http://ipsterraviva.net/UN/currentNew.as…

South-South Cooperation Key to MDGs
IPS Correspondents

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.

Despite the gains achieved through trade and finance, delegations noted the deepening economic asymmetries among developing countries, particularly in regard to the least developed countries (LDCs) and landlocked developing countries.

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.

The government of Brazil and the International Labour Organisation (ILO) have signed agreements on South-South cooperation to prevent and combat child labour and to promote good practices and lessons learned in Latin America and Portuguese-speaking countries in Africa and Asia.

“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.

Shackleton’s Whiskey Found Buried Near South Pole.

Lauren Frayer
Contributor to aol.com
(Feb. 6, 2010) — It’s probably the most sought-after scotch in history – crates of whiskey buried in Antarctica by the famed explorer Ernest Shackleton a century ago. He abandoned them on a failed attempt to reach the South Pole in 1909, and they’ve been on ice – literally – ever since.

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 New Zealand team first spotted two crates underneath the hut’s floorboards in 2006, but they were too deeply embedded in ice to be salvaged. Researchers returned to the site this past week, and finally extracted the crates after drilling into the ice around them. The surprise was that there were three more crates than expected – one more of whiskey and two of brandy.

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.

“Given the original recipe no longer exists, this may open a door into history,” the company’s master blender, Richard Paterson, said in a release posted on the company’s Web site. He called the find “a gift from the heavens” for whiskey lovers.

“If the contents can be confirmed, safely extracted and analyzed, the original blend may be able to be replicated,” Paterson said.

Experts will try to extract the historic brew delicately. Some of the crates have cracked and ice has formed inside. Icebergs surrounding the crates smelled of whiskey, and there may have been leakage, according to Al Fastier, a restoration expert with the New Zealand Antarctic Heritage Trust who made the find.

He told the BBC he heard the slosh of liquid inside the crates when they were moved, and is confident that much of the liquor is still inside.

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.”

 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.

“Owning a dog really is quite an extravagance, mainly because of the carbon footprint of meat,” Barrett said.

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
years fighting auto dependence and road construction.)
 http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande

SIXTH INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON ENVIRONMENTAL, CULTURAL, ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL 
SUSTAINABILITY 
University of Cuenca, Cuenca, Ecuador 
5-7 January 2010 
http://www.SustainabilityConference.com 

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. 
The 2010 Conference features the following Plenary Speakers: 
* Natarajan Ishwaran, UNESCO/University of Queensland, Brisbane, Australia 
* Lucía Astudillo Loor, ICOM/University of Cuenca, Cuenca, Ecuador 
* Katya Gonzalez Ripoll, Ministry of Culture, Bogota, Colombia 
* John M. Whiteley, University of California, Irvine, USA 
* Douglas Worts, Worldviews Consulting, Toronto, Canada 
For more information about these Speakers, please visit the Conference website: 
http://onsustainability.com/conference-2010/plenary-speakers. 

In addition to Plenary Presentations, the Conference includes Parallel 
Presentations by practitioners, teachers and researchers. We invite you to 
respond to the Conference Call-for-Papers. Presenters submit their written 
papers for publication in the refereed International Journal of Environmental, 
Cultural, Economic and Social Sustainability. If you are unable to attend the 
Conference in person, virtual registrations are also available which allow you 
to submit a paper for refereeing and possible publication in the Journal. 

The deadline for the final round in the call for papers (a title and short 
abstract) is 15 December 2010. Proposals are reviewed within two weeks of 
submission. Full details of the Conference, including an online proposal 
submission form, may be found at the Conference website: 
http://www.SustainabilityConference.com/. 

In 2011, the Sustainability Conference will be held 5-7 January at the 
University of Waikato, Hamilton, New Zealand. Located on New Zealand’s north 
Island, the city of Hamilton is an important center for manufacturing, research 
and education. The University of Waikato includes the internationally recognized 
School of Maori and Pacific Development, which plays an important role in 
sustaining Maori culture. For more details on the 2011 Conference, please visit 
the Conference website: http://onsustainability.com/conference-2011/. 

