|
Posted on Sustainabilitank.info on July 28th, 2010
For UN, Is Merely Being There Enough, with Ban Under Fire for a 2d Term? UNITED NATIONS, July 26 — What has Ban Ki-moon accomplished as UN Secretary General in Myanmar and Sudan, Inner City Press asked his spokesman Monday, for the fourth day in a week. But the three achievements listed were only “being there” — celebrities have traveled to Haiti, and to refugee camps in Darfur and elsewhere. Meanwhile reports on the UN’s performance in Sudan are largely negative. Rubble still fills Haiti’s streets. And even the Goldstone response is late, due to failure to translate. Myanmar, telling, was not even mentioned. Is being there enough? “We don’t need to comment on every piece,” Nesirky said, calling that piece a “rehash.. a lot of what is in the piece has been seen before.” A lot by not all: the piece mentions inaction on Sri Lanka: “A peacekeeping official pointed out that Ban had insisted on behind-the-scenes diplomacy in Sri Lanka even as the government was killing thousands of civilians in its campaign to erase the brutal insurgency of the Tamil Tigers: “We’re doing everything we can to avoid saying anything at all about it. That’s been our line on practically everything. The SG is clear that his final consideration is going to be the political costs of whether he should or shouldn’t speak.” That’s a very real calculation every secretary-general must make. But, he added, “There’s no sense that the deliberations include, ‘What should we do?’”” Only this year, Ban after saying he would name a panel of experts on war crimes in Sri Lanka, then delaying 90 days, has gone out of his way to limit the scope of the panel to providing advice on “models of accountability” to himself and the Rajapaksa government, if they want it. The Rajapaksas have said they will deny visas to the group; Ban through Nesirky has repeated declined to comment on the refusal to cooperate. Nesirky once again declined comment, except to say there is “very strong, overwhelming support” for the nominee. Sort of like the overwhelming support for a second term? It is time for Ban Ki-moon to speak for himself on this controversy — time for him to “be there,” as it were. He will appear before the press Monday at 5:30. Before his appearance Friday at a reception for the press, Inner City Press was repeatedly told not to ask about the controversy, not to “hijack” the event. That cannot similarly be asked on Monday evening. Watch this site. * * * At UN, As Ban Ki-moon Switches from S. African to Canadian As New OIOS Chief, Post-Ahlenius Rebellion Spreads, Sources Say. UNITED NATIONS, July 23 — Secretary General Ban Ki-moon, reeling from the damning exit memo of the outgoing head of the Office of Internal Oversight Services, may now get himself in more troubling in naming a replacement. Earlier this year, Inner City Press reported that the new head of OIOS was slated to be an auditor from South Africa. This would conform to many member states’ understanding that developed and developing countries would alternate atop the OIOS: Karl Paschke of Germany, then Dileep Nair of Singapore, then Inga Britt Ahlenius of Sweden. The next was slated to be from South Africa. This has triggered outrage among developing countries. It comes against the backdrop of ad hoc meetings to “revitalize the General Assembly” which are discussing requiring Ban Ki-moon to come before the GA to seek his second term, and not only the Security Council.
In the Security Council, placating or giving patronage to the five Permanent Members would be enough to gain the second term. But if the GA and regional grouping get involved, Ban’s snubs like that of Africa for the deputy post in the UN Development Program, and the devaluation of the Office of the Special Adviser on Africa, could come back to haunt Ban. -————————————– NOW – THE LATEST IN THE OIOS SAGA & UNSG BAN Ki-moon. At UN, To Buy Support for Canadian Auditor, S. Africa Promised Deputy Post. By Matthew Russell Lee
UNITED NATIONS, July 27 — When UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon last Friday dumped a South African candidate in favor of a Canadian to head the Office of Internal Oversight Services in the discordant wake of Inga Britt Ahlenius leaving, several developing world countries cried foul. But, this being the UN, the Ban Administration quickly moved to try to cut a deal. Ban spokesman Martin Nesirky, Monday at noon, predicted “overwhelming” support to confirm Ms. Lapoint. A senior Ban administration official told Inner City Press that the vote would be Wednesday, that the regional groups were right that “geographic rotation” had been envisioned for OIOS, but that it just wasn’t possible this time. Tuesday, as Ms. Lapoint’s nomination was put in the General Assembly agenda for the next morning, Inner City Press was told by diplomatic sources that the deal reached involves giving the contested OIOS “to a South African.” The developing world was supposed to get the top spot, as one source put it, but settled for the second fiddle. It has happened before. But the irony here is that Ban rejected Ahlenius favorite Robert Appleton in the name of a competitive, transparent selection process. Now diplomatic sources say the deputy job has been promised to a particular country and group, non transparent, non competitive, quid pro quo. Not an auspicious beginning. South Africa and the African Group might want to remember: when Ban selected developed world Helen Clark to head UNDP, the deputy post was promised to the African Group. Then it was given to a Costa Rican. Bait and switch?
From the July 26 UN noon briefing transcript: Inner City Press: Friday evening, I was told by several people that participated that there was a meeting between the Secretary-General and regional groupings. This name that she’s referring to, Carman Lapointe-Young, was raised. But the thing I really want to ask you, because there seems some controversy about it, is that, one, did the Secretary-General say he couldn’t find a qualified developing world candidate and, two, does he disagree with some Member States, including Venezuela and Cuba, that the understanding in forming OIOS is that the directorship would alternate between developed and developing world, and does he… this seems to be being raised. Does he disagree with that? And if so, is it true that he couldn’t find a qualified developing-world candidate? Spokesperson: Well, I will be able to come back to you once we get a little further down the road, I’ll be able to come back to you with more on this. But what I can say is that, from the conversations so far, there appears to be very strong, overwhelming support for the candidate put forward by the Secretary-General. But, as I say, we’ll come back to it in more detail at a later stage, I think. * * *
At UN, Ban Doubles Down on Developed World for OIOS, Nambiar Spins to Staff. By Matthew Russell Lee
UNITED NATIONS, July 26, updated — The UN Secretariat may be playing fast and loose with applicable resolutions and Administrative Instructions as it races to try to put behind it the controversy opened by the End of Assignment Report by outgoing chief of the Office of Internal Oversight Services Inga Britt Ahlenius, diplomats and UN staff say. As Inner City Press exclusively reported on the night of July 23, Secretary General Ban Ki-moon met with regional groups and told them he couldn’t find a qualified replacement for Ahlenius from the developing world, and so he was going with a Canadian. The name of Carman Lapointe-Young is being submitted to the General Assembly. But several developing world countries are now saying that when OIOS was founded, the top post was supposed to rotate between the developed and developing world. So far it has been Germany, Singapore, Sweden — and Canada? Even if Ban manages to ram his nomination of Carman Lapointe-Young through the General Assembly, it will increase bad feelings, and bad karma.
Next, we have the letter from Ban’s chief of staff Vijay Nambiar to OIOS staff, trying to assuage them with assurances that Ban respects the “operational” independence of OIOS. But in fact, applicable Administrative Instructions show that Ban was supposed to appoint a OIOS review panel which, once appointed, could confirm D-2 level staff like Robert Appleton without Ban having a veto. This was never done, and Catherine Pollard’s lengthy answers last week did little to buttress Ban’s position. Ban held a reception with the Press on Friday, but Inner City Press was repeatedly told not to ask anything about the Ahlenius memo, and didn’t. Ban will appear more formally with the press on Monday at 5:30 p.m. — it’s hard to imagine these issues not arising them. * * *
Permalink |
| ### |
|
Posted on Sustainabilitank.info on July 13th, 2010 Wednesday, July 07, 2010 10:31 AM Thank you Dr. Tara for your analytical and thought provoking article that painted the true picture of the last four years. I pledge no addition or edition of your opinion but simply to ask those who are intending to contest the next election not to hide behind politic rhetoric to confuse the voters to vote for you. Please give us a clear definition of how our villages are going to included in your plan and do not cover it with pictures of utopia because we know things will get tougher. We want people who can distinguish between their entitlements and public money. Marginalization of the villages in meaningful development of villages is an old issue, we have hoped to instill change in the previous elections but failed. Most new MPs who we banked on were caught unprepared by, gold, glory and you name it. In this election the loudest voice calling for change are the existing politicians and they are doing this by forming Political Parties left, right and center. Is this not a political ploy to divid us to vote them in, only to find that they throw their different colors and wear the same coats we see in the last house? Old times we know your works and some a below satisfactory, you have nothing to prove cause your history has already proven who you are and what you are capable of doing. New Kids on the Block, please if you are going to represent us then go in and do not be lured by power,money and entertainment. We want our villages to have good water supply, sanitation, improved housing, road systems and skills to run our canteens, grow our cocoa, coconut plantations etc. We want to be players in the economic activities in this nation. We believe you have enough money to achieve the above in the next 12 years if our friend in need and indeed Taiwan continues t help us Please do not confuse us in the name of dialogue by linking us with the Arab league, they have enough internal problems. Please do not allow us to bear part of their problem. History has shown over and over again that money is linked to human resource. Old Timers there is still time for you to change your attitudes to deserve our votes. There is room for improvements New candidates you must be a changed person to induce change . For we can only offer what we have. Let us forget about “Bottom up Approach”, Rural Advancement” and Rural Development to talk more about Village Development, after all Solomon Islands is made up of villages. God Bless our villages and Solomon Islands. ———————————— Wednesday, July 07, 2010 8:21 PM Dear Editor; a couple of weeks ago I wrote to the Solomon Times suggesting that a Solomon Island Green Party be formed. I have had quite a few enquiries for the Green Party (NZ) constitution from Solomon Islanders in Brisbane, Wellington Taiwan and Japan and I hope they take the initiative and form a SIGP by the next election. I have read a very good letter from Travis Kalione advising voters to steer clear of