She won the 2006 presidential election in a runoff, beating center-right US dollar billionaire businessman and former senator Sebastián Piñera with 53.5% of the vote.

She campaigned on a platform of continuing Chile’s free-market policies, while increasing social benefits to help reduce the gap between rich and poor, one of the largest in the world.

Bachelet, a pediatrician and epidemiologist with studies in military strategy, served as Health Minister and Defense Minister under President Ricardo Lagos.

Bachelet is the second child of archaeologist Ángela Jeria Gómez and Air Force Brigadier General Alberto Bachelet Martínez.

Facing growing food shortages, the government of Salvador Allende placed Bachelet’s father in charge of the Food Distribution Office. When General Augusto Pinochet came to power in the September 11, 1973 coup, General Bachelet, refusing exile, was detained at the Air War Academy under charges of treason. Following months of daily torture at Santiago’s Public Prison, on March 12, 1974, he suffered a cardiac arrest that resulted in his death. On January 10, 1975, Bachelet and her mother were detained at their apartment by two DINA agents, who blindfolded them and drove them to Villa Grimaldi, a notorious secret detention center in Santiago, where they were separated and submitted to interrogation and torture.^[13] Some days later they were transferred to Cuatro Álamos (“Four Poplars”) detention center, where they were held until the end of January. Later in 1975, thanks to sympathetic connections in the military, both were exiled to Australia, where Bachelet’s older brother Alberto had moved in 1969.

Her paternal great-great-grandfather, Louis-Joseph Bachelet Lapierre, was a French wine merchant from Chassagne-Montrachet who emigrated to Chile with his Parisian wife, Françoise Jeanne Beault, in 1860 hired as a wine-making expert by the Subercaseaux vineyards in southern Santiago.

In February 1979, Bachelet returned to Santiago, Chile from East Germany. Her medical school credits from the GDR were not transferred, forcing her to resume her studies from where she had left off before fleeing the country. ^{[citation needed]} She graduated as M.D. on January 7, 1983^. She wished to work in the public sector wherever attention was most needed, applying for a position as general practitioner; her petition was, however, rejected by the military government on “political grounds.” Instead, because of her academic performance and published papers, she earned a scholarship to specialize in pediatrics and public health at Roberto del Río Children’s Hospital (1983–1986). During this time she also worked at PIDEE (Protection of Children Injured by States of Emergency Foundation), a non-governmental organization helping children of the tortured and missing in Santiago and Chillán. She was head of the foundation’s Medical Department between 1986 and 1990. Some time after her second child with Dávalos, Francisca Valentina, was born in February 1984, she and her husband legally separated. She is a separated mother of three and describes herself as an agnostic.

In 1990, after democracy was restored in Chile, Bachelet worked for the Ministry of Health’s West Santiago Health Service and was a consultant for the Pan-American Health Organization, the World Health Organization and the German Corporation for Technical Cooperation.

Driven by an interest in civil-military relations, in 1996 Bachelet began studies in military strategy at the National Academy for Strategic and Policy Studies (Anepe) in Chile, obtaining first place in her class.^[2] Her student achievement earned her a presidential scholarship, permitting her to continue her studies in the United States at the Inter-American Defense College in Washington, D.C., completing a Continental Defense Course in 1998. That same year she returned to Chile to work for the Defense Ministry as Senior Assistant to the Defense Minister. She subsequently graduated from a Master’s program in military science at the Chilean Army‘s War Academy.

In 1996 Bachelet ran against future presidential adversary Joaquín Lavín for the mayorship of Las Condes, a wealthy Santiago suburb and a right-wing stronghold. Lavín won the 22-candidate election with nearly 78% of the vote, while she finished fourth at 2.35%. At the 1999 presidential primary of Coalition of Parties for Democracy (CPD), Chile’s governing coalition since 1990, she worked for Ricardo Lagos’s nomination, heading the Santiago electoral zone.

On March 11, 2000 Bachelet—virtually unknown at the time—was appointed Minister of Health by President Ricardo Lagos. She began an in-depth study of the public health-care system that led to the AUGE plan a few years later. She was also given the task of eliminating waiting lists in the saturated public hospital system within the first 100 days of Lagos’s government. She reduced waiting lists by 90%, but was unable to eliminate them completely and offered her resignation, which was promptly rejected by the President.  Controversially,  she allowed free distribution of the morning-after pill for victims of sexual abuse.

On January 7, 2002 Bachelet was appointed Defense Minister, becoming the first woman to hold this post in a Latin American country and one of the few in the world. While Minister of Defense she promoted reconciliatory gestures between the military and victims of the dictatorship, culminating in the historic 2003 declaration by General Juan Emilio Cheyre, head of the army, that “never again” would the military subvert democracy in Chile.  She also oversaw a reform of the military pension system and continued with the process of modernization of the Chilean armed forces with the purchasing of new military equipment, while engaging in international peace operations.

A moment which has been cited as key to Bachelet’s chances to the presidency came during a flood in northern Santiago where she, as Defense Minister, led a rescue operation on top of an amphibious tank, wearing a cloak and military cap.

In late 2004, following a surge of her popularity in opinion polls, Bachelet was established as the only CPD figure able to defeat Lavín, and she was asked to become the Socialists’ candidate for the presidency.

According to The Economist magazine the government of Bachelet opted to make social protection and the promotion of equality of opportunity her main priority. Since becoming President, her government built 3,500 crèches daycare for poorer children. It introduced a universal minimum state pension and extended free health care to cover many serious conditions.
A new housing policy aimed at abolishing the last remaining shanty-towns in Chile by 2010 featured grants to the poorest families. Some of them had to pay just US$400 for a house costing about US$20,000.

In October 2009 Ms Bachelet’s popularity peaked at 80 percent according to a public opinion poll by conservative polling institute Adimark GfK., and in March 2010 she showed an approval rating of 84%, and in terms of specific characteristics attributed to Chile’s president, ‘loved by Chileans’ reached a record 96%.

The Chilean Constitution does not allow a president to serve two consecutive terms, so Bachelet left office in March 2010.

Chile’s October 16, 2006 vote in the United Nations Security Council election—with Venezuela and Guatemala deadlocked in a bid for the two-year, non-permanent Latin American and Caribbean seat on the Security Council — developed into a major ideological issue in the country, and was seen as a test for Bachelet. The governing coalition was divided between the Socialists, who supported a vote for Venezuela, and the Christian Democrats, who strongly opposed it. The day before the vote the president announced (through her spokesman) that Chile would abstain, citing as reason a lack of regional consensus over a single candidate, ending months of speculation.

Continuing the coalition’s free-trade strategy, in August 2006 Bachelet promulgated a free trade agreement with the People’s Republic of China (signed under the previous administration of Ricardo Lagos), the first Chinese free-trade agreement with a Latin American nation; similar deals with Japan and India were promulgated in August 2007. In October 2006, Bachelet promulgated a multilateral trade deal with New Zealand, Singapore and Brunei, the Trans-Pacific Strategic Economic Partnership (P4),  also signed under Lagos’ presidency.  She also held free-trade talks with other countries, including Australia, Vietnam,  Turkey and Malaysia. Regionally, she signed bilateral free trade agreements with Panama, Peru and Colombia.

At the beginning of 2010 Chile became the OECD’s 31st member, and its first in South America. This acceptance for OECD membership marked international recognition of nearly two decades of democratic reform and sound economic policies; for the OECD, Chile’s membership was a major milestone in its mission to build a stronger, cleaner and fairer global economy

She speaks Spanish (her native language), English, German, Portuguese and French.

In 2009 Forbes magazine ranked her as the 22nd in the list of the 100 most powerful women in the world (she was #25 in 2008, #27 in 2007, and #17 in 2006). In 2008, TIME magazine ranked her 15 on its list of the world’s 100 most influential people.