Yours Sincerely, 

Lucia Astidillo 
University of Cuenca, Cuenca, Ecuador 
For the Advisory Board, International Conference and Journal on Environmental, 
Cultural, Economic and Social Sustainability

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:
“Biosphere Carbon Stock Management” an Editorial Essay.  Climatic Change, 87/3-4, 305-320.   (Published electronically 29.x.07.  DOI 10.1007/s10584-007-9356-y).  This Essay was published in response to an invitation from Climatic Change Editor Steve Schneider.  It presents a strategy for using negative emissions systems, that by linking bioenergy to carbon storage, could return CO2 levels to pre-industrial by mid century if adopted ambitiously.
 http://seat.massey.ac.nz/personal/p.read…

—————

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.

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.
Green Japan Series
Tuesday, November 10, 2009 at the Japan Society, New York.

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

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.

   “Pacific Island Countries will take the AOSIS position to enable our voices to be heard.

   AOSIS comprises 39 small island developing countries in the Caribbean, Indian Ocean and the Pacific.

All 14 Forum Island Countries are members of AOSIS.

   In September, AOSIS declared its negotiating position calling on developed countries to reduce their greenhouse gas emission (GHG) by more than 45 percent below 1990 levels by 2020 and more than 95 percent by 2050.

   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.

   “Urgent and ambitious actions are needed now or there will be catastrophic impacts on small island states like Tuvalu.

   “Copenhagen should provide a legally binding and ambitious deal for us, if not, there will be serious threats to the lives of our people in small low lying islands. “We want to retain and strengthen the Kyoto Protocol instead of a new successor agreement.

   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
   Info/Comms Assistant
   Politics/Trade/Media Section
   European Union
   Delegation of the European Commission for the Pacific
   360 Victoria Parade, Suva, FIJI
   URL: http://www.delfji.ec.europa.eu

————————————

****************************************************
Environmental Media Alliance Worldwide is the Global ej-Forum on
World Environmental Journalists an reaching 4321 EJ professionals
over 174 countries.This EGroup was founded 6th February,2000 and
is managed by Dharman Wickremaratne,
Secretary/CEO
Asia Pacific forum of Environmental Journalists(APFEJ)
PO Box 26, 434/3 Sri Jayawardenapura -SRI LANKA.
Email<ejournalists@gmail.com>
http://www.environmentaljournalists.org
http://www.apfej.orgYahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
   http://groups.yahoo.com/group/WorldEnvironmentalJournalists/

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.

Some of the World Environment News – September 15, 2009 – from Planet Ark of Reuters:
———————————————————————————————————————————-

DENMARK
Europe Wind Power Body Sees Big Offshore Potential
 http://planetark.org/wen/54659

GERMANY
EU Delays Van Emissions Clampdown
 http://planetark.org/wen/54657

NEW ZEALAND
New Zealand To Revise Emissions Scheme
 http://planetark.org/wen/54660

NORWAY
Clean Energy To Create More Jobs Than Coal
 http://planetark.org/wen/54661

SINGAPORE
Scientists Find CO2 Link To Antarctic Ice Cap Origin
 http://planetark.org/wen/54655

UK
Many Climate Change Costs Seen Avoidable
 http://planetark.org/wen/54658

Maori legend of man-eating bird is true.

Creature that features in New Zealand folklore really existed, scientists say

By Paul Rodgers
The Independent, Monday, 14 September 2009

The skull of a Haast’s eagle, said to be ‘designed as a killing machine’

A Maori legend about a giant, man-eating bird has been confirmed by scientists. Te Hokioi was a huge black-and-white predator with a red crest and yellow-green tinged wingtips, in an account given to Sir George Gray, an early governor of New Zealand. It was said to be named after its cry and to have “raced the hawk to the heavens”. Scientists now think the stories handed down by word of mouth and depicted in rock drawings refer to Haast’s eagle, a raptor that became extinct just 500 years ago, shows their study in The Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology.

