From Nanette Woonton, Kya Orana from the Pacific:

ISLAND STATES OUTRAGED AT ATTEMPTS TO UNDERMINE COPENHAGEN OUTCOME.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Contact

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

WIP on our website means WORK (WRITING) IN PROGRESS – or simply unfinished article. When finished the WIP will be taken off but the article will stay in place without the UPDATED designation. Nevertheless, theses introductory lines will remain as a reminder that the article had a long birth.

***

The meeting, August 15, 2008 was chaired by the Ambassador For Palau. Present were also the Ambassadors from Nauru and from Fiji. Many other Missions were represented – some of these missions have representatives on the working committee. Involved are also some of the active NGOs.

At present the sponsors of a resolution to be brought before the UN General Assembly are 11 from among the 14 Pacific Small Island Developing States – Fiji, Marshall Islands, The Federated States of Micronesia, Nauru, Palau, Papua New Guinea, Samoa, Solomon Islands, Tonga, Tuvalu, Vanuatu; the Maldives and Seychelles from non-Pacific SIDS; Canada, the Philippines from among larger States. But these 15 States will pick up many more co-sponsors. Mentioned were Turkey, the EU, Austria and Iceland that have expressed their eagerness to join. There is no opposition we were told – but only some hesitation because it is seen as a new approach to the problem of the humanitarian impact of climate change that goes on already – this while in major UN institutions the debate has not led yet to action. The inhabitants of the small islands of the Pacific are the first to lose their habitat – and what we see is the eradication of UN Member States by this predictable catastrophe.

On our website we announced this encounter between the proponents of the resolution and the NGOs:

Opinion: Polar Race.
Monday 28 July 2008
by: Guy Taillefer, Le Devoir
 http://www.truthout.org/article/polar-ra…

Guy Taillefer argues in Le Devoir that the US Geological Survey’s most recent evaluation of the polar depths – that they contain 412 billion barrels of oil, or a third of the planet’s proven reserves – will put additional strain on the already-fragile international understandings with respect to polar sovereignty and development.

The North Pole. Guy Taillefer writes, “Northern governments and oil companies have never salivated to quite the same extent over the Arctic, which becomes all the more hospitable to them as the ice melts … If one were a cynic, one would say that in this instance it is altogether to Ottawa’s advantage to drag its feet in the fight against greenhouse gases …”
Four hundred and twelve billion barrels of oil. A third of the planet’s proven reserves. That’s what the depths of the Arctic contain, according to the US Geological Survey’s most recent evaluation. One may count on Prime Minister Stephen Harper to take advantage of the opportunity to reassert Canada’s “unquestionable” sovereignty over the North – and to reduce the debate over the development of the circumpolar world to a war of flags and icebreakers.
Last Wednesday, after four years of research, the US Geological Survey, the American scientific agency specialized in hydrocarbons, delivered the first exhaustive estimate of potential oil and gas situated north of the polar circle: 90 billion barrels of crude, three times as much natural gas, 20 percent of the probable global reserves of liquefied natural gas…. The news is guaranteed to have a strong impact, given the present context of tightening energy supplies, surging prices at the pump, and the extraordinary growth of demand in developing countries. Northern governments and oil companies have never salivated to quite the same extent over the Arctic, which becomes all the more hospitable to them as the ice melts…. If one were a cynic, one would say that in this instance it is altogether to Ottawa’s advantage to drag its feet in the fight against greenhouse gases.
Moreover, quite by chance, the US Geological Survey estimates were made public one year, almost to the day, after two little Russian sailors dove to a depth of 4,000 meters in the beginning of August 2007 to plant a flag on the North Pole. This striking gesture – without any legal effect, however – relaunched the debate on the subject of sovereignty over the Arctic in great style.

Cut to the quick, then-Foreign Affairs Minister Peter MacKay decreed that the region Russia coveted was “unquestionably” Canadian.
Unquestionably? That remains to be seen. Experts from the UN, guarantors of the Convention on the Law of the Sea, will say between now and 2013 which between Ottawa and Moscow has the better-founded pretensions from a scientific perspective. At the moment, however, it seems that Russia is better placed to prove geologically that the Lomonossov Dorsal, a chain of undersea mountains that cross the Arctic, is the prolongation of the Russian continental plateau, and not of the Canadian plateau.
Politicians, unfortunately, don’t bother much with such scientific details in their communications with the electorate, preferring to play a nationalistic rhetoric that is easily digested. So the bad scenario would be that, in this race for the summit of the world, the sharing of the Arctic will be less the result of a UN judgment and multinational dialogue than of power struggles between the five countries involved – Canada, Russia, the United States, Denmark, and Norway. That scenario is altogether plausible.
“The Canadian Arctic is at the heart of our national identity,” Stephen Harper declared last year. He has announced, among other military measures in the last year, an investment of $7 billion over 25 years for buying naval patrol boats. A depressing prospect: that Canada seeks to take on its northern identity is laudable, that it proposes to get there by emphasizing military defense to the detriment of social, ecological and diplomatic initiatives, is much less so. It is difficult in any case to imagine that pugnacious Prime Minister-President Vladimir Putin will allow himself to be intimidated.
Nonetheless, the Harper way remains very questionable, in that it is a thousand leagues from the Canadian Way – based on dialogue and cooperation. Still, the most recent decades have demonstrated that it’s by balancing its own interests with those of its circumpolar neighbors – and not by sticking out its chest – that Canada has succeeded in preserving its Arctic sovereignty.
Moreover, in order to calm tensions, the five held a big meeting last spring, which ended in the participants’ commitment to settle any litigious question “in an orderly way,” to “strengthen their cooperation based on mutual trust and transparency” and to “assure the protection and preservation of the fragile marine environment of the Arctic Ocean.” Empty phrases? The future will show how these beautiful promises that we’d like to see kept will withstand the lust for 412 billion barrels of oil.
———————

We posted several days ago: “Reuters Reports That China Is Planting its Flag in the Arctic and Antarctic Regions. Actually they started already at least in 2003, so this is not just a reaction to the Russian Flag-posting of August 2007.”

Posted on Sustainabilitank.info on July 27th, 2008
by Pincas Jawetz ( PJ at SustainabiliTank.com)

So, face up to it – China is also in this game. And why should not Nauru or Grenada also be entiled to some of the profits? if they cannot afford the expense of drilling – bet you Brazil or Japan, even Korea and India, and who knows who else – can!

OK – Now Let Us Sit Down And Talk. For Once We Are Behind China and Expect The Dragon To Stand Its Ground.

The North Pole. Guy Taillefer writes, “Northern governments and oil companies have never salivated to quite the same extent over the Arctic, which becomes all the more hospitable to them as the ice melts … If one were a cynic, one would say that in this instance it is altogether to Ottawa’s advantage to drag its feet in the fight against greenhouse gases …” (Photo: NASA GSFC Direct Readout Laboratory / Allen Lunsford).

May 15, 2008 was the main Hooray of CSD 16. In Conference Room 4 was going on “at High Level” – Deputy Assistant Secretary of a Ministry, and Second Secretary of a Permanent Mission to the UN – the “Thematic Cluster for the implementation cycle 2008/2009 – review session. But outside that room there were so many true high level parallel side events, CSD Related Events, Learning Center Sessions, and Other UN Activities, that trying to cover that whole gamut of events, I had to walk in and out – choosing particular presentations, and obviously loosing out on much of the discussion.

I will proceed now to try to give some proof why I still think that the UN CSD has to be saved – rather then walked away from with disgust.

First, under the category of Other UN Activities, during the UN lunch break 1:15 – 2:30 pm, in conference room 7, UNCTAD, with invitation to everybody interested, this including the CSD participants, had a “
Briefing on the outcome of the 12-th session of the UN Conference on Trade and Development that was held in Accra, Ghana, April 20-25, 2008.