Eleanor Clift wrote on politicsdaily.com on June 10, 2010 that Michelle Bachelet moved the Chilean Government from Macho – to – Maternal. She was clearly the best qualified person to establish and head the new UN institution that was baptized with the terrible name UNWOMEN. And you know what, letting into the UN building a highly qualified person may endanger the minions working there. That, is what doomed on me today, this because I also learned an additional fact about Bachellet’s Chile, and that is why I write this UPDATE.
 http://www.politicsdaily.com/2010/06/10/…

The additional fact I learned today came from reading material that will appear in an Energy Management Magazine Published in India. The article is by – Ms. Jimena Bronfman, Vice Minister of Energy, Chile , and it deals with Chile moving into leadership position on energy issues – and you guessed right if you said that Dr. Bachelet started this. In effect the Ministry of Energy – which for Chile is a Ministry of Energy Efficiency – was set up at the end of her days in the Presidential Office. We are sure that this was not an easy task to fulfill – but we are sure that it will be one of her most important legacies. We know that Energy Efficiency is not a top priority of the G77 real on-going leadership and this, more then anything else, explains the diatribe we described in our original posting which we updated now.

The creation of the Ministry of Energy in February 1^st 2010 is an important milestone in this process. The law that is the basis for Chile’s current institutional framework also includes the creation of the Chilean Energy Efficiency Agency, a public private entity that will implement the public policies designed by the Energy Efficiency Division of the Ministry.

Energy Efficiency is one of the main goals of Chile’s national energy policy, families are changing their habits and industries, corporations and local governments are trying to reduce their energy consumption by adopting energy-efficient measures. This fostering environment was recently faced by the February 27^th earthquake and tsunami that devastated several regions of our country. We have taken this catastrophe as an opportunity and a challenge to rebuild our towns and cities using energy efficiency and renewable energy.

The Ministry of Energy is working with other ministries, such as the Ministry of Housing, the Ministry of Health and the Ministry of Education to include energy efficiency measures and non-conventional renewable energies in the reconstruction of health and education infrastructure and emergency housing. We are also developing a pilot project to rebuild a town with the leading best practices in sustainability and energy consumption, so it can be replicated in other parts of the region and world.

Energy Efficiency is key to Chile’s competitiveness and economic growth. According to studies carried out before the earthquake, energy efficiency measures could help reduce Chile’s energy demand by around 14% by 2020. This would have a positive financial impact in the reconstruction process, as public funds saved by reduction of energy consumption can be reallocated to other priorities of the rebuilding program.

Energy Efficiency will also help Chile, whose economy is based on exports, to reduce its carbon footprint and be competitive in a world that is increasingly carbon-conscious. Although Chile’s contribution to global greenhouse emissions is low compared to many other nations, our wines, copper, fruits, fish and wood products are sold in developed markets that will require sustainable production processes.

In order to achieve our goals we are currently developing the Energy Efficiency Strategy for 2020. At the moment a draft proposal is being reviewed by key actors from the private and the public sectors who will be involved in the actual implementation of the strategy. The main objective of this process is to promote a broad discussion of the specific proposals, introduce appropriate improvements and gain comprehensive support for the energy saving goals contemplated in the strategy.  The official version of the E3 will be published after completion of this discussion period, hopefully by the end of November 2010.

Other challenges for this year include the implementation of the rest of our institutional framework, which will be completed by the creation of the Chilean Energy Efficiency Agency, a public-private non-profit entity that will implement the Ministry’s public policies. It will be funded mainly through public funds but will include private sector representatives in its board. The focus of the Agency’s work will be guided by the E3 strategy; however, we shall also aim at developing other important projects such as education. We strongly believe that a crucial driver for change in these matters is highly-skilled human resources. Therefore, education in schools, undergraduate and post-graduate education is needed to introduce strong energy efficiency programs. Other important aspects of energy efficiency lie in smart-grid and net-metering programs.

Another main priority for 2010 is the development of energy efficiency labelling for cars, new houses and domestic appliances. Labelling is currently mandatory for refrigerators and light bulbs, and we aim to expand this initiative so consumers have all the information available to make the right decisions.

We also want to continue growing our international alliances and cooperation. We have already executed collaboration agreements with several countries and organizations worldwide, and we will work to strengthen and deepen those relationships. Energy Efficiency is a global effort that can be fostered by exchanging best practices that will benefit consumers, industries and countries all over the world.

—————————–

The China and Developing States, the full name of the G77 that purports speaking for 130 out of the 192 UN Member States, is a UN charade – simply, because there never was a common interest among all these various States Now, with China becoming at least a G2 with the United States, if not the straight Global Economic Super power, for her to use the leadership of this rag-tag bunch and push into leadership positions at the UN – Libya, Zimbabwe, Sudan etc. resulted in turning the whole UN into a laughable enterprise. Bravo to little Palau that walked out on this continuous obstructionist committee circuit that calls for time-out whenever the UN tries to reach some decision. We watched them at climate Change meetings where Saudi Arabia is their representative.

Perhaps there was once s difference between the industrialized European  – North American countries plus Japan, and the rest of the world – this when the UN was created and the decolonizing process was giving birth to many new UN Member States – in effect multiplying by three the total number of global independent States, but since then much has changed.

The Latin ABC, Mexico, Korea, Turkey, India, Indonesia, South Africa have all knocked successfully at the corporate doors of development and entered the G20. The OECD club includes most of these G20 plus most EU States and Israel that is a perpetual  G77 pariah. They have now real interests to defend and not much time for posturing – so we will see slowly a realignment also at the UN. OK, China and South Africa will not want to give up their positions as leaders of the 130. It keeps some of their diplomats in the circuit and the UN will continue the fiction, but how long hence that the AOSIS/SIDS will still play this game? When will they see that Palau was indeed a trailblazer? Will the lack of action on Climate Change by some of the major OECD members who effectively joined the Saudis in opposing real action on climate, push these States back into the G77 arms?

—————————————-

THURSDAY, JULY 08, 2010
Chile Threatens to Split South Unity in World Body.
Thalif Deen
 http://ipsterraviva.net/UN/currentNew.as…

UNITED NATIONS, Jul 7 (IPS) – The Group of 77 (G77) has historically maintained a united front, vociferously protecting the economic interests of developing countries at the United Nations. But its longstanding solidarity is now being threatened by the continued presence of a single Latin American country which recently joined the ranks of a rich elitist group.

Chile, which was formally inducted last May into the 30-member Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), described as an exclusive club of industrial nations, has given no indications of leaving the G77, thereby triggering a sharp division of opinion among its 130 members. “Chile wants to have it both ways,” one G77 member told IPS, speaking on condition of anonymity. “It wants to have one foot in the OECD and another in the G77. But this is unacceptable to some of us.”

When Mexico and South Korea broke ranks with the developing world and joined the Paris-based OECD back in 1994 and 1996, respectively, both countries quit the G77, the largest single coalition of developing countries at the United Nations.

Chakravarti Raghavan, editor emeritus of the Geneva-based South-North Development Monitor published by the Third World Network, told IPS if Chile does not voluntarily quit the G77, the group must find a way around its longstanding convention of consensus decisions, and “politely but firmly throw Chile out”.

“This will be in line with the spirit and the intentions behind the formation of the Group of 77 and its functioning over all these years,” he added.

“It is probably about time that the G77 being an informal grouping expel Chile – on the simple ground that you can’t belong to two different groupings,” said Raghavan, who is considered a foremost authority on the G77, and who has written extensively about the Group since its inception in June 1964.

“It is my impression that Mexico, when it joined OECD, initially wanted to be in both camps, but was told it was not possible,” he added.

On North-South economic issues at the United Nations, the G77 and the OECD hold diametrically opposite views – most or all of the time.