candidates making promises. I agree promises are cheap! Those standing for parliament, however should state very clearly what they stand for; eg. Labour or business etc. This is the Aotearoa New Zealand Charter: The charter is the founding document of the Green Party of Aotearoa , New Zealand. The Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand accepts Te Tiriti o Waitangi [The Treaty of Waitangi] as the founding document of Aotearoa NZ; recognises Maori as Tangata Whenua in Aotearoa NZ; and commits to the following four principles. Ecological Wisdom: Social Responsibility: Appropriate Decision Making: Non Violence: The above is the Greens philosophy in a nut shell, the constitution is an elaboration of the above. The Charter is simply a declaration of what a party or individual stands for. The above document can be used as a good yard stick to measure the other parties in the coming election. Any more inquiries are welcome you can e-mail me at ekard at slingshot.co.nz God bless Paul Drake ———————— Tuesday, July 13, 2010 10:20 AM The highlights on the occasion were the Warriors welcome performed by the community’s men and the community’s Children singing the two National Anthems of Solomon Islands and Australia. The Solomon Islands Community in Adelaide, South Australia, has celebrated the Solomon Islands 32nd Independence Day on the 10th July, 2010. It was a real Pacific Island atmosphere, as those took part and attended included friends from Fiji, Papua New Guinea, North Solomons, Tuvalu and Tongan communities. Others were friends, in-laws and Ex-RAMSI officers. The two special guests on the occasion were the South Australian Lieutenant Governor Mr Hieu Van Le and the Solomon Islands High Commissioner to Australia His Excellency Mr. Beraki Gino. The Governor in his speech spoke highly of the effort that the Solomon Islands community has put together to register their community in the Multicultural Community of South Australia. In his capacity as Chairman of South Australian Multicultural and Ethnic Affairs Commission, the Governor has pledged his support for the Solomon Islands Community just as any newly formed community in South Australia. Solomon Islands High Commission to Australia His Excellency Mr. Beraki Gino has congratulated the group and thanked them for inviting him to this historical event. “Because this is the first official event the community has hosted since becoming a community last year, it was indeed an honor to be part of the celebration,” he said. As guest of honor he cut the Solomon Islands birthday cake, kindly donated by a PNG family who are very close to the SI community. The High Commissioner hosted a breakfast with the Solomon Islands community before catching his flight back to Canberra the next day. The highlights on the occasion were the Warriors welcome performed by the community’s men and the community’s Children singing the two National Anthems of Solomon Islands and Australia. Food for the night was an Island dinner menu, something that really impressed most of the guests. President of the Solomon Islands Wantok Association of South Australia, Apollos Kalialaha thanked the Solomon Islands community and guests for their attendance. Permalink |
| ### |
|
Posted on Sustainabilitank.info on July 1st, 2010
Stephen de Tarczynski MELBOURNE, June 29 (IPS/TerraViva) – Australia’s newly appointed prime minister, Julia Gillard, has hardly warmed her seat, yet she has already been urged to take action on climate change. “We call on Prime Minister-elect Gillard to make good on her party’s promise to take the threat posed by climate change seriously,” said Dr Linda Selvey, chief executive officer of Greenpeace Australia Pacific, last week after Gillard replaced Kevin Rudd as Australia’s prime minister. Gilliard, who was sworn in Australia’s 27th prime minister on Jun. 24, is the first woman to hold this country’s highest political office. The parliamentary members of the governing Australian Labor Party (ALP) last week lost confidence in Rudd’s ability to lead the ALP to consecutive election wins after a disastrous few months and elevated 48-year-old Gillard, Rudd’s former deputy, to the top job. Despite riding high in opinion polls conducted in the first two years of his term, Rudd’s popularity had shrunk considerably in recent months. While part of this slide can be attributed to policy blunders, including the failure to counter the conservative Opposition’s claims that the Rudd government was soft on border security and the recent battle with mining companies over increased taxation, Rudd’s perceived inability to match action with his own rhetoric on climate change was a decisive factor in his downfall. Rudd, who famously dubbed climate change as “the great moral challenge of our generation,” led the ALP to victory in the 2007 election partly as a result of perceptions that he had better policies on climate change and the environment than the then incumbent John Howard. This was even less than the cut of between 10 and 25 percent that had earlier been recommended by Prof Ross Garnaut, the Rudd government’s chief climate change advisor, and which had also been slammed. But things went from bad to worse for Rudd, who had been banking on an emissions trading scheme (ETS) to deliver the 2020 reduction target. Also known as a cap-and-trade system, an ETS puts a price on carbon emissions to encourage major polluters to reduce their emissions. The ETS legislation failed on three occasions to make it through parliament, with the Opposition and the minor Australian Greens Party both against the scheme, albeit for quite different reasons. The Opposition was divided over climate change policies while the Greens regarded the ETS as too weak to be effective. This led Rudd to delay the ETS, which he did in April, declaring that his government would not seek to implement the scheme again until after the current Kyoto commitment period concludes at the end of 2012. “By the end of that period the governments around the world will be required to make clear their commitments for the post-2012 period. And that will provide, therefore, the Australian Government with a better position to assess the level of global action on climate change prior to the implementation of [an ETS],” said Rudd at the time. For a prime minister who promoted himself as a genuine leader and who, last November, slammed suggestions that Australia should wait until after the Copenhagen climate conference before acting to reduce its GhG emissions as “absolute political cowardice” and a “failure of leadership,” such weak policies undermined his own image and added to growing disquiet among voters. That desire does seem genuine. According to a poll conducted in March and released earlier this month by the Lowy Institute, a Sydney-based think tank, 72 percent of respondents wanted Australia, among the world’s biggest carbon polluters per capita, to take action to reduce its GhG emissions even without a post-Kyoto global agreement in place. And that is what the new prime minister, aiming to get a mandate on action from an election likely to be held within months, is now being implored to do. Others, including representatives from the Investor Group on Climate Change, which represents investors concerned with the impact of global warming, and the Climate Institute, an independent research organisation, have also called on her to act. For her part, Gillard has labelled climate change as a top priority of her government in a nationally broadcast media conference last week, along with refugees and reaching an agreement on the mining tax. Whatever policies she makes on climate change, failure to match her words with action is likely to be as politically fatal to Gillard as it was to Rudd. A Rudd-erless AustraliaThe sudden resignation last week by Kevin Rudd, following a revolt within his own party, capped a stunning fall from grace for a politician who until recently had been one of Australia’s most popular prime ministers ever. His success in navigating Australia through an economic crisis was not enough for voters angered over his policy reversals on issues such as taxes and climate change. The Labour party dumped Mr. Rudd, naming Ms. Julia Gillard to pick up the pieces and deliver election success. After taking command of the party in 2006, Mr. Rudd led Labour to election victory in November 2007, ending the party’s 11 years in the political wilderness. A former diplomat and fluent Mandarin speaker, Mr. Rudd promised to reinvigorate a nation fatigued by more than a decade of conservative rule. After taking office, he pledged to pull all Australian troops from Iraq (a move that was completed in July 2009), offered a historic apology to indigenous Australians for past injustices, and then reversed his predecessor’s policy on climate change, promising to put that issue at the center of his legislative agenda. He honored that vow by ratifying the Kyoto Protocol and by helping to broker the final compromise at the Copenhagen climate conference. Finally, Mr. Rudd helped steer the economy through the worst of the recession: A stimulus program with aid to banks kept the Australian economy growing in every quarter except one during his term in office. Unemployment remained at half that in other Western economies. No wonder that at the beginning of 2010, Mr. Rudd was polling as high as any Australian prime minister. Then it all unraveled. In April he reversed course on climate policy, shelving legislation that would introduce a carbon trading system and make the country’s worst polluters pay for their carbon emissions. Coming from the man who called climate change “the greatest moral challenge of our time,” that switch alone risked his term in office. Then in May he proposed a “super tax” on Australia’s minerals producers. The tax on the profits of the huge mining concerns that dominate the economy of western Australia and had helped buoy the country through the difficulties of the past two years would rise to 40 percent. During that campaign, he broke yet another pledge — that he would not use taxpayer money for political advertising. Those reversals destroyed his popularity among voters and his standing in the party. Mr. Rudd once enjoyed a 73 percent approval rating, a number that put him among the top of Australian prime ministers of the past several decades. But polls earlier in June put voter dissatisfaction with him at 55 percent. His weak showing in districts that were crucial to Labour’s 2007 win prodded party bosses and faction heads to take action — though Mr. Rudd was always more popular with voters than with his own party. When it became clear he did not have the support to beat back a challenge by his deputy, Ms. Julia Gillard, Mr. Rudd withdrew from the leadership ballot. Ms. Gillard was named prime minister the next day and immediately sworn into office. The new prime minister announced she was prepared to negotiate over the super tax and has made no commitment on the emission trading scheme. Otherwise, continuity is likely to be the guiding principle of this government. A former lawyer, Ms. Gillard had been Mr. Rudd’s deputy since he took the helm of Labour in 2006 and was part of his inner circle while he was in office. She served as ministers of education, employment and social inclusion, and led the dismantling of the previous government’s anti-labor work laws. Ms. Gillard’s first task is winning back Australia’s disaffected voters. Her demeanor should help: She is said to be “softer” than her predecessor, less wonkish and considered one of the best communicators in Parliament. She is more of a team player. Still, it remains a difficult assignment. The policy reversals and the coup last week have taken a toll on Labour’s credibility. Resolving the tax row and getting climate policy back on track are her first priorities. In one of her first phone calls in her new job, she spoke to U.S. President Barack Obama and assured him that Australia’s relationship with the U.S. and its commitment to Afghanistan would not change with the new administration. She promised to find a place for Mr. Rudd in the new government — perhaps in foreign affairs — if her party wins in the election. Similarly, relations with Japan are unlikely to experience difficulties. Canberra is likely to continue to look to Tokyo as a like-minded partner. Tightening security ties has been a key feature of Japan-Australia relations for the past several years. Ms. Gillard’s more “collegial” style should help her when it comes to dealing with Asian leaders as well as Australian pols: Mr. Rudd’s proclivity for espousing bold steps without preparing the ground — such as his proposal for an Asia-Pacific Community — antagonized diplomatic partners in this region. They, like us, wish the new prime minister luck in her new job. She will need it. Permalink |