I picked up the documents, listened to the opening, and when the first speaker started to show the touristic markets of Accra, I left. I had later the chance to find out that someone connected to UNCTAD did in effect not know the name of one of the first that did run that organization. I am attaching here the “Accra Declaration” and note that UNCTAD, that was created as an antidote to the World Trade Organization, has worked itself into a corner of irrelevance. My belief is that it should be merged into the CSD as trade is definitely part of development, and it   has thus to be pursued in the context of Sustainable Development. Again, if the CSD is aching but needed, it can be improved eventually if less outside organizations are let to run around lose – turning themselves into touristic experiences.

Also a general UN event held during the lunch-time UN recess:

This event was sponsored by the Permanent Mission of the Philippines as per UN General Assembly Resolution 55/282.
Actually, the organizers had invited Mr. Kiyotaka Akasaka, the USG for Communications and Public Information. Seemingly busy he delegated participation to a much more eager and UN troubleshooter Mr. Eric Falt who has been brought in this year – as Director of the Outreach Division of DPI, to help save the UN from itself.

This event will have a follow up of sorts on May 21, 2008 with the help of the SUSTAINABLE FUTURE CAMPAIGN www.sustainablefuturecampaign.com and the UN Youth and Student Association of Austria www.afa.at
We will mention here that youth is a CSD “Major Group” and 14 delegations prided themselves with having had a youth representative at CSD 16. The youth had also a desk in the corridor and did their naive best to try to convince those present at the CSD meetings to take their task seriously.

But from all of these activities, as said, the most impressive were the four parallel events of the “Side Events” to   CSD 16 that were held during the lunch-time intermission:

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

The event in Conference room 2 was organized by the ICLEI of the EU showing off an integrated sustainable development program in the “County of the South East” of the Spanish Island of Gran Canaria (Gran Canaria Sur Este, Spain, that includes the communities of – Aguimes, Ingenio, and Santa Lucia.   www. surestegc.org The event’s   shepherd was   Mr. Jan-Gustav Strandenaes, Senior Policy Advisor, The Northern Alliance for Sustainability, (ANPED}, The Stakeholder Forum, and the Partnerships for Sustainable Development.

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

The event in Conference Room 4 was a high powered technical event organized by Greece and involving the European Commission’s Mediterranean initiative with special emphasis on the Impact of Climate Change on Water Resources in the region. The event, besides the EU, also involved the Arab Network for Environment and Development (RAED) a high official of Tunisia, and the leader on Environment issues for the UN Economic Commission for Western Asia (UN-ESCWA) thus bypassing an Israeli participation. This was unfortunate because in other Mediterranean fora there is a very positive history of cooperation between Israel and the Arab States – including in fora organized by the EU under Spanish leadership. The unfortunate part is in the participation of ESCWA that is located in Damascus, even though in the past, in private discussion, upon a question about the need of regional cooperation on subject of Middle East environment, I remember that Dr. Hosni Khordagui told me that he cooperates regularly with Israeli scientists.

Originally, invited were also a representative of Lebanon, the African Development Bank, and the World Bank – but they did not confirm their participation and did not show up.

Professor Scoulos pointed out that ” some non-EU members of the group have yet to ratify the Kyoto Protocol, others have difficulties in implementing it correctly.” Recently the Mediterranean countries have adopted the Almeria Declaration to the Barcelona Convention of 2005, identifying a number of measures and common actions on climate change.

He pointed out that the Mediterranean area can expect by 2100 a temperature increase of 2.2 -5.1 degrees C and total precipitation drop of 4-27% In the Middle East there will be competition over water resources. There will be migratory pressure from South and East.   www.mio-ecsde.org and www.gwpmed.org

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

The Dag Hammarskjold Library Auditorium event organized by the Norway, dealt with our need to change the ways of economic development, what technically is called MITIGATION of climate change – and the need for ADAPTATION in order to handle disasters caused by climate change. This was the downside of climate change – the recognition that we have done very little to avoid it and very little to help those most threatened.

With opening statements from the Norwegian highest ranking UNDP official, Director of the Bureau for Development Policy, Mr. Olav Kjorven, and the Panel Chair, Ambassador Mona Elisabeth Brother from the Norway Ministry of Foreign Affairs foreign aid programs, and the Permanent Representative of Denmark to the UN (Ambassador Carsten Staur) it was for the Permanent Representatives of Haiti (Ambassador Leo Merores, President of ECOSOC) and Grenada (Ambassador Angus Friday, Chairman of the Alliance of Small Island States – AOSIS) to state the obvious facts that it is the weakest States that are the first to suffer from the effects of climte change.

The Heads of the Bureau for Crisis Prevention and Recovery at UNDP, The new office of Climate Change effects established by UNSG Ban Ki-moon, and Field Support team of the Red Cross (IFRC) were there to point out the Human and Security problems that will be resulting from climate change induced massive migration. There is very little heartening that can be expected with such visions. Norway is there to worn us with the need to prepare to act.

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

The fourth among the “Side Events” during the lunch time break of May 15th, – held in room 6 – the smallest of the rooms – was probably the most important from all the four important events. This was the reason we decided on our title for this posting, and as we will eventually see from the reporting dealing with the following day’s closing of CSD 16, it will become clear that I do regard the penultimate day to be of higher value,   that might show more lasting effect.

The two main presentations were by Ahim Steiner and Michel Jarraud, but to us the special thing was the position taken by Josue Dione. He came out saying that for food security Africa has to develop it by themselves, and he gave the example of Malawi who did the right thing and now are not short of food anymore, In effect they do export food now to neighboring countries. The point is that Africa must stop complaining and start digging themselves out from hunger by themselves. Sure it needs help but Africa has to do the work.

Among the material I picked up here was a set of data collected by the UN as Energy Indicators for Sustainable Development for: Brazil, Cuba. Lithuania, Mexico, Russia, Slovakia, Thailand.

And two recent volumes published by Springer which I intend to review separately:

a – “Climate and Land Degradation” edited by Mannava V.K.Sivakumar and Ndegwa Ndiang’ui.

b – “Managing Weather and Climate Risks in Agriculture” edited by Mannava V.K. Sivakumar and Raymond P. Motha.

Back from the Bangkok meeting, Yvo de Boer, Executive Secretary of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, will be passing through New York on Thursday April 10, 2008.

He will be summing up before the ten members of world media, a fracture of the 90 members of the UN Correspondence Association, that will be present in the building at that time, the outcomes of last week’s United Nations Climate Change Talks in Bangkok, the first major UN climate change meeting this year.

The Press Briefing will be held in room S-226 at the UN headquarters in New York – the second floor, the UN Secretariat Building where floors 2-4 are partly turned over to the press accredited with the UN.   The briefing will take place on: Thursday,   April 10, 2008, at 12:30 p.m.
In Bangkok, delegates from 162 countries gathered to map out their work programme leading to a long-term international climate change agreement in Copenhagen by the end of 2009. The Bangkok meeting had its hot and cold times; the opinions about the results verry vary. The UN declared roses, but others see only positioning towards the precipice. We trust that Mr. de Boer wants to present his point of view, and he needs thus more attention then the dried up UN press corps is allowed to provide him with.
The briefing will be webcast and in Manhattan you can watch it on UNTV, Channel 78.

Mr. de Boer is also available for interviews and media opportunities – the problem is that the UN Department of Information Control allows him to do all of this only in relation to those the Department selected for accreditation to the UN. We know that Mr. de Boer, in order to succeed in his job, must have wider access to the public. The fact that UNFCCC will allow for a webcast, and UNTV, unless it cuts of the program because of some activity at the UN Security Council that is deemed by DPI as more important – is also a possibility for some to get his input. But this does not make for a vibrant press coverage. Media is about asking questions – not just a conduit of information from the UN tub to the gasping mouth of the uninformed. Our website is full of examples of what I am talking here about. The last time we wrote about this it was in the context of the Japanese preparations for media contact at this year’s upcoming G8, that by the way, will have a lot to do also with our interest in climate change policy.