The OECD is home to some of the world’s major economic powers, including the United States, Britain, Germany, France and Japan. Most of the emerging economic powers, including Brazil, India, China and South Africa, are longstanding members of the G77 and not members of the OECD.

But according to the OECD, it is planning to have discussions with Brazil, China, India, Indonesia and South Africa – all active members of the G77 – “with a view to possible membership”.

The G77 has lost four other members over the years: Cyprus and Malta (both in May 1994) and Romania (January 2007) when they joined the European Union.

A fourth country, Palau, a small island developing nation in the Pacific, withdrew from the G77 in June 2006, ostensibly for financial reasons.

Besides Chile, Mexico and South Korea, the OECD has also added three other non-G77 members into its ranks: Estonia, Slovenia and Israel.

Speaking off-the-record, a diplomat from a G77 country expressed a dissenting point of view when he told IPS: “There is nothing in the G77 rules or guidelines stating that an OECD member has to quit the G77.”

He said Chile is well within its rights to remain a member of the G77.

“And, while there may be a few in G77 who may not be pleased about Chile remaining in the G77, there are no serious moves afoot to push them out of the grouping,” he said. “Most of us, support Chile remaining in the G77. There will be strong resistance from a number of us if anyone tries to eject Chile from the G77.”

And as an after-thought, he added: “The OECD had made leaving the G77 a condition for Mexico’s entry into the OECD. However, when Chile was applying to the OECD, there was no such condition.”

Moreover, he said, Mexico stated that leaving the G77 should not be a condition for Chile’s entry.

Another G77 delegate told IPS that if Chile does not voluntarily leave the Group, as Mexico and South Korea did in previous years, a divided G77 may be forced to take a decision either way.

Meanwhile the former G8 – the United States, Britain, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, Canada and Russia – has been expanded into the G20 to include seven developing nations (besides Australia, Mexico, South Korea, Turkey and the European Union).

The seven developing countries – Argentina, Brazil, China, India, Indonesia, Saudi Arabia and South Africa – are still members of the G77.

Chile has argued that G77 members that belong to the G20 should be considered in the same light as G77 members belonging to the OECD. But the G20 is not considered a formal body like the OECD, which is treaty-based and whose decisions are binding on all its members.

According to an OECD statement, the invitation to Chile to become the Organisation’s 31st member came at a time when the OECD is expanding its relations with the region.

As an OECD member, Chile will participate in all areas of the OECD’s work, from economic and financial policy to education, employment and social affairs. It will also join with other OECD countries to share experiences and best practices, setting new standards and developing new governance mechanisms for its economy and society more broadly.

The statement said that during two years of accession negotiations, Chile was reviewed by some 20 OECD committees with respect to OECD instruments, standards and benchmarks.

The invitation to take up membership confirms that Chile is taking appropriate steps to reform its economy including in the areas of corporate governance, anti-corruption, and environmental protection, the statement said.

from	raffaella@ecoharmony.com
to		Energy-l <energy-l@lists.iisd.ca>
date		Fri, Jul 9, 2010
subject		[LondonRIG] Event 29 July 2010: Christian Aid’s Climate Change & Adaptation Work.

)

Dear all,

For those of you in London or passing by, LondonRIG will be having another informal presentation and discussion on:

“Christian Aid’s Climate Change & Adaptation Work with Links to Emerging Renewable Energy Issues” by Richard Ewbank, Climate Change Programme Coordinator at Christian Aid.

When: Thursday 29th of July 2010 at 18:30

Where: The Carpenters Arms, 12 Seymour Place, Marylebone, London

Note: The event is open to all! However due to the informal nature and short duration of the meet-up, we do not encourage or support attendance from overseas – unless you are passing by London for other reasons.

RSVP: thalia@ecoharmony.com (please respond with a YES or MAYBE if planning to come)

Topic:
‘Christian Aid has gained a high profile as a campaigning agency working on climate change but Richard will explain how their main programme work involves the rather more practical side of supporting poor communities to cope with the increasing levels of climate change that they are experiencing. This means increasing the resilience of their livelihoods, enhancing the ability of their communities to identify and plan for the likely future climate threats they may face and diversifying their sources of income.

He will describe how an important part of this process is to detect the level of climate change that has occurred and is likely in the future and to attribute livelihood risks correctly to climate or other risk factors.

With 44% of people in India and over 70% in Africa not connected to grid sources of electricity, renewable energy is a key resource in this adaptation process. ’

Please find flyer attached. Feel free to post this on your own newsletters or websites and to forward this to others who may be interested to attend.

Directions and other information about the event and the London Regional Interest Group, are available on the HEDON website:

http://www.hedon.info/LondonRIG:29Jul2010

We look forward to seeing you there.
Best regards,
Thalia & Raffaella

–

Thalia KONARIS
Eco Ltd: www.ecoharmony.com
PO Box 900, London, Bromley, BR1 9FF, UK
Tel +44-20 30 120 130
Fax  +44-20 30 120 140
email thalia@ecoharmony.com

Challenges of social progress for Brazil, India, South Africa – the IBSA.

“We can create a more sustainable, cleaner and safer world by making wiser energy choices”. Robert Alan

The professor was touring villages in Karnataka, gathering information for a program called Sustainable Transformation of Rural Areas. Soil and growing conditions were harsh in much of the area, and many of the villages were poor. In one such village, the professor and his team of research assistants stopped in a tea stall.

Naturally, the strangers drew attention in the small village. One villager struck up a conversation with the professor, and asked what the visitors were doing.

“We’re looking for ways to use science and engineering principles to solve real-life problems in villages like this one”, Professor Shrinivasa told the man.

The villager thought for a moment. “Well, we use oil from the Honge tree to light the lamps in our temples”, the man volunteered. “Maybe you could find some other use for that oil”.

Indeed he could. The professor, who is based at the Indian Institute of Science, found that the Honge tree (whose Latin name is Pongamia Pinnata) grew throughout the village, and oil could easily be extracted from the tree’s plentiful pods. He also recalled that many years ago Rudolf Diesel had used peanut oil when demonstrating his invention, the diesel engine. The professor told his colleagues, “Let’s try this oil in a diesel engine right here in the village”.

They got some oil, borrowed a small diesel engine, started it up and – boom! – the engine fired up, ran smoothly and kept running smoothly. Villagers immediately began using the local oil instead of spending money to buy diesel fuel.

That was a decade ago, and since then Professor Shrinivasa has traveled to relatively less fertile lands across India to promote the planting of Pongamia trees as a source of alternate fuel.

My wife Girija and I met Professor Shrinivasa recently, and found that he had lost no passion for his cause. He talked enthusiastically about the benefits of Pongamia-based bio-diesel. For one, it is grown in dry lands and hence does not lead to the food shortages sometimes caused when farmers grow corn or soya for bio-fuel instead of other crops for food. Second, in terms of emissions, bio-diesels are carbon neutral: the carbon dioxide absorbed by the trees is released when the fuel is burnt. Third, in terms of particles that cause pollution and respiratory diseases, bio-diesel emissions are less harmful than petrol and diesel.

The economics are compelling. A hectare of wasteland growing Pongamia trees can yield 10 tonnes of seeds worth around Rs. 40,000. Horticulture is far less labor intensive and hence can be done at relatively low costs, providing a good return to the farmers.  The professor’s calculations show that India has adequate availability of wastelands that can be planted with enough Pongamia trees to meet the entire nation’s petrol and diesel requirements. But this calls for enormous political will and an ability to overcome the petroleum lobbies. As a lone champion, Professor Shrinivasa has yet to build the momentum to battle these forces – but continues on his path regardless.