| ### |
|
Posted on Sustainabilitank.info on June 28th, 2010 As we reported already at the UN Summit in Johannesburg. in 2002, in our Promptbook on Sustainability that can be viewed on our home-page, we regard the high seas as part of the Global Commons and doubt the legality of “Finders Keepers” when oil was found at one mile depth under the right-to-drill awarded by the US Government to a private Multinational Company. This was legal robbery in our opinion, and now nature and the residents of all sea shores will be left holding the bag of suffering. So what does a UN meeting of the “Law of the Sea” conclude in such days of sorrow? Looking at the results of the meeting we found that the fact that the UN was so restrictive when it comes to information from the five-days meeting may have to do with the paucity of real achievements at the meeting – even a paucity of topics that were discussed that have any practicality when looking at the immensity of this problem that we call organized robbery. There was much talk about “capacity building” but it did not cover substance. Talking about pollution, the issue important to the US NRDC seemed to be noise pollution. We know co-chair Don Mac Kay from New Zealand as a well intended, hard working, diplomat, but his hands were tied by the lack of cooperation from major UN Member Nations that own the technologies of reaping the treasures of the sea. Climate Change is taboo topic at these meetings, and true pollution and disasters were never on the table, one wonders why these people spent money – theirs or ours – in order to come to New York for a meeting that was not allowed to address the problems of the day – and got distracted by the World Cup games. —————————– The IISD reporting, is excellent as usual, if not for them nobody would realize the expanse of time wasted when the real problems are not being tackled by the traveling bureaucrats of the Nations involved. —
Permalink |
| ### |
|
Posted on Sustainabilitank.info on June 20th, 2010 Sunday, June 20, 2010 APEC to pursue low-carbon technologies: Nuke power to be promoted as low-emission energy source; The one-day meeting of the 21-member Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation forum in the city of Fukui was hosted by Japan, this year’s APEC chair. At the meeting, which focused on energy security and other matters, participants also concurred that fossil fuels will continue to play a key role in the region, which includes such emerging economies as China, and attached importance to enhancing preparedness for oil supply disruption such as by collaborating with the International Energy Agency over energy response workshops and exercises. As introducing low-carbon technologies in city planning is essential to responding to increasing energy consumption in urban areas, APEC said in a declaration issued after the meeting that they have launched a Low-Carbon Model Town Project to present “successful models for coordinated usage” of the advanced technologies. The model cities would likely feature a “smart grid” advanced power transmission network or buildings with facilities for renewable energy generation. Meanwhile, the declaration stipulated that the deployment of renewable energy, nuclear energy, and power generation involving carbon capture and storage technology should be “promoted,” calling these three “low emission” power sources. Noting that a growing number of interested economies are using nuclear power to diversify their energy mix and limit carbon emissions, the declaration also referred to the need to assess the emissions reduction potential of nuclear power in APEC. Toward new nuclear power plant construction, the declaration also said “solid financial frameworks, as well as cooperation among member economies and with relevant multilateral organizations” could be of help. It is the first time for APEC to clearly stipulate the promotion of building new nuclear power plants, according to the Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry. Permalink |
| ### |
|
Posted on Sustainabilitank.info on June 2nd, 2010 June 1, 2010 from The UNelections Monitor. Issue 142 – June 1 – Candidates for UNSG in 2011?http://www.unelections.org/?q=node/1915 Monitor
New York, June 1, 2010 – In approximately a year and a half (October 2011), UN Member States will either renew Ban Ki-moon’s five-year term as Secretary-General or appoint someone new to the post. Various scenarios of how that decision could unfold are described below, including individuals who reportedly may be potential candidates to replace Secretary-General Ban. Potential Candidates Three current or former heads of state – Lula da Silva of Brazil, Kevin Rudd of Australia, and Helen Clark of New Zealand – are rumored to be potential candidates for UN Secretary-General. No head of state has ever gone on to serve as Secretary-General. Lula da Silva Rumors of Brazil’s President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva’s potential bid for Secretary-General of the UN were reported by several newspapers in March 2010, and observers have been debating his chances. Reports have included the following:
The idea of Lula’s candidacy reportedly was first suggested by France’s president, Nicolas Sarkozy, at the September 2009 G20 summit in Pittsburgh. The presidency is reported to have denied any such plans. Although it said that the president has “high esteem” for the UN and “hopes to strengthen his capacity to resolve international conflicts,” the president was “not making any move” to seek the post. The President himself has not made any official comment on his rumored candidature. An alternative motive for Lula’s recent diplomatic initiatives could be a desire for Brazil to take its “place in the new global hierarchy,” according to the Los Angeles Times. “Brazil feels like it doesn’t get the respect it deserves,” and under Lula, the country “has gone all out to garner attention as a serious nation.” As part of this broad goal, Brazil has a long-standing effort to gain a permanent seat on the Security Council, as well as to reform the international financial institutions. One analyst suggested, “For Lula, the Iran thing isn’t important as such. He’s making a broader argument that current structures of global governance are unjust, and that emerging powers should have a greater say.” The Hudson Institute and a Folha de Sao Paulo commentator agree that Brazil’s mediation with Iran and other signs of larger ambition could be linked to the Security Council effort. Of course, Lula’s diplomatic efforts could work to advance more than one agenda simultaneously – they could serve as early campaign steps for the Secretary-General post while reinforcing Brazil’s long-term political goals. Many have begun to speculate on da Silva’s prospects in the selection. Some say he has little chance of replacing incumbent Ban. The president’s March 2010 peace mission to the Middle East and his hosting of President Ahmadinejad of Iran in November 2009 offended several governments, notably the United States and the United Kingdom. Opposition from the two governments, who are Permanent Members of the UN Security Council with veto power, could put an end to da Silva’s rumored ambitions. A Huffington Post columnist wrote on May 12, “President Lula’s … enthusiasm about injecting himself as a broker” between Iran and the P5 has turned the Obama administration’s “enormous enthusiasm for Brazil and Lula into confusion.” His involvement poses “serious dangers for his legacy.” The Wall Street Journal elaborated (March 29): “In recent months, the 64-year-old former labor leader has been condemned by anti-Castro dissidents in Havana, shunned by Israel’s foreign minister in Jerusalem, blasted by a human-rights group in Geneva, and admonished by U.S. and European leaders over Brazil’s support of Iran’s uranium-enrichment plans…. [A] recent string of foreign-policy spinouts has raised new tensions with the U.S., and prompted soul searching in Brazil about whether its leaders are ready for global prime time.” Among Lula’s positive aspects, supporters argue, are his “folksy, personal style and ability to be friends with all sides – China and the US, Iran and Israel” (Times Online). His personal qualities are said to represent a significant challenge to Ban’s somewhat lackluster leadership style, as reviews have described the current Secretary-General (see UNelections Monitor Issue 106). (NB: Lula also has been mentioned as a possible candidate to lead the World Bank.) - – - – - Kevin Rudd Early in 2009, The Australian reported on rumors that Australia’s Prime Minister Rudd was considering running for the post of Secretary-General. But its only evidence was an analysis of the country’s spending. Allocations for 2010 increased in four areas:
However, Action Aid Australia recently guessed at its motivation for the increased aid for Africa: “To win a seat on the UN Security Council in 2013, Australia must win support from some of the 53 member states in the African bloc. Increasing aid levels to the region is a good start to winning African support for this bid. Australia’s main competitors for the seat, Finland and Luxembourg, are both generous aid donors….” Moreover, Rudd reportedly has begun campaigning for re-election in early 2011, which casts doubt on the possibility that he aims to replace Ban Ki-moon as UN Secretary-General later that year. As with Lula, Rudd’s multiple conceivable motivations make it difficult to conclude that he intends to run for Secretary-General. - – - – - Helen Clark Not having indicated any intention to run for UN Secretary-General, Helen Clark nevertheless has been mentioned as a strong potential candidate (and would be the first woman to serve as UN Secretary-General). In 2006, during the process that resulted in Ban Ki-moon’s appointment, Clark – the current head of the UN Development Programme and former Prime Minister of New Zealand – was mentioned on a civil society list of recommended female candidates for the high-level post. She was not an official candidate, however. In August 2009, the Aftenposten newspaper of Norway printed a “highly confidential” critique of Ban Ki-moon from the country’s UN mission (see English translation from Foreign Policy). Summarizing Member States’ “increasingly negative” views of Ban and the possibility that he would be a “one-term SG,” the memo suggested, “as a woman from [the same] side of the world, Clark could soon turn into a candidate for Ban’s second term.” In a February 2010 interview with TVNZ (New Zealand), Clark was asked about suggestions that she run for Secretary-General in 2011. Clark responded, “I wouldn’t even go down that track…. I’ve gone [to New York] to do a particular job at [Ban Ki-moon's] request [as UNDP administrator] and that’s as far as my ambition goes.” - – - – - Role of Regional Rotation If Ban fails to be reelected in 2011, there are three general scenarios for selecting a successor, depending on how Member States choose to apply the practice of regional rotation. Traditionally, the Secretary-General has been selected based on an informal system of regional rotation, which was reinforced in GA Resolution 51/241 of 1997. Geographic distribution of the post, to date, has taken the following order:
Representatives from Eastern Europe have advocated for the inclusion of their regional group in the rotation for the post. As an unwritten rule, candidates from the Permanent Five members of the Security Council (China, France, Russia, the United Kingdom, and the United States), are not considered for the position of Secretary-General to avoid further concentration of power within the UN. The impact of regional rotation on a decision about renewing a sitting Secretary-General’s term is not clear. Member States may wish to replace Ban Ki-moon while preserving Asia’s claim to the seat, appointing another candidate from Asia. Or, they may allow the post to rotate to the next region “in line” (which would be WEOG). Finally, they may decide to disregard regional rotation altogether. Asian Turn First, governments from the Asian regional grouping may wish to assert the region’s customary regional rotation. There is an unofficial precedent for this, established by Africa in 1996. After Boutros Boutros-Ghali’s (of Egypt) single term ended in 1996, African states insisted that another candidate be selected from the African region, and Kofi Annan (of Ghana) was appointed. As a permanent member of the Security Council, China could insist on an Asian candidate. For Clark or Rudd to be considered in this scenario, Global Memo suggests, Australia and/or New Zealand would need to make the case that that they are close to Asia geographically and have been involved successfully in the region, allowing Clark and Rudd to be considered honorary Asian candidates. WEOG Turn Second, governments from the Group of Western European and Other States (WEOG) may wish to assert the customary regional rotation in a different way, insisting that an Asian Secretary-General is succeeded by a WEOG Secretary-General. The last time the post was held by a national of an Asian State (U Thant of Burma/Myanmar), it then rotated to someone from Western Europe (Kurt Waldheim of Austria). France, the UK, and the US, all are permanent members of the Security Council, giving those governments great influence if they agree on the rotational preference. Australia and New Zealand are both members of WEOG, so this scenario potentially could allow Rudd and/or Clark to be considered. A compromise between the first and second scenario could allow Asia and WEOG to agree on candidates together, with Clark and/or Rudd emerging as a “compromise” candidate between the two regions (first suggested by The Australian). - – - – - No Rotation The third scenario is that Member States agree to disregard the sequence established to date for regional rotation. This would open the door for Lula da Silva to be considered. One observer (see Global Memo) has suggested that Lula could engage India and Japan to “maneuver against China [and] make a case against a second Asian term as a given.” - – - – - Secretary-General Selection Process The Secretary-General is appointed “by the General Assembly upon the recommendation of the Security Council,” according to Article 97 in Chapter 15 of the UN Charter. GA Resolution 11/1 of 1946 provided some additional details. Lacking more specific rules, candidate criteria, or instructions, the process has been guided by informal, closed dialogue between Member States. Nominations: As of 2006, nominations must be made formally by a UN Member State. Previously, candidates could be considered without formal endorsement by a government. Approval in Security Council: The Security Council meets privately to discuss candidates. The appointment decision is subject to the veto (according to UN Charter article 27 (3)), and thus a candidate must gain the support of all five Permanent Members of the Security Council. In other words, as long as none of the Permanent Members blocks a candidate with a veto and at least four other members vote for him or her, that person may be nominated formally by the Security Council. Single Nomination: Resolution 11/1 states that it would be “desirable” for the Council to nominate only one candidate to the Assembly for consideration, to avoid debate. Approval in General Assembly: The final appointment of the Security Council’s nominee is determined in a private meeting of the GA. Member States may raise objections to the Security Council’s recommendation. In this case the likely result would be a vote by secret ballot. In the absence of any objections, the Assembly approves the candidate by consensus or acclamation. Resolution 11/1 stipulates: “a simple majority of the members of that body present and voting is sufficient, unless the General Assembly itself decides that a two-thirds majority is called for.” Term Length: Resolution 11/1 specifies that the term of the Secretary-General is for five years, with the possibility to renew for an additional five-year term. Calls for Selection Reforms: In the view of many governments, UN officials, and civil society groups, the current procedures are not in keeping with existing legitimate international high-level appointment procedures. Efforts to make the process more democratic, transparent and effective have been underway for several years. The UNelections Campaign has called for specific reforms to the process. Permalink |
| ### |
|
Posted on Sustainabilitank.info on May 26th, 2010 Mercer is a leading global provider of consulting, outsourcing and investment services. Mercer works with clients to solve their most complex benefit and human capital issues, designing and helping manage health, retirement and other benefits. It is a leader in benefit outsourcing. Mercer’s investment services include investment consulting and investment management. Mercer’s 18,000 employees are based in more than 40 countries. The company is a wholly owned subsidiary of Marsh & McLennan Companies, Inc., which lists its stock (ticker symbol: MMC) on the New York, Chicago and London stock exchanges. For more information, visit www.mercer.comMercer’s Quality of Living index list was revised and now covers 221 cities compared to 215 in 2009, which means direct trend comparison will not be possible until 2011. The new selection includes prominent capital and other major cities from across the world currently available in Mercer’s database, and better reflects where companies are sending their expatriate employees in the current business environment. Slagin Parakatil, Senior Researcher at Mercer, commented: “As the world economy becomes more globalised, cities beyond the traditional financial centres are emerging as attractive places in which to expand or establish a business. Cities in many emerging markets, such as in the Middle East or Asia, have seen a significant influx of foreign companies and their expatriate employees in recent years.” “To ensure their expatriates are compensated appropriately and an adequate hardship allowance is included in their benefits package, companies seek a clear picture of the quality of living in these cities. We have reviewed our index to reflect these developments and it now better represents the cities that most interest our clients,” Mr Parakatil said. ———— THIS YEAR, FOR THE FIRST TIME, MERCER ESTABLISHED ALSO AN ECO-CITY CATEGORY IN ITS RANKINGS. Eco-City Ranking 2010 includes the following criteria: Water availability, water potability, waste removal, sewage, air pollution and traffic congestion. As this list is only a partial list from Mercer’s more general lists of criteria, but they still retain New York City as the base figure with 100 as guide-line, obviously these figures are different then in their general listings. In the more general list - Vienna retains the top spot as the city with the world’s best quality of living, according to the Mercer 2010 Quality of Living Survey. Zurich and Geneva follow in second and third position, respectively, while Vancouver and Auckland remain joint fourth in the rankings. Also there Cities are ranked against New York as the base city, with an index score of 100 – but that figure obviously means a different 100. In the US, the highest ranking entry is Honolulu at position 31, followed by San Francisco at position 32. In the UK, London ranks at 39, while Birmingham at 55 and Glasgow at 57. Singapore at 28 is the top-scoring Asian city, followed by Tokyo at 40. Mercer conducts the general ranking to help governments and multi-national companies compensate employees fairly when placing them on international assignments. The rankings are based on a point-scoring index, which sees Vienna score 108.6 and Baghdad 14.7. Top Top 52 Eco-Cities ranked:Base City: New York, US (=100)
Mercer is a leading global provider of consulting, outsourcing and investment services. Mercer works with clients to solve their most complex benefit and human capital issues, designing and helping manage health, retirement and other benefits. It is a leader in benefit outsourcing. Mercer’s investment services include investment consulting and investment management. Mercer’s 18,000 employees are based in more than 40 countries. The company is a wholly owned subsidiary of Marsh & McLennan Companies, Inc., which lists its stock (ticker symbol: MMC) on the New York, Chicago and London stock exchanges. For more information, visit www.mercer.com Permalink |
| ### |
|
Posted on Sustainabilitank.info on May 20th, 2010 http://twitter.com/#search?q=us%20geothe… http://tvnz.co.nz/business-news/mighty-r… Mighty River invests in US geothermal plant.State-owned power company Mighty River Power is investing in a geothermal power station being built in the United States which will use the same technology as its Kawarau and Nga Awa Purua stations. Mighty River’s 25-percent owned GeoGlobal Energy has backed US geothermal energy company EnergySource, which is building the 49.9 megawatt Hudson Ranch Power I station in southern California. GeoGlobal’s investment of up to $US107 million ($NZ145 million) provided most of the equity for the power station, and bought a 20% stake in EnergySource. Mighty River’s New Zealand geothermal experience contributed to the tie-up with EnergySource, GeoGlobal president Michael Van Vleck said. “Mighty River Power is the only company in the world to have built geothermal power stations within the past five years that use this particular technology, and the success of the Nga Awa Purua and Kawerau projects was an important factor in EnergySource selecting GGE as an investor in the Hudson Ranch Power I Project,” he said. Mighty River, among the world’s 10 largest geothermal operators, has contributed $US250m to the GeoGlobal Energy Fund. Mighty River’s purchase of the GeoGlobal Energy stake, in 2008, was its first major offshore venture. GeoGlobal has since achieved success drilling in Chile. The SOE is aiming to create a global geothermal business using its experience in geothermal construction, exploration and operation. The 140MW Nga Awa Purua geothermal power station, near Taupo, became fully operational last month. Permalink |
| ### |
|
Posted on Sustainabilitank.info on April 26th, 2010 http://www.turkishweekly.net/news/101515/indigenous-peoples-draw-focus-at-un.html
THE TURKISH WEEKLY of Ankara – in English.