Haast’s eagle (Harpagornis moorei) was discovered in swamp deposits by Sir Julius von Haast in the 1870s. But it was at first thought to be a scavenger because its bill was similar to a vulture’s with hoods over its nostrils to stop flesh blocking its air passages as it rooted around inside carcasses.

But a re-examination of skeletons using modern technology, including CAT scans, by researchers at Canterbury Museum in Christchurch and the University of New South Wales in Australia showed it had a strong enough pelvis to support a killing blow as it dived at speeds of up to 80kph.

With a wingspan of up to three metres and weighing 18kg, the female was twice as big as the largest living eagle, the Steller’s sea eagle. And the bird’s talons were as big as a tiger’s claws. “It was certainly capable of swooping down and taking a child,” said Paul Scofield, the curator of vertebrate zoology at the Canterbury Museum. “They had the ability to not only strike with their talons but to close the talons and put them through quite solid objects such as a pelvis. It was designed as a killing machine.”

Its main prey would have been moa, flightless birds which grew to as much as 250kg and 2.5 metres tall. “In some fossil sites, moa bones have been found with signs of eagle predation,” Dr Scofield said.

New Zealand has no native land mammals because it became isolated from other continents in the Cretaceous, more than 65 million years ago. As a result, birds filled niches usually populated by large mammals such as deer and cattle. “Haast’s eagle wasn’t just the equivalent of a giant predatory bird,” said Dr Scofield. “It was the equivalent of a lion.” The eagle is thought to have died out after the arrival, 1,000 years ago, of humans, who exterminated the giant moa. The latest study shows it was a recent immigrant to the islands, related to the little eagle (Aquila morphnoides) an Australian bird weighing less than 1kg.

Remains of Haast’s eagles are rare because there never were many. They lived only on New Zealand’s South Island, with probably not more than 1,000 breeding pairs at any one time.

The following are the top 28 finalists in the Official 2009 New 7 Wonders of Nature competition – nominated from among hundreds of sites around the world that have been proposed.

Helen Clark of New Zealand (former three term Prime Minister) and new   UNDP Administrator made First Visit to a donor country capital by going to Washington to meet   with officials from the Obama Administration, the House and Senate and major NGOs.

As well she met the Ambassadors from the Pacific community States.

To the Americans she explained that UNDP helps the US in its foreign policy – something that was not always the case under previous leadership in New York or Washington DC.
 http://www.us.undp.org/BulletinPDFs/June…

Maldives Join the Climate Neutral Network with a Pledge to Become World’s First Carbon Neutral Nation
Nairobi, 4 May 2009 – The Republic of Maldives, one of the countries most affected by climate change, has joined the Climate Neutral Network led by the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP).

This follows the announcement by Maldives President Mohamed Nasheed earlier this year to make the Indian Ocean island nation the world’s first carbon neutral country in just 10 years’ time, by 2019.

This ambitious objective will be achieved by fully switching to renewable sources of energy such as solar panels and wind turbines, investments in other new technologies, and sharing of best practices.

President Nasheed declared that “the Maldives will no longer be a net contributor to greenhouse gas emissions”.

“Climate change isn’t a vague and abstract danger but a real threat to our survival. But climate change not only threatens the Maldives, it threatens us all”, he added.

No part of the Maldives’ 1,200 tropical coral islets rises more than six feet (1.8 meters) above sea level, leaving the 400,000 inhabitants at great risk of rising sea levels and storm surges.

As part of coping with the effects of climate change, the Maldives Government focuses on coastal zone protection, land use management and protection of critical infrastructure.

The Maldives has become the seventh country to join the Climate Neutral Network (CN Net), a UNEP initiative launched in February 2008 to promote global transition to low-carbon economies and societies which also includes cities, regions, companies and organizations.