The Connected Age requires us to look for viable alternatives in various aspects of our daily lives. It requires us the boldly embrace these new alternatives – as they emerge. It requires us to battle the vested interests and the entrenched beliefs of the industrial age with the vision of creating a more inclusive and sustainable world. And it requires us to step forward the way the professor has, and to support people like him who have stepped forward. Do share your own insights in this area.

Long live the earth.

Saturday, 12 June 2010 10:06
author:Reuters
POLITICS & ECONOMICS / NEWS
by Reuters, Saturday, 12 June 2010

SAUDI STANCE: Saudi angered many by blocking study of global warming. (Getty Images)

UN climate negotiators agreed to an investigation on Friday after protesters smashed a sign emblazoned “Saudi Arabia” and dropped it in toilet after Riyadh blocked a study of deeper cuts in greenhouse gases.

Many countries condemned the protest, after Saudi Arabia blocked a request by small island states at the May 31-June 11 talks for a study of tougher cuts in greenhouse gases to help slow a rise in world sea levels.

Mexico’s delegate Luis Alfonso de Alba, whose country will host the main climate talks in late 2010, said he was initiating an investigation by the U.N. Climate Change Secretariat.

“Despite its considerable efforts to bring the best coverage to the most possible fans across the Middle East and North Africa including 18 free-to-air games from the group stages, Al Jazeera Sport viewers repeatedly lost their signal through the course of yesterday’s opening fixture,” the statement added.

“This loss of signal was completely beyond Al Jazeera Sport’s control and they share in the frustrations of all those whose enjoyment was spoiled by what was a deliberate act of sabotage.”

Football fans across the Middle East cried foul on Friday as the start of Al Jazeera’s broadcast of the FIFA World Cup was hit by blank screens. Fans across Dubai, including thousands watching at special events across the emirate, reported technical problems.

Hundreds of fans also complained about the problems on Twitter.

Technical problems hit the beginning of the coverage by the Qatar based TV station with its special World Cup channels frozen or broadcasting in the wrong language in a number of countries, including the UAE, Bahrain, Kuwait and Egypt.

For most of the first half an hour of the first game between hosts South Africa and Mexico, viewers were left with no picture or a frozen screen.

The issues appeared to have been sorted out shortly before half time but problems persisted throughout the second half of the match.

Broadcasts on the English language channel morphed into French commentary from the start and then the channel went blank. The English commentary only appeared much later in the first half of the game.

The only coverage working throughout was the HD channel broadcasting in Arabic only.

Broadcasting rights across the region are owned by Al Jazeera Sport, and can currently be accessed either by purchasing an Al Jazeera Sports card or through Etisalat’s pay TV E-Vision.

————————

Al Jazeera has ‘FIFA backing’ to tackle World Cup woes

by Andy Sambidge, Saturday, 12 June 2010, ArabianBusiness.com

The general manager of Al Jazeera Sport said on Saturday that the company had implemented a “back up plan” to minimise future disruption to its FIFA World Cup coverage, adding that it had the full backing of FIFA to tackle the problem.

Nasser Al Khelaifi told Arabian Business in a telephone interview that the people responsible for “destroying our signal” would be found “very soon”.

However, later on Saturday, the broadcaster experienced further technical problems, notably during the Argentina v Nigeria match, as protests mounted up on social networking sites such as Twitter and Facebook.

Al Khelaifi said that the TV station had the “full backing” of World Cup organisers FIFA to find the culprits he accused of deliberately jammed the Nilesat and Arabsat satellites.

In a statement, FIFA said: “FIFA is supporting Al Jazeera in trying to locate the source of the interference in the broadcast of the 2010 FIFA World Cup South Africa. FIFA is appalled by any action to try to stop Al Jazeera’s authorised transmissions of the FIFA World Cup as such actions deprive football fans from enjoying the world game in the region. It is not acceptable to FIFA.”

Al Jazeera Sport suffered major technical problems during its broadcast of the opening World Cup match between South Africa versus Mexico on Friday.

Al Khelaifi said: “The people who were responsible did not steal the TV rights of Al Jazeera yesterday, they stole the viewers’ rights because this was a match that was being broadcast free to everyone. Of course we have been in contact with FIFA and they are supporting us to find them [the people responsible].”

He added that Al Jazeera was working with “a number of international specialised companies” to track down the culprits and that he was confident they would be found soon.

In a statement released earlier, the TV company said: “Al Jazeera Sport would like to condemn the actions of those involved in the deliberate attempts to block its signal during its World Cup broadcasts yesterday”, adding that it was a “deliberate act of sabotage”.

Al Khelaifi told Arabian Business that its contingency plan to minimise future disruption was now in operation but added that he could not say if future satellite attacks would happen during the football tournament.

“I think these people are sick,” he said, adding that everything was being done to ensure the best possible TV coverage for the rest of the tournament.

Technical problems hit the beginning of the coverage by the Qatar based TV station with its special World Cup channels frozen or broadcasting in the wrong language in a number of countries across the Middle East.

For most of the first half an hour of the first game between hosts South Africa and Mexico, viewers were left with no picture or a frozen screen.

The issues appeared to have been sorted out shortly before half time but problems persisted throughout the second half of the match.

The second match of the night – France v Uruguay – was unaffected.

Al Khelaifi could not put a figure on how many viewers were affected by the disruption on Friday but said that 85m people had tuned in for Al Jazeera’s coverage of the Champions League Final last month.

Broadcasting rights across the region are exclusively owned by Al Jazeera Sport

“Conserving energy is cheaper and smarter than building power plants” (Dr. Arthur Rosenfeld).

The watt. The volt. The ohm. All electrical terms are named after famous engineers and physicists from the 18th and 19th century. Now, an acclaimed 20th century scientist is lending his name to a new unit of energy savings – the ‘Rosenfeld.’

The proposed term – a ‘Rosenfeld’ – would represent the electricity savings of 3 billion kilowatt-hours per year — the annual output of an existing 500 megawatt coal-fired power plant – and avoid generating three million metric tons of CO2 emissions. The new energy-savings measurement term was authored by 54 scientists from 26 research institutions and announced in the peer-reviewed journal Environmental Research Letters.

For your leisure time reading – a clean energy monthly E-zine from India          E_mag_June_2010.pdf

MRM says:  We shall be pleased if you could send us your views/comments/suggestions to make our publication more informative and useful.

——————–

“The Rosenfeld” Named After California’s Godfather of Energy Efficiency.

With a decades-long career in energy analysis and standards, Rosenfeld is often credited with being personally responsible for billions of dollars in energy savings.

How to cut energy use, carbon? Do it – One “Rosenfeld” at a time.

Arthur Rosenfeld, who recently retired at the age of 83 after two five-year terms on the California Energy Commission, led the way in helping the state set its first-ever energy standards for household appliances and buildings. His mission as an energy-efficiency evangelist was launched in 1973 during the OPEC oil embargo … rather than rail on the oil producers, he reasoned, wouldn’t it be better if the US could find ways to stop wasting so much energy?

His impact on California’s per capita electricity consumption, which has remained flat since the mid-’70s, has long been dubbed the “Rosenfeld effect.” And he himself coined “Rosenfeld’s Law,” which asserts that the amount of energy required to produce one dollar of economic output has decreased by about 1 per cent per year since 1845.

Eighty Year Old Saved Us $800 Billion - 

Ode to Arthur H. Rosenfeld, Doctor Efficiency - 

Arthur H. Rosenfeld, Ph.D. was originally appointed to the California Energy Commission by Governor Gray Davis in April 2000. The Commissioner was reappointed by Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger January 26, 2005. The five members of the Energy Commission are appointed by the Governor to staggered five-year terms and requires Senate confirmation. By law, four of the five members of the Energy Commission have professional training in specific areas – engineering or physical science, environmental protection, economics, law, and one commissioner from the public-at-large. Commissioner Rosenfeld filled the physical science position until his retirement in January 2010.