In short – what Mr. de Boer needs to do is to have a press conference also outside the UN confines – a place where every correspondent active in New York, every blogger interested in the subject, can come – listen, ask, be informed, and tell then his readers, listeners, watchers – this because the subject of climate change is of interest not just to the governing elites of 192 UN Member Governments, but to every Joe and Jane who will be in the end those that pay for inaction of the few – and watch what I am saying – it is these folks that need the information in order to help them impact policy.

Just watch this simple fact: The New York Times has an excellent experienced scientist/blogger – Andy Revkin – who covers climate change. But when there will be the April 10th briefing, Mr. de Boer will be lucky to see in the room Mr. Warren Hoge, who has the regular UN beat for the paper. Andy willl not be there, because he is not the regular NYT UN accredited reporter. So the readers of the NYT will at best find a note that Mr. Boer made a presentation in New York, and they will have lost the chance to find out what could have been a news breaking answer to a good question from Andy. Needless to say that less famous bloggers have no back up whatsoever – and today news are spread by the blogs!
Background:
At the UN Climate Change Conference in Bali last year, countries agreed to step up international efforts to combat climate change and to launch formal negotiations to come to an agreement on long-term cooperative action. They decided on the ambitious time-line to conclude negotiations by the end of 2009 and identified the main elements for discussion, including a shared-long term vision and enhanced action on adaptation, mitigation, technology and finance. The new working group that was mandated in Bali to lead the work has met in Bangkok for the first time with the intention of spelling out the steps needed to come to the envisaged agreement.

Furthermore, talks in Bangkok advanced work on the rules through which emission reduction targets of developed countries can be met.   This work was taken up by an already existing working group in which discussions take place on further commitments for Annex I countries under the Kyoto Protocol.

The Problem is how and when will the developing countries join above effort. Clearly, they cannot be asked to carry the brunt of the responsibility even though they are the growing new polluters on the bloc. On the other hand, governments like the US, Japan, Germany, these days say that there is a need to expand the responsibility also to the major economies of the front-runners among the now developing countries – China, India, Brazil. But what about the Small Island States, The Least Developed States, the Naurus and Bangladesh of this world? They stood up to speak for themselves at Bangkok because of the long existing truth that the G77 does not back their needs. After all, it is not the economic loss of the oil exporters that the submerging islands should be asked to worry about.

Bubbles float all over the UN – plain talk is what is needed. I know that Mr. de Boer knows that and we want the opportunity to ask him direct questions that are not monitored by the UN Secretariat political appointees.Will Mr. de Boer stand up to this challenge and have please a press briefing outside the UN?

How does Mr. de Boer expect to handle in December 2008, at this Conference of the Parties to UNFCCC and the meeting of the members to the Kyoto Protocol, when in November there was a Presidential election in the US   and the man in the White House has really just a few more days – not the years needed for him to be a serious player in the negotiations?

Above is a question that will not be asked at the UN – But for the Planet’s sake – there must be somewhere space to allow such a question – or really lots of travel just produces lots of emissions.

Imagine Everyone Was Equal, in Emissions.
By Andrew C. Revkin, on www.DotEarth.com, February 15, 2008.

In a three-day summit at the United Nations on global warming this week, a parade of representatives from developing countries expressed growing discontent with the lack of action by rich ones to start curbing emissions of greenhouse gases that, in the long run, are likely to exact the most harm in the world’s poorest places.

India, China, and other poorer countries with fast-growing economies said they were ready to limit their own emissions, keeping them lower, on a per person basis, than those in the already-industrialized North. This Associated Press story conveyed their stance:

Chinese envoy Yu Qingtai told The Associated Press that China would try to keep a lid on its growing gas emissions when compared to U.S. per capita emissions.

So that keeps the ball in the court of the industrial powers. One of the grand challenges in the climate debate remains clarifying the different responsibilities of countries that have already built their prosperity and quality of life on coal (and to a smaller extent oil) and those on the verge of doing so.

* * *

On a per-person basis, responsibility for greenhouse-gas emissions is no contest. The rich dominate. Right now, the average United States citizen generates about 20 metric tons of carbon dioxide a year through the use of electricity, heating and cooling, vehicles, manufacturing and the other energy-intensive facets of modern daily life. For various reasons, Japan and Europe have far lower emissions, with Japan and Britain, for example, just under 10 tons per person per year. In China, the number is about 3.8 tons. In India, it’s 1.2 tons per person.

* * *

This gets back to a central question here on Dot Earth — how much is too much?

Some libertarian critics have implied I’m supporting a Draconian push back to sweaters and bicycles (see Ron Bailey’s recent critique of my “Unnecessary Things” post). [UPDATE: Draconian by some of their standards, not mine.] Some environmentalists say I’m too gloomy about the chances that humanity will resolve to share responsibility for limiting climate risks.

In the end, my goal is to be an equal-opportunity explorer of ideas as various as the need for more global governance to protect the commons, and the free-market mantra, that all will be well if people are left to pursue prosperity and comfort by whatever means they can afford.

But getting back to that baseline question, if everyone gets to emulate the established emitters, what will the atmosphere be like?

* * *

I did a brief thought experiment last night. Where would carbon dioxide emissions be if everyone on Earth was using fossil fuels at the same pace, per capita, as the United States is now? Or let’s take, say Britain, as a kind of middle case, presuming that the United States will find ways to trim its emissions (a 50-percent cut taking us to Europe’s level).
It’s simple multiplication. Right now, the sum of global emissions of carbon dioxide by a world population of 6.6 billion, very-unequal humans, is about 29 billion tons a year.

If everyone was emitting at the British level, it’d be 66 billion tons a year.

Okay, let’s try the United States. That’d be 132 billion tons of carbon dioxide at the US level – released into the atmosphere each year, if everyone on Earth had an equal carbon footing.

So clearly something has to give, presuming the countries of the world are serious about accepting the findings of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (which they all did, ostensibly, last year).

Vaclav Smil, a reality-based energy expert at the University of Manitoba who has studied this issue long and hard, said the following in an email when I was working on my 2006 story on declining research on new energy options:
“We have the know-how to consume, in rich countries, only half as much [energy] as we do without lowering our REAL quality of life (REAL does not include unlimited SUVs, 15,000 sq. ft. custom-built houses etc, etc), and to provide everybody, even in the most desperate parts of Africa with enough for a decent life. But we prefer to waste enormously, and Africans prefer endless bouts of civil wars. This is not primarily a technical problem…. This is primarily an ethical, moral problem (i.e., we have only one biosphere).”

in http://www.sustainabilitank.info/categor… we made the following announcement and we also posted the program of that very unusual event that used the UN as a stage:

February 14, 2007, Investor Summit On Climate Change to Follow Upon the UNGA President’s Summit at the UN in New York City.
Posted on Sustainabilitank.info on February 11th, 2008, by Pincas Jawetz ( PJ at SustainabiliTank.com)

“The following meeting represents stock-holder power of about $30 trillion, as per a statement made today by Fiona Harwey of the London Financial Times, at the meeting in the UN Trusteeship Council Auditorium at the UN Headquarters. The President of the UN General Assembly, Dr. Srgjan Kerim, called for this meeting in order to build synergism that helps further progress on the road from Bali to Copenhagen. The idea is that business, NGOs, academia and media are needed in this transition – not only the government representatives. Now business will be the first to pick up, already this Thursday, that is after the Monday-Wednesday official meetings. Morgan Stanley, Lehman Brothers Holdings, Deutsche Bank, Credit Suisse Group, Merrill Lynch, Goldman Sachs Group, UBS, Bank of America, General Electric, Procter & Gamble, Caterpillar, DuPont, are part of this exercise.