The other six nations that have pledged to move towards climate neutrality and joined the CN Net are Costa Rica, Iceland, Monaco, New Zealand, Niue and Norway.

Welcoming the Republic of Maldives on board the CN Net, UN Under-Secretary-General and UNEP Executive Director Achim Steiner stated that: “Climate neutrality is not just a developed nations’ concern, nor is it their prerogative. Developing nations such as Maldives can indeed leapfrog by embracing the low-carbon development model, which will assist in greening their economies and weathering both climatic and economic storms.”

“When the most climate change vulnerable nations display leadership in addressing the cause of the problem which they had very little to contribute to, there is no excuse for others not to act. The global community of nations can and must express its commitment to protecting the planet and powering green growth by sealing an ambitious climate deal at this year’s UN Climate Change Conference in Copenhagen”, he concluded.

For more information, contact:

At the Government of the Republic of Maldives: Ahmed Saleem, Permanent Secretary, Ministry of Housing, Transport and Environment, Tel: 3331695, Fax: 3331694, or e-mail:  saleem at meew.gov.mv, internet: http://www.environment.gov.mv/

At UNEP:

Nick Nuttall, UNEP Spokesperson and Head of Media, on Tel: +254-20-762-3084, Mobile: +254-733-632755, or when traveling: +41-79-596-5737, or e-mail:  nick.nuttall at unep.org

Or: Xenya Cherny Scanlon, Information Officer, Climate Neutral Network, on Tel: +254- 20-762-4387, Mobile: +254-721-847-563, or e-mail:  xenya.scanlon at unep.org; internet: http://www.unep.org/climateneutral

***********************************
Jim Sniffen
Programme Officer
UN Environment Programme
New York
tel: +1-212-963-8094/8210
 info at nyo.unep.org
  Permalink | |  Email This Article
Posted in Costa Rica, Iceland, Maldives, Monaco, New Zealand, Niue, Norway

Discuss this article

From: Marc Pallemaerts <MPallemaerts@ieep.eu>
Date: Tue, Apr 14, 2009

The Institute for European Environmental Policy (IEEP) recently carried out an analysis of the extent to which the EU (and its then 15 Member States) fulfilled the solemn promises made to developing countries in the so-called ‘Bonn Declaration’ of 23 July 2001. Eight years ago, at the UNFCCC Conference of the Parties (COP6bis) which paved the way for the entry into force of the Kyoto Protocol, the EU-15 together with five other OECD donor countries (Canada, New Zealand, Norway, Iceland and Switzerland) collectively made a ’strong political commitment’ to raise US$410 million a year from 2005 to help developing countries tackle climate change and to review this pledge in 2008. These Annex II Parties to the UNFCCC agreed to provide additional funds in a number of ways: through contributions to the Global Environment Facility (GEF), through other multilateral and bilateral aid channels (additional to 2001 ODA levels), and through three new climate change funds established under the Bonn/Marrakech agreements to provide financial assistance to developing countries: the Special Climate Change Fund, the Least Developing Countries Fund and the Kyoto Protocol Adaptation Fund.

IEEP undertook a detailed analysis of the levels of aid channelled through these different options for each of the EU signatories to the Bonn Declaration (EU-15). Results show that whilst the EU-15 may, overall, have fulfilled their commitments under that declaration, the data published by Member States is far from conclusive and the quality of reporting does not allow full independent verification of the amount of aid provided. Funds made available by the EU-15 through the GEF and dedicated multilateral climate change funds alone (approximately US$160 million/year) amount to less than half of the funds needed to meet the EU’s share of the Bonn commitment (US$369 million/year). Apparently, funding through bilateral channels accounts for most of the aid provided, but such assistance is a lot harder to monitor and verify at the international level. The lack of clarity and transparency in official reporting to the UNFCCC makes it impossible to affirm that much of the ‘additional’ aid actually provided since 2001 did not merely consist of ‘re-branded’ aid money.