Commissioner Rosenfeld was presiding member of the Research, Development and Demonstration Committee and the Dynamic Pricing Committee (Ad Hoc Committee); and was the second member of the Energy Efficiency Committee.

Art Rosenfeld received his Ph.D. in Physics in 1954 at the University of Chicago under Nobel Laureate Enrico Fermi, and then joined the Department of Physics at the University of California at Berkeley. There he joined, and eventually oversaw, the Nobel prize-winning particle physics group of Luis Alvarez at Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (LBNL) until 1974. At that time, he changed his research focus to the efficient use of energy, formed the Center for Building Science at Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, and led it until 1994.
 http://newscenter.lbl.gov/feature-storie…

 http://www.energy.ca.gov/commissioners/r…

 http://www.greenbang.com/how-to-cut-ener…

 http://earth2tech.com/2010/03/15/how-do-…

Basic to look for options beyond Kyoto
Nitin Sethi, TNN, Apr 21, 2010,

NEW DELHI: Are the key developing countries also unsure of Kyoto Protocol’s future? In the next BASIC meeting of South Africa, Brazil, China and India, the four emerging economic giants will discuss, besides other climate talk details, the possibility of a world without the international agreement that binds industrialized countries down to greenhouse gas emission targets.

In an exercise to prepare for different scenarios, the BASIC countries’ ministers will be meeting in South Africa on April 25-26 to discuss, besides other climate-related strategies, the one question that has been bogging the climate talks for two years — “How long will the Kyoto Protocol survive?”

In a discussion note prepared by the South African government and shared with the other three members, the hosts have suggested the powerful group of four discuss what possible international deal could replace Kyoto Protocol in case the global community does not agree to a second commitment period under the compact.

The South Africans have also suggested that discussions be held on the possibility of a shorter second phase of the protocol if the developing countries cannot succeed on securing a long enough successive period. But sources pointed out that the discussion note did not include inputs from the other three countries and the end result of the talks would be a more reliable weathervane for adjudging the BASIC countries’ intentions for the series of international talks slated this year.

The first phase of the protocol ends in 2012 and the developed countries have been reluctant to take emission reduction targets under the next phase. While Japan has outrightly rejected Kyoto, and Russia has shown reluctance, EU and US have played all the negotiating tricks possible to take the life out of the international legal instrument.

———————-
 http://www.thehindu.com/2010/04/21/stori…

BASIC to discuss Kyoto Protocol survival

Priscilla Jebaraj, The Hindu

NEW DELHI: At their meeting this weekend, the four BASIC countries – Brazil, South Africa, India and China – will discuss the Kyoto Protocol’s chances of survival.

According to the agenda prepared by the South African hosts, with input from all four nations, some of the key questions to guide their discussion on April 26 include: “How long will the Kyoto Protocol survive? Could we envisage a shorter second commitment period designed solely to secure carbon markets? If no second commitment period, what would replace Kyoto?”

India does not yet have clear answers to these questions, according to Union Minister of State for Environment and Forests Jairam Ramesh, who will attend the meeting. However, they are part of the “realistic” approach being adopted after the failure of the U.N. summit in Copenhagen in December 2009 to produce any clear agreement or commitment on tackling climate change at a global level.

“Let’s be realistic”

“The general feeling is, ‘Let’s be realistic’,” said Mr. Ramesh. “Now the general consensus seems to be that we won’t get anything done in Cancun [where the next major U.N. summit will be held in December 2010]. So we need to look at Plan B, which is essentially to focus on [the summit in] South Africa in 2011,” he said.

This weekend’s meeting will map “scenarios of how the negotiations might unfold in the next 2 years (multilateral success; multilateral fragmentation; multilateral failure; others),” according to the agenda. This is a clear signal that the BASIC countries envisage a two-year process to end in 2011, in line with their European counterparts.

Sources pointed out that the discussion note was at present merely a suggestive agenda for talks by hosts South Africans, which includes the issue of how to bring parts of the contentious Copenhagen Accord into the mainstream of formal UN negotiations.

The four countries will also discuss how to rebuild the `trust deficit’ between the developing and the developed countries.

————————-

WE ALSO KNOW THEY WILL DISCUSS IF THE COP 18 OF 2012 WILL BE HELD IN DOHA, QATAR OR SEOUL, KOREA.

This after COP 16 of Cancun and COP 17 in South Africa (Cape Town ?).

Ajay Kaul/PTI / Brasilia April 15, 2010 We picked this up in the Business Standard of India.

He was received warmly by Brazilian Defence Minister Nelson Jobin as the military band played national anthems of the host country and India, one by one.

The Prime Minister reached here from Washington on the second leg of his eight-nation tour.

The two summits will discuss global economic crisis besides ways to enhance cooperation among the member countries of the two groupings.

At the 2nd BRIC Summit, Iran’s nuclear issue and the controversy surrounding it will also be discussed under the grouping’s format by Singh, Russian President Dmitry Medvedev, Chinese President Hu Jintao and Brazilian President Lula da Silva. This will be the first time that Iran will be part of focused agenda of the grouping.

BRIC is a significant grouping comprising two of the world’s leading energy producers — Russia and China and top energy consumers — India and China, which officials say forms the basis for natural synergy.

In the BRIC format, Foreign Ministers of the four countries have been meeting regularly on the sidelines of international conferences, including the UN General Assembly.

The BRIC countries, representing 40 per cent of the global population, are among the largest and fastest growing economies with rich human and material resources. They represent the future of the global economic landscape.

With a similarity of views on several issues like climate change and reform of global institutions, including the UN, the four countries have been fine-tuning their collective approaches to these issues.

In the IBSA format too, India, Brazil and South Africa, the three fastest growing economies of three continents, have been evolving common and coordinated approaches to the challenges like global economic crisis and climate change besides pushing efforts to enhance cooperation among themselves.

After the IBSA Summit on Friday, India, Brazil and South Africa are expected to sign two trilateral MoUs. These are in the areas of solar energy and science and technology.

An MoU in the field of sport is also likely to be inked.

“These groupings reflect the growing role of emerging economies in shaping the global economic order,” the Prime Minister had said in a statement before leaving on his two-nation tour.

He said the IBSA process has come of age as it today encompasses a wide range of activities which supplement the excellent bilateral relations that India enjoys with each of these countries.

“Our coordination on important international issues has expanded, and our trilateral cooperation is beginning to bear fruit in many sectors,” the Prime Minister had said.

“We have a high stake in the revival of the global economy, an open trading system, energy security, combating climate change and addressing non-traditional threats to international security,” he said.

Singh will hold bilateral meetings with the Chinese President and Russian President during his stay here.

Ahead of his meeting with Hu, Singh said in Washington that India and China were working very hard to find a “practical” and “pragmatic” solution to the boundary question and it would “take time” to get resolved.

“Well we have the border problem and that problem has to be resolved. We are working very hard to find to have a practical, pragmatic solution to that problem,” he said at a press conference when asked about relations between India and China.

Noting that both countries “recognise that it would take time”, he said both the nations have agreed that pending the resolution of the border issues, peace and tranquility should be maintained along the Line of Actual Control and by and large that situation prevails on the ground.

On the overall Sino-India relations, he said the economic content of the relationship has increased significantly, with China today being India’s largest trading partner.

There are large Chinese investments in our country and there are large Indian investments in China. “On the economic front the relationship is moving in the right direction,” he said.

On multilateral issues, he said, there was a recognition in China that there was a similarity of approach between the two countries and they can gain by working together.

In this context, he referred to the Copenhagen conference on climate change last December during which India and China worked closely to block developed nations from imposing their agenda.

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

FRIDAY, APRIL 16, 2010

Emerging Powers Eager to Get Down to Business.