Today, February 11, 2008, at a press conference, Sir Richard Branson called for the creation of a WAR ROOM to fight global warming/climate change. The enemy in this war is the fossil carbon being pushed into the atmosphere. He, and later Mr. Yvo de Boer of the UNFCCC refused to put their finger on three countries that refuse to do something positive about the issue, but suggested that an international system must be put in place with incentives for business to start moving in the right direction. Sir Richard even said that he has already 5 people in his mind that could head this War Room – Al Gore is one of them. This will be people with business savvy and he expects to put in the leaders hand half a billion dollars as a stimulant. There was a lot of talk of business that moved away from ignorance and embraced now awareness – and this is not just “greenwash.” OK – the Thursday meeting is now just-in-time to prove the point.”

We said that we expected to be there and report on the proceedings – we were thanks to an invitation from the organizers – and now we will try to put forward some of our impressions. We did not cover the February 11-13, 2008 UN exercise from inside the UN, this because of the UN Department of Communications and Public Information long-standing position that our writing truth about sustainable development and climate change issues is not to the liking of some of these employees of the UN.

Ceres (pronounced “series”) is a national network of investors, environmental organizations and other public interest groups working with companies and investors to address sustainability challenges such as global climate change. Formerly the Valdez Principles, now called the CERES Principles for environmentally sound business practices were drafted by a Coalition of environmental organizations, environmentally friendly businesses, and labor unions.

Things are confusing a bit. The Letters CERES also stand for California Environmental Resources Evaluation System headquartered in Sacramento California. But the CERES of our meeting has its headquarters now in Boston Massachusetts, though it started out as an organization that was tied together by the San Francisco headquartered Sierra Club and other San Francisco based organizations. Please see http://www.ceres.org.

In our case here Ceres or CERES stands for – Coalition for Environmentally Responsible Economies and we know that some might get confused. We will thus use plain CERES and expect that the content of the message fits for both meanings.

The CERES Principles:

In the fall of 1989, Ceres announced the creation of these Principles, a ten-point code of corporate environmental conduct to be publicly endorsed by companies as an environmental mission statement or ethic. Imbedded in that code of conduct was the mandate to report periodically on environmental management structures and results. In 1993, following lengthy negotiations, Sunoco became the first Fortune 500 company to endorse the Ceres Principles. Today, the tide has changed dramatically. Over 50 companies have endorsed the Ceres Principles including 13 Fortune 500 firms that have adopted their own equivalent environmental principles.

By endorsing the Ceres Principles or adopting their own comparable code, companies not only formalize their dedication to environmental awareness and accountability, but also actively commit to an ongoing process of continuous improvement, dialogue and comprehensive, systematic public reporting. Endorsing Ceres companies have access to the diverse array of experts in our network, from investors to policy analysts, energy experts, scientists, and others.

The Ceres Principles are:

1. Protection of the Biosphere
We will reduce and make continual progress toward eliminating the release of any substance that may cause environmental damage to the air, water, or the earth or its inhabitants. We will safeguard all habitats affected by our operations and will protect open spaces and wilderness, while preserving biodiversity.

2. Sustainable Use of Natural Resources
We will make sustainable use of renewable natural resources, such as water, soils and forests. We will conserve non-renewable natural resources through efficient use and careful planning.

3. Reduction and Disposal of Wastes
We will reduce and where possible eliminate waste through source reduction and recycling. All waste will be handled and disposed of through safe and responsible methods.

4. Energy Conservation
We will conserve energy and improve the energy efficiency of our internal operations and of the goods and services we sell. We will make every effort to use environmentally safe and sustainable energy sources.

5. Risk Reduction
We will strive to minimize the environmental, health and safety risks to our employees and the communities in which we operate through safe technologies, facilities and operating procedures, and by being prepared for emergencies.

6. Safe Products and Services
We will reduce and where possible eliminate the use, manufacture or sale of products and services that cause environmental damage or health or safety hazards. We will inform our customers of the environmental impacts of our products or services and try to correct unsafe use.

7. Environmental Restoration
We will promptly and responsibly correct conditions we have caused that endanger health, safety or the environment. To the extent feasible, we will redress injuries we have caused to persons or damage we have caused to the environment and will restore the environment.

8. Informing the Public
We will inform in a timely manner everyone who may be affected by conditions caused by our company that might endanger health, safety or the environment. We will regularly seek advice and counsel through dialogue with persons in communities near our facilities. We will not take any action against employees for reporting dangerous incidents or conditions to management or to appropriate authorities.

9. Management Commitment
We will implement these Principles and sustain a process that ensures that the Board of Directors and Chief Executive Officer are fully informed about pertinent environmental issues and are fully responsible for environmental policy. In selecting our Board of Directors, we will consider demonstrated environmental commitment as a factor.

10. Audits and Reports
We will conduct an annual self-evaluation of our progress in implementing these Principles. We will support the timely creation of generally accepted environmental audit procedures. We will annually complete the Ceres Report, which will be made available to the public.

CERES’ Mission: Integrating sustainability into capital markets for the health of the planet and its people.

Accomplishments: At its founding in 1989, Ceres introduced a bold new vision to the business community. That vision is of a world in which business and capital markets promote the well being of human society and the protection of the earth’s biological systems and resources. Ceres advances its vision by bringing investors, environmental groups and other stakeholder together to encourage companies and capital markets to incorporate environmental and social challenges into their day-to-day decision-making. By leveraging the collective power of investors and other key stakeholders, Ceres has achieved dramatic results, among those:

• Recipient of numerous awards including the 2006 Skoll Award for Social Entrepreneurship and the Fast Company/Monitor Group Social Capitalist award, and was named one of the 100 most influential players in the corporate governance movement by Directorship Magazine.
• Launched the Global Reporting Initiative (GRI), now the de-facto international standard used by over 1200 companies for corporate reporting on environmental, social and economic performance.
• Joined with Yale University and insurance firm, Marsh, to create the Sustainable Governance Forum on Climate Risk, a unique leadership development program designed to help corporate leaders address the problem of climate risk.
• Spearheaded dozens of breakthrough achievements with companies, such as Nike becoming the first global apparel company to disclose the names and locations of its 700-plus contract factories worldwide in 2005, Dell Computer agreeing in June 2006 to support national legislation to require electronic product recycling and “takeback” programs, and Bank of America announcing a $20 billion initiative in March 2007 to support the growth of environmentally sustainable business activity to address global climate change.
• Brought together 500 investor, Wall Street and corporate leaders at the United Nations in 2005 to address the growing financial risks and opportunities posed by climate change. The ground-breaking meeting included 28 U.S. and European investors approving a 10-point action plan seeking stronger analysis, disclosure and action from companies, Wall Street and regulators on climate change. Another investor summit will be held in February 2008.
• Launched and directs the Investor Network on Climate Risk (INCR), a group of more than 60 leading institutional investors with collective assets of over $4 trillion.
• Published cutting-edge research reports to help investors better understand the implications of global warming. Among those: a January 2007 report, Climate Risk Disclosure by the S&P 500, an August 2006 report, From Risk to Opportunity: How Insurers Can Proactively and Profitably Manage Climate Change, and a March 2006 report, Corporate Governance and Climate Change: Making the Connection, which analyzed how 100 of the world’s largest companies are addressing the business challenges from climate change.

After the February 14, 2008 event at the UN – Ceres Press people provided the following press release:

Peyton Fleming, Ceres, 617-733-6660,  fleming at ceres.org
Patricia Charles, UN Foundation, 440-506-9564,  patricia at unfoundation.org

U.S. and European Investors Tackle Climate Change Risks and Opportunities. Investors Make Bold Commitments to Energy Efficiency and Other Clean Technologies, Require Closer Scrutiny of Carbon-Intensive Investments

NEW YORK CITY, NY — Nearly 50 leading U.S. and European institutional investors managing over $1.75 trillion in assets today released a climate change action plan at the United Nations that will boost investments in energy efficiency and clean energy technologies and require tougher scrutiny of carbon-intensive investments that may pose long-term financial risks. Additionally, European investors managing $6.5 trillion in assets supported the action plan “in principle.”

