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 movemen