(includes on top an advertisement for the AVATAR DVD that was released April 22, 2010)
Monday, 26 April 2010
Indigenous Peoples Draw Focus at UN.By Jaya Ramachadran IDN-InDepth NewsAnalysis Internationalized Domain Names (IDNs) wire - www.IDNnews.com and www.indepthnews.net hedquartered in Berlin as GLOBALOM MEDIA GmbH 2010 with offices in the US, Canada and Japan. This excellent reporting comes from the UN in Geneva about the activities of the UNPFII these two weeks in New York City. ————- GENEVA (IDN) – The traditional knowledge and practices of about 370 million indigenous peoples in 90 countries around the world are increasingly being recognized as vital for conservation of nature and efforts to combat and adapt to climate change. “Yet despite this recognition, indigenous cultures have been damaged more often than not by development policies that ignore their traditional sources of knowledge and cultural priorities and fail to respect their land rights,” said the United Nations Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues (UNPFII) as its two-week session kicked off at the UN headquarters April 19 in New York. The side events during the Forum include a special screening of the film Avatar and an exhibit in the UN headquarters lobby entitled ‘Indigenous Peoples and Self-Determination’. Ban Ki-moon told some 2000 representatives of indigenous peoples, member states and civil society groups attending the Forum that “the loss of irreplaceable cultural practices and means of artistic expression makes us all poorer, wherever our roots may lie”. The Forum was set up by the UN Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC) in 2000 to provide expert advice and recommendations on indigenous issues to UN agencies, raise awareness and promote the integration and coordination of relevant activities within the world body. Headed by Vicky Tauli Corpuz from the Philippines, who shepherded a landmark Declaration of the UN General Assembly in 2007, the UNPFII comprises 16 independent experts appointed by ECOSOC, eight of whom are nominated by governments and eight by indigenous organizations in their regions. Ban called on “all governments, indigenous peoples, the UN system and all other partners to ensure that the vision behind the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples becomes a reality for all.” The Declaration outlines the rights of the indigenous people and outlaws discrimination against them. Though non-binding, the declaration sets out the individual and collective rights of indigenous peoples, as well as their rights to culture, identity, language, employment, health, education and other issues. “Elsewhere, your cultures are being distorted, commodified, and used to generate profits which do not benefit indigenous people, and can even lead to harm,” Ban said. Indigenous peoples make up five per cent of the world’s population, but some 33 per cent of the world’s poor, according to State of the World’s Indigenous Peoples, released in January 2010 and the first UN report of its kind. The report pointed out that they are displaced by wars and environmental disasters. “The weapon of rape and sexual humiliation is also turned against indigenous women for the ethnic cleansing and demoralization of indigenous communities; indigenous peoples are dispossessed of their ancestral lands and deprived of their resources for survival, both physical and cultural; they are even robbed of their very right to life.” On the other hand, the Report noted, of the some 7,000 languages being spoken today, more than 4,000 are spoken by indigenous peoples. Language specialists predict that up to 90 per cent of the world’s languages are likely to become extinct or threatened with extinction by the end of the century. Taking all this into account, 143 UN member states adopted the Declaration. But the United States, Canada, Australia and New Zealand – where sizable numbers of indigenous populations live – opposed. Australia reversed its decision in 2009 following the change of government. But apparently a lot remains to be done. Despite recent advancements, an independent UN expert called on the country’s authorities March 9, 2010 to develop new social and economic initiatives and to reform existing ones to allow respect for cultural integrity and self-determination. “Having suffered a history of oppression and racial discrimination, including dispossession of lands and social and cultural upheaval, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples endure severe disadvantage compared with non-indigenous Australians,” said James Anaya, the Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights and fundamental freedoms of indigenous people. In his report issued following an official visit to Australia in August 2009, the Special Rapporteur said that the so-called Northern Territory Emergency Response – a Government plan rolled out in 2007 to address problems faced by Aborigines, particularly women and children – contains problematic features from a human rights standpoint. The programme continued in 2008, while Prime Minister Kevin Rudd offered a national apology to indigenous peoples and called for a genuine partnership between the Government and indigenous communities to move towards a future “based on mutual respect, mutual resolve and mutual responsibility.” In his report, Anaya recommended indigenous participation in the design, delivery, and monitoring of programmes, and promoting culturally-appropriate programmes that incorporate or build on indigenous people’s own initiatives. “Governmental programmes must secure just social and economical well-being for indigenous peoples, while advancing their self-determination and strengthening their cultural bonds,” Anaya said. On the opening day of the Forum in New York, New Zealand said it was dropping its opposition to the UN Declaration. Agencies reported that, in announcing on April 19 that New Zealand was reversing its position, Maori Affairs Minister Pita Sharples made clear the support was subject to his country’s law taking precedence. National legal and constitutional frameworks, he said, “define the bounds of New Zealand’s engagement with the aspirational elements of the declaration.” The UN Declaration potentially puts in question much of the land ownership in countries, such as those that opposed it, whose present population is largely descended from settlers who took over territory from previous inhabitants. The U.S. UN Ambassador Susan Rice said April 20 Washington was reviewing its opposition to the Declaration, in a gesture to Native Americans who support the sweeping but non-binding document. The Declaration says indigenous peoples “have the right to the lands, territories and resources which they have traditionally owned, occupied, or otherwise used and acquired.” The U.S. officials said at the time — when the Bush administration was in office — that the text was unclear and that those who drafted it had failed to seek consensus. But, addressing the Forum, Rice said she was “pleased to announce that the United States has decided to review our position” on the document. “We recognize that, for many around the world, this declaration provides a framework for addressing indigenous issues,” she said, noting that Native American leaders had encouraged President Barack Obama to re-examine the U.S. stance. “There is no American history without Native American history,” agencies reported Rice saying. “America cannot be fully whole until its first inhabitants enjoy all the blessings of liberty, prosperity, and dignity. Let there be no doubt of our commitment. And we stand ready to be judged by the results.” Canadian authorities have repeatedly acknowledged plans to endorse the Declaration. The Canadian government said in a speech in March 2010 that it would take steps to endorse the UN declaration “in a manner fully consistent with Canada’s constitution and laws”. Indigenous groups have urged the government to embrace the human rights instrument without conditions or limitations. Commenting the reviews, World Politics Review’s Juliette Terzieff writes: “Of course, a UN declaration is non-binding and has no real legal status on which affected communities could launch judicial challenges. Many countries have signed on to the instrument with public caveats on how and to what extent they will adhere to guidelines. “But it does create a framework and an international standard. Also, such a broad consensus on a politically delicate issue bodes well for the future of joint action on other common concerns.” (IDN-InDepthNews/23.04.2010)
Permalink |
| ### |
|
Posted on Sustainabilitank.info on April 20th, 2010 CLIMATE CHANGE-BOLIVIA LA PAZ, Apr 16, 2010 (IPS) – Through their ancestral knowledge and traditions, indigenous peoples will make a unique and invaluable contribution to the World People’s Conference on Climate Change and the Rights of Mother Earth, which begins Monday, Apr. 19 in the central Bolivian city of Cochabamba. Julio Quette of the Confederation of Indigenous Peoples of Eastern Bolivia (CIDOB) told IPS that the 74 different indigenous groups who inhabit South America’s Amazon region “have traditionally coexisted with nature and the forests,” and that it is up to the industrialized countries to halt the pollution and destruction of the planet. For her part, Jenny Gruenberger, executive director of the Environmental Defence League (LIDEMA), commented to IPS that “Bolivia could make an enormous contribution based on the traditional knowledge of the indigenous and aboriginal nations that make up this plurinational state.” The country is officially known as the Plurinational State of Bolivia, in recognition of the fact that over 60 percent of Bolivians belong to one of its numerous indigenous ethnic groups. A total of 17 working groups have been organized as part of the World People’s Conference, to address issues such as the structural causes of climate change, living in harmony with nature, and the rights of Mother Earth, or Pachamama. Other working groups will focus on a proposed global referendum on climate change; another proposal to establish a Climate Justice Tribunal or International Environmental Court; climate migrants; indigenous peoples; the climate debt; a “shared vision” for action (a concept introduced by developed countries under the Bali Action Plan adopted at the 2007 United Nations Climate Change Conference); the Kyoto Protocol; climate change adaptation; financing; technology transfer; forests; the dangers of the carbon market; action strategies; and agriculture and food sovereignty. Bolivian President Evo Morales, who is an Aymara Indian himself, announced that the conference will be attended by fellow presidents Daniel Ortega of Nicaragua, Rafael Correa of Ecuador, Hugo Chávez of Venezuela, and Fernando Lugo of Paraguay. More than 15,000 people from 126 countries around the world have registered to attend. Among the prominent figures whose participation has been confirmed by the Bolivian Foreign Ministry are Alberto Acosta, president of the Constituent Assembly of Ecuador; Miguel D’Escoto, Nicaraguan diplomat and former president of the United Nations General Assembly; and Edigio Brunetto, a leader of Brazil’s Landless Rural Workers Movement (MST). In addition, more than 50 scientists, social movement leaders, researchers, academics and artists from around the globe have agreed to speak on 14 panels, including Indian environmentalist Vandana Shiva, best-selling Canadian author Naomi Klein, and Uruguayan writer Eduardo Galeano. “Latin American organisations and governments could acquire all the capacity they need to confront the influence of the industrialised nations and become a centre of resistance against the current development model, but first they need to agree upon a unified stance,” LIDEMA research coordinator Marco Ribera commented to IPS. Ribera said that it is time for the region’s countries to put aside the “different interests” they each pursue and to use the Cochabamba conference as a forum to build “strong technical and political proposals with a high degree of legitimacy to negotiate at the 16th Conference of the Parties