The action plan was announced at the Investor Summit on Climate Risk, hosted by Ceres and the United Nations Foundation, attended by more than 450 investor, financial and corporate leaders from around the world. Signatories to the action plan include state treasurers, controllers, pension fund leaders, asset managers and foundations from London, California, Florida, New York, Connecticut, North Carolina, Pennsylvania and a dozen other states.

“Our goal is to transform the world economy into one that is clean, green and sustainable,” said California State Treasurer Bill Lockyer, one of the 49 signatories, who serves on the board of the leading pension funds, CalPERS and CalSTRS, which collectively manage more than $500 billion in assets. “California’s public pension funds have already committed over $800 million to this effort through investments in environmental technology. And they are actively pressing the corporate world to fully assess and disclose the risks and opportunities climate change presents for their business operations.”

“With today’s action plan, investors are advancing the need for closer scrutiny of investments to include the financial risks of climate change, while also harnessing emerging opportunities,” said Florida Chief Financial Officer Alex Sink. “Florida is on board as the first State Treasury in the nation to require fund managers to disclose how they incorporate climate risk into prudent investment management.”

Noting that climate change presents both material risks and significant opportunities, the investors pledged to collectively invest $10 billion in clean technology opportunities over the next two years and to incorporate green building standards — such as LEED (Leadership in Energy Efficiency and Design) and Energy Star — into their investment decisions. Calling energy efficiency “one of the fastest, easiest and cheapest ways to significantly reduce emissions and improve the bottom line,” the investor group pledged to reduce energy use in core real estate holdings by 20 percent over the next three years.

A new McKinsey Global Institute (MGI) report, also announced at the investor summit, concludes that major investments over the next decade in energy productivity — the level of output achieved from the energy consumed — could earn double-digit rates of return for investors. Such investments would cut global energy demand growth by at least half and achieve up to half of the reductions of greenhouse gas emissions that experts say is required to prevent the world’s mean temperature from increasing by more than 2 degrees centigrade.

The action plan calls for a series of specific steps by investors to address the growing risks and opportunities from climate change. The nine goals include policy actions aimed at the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) and Congress, engagement with companies to improve their disclosure and responses to climate change, minimizing climate investment risks and maximizing climate-related investment opportunities. Among the investor commitments:

• Support clean technology, with a goal of deploying $10 billion collectively over the next two years.
• Aim for a 20 percent reduction in energy used in core real estate investment holdings over a three-year period, and consider green building standards in making investment decisions.
• Require and validate that investment managers, investment consultants and advisors report on how they are assessing climate risks in their portfolios, whether from new carbon-reducing regulations, physical impacts or competitive risks.
  Encourage Wall Street analysts, rating agencies and investment banks to analyze and report on the potential impacts of foreseeable long-term carbon costs, in the range of $20 to $40 per metric ton of CO2, particularly on carbon-intensive investments such as new coal-fired power plants, oil shale, tar sands and coal-to-liquid projects.
• Push the SEC to issue guidance leading to full corporate disclosure of climate risks and opportunities.
• Push Congress for a mandatory national policy to reduce national greenhouse gas emissions in accordance with the 60-90 percent reductions below 1990 levels by 2050 that scientists suggest is urgently needed to avoid the worst and most costly impacts from climate change.

“This action plan reflects the many investment opportunities that exist today to put a dent in global warming pollution, build profits and benefit the global economy,” said Mindy S. Lubber, president of the Ceres investor coalition and director of the Investor Network on Climate Risk. “Leveraging the vast energy efficiency opportunities at home and abroad holds especially great promise for investors.”

“Thanks to the leadership of many participating at this summit, the idea that climate risk affects many industries around the world that are embedded in our portfolios is being absorbed into the very fiber of our financial markets, from banking to investment, from insurance to re-insurance,” said Connecticut State Treasurer Denise Nappier.

“As institutional investors, we need solid information about a company’s environmental risks and opportunities so that we can grow our bottom line while shrinking our carbon footprint,” said California Controller John Chiang.

“Energy efficiency provides the biggest opportunity for helping developed and developing countries alike,” said Timothy Wirth, president of the United Nations Foundation. “Investors have a critical role in helping drive this new energy economy forward. Their commitments here today are groundbreaking and will not only reduce the devastating impacts of climate change but will help grow the global economy at the same time.”

The summit comes as worldwide investor attention on climate change dramatically increases. In the last two years, investor and asset manager participation in the Investor Network on Climate Risk has more than doubled, to more than 60 institutional investors and with collective assets totaling $4.5 trillion. At today’s summit, Deutsche Asset Management, which manages over $800 billion in assets, announced it was joining INCR, increasing INCR’s total member assets to over $5 trillion.

Today’s climate risk meeting was hosted and organized by the United Nations Foundation, the United Nations Fund for International Partnerships and Ceres, which directs the Investor Network on Climate Risk. Ceres is a U.S. coalition of investor and environmental leaders that has spearheaded national and international investor activity on climate risk issues. A webcast of the summit and press conference can be found at www.un.org

###

About Ceres and INCR

Ceres is a leading coalition of investors, environmental groups and other public interest organizations working with companies to address sustainability challenges such as climate change. Ceres also directs the Investor Network on Climate Risk (INCR). For more information, visit www.ceres.org and www.incr.com
About the United Nations Foundation:

The UN Foundation was created in 1998 with entrepreneur and philanthropist Ted Turner’s historic $1 billion gift to support UN causes and activities. The UN Foundation builds and implements public-private partnerships to address the world’s most pressing problems and also works to broaden support for the UN through advocacy and public outreach. The UN Foundation is a public charity. For more information, visit www.unfoundation.org
About the United Nations Fund for International Partnerships (UNFIP):

UNFIP was established by the Secretary-General in March 1998 to serve as the interface in the partnership between the UN system and the UN Foundation — the public charity responsible for administering Ted Turner’s $1 billion contribution in support of UN causes. The UN Partnership with Ted Turner’s Philanthropy has enabled the UN family to find creative solutions to global problems. The success of this partnership has led to the evolution of the United Nations Office for Partnerships, which manages UNFIP, the UN Democracy Fund, as well as Partnership Advisory Services and Outreach. The Office serves as a gateway for facilitating UN-civil society partnership initiatives in support of the UN system’s programme of work. For more information, visit www.unfip.org.

Back on January 10, 2008, CERES released a report on the top 40 banks that we covered in: http://www.sustainabilitank.info/2007/05… and http://www.sustainabilitank.info/2007/05…

UNSG Ban Ki-moon left for Washington DC a day earlier then expected, this because of the memorial to Chairman Tom Lantos and a Model UN event, UNGA President Dr. Srgjan Kerim took a day off after the previous three days, so the UN stars were represented at the CERES event by Mr. Amir A. Dossal, Executive Director, UN Fund for International Partnerships. The Real two stars of the day were, in our opinion the luncheon speaker AL GORE, who post-Nobel Prize is now Chairman, Generation Investment Management. He will personally show now how money is made by doing the right thing, and Mr. VINOD KHOSLA, who post-money making Silicone Valley’s Sun Microsystems is now the CEO of future money-maker Khosla Ventures. But saying this we are probably extremely unfair to about 20 others who made solid contributions to the event by telling us what their companies or Funds are doing. All of the above under the skilled baton of Mindy S. Lubber, the President and CEO of CERES and Director, Investor Network on Climate Change. When all was over, at about 5:30 p.m., all were invited to a reception at the Institute of International Education, across the Street of the UN, to a room that was once the reception room of the Danish Mission to the UN, and as we were told, its Danish decor should remind us all of the deadline set by the Copenhagen COP 15 of the UNFCCC.