Fabiana Frayssinet

RIO DE JANEIRO, Apr 15 (IPS) – Behind every initiative to form an association of nations, there are “strong economic and commercial interests,” said Brazilian Foreign Minister Celso Amorim. Members of the business communities of Brazil, China, India, Russia and South Africa wasted no time in stating loudly and clearly what they were there for, ahead of the speeches their presidents will deliver at summit meetings this week.

Energy, information technology, infrastructure, food and agribusiness are the sectors that some 400 commercial delegates identified as priorities in terms of business opportunities. These points of interest were defined at a meeting Wednesday of business leaders from the BRIC (Brazil, Russia, India and China) and IBSA (India, Brazil and South Africa) groups, in which economic statistics mattered more than country initials.

According to documents distributed at the IBSA-BRIC Business Forum in Brasilia, nearly 50 percent of global economic growth between 2000 and 2008 took place in the BRIC nations, and by 2014 this share is expected to reach 61 percent. Nearly half the world’s population lives in the BRIC countries, which occupy more than one-quarter of the planet’s land area and produce 15 percent of global GDP.

Together, our countries have tremendous strength, said India’s Minister of Commerce and Industry, Anand Sharma, in the upbeat tone shared by all participants.

BRIC and IBSA ensured global recovery from the 2008 recession earlier than expected, he said.

China, India and South Africa are net consumers of energy, while Brazil and Russia are exporters, said Zhang Wei, Vice Chairman of the China Council for Promotion of International Trade (CCPIT).

“We could complement each other” to guarantee, for example, demand and supply “of energy for our countries,” he said.

The Chinese delegate also mentioned other strategic sectors, like grain production to safeguard food security, an equally crucial matter for these emerging countries with large populations.

Zhang proposed a system for exchanging agricultural information between the countries in the groups, to prevent problems like soaring food prices.

According to a report by the Brazilian government’s Institute for Applied Economic Research (IPEA), in the next 50 years the BRIC group of countries could overtake the G6 (France, Germany, Italy, Japan, the United Kingdom and the United States) as the main engines of the global economy.

However, the IPEA report stresses that achieving this will require overcoming structural economic differences between members of the group.

A large share of Brazil’s economy is taken up by consumption in the domestic market, while Russia’s development is based on exports of energy commodities.

India took advantage of a boom in services exports to grow at a high rate and increase its competitiveness in other sectors, while China’s development has been led by exports of manufactured goods and high rates of investment, and its domestic consumer market is undergoing rapid growth, the report says.

These different models of development lead to different patterns of insertion into the world market, according to IPEA. But Sharma said they could do so in an integrated fashion.

The Indian minister said strong points of each country were Brazil’s biofuel development, China’s technology, South Africa’s energy sector, India’s nuclear energy and Russia’s competitiveness in minerals and oil.

“Synergy” was the word chosen by the head of the Department for International Cooperation of Russia’s Chamber of Commerce and Industry, Sergey Vasiliev. “Together, we can only win,” he said.

This was the first time a meeting of business leaders from both groups of countries has been held.

BRIC, an acronym coined in 2001 by economist Jim O’Neill, brings together four emerging countries with large territories and populations, whose economies have grown at impressive rates in recent years.

The India-Brazil-South Africa Dialogue Forum (IBSA), formally established by the Brasilia Declaration in 2003, is a coordinating mechanism to promote dialogue between countries and regions of the global South, and joint cooperation on economic and other issues of international importance.

These groups of countries, according to South Africa’s Minister for Trade and Industry Rob Davies, have brought about a “tectonic change” in the world economic order.

In 2009, China overtook the United States as Brazil’s main trading partner, with 12.9 percent of Brazil’s total foreign trade.

Brazilian exports to China were worth just over 20 billion dollars in 2009, a 23 percent increase on 2008.

And this year, China became the third largest foreign investor in Brazil’s productive sector, in key areas such as oil, metal ores and telecommunications and with future prospects in infrastructure.

These tremendous shifts, according to Foreign Minister Amorim, are tokens of changes in the global balance of economic power that will also be reflected in the world of politics.

——————————————-

A sort of overview of what the South looks like after reviewing what was just said in Rio gives us the -

IPS Special: South-South Cooperation
South-South cooperation – collaboration between developing countries – is a growing and dynamic phenomenon, an important process that is vital in confronting shared challenges. The IBSA (India, Brazil and South Africa) and BRIC (Brazil, Russia, India, China) Summits were held this week in Brazil, both aimed at securing a greater say for top emerging economies in world affairs. Six forums were held in parallel, bringing together women, researchers, journalists, parliamentarians, local governments and small businesses – indicating that this is “a project that belongs to our societies,” said Brazilian President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva. Bottom-up development and horizontal South-South cooperation have a significance that goes beyond the individual countries because they are constructing new paradigms. But, the mainstream media has failed to keep up with this process and with the economic and geopolitical changes taking place in the world today that are bringing about a shift in power relations, according to reporters invited to the IBSA Editors Forum, organised by Inter Press Service (IPS) and supported by the Brazilian Foreign Ministry and the World Bank. The final declaration of the IBSA Summit addresses a range of issues, from United Nations reform to climate change, empowerment of women and the launch of two satellites, for earth observation and weather studies – to be jointly built by IBSA countries.

Q&A: IBSA Summit Aims to Strengthen South-South Cooperation Thalif Deen interviews Ambassador Hardeep Singh Puri of India UNITED NATIONS, Apr 8 – When the political leaders of three of the world’s major democracies in the global South – India, Brazil and South Africa (IBSA) – gather at a high-powered summit meeting in Brasilia next week, one of the key items on the agenda would be how best to strength economic cooperation among developing nations. MORE >>

Q&A: “We Can’t Continue to Pay Lip Service to Gender Equality” Thalif Deen interviews UNFPA Executive Director THORAYA OBAID UNITED NATIONS, Feb 28 – During consultations of the 45-member U.N. Commission on the Status of Women (CSW) here, one of the lingering issues that is surfacing is the success – or failure – in the implementation of the 1995 Beijing Platform for Action on gender empowerment. MORE >>

DEVELOPMENT: South-South Cooperation Key to MDGs IPS Correspondents UNITED NATIONS, Feb 5 – 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. MORE >>

Read more IPS in-depth reporting on South-South Cooperation here.

Barbados has nominated Ms. Elizabeth Thompson,

Costa Rica has nominated Ms. Christiana Figueres,

Ecuador has nominated Ms. Maria Fernanda Espinoza,

Hungary has nominated Mr. Janoz Pasztor,

India has nominated Mr. Vijai Sharma,

South Africa has nominated MR. Marthinus van Schalkwyk,

and Pakistan has nominated  Mr.Tariq Banuri.

One of these three ladies and four gentlemen, will be charged with taking over the helm of UNFCCC from wherever Mr. Yvo de Boer will leave it on the eve of July 1, 2010. We wish the unlucky winner – GOOD LUCK!

———–

The great majority of these people are very well qualified and we are tempted to make the mistake of providing a first look at what an analysis of their chances when UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon sits down with this list and gets both-ears-full of advice from the 192 (or is it 194?) members of the UN, and the several hundreds of other would be helpers – from the UN staff, from International Organizations, from the NGOs, from the strong industry arm twisters (yes – there is a UN Global Compact that ranges from Coca Cola to heavy steel) and so on.

Let’s start!