to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change.” Ribera believes the upcoming conference could become a new forum for the struggle in defence of the planet, given the opportunity it will provide for the world’s people to express their views and proposals, “an opportunity they are not offered in official forums for international negotiations.” Justo Zapata, a Bolivian energy expert, spoke to IPS about one of the issues that will be addressed at the conference: the campaign for the use of “clean” fuels. Bolivia has the second largest reserves of natural gas in the Americas, with proven and probable reserves of 49 trillion cubic feet. Yet the population continues to consume large quantities of gasoline, liquefied gas and diesel fuel, for which the government spends 500 million dollars annually to subsidise low prices, said Zapata. Venezuela provides the country with gasoline and gas oil, both highly polluting fuels, while the population of the Brazilian city of Sao Paulo enjoys the clean natural gas exported by Bolivia, he noted. Rectifying this situation is a matter of both economic and environmental defence, stressed Zapata, who called for large-scale initiatives such as the construction of domestic natural gas pipelines to benefit the population, as well as an end to neoliberal-inspired trade policies that prioritise exports over the domestic market. ———————————————————— New York, 19 April 2010 - Secretary-General’s remarks at opening of the Ninth Session of the UN Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues. It is my great pleasure to welcome you to the Ninth Session of the United Nations Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues. Many of you have traveled long distances to be here today, and I thank you very much. Indigenous peoples often live in the most isolated places on earth – from the Arctic to the African savannah. But the United Nations is working to make sure that indigenous people themselves are not isolated. You have a unique place in the global community. You are full and equal members of the United Nations family. I attach great importance to the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, which was adopted in September 2007. I congratulate you once again on this achievement. ——— We have made significant progress on indigenous peoples’ issues at the United Nations over the past forty years. Apart from the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, other notable achievements include the establishment of this Permanent Forum, the mandate of the Special Rapporteur, and the Expert Mechanism on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. Indigenous issues are more prominent on the international agenda than ever before. And yet, we can not even begin to be content with our progress. Indigenous peoples suffer high levels of poverty, health problems, crime and human rights abuses all over the world. You make up some five per cent of the world’s population – but one-third of the world’s poorest. In some countries, an indigenous person is 600 times more likely to contract tuberculosis than the general population. Indigenous cultures, languages and ways of life are under constant threat from climate change, armed conflict, lack of educational opportunities and discrimination. This is not only a tragedy for indigenous people. It is a tragedy for the whole world. Slowly but surely, people are coming to understand that the well-being and sustainability of indigenous peoples are matters that concern us all. Diversity is strength – in cultures and in languages, just as it is in ecosystems. The loss of irreplaceable cultural practices and means of artistic expression makes us all poorer, wherever our roots may lie. According to current forecasts, ninety per cent of all languages could disappear within 100 years. The loss of these languages erodes an essential component of a group’s identity. That is why the special theme of your forum this year, “Development with Culture and Identity,” is particularly appropriate. It highlights the need to craft policy measures that promote development while respecting indigenous peoples’ values and traditions. We need development that is underpinned by the values of reciprocity, solidarity and collectivity. And we need development that allows indigenous peoples to exercise their right to self-determination through participation in decision-making on an equal basis. ———– The United Nations will continue to support you. I call on all Governments, indigenous peoples, the UN system and all other partners to ensure that the vision behind the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples becomes a reality for all. I wish you a very successful Forum. Thank you very much. —————————————— SYNTHESIS: While in Cochabamba the talk is of Plurinationalism with States that have even a majority of what is considered Indigenous Peoples belonging to many different Nations, the UN which talks of Member Nations counted by the number of seat made available for UN Membership, regards all those Indigenous Peoples as minorities within the boundaries of the UN Member States. This leads the UN to talk of human rights rather then the community right as represented by the Indigenous Peoples. Above may have changed somewhat with the acceptance of the the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples but still – the UN Secretary General addresses their leaders by the traditional term “Elders” as he cannot call them Heads of States – at the UN they are neither States nor Nations. Their affairs are basically internal Affairs of the Member States – with the covers having been removed a bit by the declaration. Then the UN has changed the name of the Committee on Granting Independence to Colonial Countries – to “Colonial countries and Peoples” – the subject of “Peoples” slowly gaining ground even at the UN. We will be covering some of the specifics of this year’s Indigenous Peoples UN Forum in further postings.
Permalink |
| ### |
|
Posted on Sustainabilitank.info on February 8th, 2010 http://ipsterraviva.net/UN/currentNew.as… South-South Cooperation Key to MDGs UNITED NATIONS, Feb 7 (IPS) – Member states meeting here Thursday called for the immediate implementation of development commitments made during the Nairobi high-level U.N. conference on cooperation between developing countries. UNDP Administrator Helen Clark highlighted the importance of the Nairobi meeting on South-South cooperation in sharing information, technologies, and experiences across the South. The Nairobi outcome document calls for concrete measures to mainstream support for South-South and triangular cooperation in the U.N.’s work. “I can assure you that we in UNDP have received that loud and clear message,” Clark said. “We have long proudly hosted the Special Unit for South-South Cooperation and fully supported its work.” On the heels of Thursday’s General Assembly High-level Committee on South-South Cooperation (HLC) meeting, focal points of South-South cooperation at 29 U.N. agencies met Friday at headquarters to discuss follow-up to the Nairobi conference. “South-South cooperation is an expression of solidarity that has proven its relevance by a rapid growth,” said Ambassador Abdullah M. Alsaidi of Yemen, the chair of the Group of 77 developing countries. “Cooperation across the South has been transformed by the growth of the emerging economies,” Clark explained. The share of global GDP generated by low and middle income countries has grown from 15 percent to 25 percent over the last 50 years according to UNDP estimates, and analysts predict that emerging markets will outperform developed markets over the course of the next decade. “Strengthening of regional integration and improved networking among members of regional blocs and organisations has a multiplier effect to South-South cooperation,” said Ambassador Zachary Muburi-Muita of Kenya, who was elected president of the HLC meeting here. “The emerging economies in the South are attracting international attention and will increasingly acquire the muscle to influence the course of economic growth and development,” said Ambassador Gyan Chandra Acharya of Nepal, stressing that the recent successes of the developing world are in danger of being reversed and are not being felt equally across countries or regions. The HLC stressed that the current financial, food and energy crises have exacerbated the vulnerabilities of developing countries that lack the capacity to withstand shocks. There is an “implementation gap” that has been looming over the recommendations of the major U.N. conferences in the economic and social areas, delegates agreed. It is only with “political will towards fulfilling the commitments that parties have undertaken in Nairobi that we can make real progress,” an Egyptian delegate stressed. “South-South cooperation is immensely important at this time for achieving the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) and other internationally agreed goals, and for tackling climate change,” said Clark. Clark urged delegations to take a particularly close look at the gender aspects of achieving the MDGs. “Progress is lagging behind particularly on MDG5 on maternal health; on MDG3 on empowering women; and on MDG2 with respect to gender parity in access to education,” Clark said, “To achieve the MDGs and indeed other internationally agreed development goals, women have to be an equal part of the equation.” In order to effectively implement the Nairobi outcome with demonstrable results, stakeholders need to identify “quick wins” whose implementation should be devoid of unnecessary red tape and bureaucracy, said Muburi-Muita. “This is an excellent example of how member states are able to engage entities of the U.N. system through a South-South and triangular partnership in support of their national development strategies,” according to the ILO delegation. The HLC stressed local ownership of solutions as a key component of South-South cooperation. “Now, as UNDP positions itself to be of the greatest possible relevance and support to developing countries in the 21st century, we see facilitating South-South exchanges of experience and knowledge as absolutely central to what we do,” Clark explained. A growing priority of the U.N. will be to share experience on climate change adaptation and mitigation. This could include sharing knowledge on growing drought-tolerant crops, on reforestation, or on providing low-cost access to clean energy and transport technology. Clark emphasised that a very wide range of developing countries make contributions to South-South cooperation. In the recent weeks “we have seen least developed and low-income countries, along with middle-income and net-contributing countries, digging deep into their pockets for Haiti,” she said. Permalink |
| ### |
|
Posted on Sustainabilitank.info on February 6th, 2010 Shackleton’s Whiskey Found Buried Near South Pole. Lauren Frayer Researchers from New Zealand found the crates while restoring a hut Shackleton built and used during the expedition. He and his team were forced to cut short the trip and abandon supplies, including their booze, to sail away before winter ice trapped them there. The second trip was backed by the same Scottish company that distilled Shackleton’s whiskey, Mackinlay’s Rare Old Scotch. It could be the longest booze run in history. The Whyte and Mackay distillery hopes to replicate the whiskey, which hasn’t been made in a lifetime after the original recipe was lost. “If the contents can be confirmed, safely extracted and analyzed, the original blend may be able to be replicated,” Paterson said. Shackleton’s expedition ran short of supplies on a long trek to the South Pole that began in 1907. He had to turn back about 100 miles from the pole in 1909. The team had to move quickly to escape as winter ice began to form, so they were forced to abandon all but essential equipment and supplies – including their whiskey. No lives were lost. A Norwegian explorer, Roald Amundsen, was first to reach the South Pole two years later, in 1911. As for what the future holds for Shackleton’s whiskey, there are international treaties preventing the removal of artifacts from Antarctica, but Paterson wrote on his blog that he hopes to get his hands on at least a sample of the whiskey, if not a couple bottles. “What you all want to know is: How will it taste?” Paterson wrote. “To which the answer is: Cold.” Permalink |