To download the IEEP study, presented at a conference in Brussels on 28 January 2009, click http://www.ieep.eu/publications/pdfs/200…

For further information contact:

Dr Marc Pallemaerts
Senior Fellow &
Head of the Environmental Governance Programme
Institute for European Environmental Policy (IEEP)
Quai au Foin 55
Hooikaai 55
1000 Brussels
BELGIUM
Direct Tel.: 32-(0)2-7387471
Fax: 32-(0)2-7324004
Email:  mpallemaerts at ieep.eu
___________________________________________________________
IEEP is an independent not for profit institute dedicated to advancing an environmentally sustainable Europe through policy analysis, development and dissemination. IEEP undertakes work for external sponsors in a range of policy areas. We also have our own research programmes and produce the Manual of Environmental Policy: The EU and Britain www.mep-online.com. For further information about IEEP, see our website at http://www.ieep.eu or contact any staff member.

From:          franny at spannerfilms.net
    Subject:       [Age-of-Stupid] Hijacking King Lear
      Date:         January 29, 2009

The Age of Stupid is a 90-minute film about climate change, set in the future, which will have its world premiere in London on March 15th 2009 and then be released in UK cinemas on March 20th 2009, followed by other countries.

Oscar-nominated Pete Postlethwaite (In The Name of the Father, Brassed Off) stars as a man living alone in the devasted world of 2055, looking back at “archive” footage from 2007 and asking: why didn’t we stop climate change when we had the chance?

The final trailer is finally finished and finally looking very sparkly in its final HD glory: http://vimeo.com/2991411

The Age of Stupid: final trailer Feb 2009 from Age of Stupid on Vimeo.

“How do you keep going?” seems to be the new favourite interview question. Don’t want to get too pretentious on you, but Nietzche’s “He who has a why to live for can bear almost any how” is about right. And, less philosophically, a huge source of inspiration & motivation is the constant stream of supporting emails we receive. Like this from my lovely Uncle, who’s a marine biologist, amongst other things:

-> “In the marine environment, a groundswell develops once a certain amount of energy has been transferred from the atmosphere.   Even if the actual weather event moves elsewhere, the groundswell will still release the energy onto the beaches in the form of waves.   Whatever happens now, ‘Stupid’ will deliver a phenomenal amount of energy on March 15th. Keep it going and good luck! Unc x”

Hey,

The screening last night went really well. About seventy people from about 25 organisations (see below). Jackie Buckingham from the Wilderness Society and Josh Wyndham-Kidd from Youth Climate Coalition helped me set the whole thing up and were total stars throughout. We gave everyone a brown paper bag with a resource DVD, NGO pack, two stickers and the yellow feedback forms.

All the comments were really positive – see a selection below – and quite a few people said that this is exactly what Australia needs to wake it up in this critical year. Two people said that this film will cause a similar step change in public awareness as An Inconvenient Truth. There was also a sense that the movement is blossoming here and this could be the year when it really takes off. Cool eh?

Organisations represented
CANA, Greenpeace, FOE, Australian Conservation Foundation, WWF, The Green Party – Green MP John Kaye, The Wilderness Society, Transition Sydney, Australian Museum, Be the Change Australia, Catalyst, Centre for POlicy Development, Climate Action Coogee, Climate Change Research Centre, DECC, Geoexcghange Australia, Nature Conservation Council of NSW, OzGreen, People for a Safe Climate, SCRAP, Wholistic Business Network, Wakeup Sydney, XL

In terms of the official Australian release, the thinking is to hits cinemas here straight after the film festivals, so in late July or even August. So that’d be great timing for Copenhagen, but depends on lots of factors, so nothing’s confirmed yet.