In this posting we intend to cover only the presentations by Al Gore and Vinod Khosla. About much of the remaining material we accumulated at the meeting, and our notes thereof, we will write in following articles.

AL GORE was introduced by Jeff Skoll who produced the movie “An Inconvenient Truth.” Now let us keep in mind that for the participants in CERES – people that go to the bottom of the problem – this has turned to a CONVENIENT OPPORTUNITY. These people would not be sitting in the UN Delegates Dining Room if not for the fact that their FIDUCIARY RESPONSIBILITY brings them there. Their responsibility is to make money for their investors and this means plans for the long-range, not just a short-range kill that might later leave them swimming on dry land. These are people that realize post-US mortgage-crisis, that short term gains have led to many-fold long term losses – and they will do anything not to lose their jobs by watching climate change turn into another black hole. The luncheon was sponsored by Swiss Re and opened by Richard H. Murray, Managing Director & Chief Claims Strategist of Swiss Re. There is nobody like him that can put a finger at money losses from climate change. It was his company that had to pay in the end for a large part of the losses from the latest large hurricanes – and he had never doubts that these losses were caused in the ultimate by our emissions of CO2 into the atmosphere. We can say this with certainty because we talked with him in the past, and his company was a backer of our efforts years ago when the Geneva registered NGO CMDC, and later under the ISEO name, started to point out the need for Sustainable Energy and we are going back to the beginning of the 1990s. Swiss Re was also part of the original WBCSD – the World Business Council for Sustainable Development that made its presence felt at the Rio Summit in 1992.

We know that the solution is to put a price on carbon – started Al Gore his thematic presentation _ “I believe in a Carbon Tax, Cap & Trade, Renewable Energy Standards and Regulatory Action.” WE HAVE TO USE ALL FOUR!
He told this congregation – “This is a group that cannot wait until new laws are set. You are a unique group because you are responsible for assets to the stock holders. You must look into the future – the leader of America labor is here (reference to Mr. John J. Sweeney, President, AFL-CIO, who was at the lunch and was a speaker on the first panel after lunch).” Al Gore made reference to a “UN with its great principle of Responsible Investment …”

“Mindy Lubber thinks of you as the ‘good cops’ but what you need to do is more. You need to scrub your investment portfolios!” – preached Al Gore to the money-men. “YOU WILL FIND THERE CHUCK-FULL OF SUB-PRIME CARBON ASSETS!” – he said. “This is the challenge – the time is drawing neigh – like the fellows in the mortgage business you will be held personally responsible for what you did not see!” Bubbles are based on the assumption that it was OK to take risky assets without down-payment and turn them into good assets and sell them – this turned out bad – he said. “BUSINESS MODELS THAT ASSUME THAT CARBON IS FREE WILL GO SPLASH!” It will take a hell of less time you are going to be responsible for those assets – so what are you waiting for? – he preached. Now is the time to start umping up and make your portfolio sustainable! This is the clear reality that so many of have helped unmask! DON’T JUST WALK THE WALK _ RUN THE RUN! When the judgement comes – where you among the sleepwalkers or you saw what is coming? BE A HERO – NOT A ZERO!

Al Gore reminded the audience that he spoke in Davos along Bono on SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT, COMBATING DISEASES and GLOBAL WARMING. We are in it together – Today Increases Of Carbon Pollution Anywhere Is Responsible To Climate Change Effects Everywhere!

Put a price on carbon to allow us to make the accurate calculation of what is good and bad. That will allow the new technology! With concentrated solar, we could now put up in the SouthWest a 100 miles by 100 miles system that provides electricity for all of the US. The US and Venus are like two equal planets. They have the same amount of carbon with the only difference that Venus has no fossil carbon – all of it is in the atmosphere – see the difference it makes in temperature! “The pie in the sky assumption is that the fossil carbon moved to the atmosphere there.”

During the Q&A there was a question on bioenergy. Al Gore started the answer by telling a story about a teacher who put on a test the same question he did sometime ago. When he was asked why did you ask the same question? His answer was – “yes I know – but the answer has change!” He mentioned that beneath the surface there has been a tendency to confuse the climate crisis with the energy dependency crisis. The imported oil problem – at the time they said oil shales in your portfolio – now this is ridiculous!

Biofuels – there are forms that are lower carbon substitutes to be used on an environmental responsible way. You must check the energy balance when you add everything up. Note the agriculture, the process, the kind of vegetation used – but when you cut rain-forests this leads to negatives. The bottom line is careful analysis and there is a role for biofuels. then there will be a second and third generation of biofuels – with enzymatic technology – with engineered bugs – these will be practical soon!

On the US politics of climate change at this time of Presidential primaries Al Gore remarked that in all the debates to-date there were only 3 questions on climate change and the answer was clean coal. This was equal to the number of questions on UFOs. This is unreal – at the same time $37 million were spent on fossil fuel propaganda this season.

The remaining three presidential candidates are positive and the evangelicals also shoot massively for solutions on poverty and climate change. Change is possible and he brought forward the change in Australia that led to an immediate joining on Kyoto protocol. Kevin Rudd won the elections in Australia because of a most serious 1000 years draught that people attribute to climate change and just had enough of the positions of the previous government. Australia’s wines will become a thing of the past! The Alliance for Climate Protection, with more Republicans then Democrats, is positive. They will start a campaign.

IT IS MORE IMPORTANT TO CHANGE POLICY THEN TO CHANGE LIGHT-BULBS! – he said. Here I pointed my neighbor to the light bulbs above our heads – the UN with all the talking going on there – has not yet moved to change those bulbs with fluorescent bulbs. I guess this because of plain ineptitude by UN staff, or who knows – because of the influence of the fossil fuel sellers that are such a strong power-center in this building.

WE NEED TO MAKE CHANGES IN OUR LIVES BUT WE NEED TO ACT AS RESPONSIBLE CITIZENS AND CHANGE THE INSTITUTIONS – said Al Gore.

{A personal note here from Pincas Jawetz: Al Gore became US Congressman in 1976 and when in 1977 I testified before Senator Frank Church on the subject of ethanol additives to gasoline – showing factors how the use of ethanol in low percentage mixtures with gasoline – this for the purpose of enhancing the octane value of the refinery product for unleaded gasoline – results in a doubling of the energy efficiency of the ethanol, and how this could be a first step in avoiding any subsidies related to the introduction of unleaded gasoline. The second step was then to use lands taken out of production as subsidy to the agricultural industry, could be used to produce ethanol from commodities that were not grown – rather then from buying them up on the market for food. It was a member of the Al Gore staff, Peter Knight, who was intrigued by my presentation, fished me up, and brought me before the young Congressman to tell him my story. I never forgot that moment of watching an eager mind understand my factors and policy arguments. Now, at this lunch, I bumped into Peter Knight who is now the President of Generation Investment Management. Also, the day was made for me complete when al Gore recognized me, and I had a chance to remind him of those 30 year old technical and policy calculations.}

VINOD KHOSLA was part of the first morning panel – chaired by Former Senator Timothy Wirth, President of the UN Foundation, long time colleague of Al Gore, partner with Al Gore at the US Senate delegation to the Rio Summit in 1992, during the Presidency days of President Bush the father, and now President of the UN Foundation that brought this whole event to within the walls of the UN. The other members of that panel were: Nobuo Tanaka, Executive Director, The Paris based International Energy Agency, and Peter A. Darbee, Chairman, CEO & President, PG&E Corporation, the Northern California utility that is the largest utility in the US.

The title of the panel was: UNLEASHING THE BUSINESS POTENTIAL FOR CLEAN ENERGY. As said earlier, in this posting, for sake of expediency, we will cove only the Vinod Khosla presentation.