The “North” has officially here just one name – Janos Pasztor from Hungary – all said he is from the North East. He is less of an affront to the G-77 then the previous two UNFCCC Chiefs that hailed from the Netherlands – a country very friendly to the South but geographically part of the UN North. Mr. Pasztor also has the inside track for another reason – he is the right-hand New York based Climate-man for UNSG Ban Ki-moon while having come to New York from the UNFCCC founding staff back in Bonn. We assume now that he and his staff will have to recuse themselves from the selection process. If the UN were to wish continuity – he would be the man – but will the 192 advise the UNSG to go for continuity? That is a very open question, as when the Copenhagen participants took their planes on the trip back home, they seemed to say that the process has changed, and it will revolve rather around that magic G2 + IBSA formula – (China, US) and (India, Brazil, South Africa) – to which the ALBA and others, including many members in what used to be the larger G-77 including the SIDS, had clear opposition.

There is no G-2 member among the 7 finalists, that would have been impossible, but two IBSA – India and South Africa are there. Will the rest of the G-77 agree to be lead by one of the newly created Super-group of 5 major emitters? Add to this the proverbial opposition of Pakistan to India, and the fact that some may say that a Dutchman from the South is not really different from a Dutchman from the North – sorry to make this remark but we read some internal opposition in South Africa to the nomination of Mr. Marthinus van Schalkwyk – justified or not – we do not know – but that this will be an argument about his confirmation – we are sure.

Pakistani Tariq Banuri is another UN insider as he is head of the Sustainable Development desk of UN DESA. He took over a moribund organization after the Zimbabwe debacle caused by a South African Government slap on the Sustainability concept, and revived  somewhat the deliberations of that body. He even worked nicely with the Israeli deputy Chair of the CSD. Will now the G-77 say – wait a minute – can we finally put climate into Sustainable Development? Just an interesting idea for an aside. Uniting back Sustainable Development with the UN efforts on Climate Change could be a welcome synergy – balsam to the G-77.

This leaves us with Latin America and the Caribbeans who might be over-represented. They have three candidates.

Let’s see – Costa Rica and Ecuador will split the Latin American interest – and it explains why the third IBSA – Brazil – did not present a candidate at all. On the other hand, the appearance of Barbados on the list of 7 is quite interesting. Besides having a good candidate, that has a track record of interest and involvement in the topics at hand, it seems they figured that a CARICOM endorsement of 14 countries of the Caribbean enhanced to the full figure of 43 when it comes to AOSIS, might amount to the beginning of a pressure group based on suffering rather then power – yes, we all know, the Island States will be the first to go under because of global warming – perhaps they indeed should be allowed to pull these negotiations out from the UN mud they are stucked-in at present time.

To the best of our knowledge – the UN upstairs still keep the information about the candidates close to their vests – no official announcement yet of anything we write here – but seemingly they will allow for a press conference this coming Thursday – April 15th – two weeks into the time that they should have released the above names according to minimum transparency – but did not release them as yet. Did you expect more transparency from the UN? You do not really mean that!

—————-

We have here some further information about the Candidate from Barbados:

Senator Elizabeth Thompson of Barbados has been nominated by the Government of Barbados because of her experience and qualifications, the importance of climate change to Small Island Developing States and the opportunity to place a well qualified Barbadian in a critical post.

Whatever – it feeds the thoughts that the industrialized countries can go well beyond what they promised in Copenhagen.

from: Rob Elsworth

date: Thu, Apr 1, 2010 at 8:17 AM

subject: EU Emissions fall dramatically leaving carbon trading scheme high and dry

Sandbag is a not-for-profit organization, established in October 2008, and focused on scrutinising the workings of the EU Emissions Trading System: the world’s most extensive climate change policy to date.

Dear All,

Please find below Sandbag’s initial analysis of the 2009 EU ETS data. Further analysis will follow!

By Matthew Russell Lee of Inner City Press

UNITED NATIONS, March 22, 2010 —

(1) The embattled chairman of the Inter-governmental Panel on Climate Change, Rajendra Pachauri, refuses to disclose how much money he makes from his simultaneous consultancies with Deutsche Bank, Credit Suisse and other institutions. Now, a candidate to head the UN’s Framework Convention on Climate Change, Christiana Figueres of Costa Rica, has announced she would cease all outside consulting if given the “full time and a half” post.

Inner City Press asked Ms. Figueres on Monday for her view of Pachauri’s side business and other IPCC matters. “That would not be my choice,” Ms. Figueres said, of Pachauri’s side work for business. She also said diplomatically that “Doctor Pachauri, I believe is at freedom to allocate his time as he sees fit.” Video here, from Minute 27:18.

But shouldn’t Pachauri at least be required to formally disclose who he works for on the side, and how much he gets paid? He has resisted even this.

Inner City Press asked Ban Ki-moon and his spokesman for the UN view on this lack of transparency. The answer was that the IPCC is not a UN body, and that Pachauri would answer the questions himself. But when he came to the UN, seeking to use Ban Ki-moon as a prop and character witness, neither took any questions from the press.

* * *

(2) Ms. Figueres, the daughter of a former Costa Rican president, is viewed as a serious contender to replace Yvo de Boer, who is moving to KPMG (some are calling it cashing in). Inner City Press asked her if the recent appointment of another Costa Rican, Rebecca Grynspan, to the number two post at the UN Development Program might make it less likely she will get this job.

At UN, climate speakers Sept. 09, 2009 Costa Rica’s president there, gender balance not shown

“It may be a stretch,” Ms. Figueres agreed, that a country of four million people could get two high posts.

(3) India’s candidate is said to also have the support of ChinaInner City Press asked Ms. Figueres about the opposition to the Copenhagen process by the five Latin American countries in the Alba Group. Surprisingly to some, Ms. Figueres responded that the Alba Group was “correct in the moment,” that all now agree with them. An Alba Group-er afterwards said skeptically to Inner City Press, “Costa Rica never gets along with the Alba Group.”

Hey — climate change bring everyone together…

At UN, Ban and Pachauri Take No Questions on IPCC and Outside Income, Transparency Charade.

Back on December 21, Inner City Press asked Ban about Pachauri’s presumptive financial conflicts of interest and failure to disclose, but Mr. Ban did not answer the question.

UN’s Ban and Pachauri at photo op, no questions allowed

Later, Ban’s spokesman Martin Nesirky said that Ban did not have to respond to the controversies surrounding the IPCC, and that Pachauri would answer questions himself.

On Wednesday, Pachauri did not allow or answer any questions, and neither did Ban Ki-moon. What was first advertised as a sit down press conference at 12:30 was converted into a stand up stakeout from which the two men left immediately after speaking. So much for transparency.

date:    Thu, Feb 25, 2010
subject:    World Bank participates in the Africa Carbon Forum

Africa Carbon Forum – March 3-5, Nairobi, Kenya

The World Bank Group is pleased to support the Africa Carbon Forum taking place in Gigiri, right outside Nairobi on March 3-5. Bank staff will be participating in a number of plenary sessions as well as side events.
Furthermore, a press conference will be held on March 3, briefing media on the recently registered Humbo Assisted Natural Regeneration Project. The press conference will take place at 1pm in the UNEP Press Room (Lower Library) in Gigiri – that is the location of the UNEP headqarters near Nairobi. Transportation from downtown Nairobi will be provided.

The Humbo Assisted Natural Regeneration Project is located in Ethiopia and is Africa’s first large-scale forestry project under the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM). It was recently registered under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). The project, developed by World Vision, brings both economic and social benefits to poor communities in Ethiopia as well as environmental benefits, cutting an estimated 880,000 metric tonnes of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere over the next 30 years. The future sales of carbon credits will bring more than US$700,000 to the local communities over ten years.

At the press conference, the National Director of World Vision Ethiopia, Mrs. Tenagne Lemma, will present the project together with Ms. Ellysar Baroudy, the manager of the World Bank’s BioCarbon Fund, which is purchasing a share of the carbon credits generated by this project.

For more information, please contact sniakan@worldbank.org by email.