“”I think the movie is a wonderful next step from Al Gore’s “Inconvenient Truth” and it could be utilised very effectively here.” – Jenny C

“Great film. We could use it to mobilise local community action. Shows how easy it is for people to delude themselves that they are ‘green’ when in fact they are part of the problem.” – Peter D

Have to say I came out very depressed about the too too ignorant people in this world, but also inspired! – Fran D

“The film is compelling – the people that the film focuses on are wonderful ‘messengers’.   A great theme that finally addresses the urgency of solving the crisis, globally, now.” – Sue L

“The Age of Stupid is an incredibly timely film. For anyone who cares about the future of this planet it is not to be missed!” – Emma D

“Excellent! The film about climate change that everyone can understand”.- Anne C

“Brilliant film. In a brilliant tradition of Allan Watkins ‘The War Game. More urgent than An Inconvenient Truth. It needs to be seen by the greatest number of people.   And we need to connect and act. Bravo”. – Stephen L

“Enjoyed the screening last night. Excellent polemic film. Now we need the people with influence to (a) see it (b) accept it as “true” and (c) act on that belief. There’s a lot of inertia to overcome…. And let’s declare “The War on Stupid”. It’s no more daft than a War on Poverty or Terror.” – Colin S

_______________________________________________
Age-of-Stupid mailing list
 Age-of-Stupid at talk.torchbox.com

WHY DON’T YOU TRY TO ORGANIZE A PREVIEW OF THE MOVIE IN YOUR COMMUNITY, OR GET YOUR LOCAL MEDIA INTERESTED? (the www.SustainabiliTank.info editor)

 The following is from Dr. James Hansen, known privately as Jim Hansen, The NASA Chief Scientist Who Still Has Difficulty in Distributing His Releases when Attempting To Release Them Via US Government Channels.

He Writes: The following one-pager is on my web site at
 http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/mailings/2…

Target paper:
The final version of “Target Atmospheric CO2: Where Should Humanity Aim?” in The Open Atmospheric Science Journal is available at http://dx.doi.org/10.2174/18742823008020…
You can click on the main paper and supporting material individually.   The two are combined in one pdf on the GISS web site at http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/abstracts/2008…

BTW, I think that the Supporting Material contains some interesting stuff.

NASA decided not to make a press release for the paper, but Yale did one
 http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2…

The draft press release that I wrote and “Q&A” about the paper are at http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/mailings/2…

It is difficult to generate the attention that the topic deserves because the basic conclusions were already presented in my talk at the December 2007 AGU meeting.   Also the first draft of the paper (available in arXiv, as is the final version) appeared on several blogs and was discussed in several newspapers, which discourages media attention to the final improved version.

The long delay between first draft and final paper was my fault he writes. The principal demand of the journal referees, addition of a “caveats and uncertainties” section (section 4.5 in the main paper and section 18 in the Supplementary Material), could have been completed in a week or two, but it took me ~two months because of other obligations.   I caused another delay by not checking typesetting in the proofs carefully enough, requiring an extra iteration of proofs.

Bottom line: I think that the “Open” publication method, which includes full peer review but results in a paper freely available throughout the world, is promising and I intend to pursue it further.

***

Switzerland:
Even countries among those that we think of as the most educated and progressive in environmental matters, such as Switzerland, the Netherlands, and Sweden, are condoning actions that, if consummated, make it almost impossible to avoid climate tipping points with disastrous consequences.

Letters to Swiss authorities, in English, French and German, are at:
 http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/mailings/2…

 http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/mailings/2…

 http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/mailings/2…

Thanks to Jacques Mirenowicz and Susana Jourdan in Switzerland and Reto Ruedy and Denis Gueyffier at GISS for help with translation into French and German.

***

Jim Hansen’s conclusion is:

The simple fact of the matter is that the only hope for keeping a planet that resembles the one of the Holocene, the past 10,000 years, is to halt any new CO2 emissions from coal and to phase-out existing coal emissions promptly.   I suppose it is possible that some people honestly do not understand that no goal for future CO2 emissions allowing construction of new coal plants will solve the problem and that “capture-ready” is a subterfuge.  

Fortunately, young people are beginning to catch on to what is happening, and I do not think they will allow the shenanigans to continue much longer.