Khosla got interested in green energy three years ago when Goldman-Sachs had a seminar for investors in green energy. He says now that he was inspired by those presentations. He found there “MOSTLY CONVENIENT TRUTH FOR A TECHNOLOGY OPTIMIST.” He believes that Economists and Econometrics are the wrong way to predict the future. He also thinks that every sponsored technology choice is probably the wrong way to go.
“THE RIGHT WAY TO PREDICT THE FUTURE IS TO INVENT IT!” “Today’s dreams is tomorrow’s future!”

He predicts that within 10 years oil price will drop rapidly with a second generation biofuels. He says that almost certainly this will happen. He divulged that he had conversations with the CEO of General Motors about wood-chip biofuel in 10 years that will be cheaper then oil today.

He expects a cement that will be a most powerful sequestration technique. He says that today’s corn ethanol, biodiesel, solar PV, wind technology and geothermal will NOT be the solution. Neither of them.

The New Green will come from new engines, new lighting, new appliances, batteries and Flow Cells, cement …. He produced a great interactive series of circles I was not able to copy correctly and concluded that FOSSIL TECHNOLOGY WILL BE FOSSILIZED! THE GOOD THINK IS THAT WE HAVE A CATASTROPHE – and I assume this means that our thinking will become focused.

Khosla thinks of three potential catastrophes: Nuclear War, An asteroid hitting us, and Climate Change. He is ready to think how to tackle climate change and knows that technology happens very fast and causes world dislocations.

We understand what he is saying because we know that the man thinks in terms of quantum jumps. He made a quantum jump in Silicone Valley – now he looks for a new topic where he wants to be part of a quantum jump.
He knows that in IT things will improve now incrementally – so it does not grasp his attention anymore. He has the money, so he is ready to put it where his thoughts are, and with his Khosla Ventures he will try to shoot in several directions until he finds the one topic to go for the kill. He believes strongly in the power of entrepreneurial thinking to create the new technology that has this quantum jump potential, but he is not shy from saying that there is need of government to come up and say – look we need this new technology – go get it! Koshla also does not believe in hybrid cars – this is the wrong way to go and this technology just will make the switch to the future more difficult.

Ambassador E. Angus Friday, Permanent UN Representative from Grenada, and central figure in the Small Island States Alliance at the UN, said that in the SIDS there is recognition of the need to do something – “While we push on mitigation, we have clear adaptation needs already and we push in this direction with the help of the UN Foundation.” He wants to know more about the carbon tax idea as an incentive. He calculated the cost of electricity KWH and concludes that customers that do not have solar rooftops subsidize those that do have solar rooftops. Khosla says that in Sacramento there is a company with a 3 football fields size rooftop that generates electricity at 40c/KWH – while PG&G prices at 14.5c/KWH.

Khosla says that allocations and carbon tax are important but he suggests we go without a carbon tax. Coal, oil, steel, cement are the main transgressors. He says that if we put just those 4 segments of the economy on a tax, this is enough to start change. These “carbon 4″ cover 80% – so start with them-!! As soon as people will see that carbon has a cost – they will start worrying about their portfolios – they will worry about their investments. Now, if we get a tax and new low carbon industries are created, carbon gets lower, and follow up industries will have less risk.

Geneva – Addressing the Impact on Human Security of Environment and Migration Issues – Ensuring human security in a world challenged by the three pressing issues of the day – climate change, environmental degradation and migration – will be the focus of an international conference in Geneva on 19 February.

Jointly organized by Greece under its chairmanship of the Human Security Network and IOM, the conference will examine both the impact of environmental degradation and climate change on human security and migration as well as the impact of migration on the environment and how interaction on these two phenomena can lead to potential conflict.

While there has been increasing international focus on climate change, environmental degradation and migration as separate subjects, the impact of both on human security and the potential for conflict, has not received the same level of attention from policy makers and researchers.

Although data on the number of existing environmental migrants – those “persons or groups of persons who, for compelling reasons of sudden or progressive changes in the environment that adversely affect their lives or living conditions, are obliged to leave their habitual homes, or choose to do so, either temporarily or permanently, and who move either within their country or abroad” – and projections on future numbers are unclear with the latter varying enormously from an estimated 25 million to one billion by 2050, people across the world are having to leave their homes or countries because of rising sea levels, scarcity of water, inability to farm sustainably as well as vulnerability to an increasing number of weather phenomena that destroy lives and livelihoods.

Human displacement caused by natural disasters both sudden and slow on-set, in addition to political conflicts, also play a critical role in environmental degradation and tensions over decreasing resources especially water and land.

The conference, which will have keynote presentations by Theodoros Skylakakis, Secretary General for International Economic Relations and Development Cooperation at the Greek Foreign Ministry, IOM Director General Brunson McKinley, the Secretary General of the World Meteorological Organization (WMO), Michel Jarraud and Kyung-wha Kang, UN Deputy High Commissioner for Human Rights will not only identify key issues surrounding climate, environmental degradation, migration and human security, but will also explore ways of mitigating the impact of migration on the environment as well as using migration strategies to help limit environmental damage and potential human crises.

Panellists include E.Angus Friday, Grenada’s Ambassador to the UN in New York with Grenada chairing the Alliance of Small Island States, as well as prominent representatives of the academic and NGO community.

“Early planning and action on this complex and multi-dimensional issue can go a long way in lessening the impact of climate change, environmental degradation and migration on human security. We have an opportunity here of taking a step forward in addressing this issue,” says Brunson McKinley.

“Greece, presiding now the Human Security Network felt that people’s migration due to worsening climate and environment constitutes a challenge for human security. Geneva, where many of those who understand this serious and complex issue work and live, seems the right place to tackle this issue,” says Greece’s Ambassador to the United Nations in Geneva, Franciscos Verros.

The Human Security Network is a group of 13 countries from various regions of the world which maintains dialogue at Foreign Ministers level on questions pertaining to human security and as an informal, flexible mechanism, identifies concrete areas for collective action.

The conference, which is being held at the headquarters of the World Meteorological Organisation (WMO) in Geneva, is open to the media.

For background papers and the agenda, please go to www.iom.int and http://www.greeceun.org.

Ajay Makan writes from Male, Maldives, November 15, 2007, for Reuters:

Island States Urge UN to Study Rights, Climate Link.

Small island states (SIDS) called on the United Nations on Wednesday to assess whether a link exists between failure to tackle climate change, which threatens to wipe their countries off the map, and human rights.

But the 26 nations from around the globe failed to agree on an resolution backing a human rights agenda meant to take on big greenhouse gas polluters at a UN climate change summit in Bali, Indonesia next month.

The Maldives and other vocal island states blame the United States and other big polluters for climate change and say their inaction to curb greenhouse gas emissions will destroy their economies through rising seas and wild weather.

The Alliance of Small Island States (AOSIS) used the two-day meeting to highlight what it said was a human right “to live in a safe and sustaining environment”. It said “climate change directly and fundamentally undermines that right”.

But Jamaica and Antigua and Barbuda were cautious, delegates said, that an explicit recognition of human rights would boost pressure on their own governments to improve political rights.

The Alliance represents 43 countries with a population of fewer than 15 million people, ranging from wealthy Singapore in Southeast Asia to Fiji, Kiribati and Tuvalu in the Pacific and Caribbean nations.

Alliance delegates will meet international lawyers and civil society groups to develop a common agenda ahead of the Bali summit, which aims to kick-off negotiations for global pact to replace the Kyoto Protocol.

Alliance Chair Angus Friday expressed optimism the group could still adopt a common platform at the Bali summit. He also hailed the resolution as a first step towards an international recognition of the link between climate change and human rights.

“We have to be realistic about the timescale, but we have started a process today,” he told reporters.

The resolution at the end of the meeting called for a UN study into linkages between human rights and climate change and a March 2009 debate at the UN Human Rights Council.