| ### |
|
Posted on Sustainabilitank.info on December 23rd, 2009 http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20091220/sc_… Polluting pets: the devastating impact of man’s best friend. Man’s best friend … by Isabelle Toussaint and Jurgen Hecker Isabelle Toussaint And Jurgen Hecker – Sun Dec 20, 2009. PARIS (AFP) – Man’s best friend could be one of the environment’s worst enemies, according to a new study which says the carbon pawprint of a pet dog is more than double that of a gas-guzzling sports utility vehicle. But the revelation in the book “Time to Eat the Dog: The Real Guide to Sustainable Living” by New Zealanders Robert and Brenda Vale has angered pet owners who feel they are being singled out as troublemakers. The Vales, specialists in sustainable living at Victoria University of Wellington, analysed popular brands of pet food and calculated that a medium-sized dog eats around 164 kilos (360 pounds) of meat and 95 kilos of cereal a year. Combine the land required to generate its food and a “medium” sized dog has an annual footprint of 0.84 hectares (2.07 acres) — around twice the 0.41 hectares required by a 4×4 driving 10,000 kilometres (6,200 miles) a year, including energy to build the car. To confirm the results, the New Scientist magazine asked John Barrett at the Stockholm Environment Institute in York, Britain, to calculate eco-pawprints based on his own data. The results were essentially the same. Other animals aren’t much better for the environment, the Vales say. Cats have an eco-footprint of about 0.15 hectares, slightly less than driving a Volkswagen Golf for a year, while two hamsters equates to a plasma television and even the humble goldfish burns energy equivalent to two mobile telephones. But Reha Huttin, president of France’s 30 Million Friends animal rights foundation says the human impact of eliminating pets would be equally devastating. “Pets are anti-depressants, they help us cope with stress, they are good for the elderly,” Huttin told AFP. “Everyone should work out their own environmental impact. I should be allowed to say that I walk instead of using my car and that I don’t eat meat, so why shouldn’t I be allowed to have a little cat to alleviate my loneliness?” Sylvie Comont, proud owner of seven cats and two dogs — the environmental equivalent of a small fleet of cars — says defiantly, “Our animals give us so much that I don’t feel like a polluter at all. “I think the love we have for our animals and what they contribute to our lives outweighs the environmental considerations. “I don’t want a life without animals,” she told AFP. And pets’ environmental impact is not limited to their carbon footprint, as cats and dogs devastate wildlife, spread disease and pollute waterways, the Vales say. With a total 7.7 million cats in Britain, more than 188 million wild animals are hunted, killed and eaten by feline predators per year, or an average 25 birds, mammals and frogs per cat, according to figures in the New Scientist. Likewise, dogs decrease biodiversity in areas they are walked, while their faeces cause high bacterial levels in rivers and streams, making the water unsafe to drink, starving waterways of oxygen and killing aquatic life. And cat poo can be even more toxic than doggy doo — owners who flush their litter down the toilet ultimately infect sea otters and other animals with toxoplasma gondii, which causes a killer brain disease. But despite the apocalyptic visions of domesticated animals’ environmental impact, solutions exist, including reducing pets’ protein-rich meat intake. “If pussy is scoffing ‘Fancy Feast’ — or some other food made from choice cuts of meat — then the relative impact is likely to be high,” said Robert Vale. “If, on the other hand, the cat is fed on fish heads and other leftovers from the fishmonger, the impact will be lower.” Other potential positive steps include avoiding walking your dog in wildlife-rich areas and keeping your cat indoors at night when it has a particular thirst for other, smaller animals’ blood. As with buying a car, humans are also encouraged to take the environmental impact of their future possession/companion into account. But the best way of compensating for that paw or clawprint is to make sure your animal is dual purpose, the Vales urge. Get a hen, which offsets its impact by laying edible eggs, or a rabbit, prepared to make the ultimate environmental sacrifice by ending up on the dinner table. “Rabbits are good, provided you eat them,” said Robert Vale ——— I am working on creating wildlife habitat that is off-limits to humans (“pure habitat”). Want to help? (I spent the previous 8 Permalink |
| ### |
|
Posted on Sustainabilitank.info on December 10th, 2009 Giant Iceberg Heading Toward Australia CNN (Dec. 9) — A massive iceberg — more than twice the size of New York’s Manhattan island — is drifting slowly toward Australia, scientists said Wednesday.
The iceberg, measuring 140 square km (54 square miles), cleaved off an ice shelf nearly 10 years ago and had been floating near Antarctica before commencing on its unusual journey north. Named B17B, it was about 1,700 km (1,056 miles) off the coast of West Australia, according to the country’s Antarctic Division. “B17B is a very significant one in that it has drifted so far north while still largely intact,” said Australian Antarctic Division glaciologist Neal Young, who spotted the slab using satellite images taken by NASA and the European Space Agency. 
Australian Antarctic Division/AFP/AP
A massive iceberg, labeled B17B, is believed to have broken off from the Ross Ice Shelf in Antarctica.
Permalink |
| ### |
|
Posted on Sustainabilitank.info on December 10th, 2009 SIXTH INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON ENVIRONMENTAL, CULTURAL, ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL The International Conference on Environmental, Cultural, Economic and Social Sustainability aims to develop a holistic view of sustainability, in which environmental, cultural and economic issues are inseparably interlinked. It works in a multidisciplinary way, across diverse fields and taking varied perspectives in order to address the fundamentals of sustainability. The Sustainability Conference is held annually in different locations around the world. The Conference was inaugurated in 2005 at the University of Hawai’i, Manoa, USA. It was held at Hanoi and Ha Long Bay, Vietnam in 2006; University of Madras, Chennai, India in 2007; Universiti Malaysia Terengganu, Kuala Terengganu Malaysia in 2008 and the University of Technology, Mauritius in 2009. We are pleased to hold next year’s Conference at the University of Cuenca, Cuenca, Ecuador. In 2011, the Sustainability Conference will be held 5-7 January at the University of Waikato, Hamilton, New Zealand. In addition to Plenary Presentations, the Conference includes Parallel The deadline for the final round in the call for papers (a title and short In 2011, the Sustainability Conference will be held 5-7 January at the Yours Sincerely, Lucia Astidillo Permalink |
| ### |
|
Posted on Sustainabilitank.info on December 5th, 2009 Peter Read’s tireless campaign to inject a new dimension into climate change mitigation through the enhanced management of photosynthesis on a global scale, came to a sad end on the 24th November 2009. He died at a meeting in Brussels assessing bioenergy options in Africa, not long after making a presentation on linking bioenergy with biological carbon sequestration. Peter Read was amongst the first to publicise the idea of achieving ‘negative emissions’ by combining bioenergy production with carbon capture and storage. He presented these ideas in February 2005 at the high profile ‘Avoiding Dangerous Climate Change’ conference in Exeter. Since then, the idea has won widespread support in principle. It has been incorporated into the EU’s ‘Flagship Programme’ for carbon capture and sequestration. The IPCC fifth assessment process now includes a negative emissions scenario based on the use of biochar. Peter’s quest, though sometimes isolated, was always marked with his infectious laugh and absolute commitment to science and the environment. Based at Massey University in New Zealand after moving there in 1980 from the UK, he travelled ceaselessly sharing his ideas of how the world could move beyond policies aimed at simply capping fossil fuel emissions to ones that promote ‘negative emission pathways’ and enhanced carbon stocks in vegetation and soils. Using ‘abrupt climate change’ theories to inject the needed urgency and motivation for the immense scale of the land management options he promoted, he developed a set of global scenarios to demonstrate both the necessity and modality of this approach. Whilst much of what he proposed remains highly contentious, Peter may yet be proved to have been ahead his time. Papers on his website including: ————— We worked with Professor Read on several occasions. Some thirty years ago I came to a meeting at Massey University to present the concept of ENERGY CANE as developed with Professor George Samuels of the University of Puerto Rico in Mayaguez. The concept was to return the cane to a state it produces more fermentable sugars and biomass rather then going for sugar crystals. Needless to say that neither the oil nor agricultural interests in Washington, and not even the Brazilians of that time, were ready to buy the concept. We proved it works and would recycle higher quantities off carbon while pushing out higher quantities of oil – it would have been a cane dedicated to the production of fuel rather then sugar in the tropics that are poor in fuel. Professor Read came on board and later joined NGOs involved in Sustainable Energy. Permalink |
| ### |
|
Posted on Sustainabilitank.info on November 12th, 2009 Close to the departure of President Obama on his all-important trip to Asia with stops in Tokyo November 12th, Singapore November 13-15, Shanghai November 15th, Beijing November 16-18, and Seoul November 18-19, the Japan Society has planned co-incidentally the event we are reporting about here. Japan is the only original OECD member in Asia, as such Japan clearly feels justifiably it is a US prime partner in Asia. It also was clearly instrumental in nailing down the 1987 Kyoto Protocol to The Framework Convention on Climate Change, and hopes that this material will continue to be the base for future climate negotiations. That was the basis for having co-organized and hosted the following meeting – November 10th. ————- Copenhagen & Beyond: A Multilateral Debate about Climate Change Policy. The positions and participation of Japan, China and the United States in any successor treaty to the Kyoto Protocol will help determine its success or failure. In a Tuesday November 10, 2009 panel, at the Japan Society, New York, Masayoshi Arai, Director, JETRO New York, Special Advisor, Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry (METI); The Honorable Zhenmin Liu, Ambassador Extraordinary and Deputy Permanent Representative of China to the United Nations; Elliot Diringer, Vice President, International Strategies, Pew Center on Global Climate Change; and Takao Shibata, chair of the working group that drafted the Kyoto Protocol, debated the direction of international climate change policy. It was Moderated by Jim Efstathiou, Correspondent, Bloomberg News, and co-organized by the Carnegie Council for Ethics in International Affairs ————– Takao Shibata, who is now a Chancellor Lecturer at the University of Kansas and Japan Consul General in Kansas City,mentioed that Japan is ready to commit to a 2020 reduction of 25% in emissions provided that there is FAIR and EFFECTIVE agreement with a VIGUROUS COMPLIANCE agreement as part of it. He stressed that the problem with Kyoto was that there was no compliance paragraph in the Protocol. All it said was that we postpone decision. The OBJECTIVE must be: THE STABILIZATION OF CO2 CONCENTRATION IN THE ATMOSPHERE rather then fighting over