Postpone UN climate summit, suggests former Irish president.
Former Irish president Mary Robinson has said that a crucial UN climate change summit due to take place in Poland in December should be postponed until after Barack Obama is inaugurated as US president.

Speaking at a meeting in Brussels on Thursday, Robinson, now vice president of the Club of Madrid, an organisation of former world leaders, said, “It would make more sense to postpone the summit until 20 January. It can’t possibly be led by a lack of understanding for the kind of change that Obama wants.

“This summit, which sounds great and sexy, is happening at the wrong time.”

Also speaking at the event, held to publicise the ‘Road to Copenhagen’ initiative – which refers to the UN climate meeting due to take place in 2009 in the Danish city – was commission vice president Margot Wallström.

She said, “The election of Barack Obama has sent a forceful positive signal to the EU. We see it in terms of negotiating a post-Kyoto agreement.

“We find it hugely important that Obama – with his strong statements on climate change – will be president.

“If we can have a signal from America that they are willing to sit down and talk, it will affect China and India.”

The ‘Road to Copenhagen’ project, which Robinson and Wallström are spearheading along with former Norwegian prime minister and UN special envoy on climate change, Gro Harlem Brundtland, was created to give the general public, industry, politicians and NGOs a say in the UN climate negotiations.

The Poznán summit in Poland this December is due to lay down the formal agenda for the whole process, but the decisive summit will be held in Copenhagen next year.

Robinson, Wallström and Brundtland were joined at the press conference by the Icelandic singer Björk, who has started her own climate campaign to find eco-friendly options for Iceland’s rich natural resources.

—————–

Unless postponed until the change in US Administration, Poznan will end up in a ditch and better to postpone it then let it derail the following Copenhagen meeting.

The Road to Copenhagen is a very bright idea if there is a productive Poznan meeting – otherwise Copenhagen will turn naturally into Poznan II and not into a Kyoto II as the UN professionals hope, or a Copenhagen I as an agreement between the US, China, India, Brazil would entail. Poznan is thus a make or brake event on the road to Copenhagen, and a US represented by Paula Dobriansky will just push the rest of those present into the ditch.

Barak Obama cannot speak up before January 20, and obviously cannot have his negotiator vetted by US Congress before he takes over as US President. He said clearly that he works under the rules of the US Constitution that says there is only one President at a given time. Pushing for keeping the Poznan date under these conditions is rather like saying that it is imperative for those opposing the notion that the world must be kept addicted to petroleum and other fossil carbons in their self-interest must have the day.

Barak Obama could appoint his Climate Change negotiator on January 20, 2009, right there at his inaugural speech, and Congress could approve his selection, the speediest, within a month – so, a Poznan meeting in March 2009 is the earliest it makes sense to hold this meeting if you are positively inclined to do something about climate change. We keep saying so for over a year, this even before we had an inkling of who might be next US President. We kept pouring cold water on the UN euphoria with their debate time-line. We are afraid that UN talk is very expensive – it allows people to fly around freely but is not intended to come up with results. Statements by the UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon, on how much he wants to see results from the climate change negotiations, and rosy pronunciations from the Executive of the UNFCCC, Yvo de Boer, cannot change the reality that in the end – it is the US President that holds the keys for a positive outcome of the Climate Change negotiations. It is in the promise of the US and the response from the Brazil, China, India, that an effective plan will be born.

See please also:

The Columbia University World Leaders Forum, September 26, 2008, Became The Podium For Prime Minister Anders Fogh Rasmussen of Denmark To Make Known A Roadmap To The December 2009 Climate Change Meeting in Copenhagen. The Prime Minister Is Keenly Interested That The Copenhagen Event Becomes The Turnaround Point From Our Present Descent Towards Global Environmental Disaster, and He Negotiated This Week A Roadmap With The UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon and The Two Candidates For The US Presidency. We Wished Him All The Luck He Needs; Nevertheless We Expressed Some Skepticism.

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