“The right to life as we know it is threatened. My people survive by praying,” Tuvalu’s ambassador to the UN told Reuters.

Delegates met at one of the Maldives’ flagship deluxe resorts, refurbished following the 2004 tsunami, a reminder of the country’s vulnerability to rising seas.

From the 1994, Barbados Programme of Action: “While small island developing States are among those that contribute least to global climate change and sea-level rise, they are among those that would suffer most from the adverse effects of such phenomena and could in some cases become uninhabitable. Therefore, they are among those particularly vulnerable States that need assistance under the UNFCCC, including adaptation measures and mitigation efforts.”

AOSIS is The Alliance of Small Island States, a UN body consisting of 43 nations with common bond of environmental and economic vulnerability.   This is a coalition of small island and low-lying coastal countries that share similar development challenges and concerns about the environment, especially their vulnerability to the adverse effects of global climate change. It functions primarily as an ad hoc lobby and negotiating voice for small island developing states (SIDS) within the UN.

On Friday April 13, 2007, a new Bureau was created at AOSIS, and Dr. Angus Friday, the Ambasador of Grenada, was elected by aclamation to head this Bureau. We think that this was a lucky Friday for AOSIS, because   Medical Doctor Friday   has had experience with the private sector in the financing for sustainable development in the island of Grenada following the devastating impact of Hurricane Ivan. Ivan fell upon Grenada in 2004, and caused extreme devastation that required a practical rebuilding of most everything on the island.

During the brake at the UN Security Council’s Open Debate on Energy, Security, and Climate, Ambassador Dr. Angus Friday, the Permanent Representative of Grenada, and Ambassador Collin Beck, the Permanent Representative of the Solomon Islands, presented at a Press Conference the establishment of the new Bureau for their organization. The Bureau will focus on practical efforts to deal with the mitigation of the special vulnerabilities of the islands – in the Caribbean, in the Pacific, and the AIMS (Africa, Indian Ocean, Mediterranean, South China Sea).

The UN DPI report for the PRESS CONFERENCE BY the PERMANENT REPRESENTATIVE of GRENADA in the context of   GLOBAL WARMING is as follows:

“Against the backdrop of heightened awareness of the negative impacts of climate change, the Alliance       of Small Island States announced today the creation of a new Bureau that would focus on practical initiatives to mitigate the environmental and economic vulnerability of its member States.

Angus Friday, the Permanent Representative of Grenada to the United Nations and newly appointed Chairman of the Bureau, told reporters that the Alliance — a coalition of 43 economically and environmentally vulnerable nations, formed during the 1992 Rio Summit — had kept those issues in the media spotlight.

The detrimental effects of climate change and global warming raised the spectre of “environmental refugees”, particularly in the Pacific, where it was likely that residents of low-lying islands would be forced to migrate to neighbouring countries.   Such events would broaden the definition of “security” to encompass the security of people’s livelihoods, he said.

Much of the groundwork for the Bureau was laid in the aftermath of Hurricane Ivan, which in 2004 wiped out 90 per cent of Grenada’s housing stock and completely devastated its nutmeg crops, the country’s primary export.   Such destruction had highlighted the tight correlation between environmental and economic vulnerability.

Going forward, he said, the Bureau would emphasize practical implementation of existing conventions and resolutions that addressed economic vulnerability.   As previous studies and programmes on sustainable development and renewable energy had lacked financing, the new Bureau would focus on financing such projects to ensure that they became operational.

The Alliance envisioned a new partnership within the United Nations, he said, noting the need to move beyond General Assembly debates to finding practical solutions that mitigated the economic and environmental impacts of climate change.   Ultimately, small island States would like to be net contributors to global economic and social development, rather than net receivers of aid.

Responding to a question on the unique challenges faced by small island States, Mr. Friday called attention to the correlation in the Caribbean between ocean heating and hurricane ferocity.   To highlight that point, he noted that prior to 2004, Grenada had been located below the hurricane belt, meaning that yachts travelling to the country during hurricane season would be covered by insurance.   After Hurricane Ivan in 2004 and Hurricane Emily in 2005, that insurance classification had been removed, and Grenada’s burgeoning yachting industry had been severely affected.

Moreover, he added, rising sea levels impacted low-lying islands.   Explaining the translation of “Bahamas” as “Baha” meaning “low-lying” and “mas” meaning “mass”, he said such areas were particularly vulnerable to sea-level changes.

Turning to a question on the threats to biodiversity, he pointed out that island nations derived much of their economic productivity from the seas.   For example, the loss of Caribbean coral reefs to bleaching caused by global warming had impacted local fishing and tourism industries.   With the loss of biodiversity came the loss of genetic material that could be important for biotechnology, he added, noting that vaccines to treat HIV/AIDS and viral diseases had been developed using Caribbean coral reefs.   Flora and fauna which clung to marine rocks contained powerful enzymes that could be used for medical purposes.   The Alliance would examine that untapped potential.

On whether small island States envisioned a common energy policy similar to that recently introduced by the European Union to reduce the Union’s dependence on certain energy suppliers, Mr. Friday said fossil fuel dependence was a huge concern for vulnerable small island States.   For example, the manufacturing base in Trinidad, an oil producing country, was far more competitive than that in neighbouring Grenada, which, as an oil consumer, acutely felt the impacts of oil price fluctuations.   It remained to be seen whether islands like Grenada could ever develop a competitive manufacturing base.

Noting the high toll fossil fuel costs took on the budgets of small island nations, Collin Beck, the Permanent Representative of the Solomon Islands — itself grappling with the impacts of a recent tsunami — added that the Alliance would focus on tapping renewable energy sources to promote industrialization.

Returning to the definition of bleaching, Mr. Friday said that undersea coral was often yellow or orange in colour, due to the presence of living material on it.   Lifting that coating would expose the hard, white, calcium exoskeleton underneath.

Asked about a scenario — similar to one recently debated in the Security Council — in which small island States would collectively object to pollution problems caused by larger nations, Mr. Friday responded that he had not heard the Security Council debate and further, that such matters fell outside the ambit of the Alliance.

Asked if Grenada had a position on whether climate change was properly placed before the Security Council, Mr. Friday said that that debate would hinge on two things: the definition of “security” and the Security Council’s capacity to address such issues.  

Broadening the definition of security would leave room for those matters to be discussed within the Council.   However, Grenada would not be drawn into that debate.   There was no question that such a debate would highlight global warming and climate change issues, and that the international community could not move fast enough to combat the negative effects.

However, it was time to implement existing resolutions, he stressed, adding that there was ample expertise within the General Assembly and the Economic and Social Council to take things forward.

—————

To add to the DPI release, we would like to reinforce the impression that Dr. Friday is not out there to fight for a location of where to place the negotiation table – this on which UN organizations’ terrain.
Neither is he interested in fighting wars for who is to blame – rather, and we assume this comes from his previous experience from helping rebuild Grenada after Ivan, he wants to bring to the island states direct private enterprise interests that have the understanding that it is important not to lose the particular potential that these states have of becoming productive participants in the global economy, which is obvious, if we think of tourism and biodiversity. There could be also specific specialized agriculture and plenty of agricultural potential for local use. Each island state is different, but the danger from climate change is a unifier, and in this respect an equalizer.

As an example of how the extension of the Hurricane region towards the southern Caribbean affected the possibility of getting an insurance in Grenada – Dr. Friday pointed out that after Hurricane Emily in 2005, the insurance against Hurricanes cannot be obtained in Grenada anymore, as global warming sort of pushed it into the “Hurricane belt.”

Economically, the high price of oil was also a downer, In the Solomon Islands with 1/3 of the budget going for fuel that ends up energizing only 20% of the population of 500,000. This is why the Solomon Islands, like many more Island States, is shopping for renewable energy. It was also mentioned that by establishing such systems for the SIDS carbon credits can be obtained for the cooperating factors.