 2002, as a heat wave and a lack of rain deplete the reservoirs for hydroelectric plants. The summer has been punishingly hot. The temperature in Rio de Janeiro climbed to 109.8 degrees on Dec. 26, the city’s highest temperature since official records began in 1915. At the same time, in the Middle East, Jordan is battling a storm packing torrential rain, snow, hail and floods that are cascading through tunnels, sweeping away cars and spreading misery in Syrian refugee camps. Amman has been virtually paralyzed, with cars abandoned, roads impassable and government offices closed. AUSTRALIA A bush fire, fueled by a record-shattering heat wave, killed dozens of sheep at a farm near Canberra in the Australian Capital Territory. More Photos » Israel and the Palestinian territories are grappling with similar conditions, after a week of intense rain and cold winds ushered in a snowstorm that dumped eight inches in Jerusalem alone. Amir Givati, head of the surface water department at the Israel Hydrological Service, said the storm was truly unusual because of its duration, its intensity and its breadth. Snow and hail fell not just in the north, but as far south as the desert city of Dimona, best known for its nuclear reactor. In Beirut on Wednesday night, towering waves crashed against the Corniche, the seaside promenade downtown, flinging water and foam dozens of feet in the air as lightning flickered across the dark sea at multiple points along the horizon. Many roads were flooded as hail pounded the city. Several people died, including a baby boy in a family of shepherds who was swept out of his mother’s arms by floodwaters. The greatest concern was for the 160,000 Syrian refugees who have fled to Lebanon, taking shelter in schools, sheds and, where possible, with local families. Some refugees are living in farm outbuildings, which are particularly vulnerable to cold and rain. Barry Lynn, who runs a forecasting business and is a lecturer at the Hebrew University’s department of earth science, said a striking aspect of the whole thing was the severe and prolonged cold in the upper atmosphere, a big-picture shift that indicated the Atlantic Ocean was no longer having the moderating effect on weather in the Middle East and Europe that it has historically. “The intensity of the cold is unusual,” Mr. Lynn said. “It seems the weather is going to become more intense; there’s going to be more extremes.” In Britain, where changes to the positioning of the jet stream — a ribbon of air high up in the atmosphere that helps steer weather systems — may be contributing to the topsy-turvy weather, people are still recovering from the December floods. In Worcester last week, the river Severn remained flooded after three weeks, with playing fields buried under water. In the shop at the Worcester Cathedral, Julie Smith, 54, was struggling, she said, to adjust to the new uncertainty. “For the past seven or eight years, there’s been a serious incident in a different part of the country,” Mrs. Smith said. “We don’t expect extremes. We don’t expect it to be like this.” ————— Reporting was contributed by Jodi Rudoren from Jerusalem; Irit Pazner Garshowitz from Tzur Hadassah, Israel; Fares Akram from Gaza City, Gaza; Ellen Barry and Andrew Roth from Moscow; Ranya Kadri from Amman, Jordan; Dan Levin from Harbin, China; Jim Yardley from New Delhi; Anne Barnard from Beirut, Lebanon; Matt Siegel from Sydney, Australia; Scott Sayare from Paris; and Simon Romero from Rio de Janeiro. Permalink | | ### |