figures of temperature increase or concentrations in parts per milion numbers. We have already a Framework he said – the Copenhagen process should be about STABILIZATION. Later he added that we must at least agree to a 2050 position. Mr. Masayoshi Arai, who is in New York since June 2009, with The Japaese External Trade Organization (JETRO), after having held 16 positions within Japan Government, includingthe Prime Minister’s task force that created the Japan Consumer Protection Agency, and with The Fair Trade Commission and Agency for Natural Resouces and Energy and its Research Institute, Supervised manufacturing industries in their CO2 emissions reduction, and has also an MBA from Wharton, probably because of his present government trade position, was rather careful in what he said. He said that we ned something “meaningful” for global warming and left the Japanese point of view to Professor Shibata. ————- Eliot Diringer whose organization, the Washington based Pew Center, is a link between Environmentalism, industry and government made it clear that what is lacking is a legal architecture in place to deal with the problems created by climate change to which now Professor Shibata answered on the spot that the history is such that already in Berlin, later in Kyoto, the US was against a legal concept – that is a clear 15 year old problem. In Kyoto, the US Vice President came to seal the Protocol in full knowledge that it is unratifiable in Washington. Shibata does not want a repeat of this with a US that is in no position to ratify an agreement. Diringer came back with the suggestion that he can see that Developing countries will accept self prescribed domestic reductions and will request an agreement that makes this possible for them to do so. That means a new FRAMEWORK that is more flexible then the original. ————— Ambassador Zhenmin Liu, Deputy Permanent Representative of China to the UN in New York since 2006, in charge of China’s participation on the Second Committee at the UN, with prior experience at the UN in Geneva and as Director-General of the Treaty and Law Department of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs has been involved in Climate Change negotiations for China. He was actually the only member of the panel entitled to express a national negotiating position, and he did indeed come through. Ambassador Liu said that he cannot have now a document to replace Kyoto – this lines him up with what might be a Japanese interest, but clearly is no answer to the problems that were pointed out at why Kyoto was a failure. But then he also said that you need a GLOBAL CAP for the GHG emissions that must then take into account, when talking about individual nations, their level of industrialization. A certain raport evolved between him and Washingtonian Diringer. It was agreed that there is the need for Technology Innovation, Technology Cooperation, and Technology Transfer. Diringer said that China is very well positioning itself for the green technology economy. People in the US start to understand that the US will lose the competition for future technology and there must be a start for support in US Congress for energy action right now. These exchanges gave me an opening to ask mty question about what goes on right now – the days that President Obama plans for his trip to Asia with a long stopover in China. I started my question to ambassador Liu by saying that on the internet there is a lot of talk about a G-2 US-China agreement needed to jump start the Copenhagen negotiations, and I saw visually the Ambassador cringe. to this idea of a G-2. I continued by asking that what can we expect as an outcome from the meetings in Beijing if there is anything he could tell us as we believe that some concluding material was negotiated prior to the deision for this trip considering tha this is in effect the second meeting between the leaders? I was honored with a long answer that included several main points. The first point is that the US has accepted Kyoto and I guess China does not want to renegotiate Kyoto. Then, China has 20% of the world population the US only 5%, but China has only a fraction of the GDP per capita then the US, so there is no G-2 situation here. That must have been the reason for the cringing – China does not want to lose its place as leader of the underdeveloped nations. Secondly – this is not a US – China negotiation but a negotiation for all groups. Thirdly, there is place for clean energy cooperation, bilateral programs and projects – to jointly use clean technology. ——- Professor Shibata added that we talk of the atmosphere where there are no national boundaries. We talk of sovereign areas only on the surface of the earth – and we must realize that the effects turn up in the air and we have no national control of the air. Further, he said that in the west when something bad happens, the first thing we do is we sue the polluter – ask him to pay. He continued saying “I would encourage everyone to think about that.” Mr. Diringer added that the CDM was introduced to harness market forces to get reduction of CO2 emissions at lowes cost. ——- To summarize – it was nice for Japan to try to host a US-China debate before moves that will inevitably have to bring the US and China closer together. To follow up – let us look at President Obama’s itinerary to get further in depth to what a reorientation of the US towards Asia could mean. Japan, South Korea, and China are trying to form an East Asia Trilateral grouping with a Free Trade Agreement among the three countries. Obviously, this will open the Chinese market to Japan and Korea and there is no way for the US, with its own effective NAFTA agreement with Canada and Mexico. Japan wants thus perhaps more then just be a pivot in US – Chiba negotiations, it rather has also to make sure that it can hold on to its own agreements with both main countries. President Obama has thus quite a few non-climate topics to talk about in his Yokyo and Seoul stops. The second big stop is in Singapore where he will meet the 21 members of APEC: Australia, Brunei Darussalam, Canada, Chile, China, Hong Kong (part of China), Indonesia, Japan, Korea, Malaysia, Mexico, New Zealand, Papua New Guinea, Peru, The Philippines, Russia, Singapore, Chinese Taipei (Taiwan), Thailand, The United States, and Viet Nam. This will be the reintroduction of the US to the Pacific region in general – an area that the locals contend was totally neglected by the US in the eight years of the Bush administration. A main point in this meeting will be to help redirect the participating economies from export to the US to supply to their local populations – this so that they help both areas – their own and the US economy as well. Will they also consult on whom to back for the job of UN Secretary-General in 2010? That is about the time to start this sort of negotiations, and Singapore seems to be the right place to look for the best viable candidate. Eventually, the Third leg of the trip – the stops in China – will have to be the clear main target of the trip – as said here by Ambassador Liu, the business deals in clean energy that can underpin both economies (US and China) so they become an example for cooperation on climate change that presents direct benefits to economies looking for sustainable growth, that is a match to the needs of the people and the climate as well - this is what we call Sustainable Development that is mutual – for the newly industrializing nation and for the phasing out of the old polluting industries of the past. —————— for information from President Obama’s Asian trip we recommend: www.ft.com/obamainasia www.ft.com/rachmanblog Permalink |
| ### |
|
Posted on Sustainabilitank.info on October 28th, 2009
The 14 States of the Pacific Island Countries Forum, led by Australia, seem to ask for much less in the run-up to Kyoto then the Association of Small Islands States (AOSIS) which is open to European inputs. We wonder what happened to the New Zealand leadership of the Pacific Islands, did it evaporate when Australia started to reassert its position as the largest state in the region? Can one expect Australia to speak up for the much smaller islands, or indeed they be advised to look for allies elsewhere? ———- From: <Lice-Lia-Ann WorldEnvironmentalJournalists@yahoogroups.com 29 OCTOBER 2009 SUVA (Pacnews) — As the world counts down to Copenhagen for a possible new climate change deal, some Forum Island Countries increasingly appear to align themselves to the position of the Association of Small Islands States (AOSIS) rather than the Pacific Islands Forum’s Action on Climate Change, endorsed in Cairns, in August this year. This position came out clearly at a panel discussion organised by the European Union in Suva last night. Deputy director of the Secretariat of the Regional Environment Programme (SPREP), Kosi Latu said the Pacific wants an ‘ambitious and legally binding agreement.’ “A political decision is of no use to us – he said. AOSIS comprises 39 small island developing countries in the Caribbean, Indian Ocean and the Pacific. All 14 Forum Island Countries are members of AOSIS. A month earlier, Pacific Islands Forum Leaders declared a ‘weaker’ position than AOSIS, Oxfam and Greenpeace said in August. The Pacific Leaders call to action on Climate Change ‘called on states to cut their GHG emissions by at least 50 percent below 1990 levels by 20050. “One of our biggest challenges going to Copenhagen is – which way do we go? Do we go the Funafuti (Tuvalu) way or the Canberra (Australia) way, said Fei Tevi, representing the Pacific Alliance of NGO’s. “That is clearly our dilemma. Pacific Leaders in Cairns came out with their position quiet different to the AOSIS position. Tuvalu’s long time climate change negotiator, Ambassador Enele Sopoaga said his country remains committed to the AOSIS position. Mr Sopoaga said, “we have to build on the experiences and achievements of the Kyoto Protocol.’ “We will prefer an amended Kyoto Protocol with new commitment period of 2012 – 2017, said Mr Sopoaga. A new climate change deal is expected to be placed on the table when world leaders convene in Copenhagen, Denmark in 26 days for the United Nations Framework Convention o Climate Change (UNFCCC) Conference of the Parties meeting….PNS Lice Movono ROVA ———————————— **************************************************** <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: Permalink |
| ### |
|
Posted on Sustainabilitank.info on October 24th, 2009 Friends, I can hardly believe my eyes. 16 hours ago, citizens in New Zealand gathered before dawn next to a wind turbine on a mountaintop. As local elders said prayers to bless the global event, banners and signs were held high to to greet the planet’s first rays of sunlight on this most incredible of days. As the sun continues across the planet we’ve been receiving photos and video of rallies in Ethiopia, bike rides in Wellington, SCUBA divers in Australia, organizers planting 350 trees in Thailand, hundreds of students marching in India and Nepal and Mongolia. And we’re getting reports from 350.org offices around the world that the phones are ringing off the hook with calls from the media who want to cover the story. The day is just beginning and already it’s larger, more powerful, and so much more beautiful than I ever could have imagined. I’ve been a writer my entire life and yet words truly cannot describe what you have accomplished already. To truly grasp today, please stay tuned to our website as more and more photos come in from across the planet, and especially our evolving photo slideshow. And the best news of all? The day has just begun! Bill P.S. Have a photo to contribute? Just send a decent-quality picture to photos@350.organd make the subject “City, Country” and make sure that the body of the e-mail contains a description of the photo, any necessary photographer credits, and any other information you think we’ll need. So many thanks. Permalink |
| ### |
|
Posted on Sustainabilitank.info on September 15th, 2009 Some of the World Environment News – September 15, 2009 – from Planet Ark of Reuters: DENMARK GERMANY NEW ZEALAND NORWAY SINGAPORE UK Permalink |
| ### |