For more information on the World Bank BioCarbon Fund, please see: http://wbcarbonfinance.org/Router.cfm?Pa…

For more information on World Vision, please see: http://www.wvi.org/wvi/wviweb.nsf

For more information on and registration for the Africa Carbon Forum, please see their website: http://www.africacarbonforum.com/2009/en…. Registration is free.

_______________________________________________
Isabel Hagbrink
Senior Communications Officer
Carbon Finance Unit
Environment Department, The World Bank Group
1818 H Street, NW, Washington D.C. 20433

Tel : 202 458 0422 Fax : 202 522 7432
email :  ihagbrink at worldbank.org
Web : www.CarbonFinance.org (See attached file: Africa Carbon Forum Events Booklet external.pdf)

The bottom line seems to be: “Bickering at Copenhagen convinced many countries that the UN negotiating process must be reformed, and that agreement might be sought in other forums.” So, here goes that proverbial 192 UN Member States list or the 193 figure that appears when the UNFCCC is mentioned. We never understood why that discrepancy and assumed the fault is with us for not knowing where to put the EU, Taiwan, the Vatican, Puerto Rico, Palestine … and some other such preferred UN preoccupations.

Fiona Harvey of the Financial Times quotes an official of a developed country: "You have to wonder whether you could get moremovement by working in smaller groups." If you want to get results indeed – you must bring together the World’s biggest GHG emitters.

The New York City newspapers – The New York Times and The Wall Street Journal went over to the UN and got hold of Janos Pasztor, the potentially homeless head of the “in-Headquarter-house” climate-change team-head for UNSG Ban Ki-moon.

{On “homeless” – As we reported earlier: “The UN’s and Ban’s climate unit under Janos Pasztor, which was told there was no room for it in the UN’s Temporary North Lawn Conference Building where Ban has his office, is now looking at space in the Alcoa Building on 48th Street, Inner City Press is told. For now, they are left behind in the nearly empty UN skyscraper where asbestos removal has already begun.”}

According to the WSJ – Janos Pasztor said: “It does not matter what a senior UN civil servant does, ultimately – if governments are not ready to sign off on an agreement, then they will not sign off on an agreement;” Mr. Pasztor said that Mr. de Boer called Mr. Ban “two days ago;” to inform him of the decision. Mr. de Boer’s four-years appointment was going till September and he could have asked Mr. Ban to appoint him for another term, but we never came to that point, he said. Asked whether Mr. Ban would have reappointed Mr. de Boer, Mr. Pasztor said: ‘That we don’t know.”

Mr. Pasztor said further that Mr. Ban will begin looking for a successor for Mr. de Boer “extremely quickly;” he does not know who might be considered.

Neil MacFarquhar and John M. Broder ot the NYT did some further inquiries outside the UN.

Mark Kenber, the policy director for the Climate Group, an international organization involving industry that wants to see a climate agreement, said that it is probably the right time to get a fresh face in. It was a grueling two years of negotiations and a new face would re-spark the process.

Michael A. Levi, the climate change expert at the Council on Foreign Relations said that Yvo de Boer has put in a lot of time towards a very well-defined end, and the fact he resigns means that he did not see potential success on the horizon of COP 16, this year. Had he seen the possibility that there might be a positive outcome before the end of the year, he would have stuck with it so he would get credit for his work.

Others faulted the UN team for not having moved faster to find areas where agreement among those 190+ participating member states at Copenhagen, such as the preservation of rainforests, could have been agreed upon in smaller fora first. Another such topic could have been the taxing of livestock emissions that is being described in today’s FT that says FAO is ready to help review the meat industry.

So, after 48 hours since Yvo de Boer’s resignation, provided that the UN does not rush in with a Ban Ki-moon new appointment, but is ready to listen to possible new opportunities, this might turn out as a blessing in disguise – an opening for change – an actual new opportunity.

Some question the UNFCCC process itself – but we think that this is rather too much. It does not remember that the UNFCCC was born in Rio de Janeiro in the 1992 UNCED Conference – just because there was no agreement to have a full convention like it was the case with Biodiversity and in regard to Arid and Semi-Arid lands and Desertification.

Decreasing the size of the negotiation table, by bringing the number of participants down to those that are the most serious polluters, with delegations present from groups most seriously affected, could be more fit to help bring about the needed agreements.

————-

And From Canada – the host for the 2010 meetings of the G8 and G20:

from Shawn McCarthy, Ottawa — From Friday’s Globe and Mail reporting.
Published on Thursday, Feb. 18, 2010
Mr. de Boer – who had worked tirelessly to reach a consensus at Copenhagen – said he was depressed for weeks after the summit ended with a vague, non-binding agreement among major emitters known as the Copenhagen Accord. Angry recriminations resulted from Copenhagen’s failure to produce a more substantial document, and the refusal of the participants to unanimously endorse even the more modest pact.

Mr. de Boer’s successor – to be appointed by UN secretary general Ban Ki-moon – will not only have to reinvigorate the effort to achieve a treaty, he will need to revisit the UN process itself. The requirement for consensus may make it impossible to reach an accord in Mexico, even in the unlikely event that an agreement can be achieved among major emitters. Some critics suggest Mr. de Boer was part of the problem – bringing a rigid, bureaucratic approach to the international talks.

“I never had the sense that we were dealing with a person of vision, a person who could see the changes that were necessary in the international system to get a climate-change agreement,” said Robert Page, chairman of Canada’s National Round Table on the Environment and the Economy.

Mr. Robert Page suggested the new UNFCCC executive director will likely have to come from a major developing country – such as Brazil – and be committed to reforming the UN process.

In Denmark, a small group of countries blocked the conference as a whole from adopting the Copenhagen Accord, which had been brokered at the 11th hour by U.S. President Barack Obama.

Mexican President Felipe Calderon is urging a reform that would see agreement based on a 75-per-cent majority, rather than unanimity. The Catch-22: The UN requires consensus to change the voting rules.

“As far as the process goes, we’re in a lot of trouble,” said John Drexhage, climate-change director for the Winnipeg-based International Institute for Sustainable Development and former Canadian negotiator.

“We need to have very realistic expectations for Mexico. I think it would be a mistake to push for a legally binding comprehensive agreement by Mexico. That’s just not going to happen with the current state of affairs.”

Indeed, Mr. Drexhage said Mr. de Boer’s successor faces a convergence of factors that will make it extremely difficult to regain momentum for the international talks.

Public skepticism about the dangers posed by climate change has risen, fuelled by incidents in which a few researchers manipulated data to get desired results, and the inclusion of non-scientific information in the report of the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

Emerging economies like Brazil, South Africa, India and China – the so-called BASIC group – have made clear they will not subject their emission-reduction policies to international verification. Any commitments they have made are conditional on the developed world – notably the United States – taking strong action, and delivering promised financing to the developing world.

Mr. Obama faces major hurdles in getting a climate bill passed in Congress this year, raising questions about his administration’s commitment to reduce emissions by 17 per cent from 2005 levels by 2020. And as the United States goes, so goes Canada.

World leaders have a couple of opportunities to advance the broad commitments of the Copenhagen Accord into a more robust agreement, including a May meeting in Bonn, Germany, and the Group of Eight/Group of 20 summits to be hosted by Prime Minister Stephen Harper this summer.

The G8 and G20 can deliver progress – especially the G20, which includes China, India, Brazil and Mexico. But it remains unclear whether Mr. Harper, who is hosting the meetings and influences the agendas, will make climate change a priority.

———–
 http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/20…

Yvo de Boer’s successor has big footprints to fill: The former head of the UN’s climate body commanded great respect in a near-impossible job, but in the end, he failed. His successor must not.

Because De Boer took over from another Dutchman in 2006, there will be strong pressure on the UN to choose his successor from a developing country. “I would like to see someone from a developing country who can negotiate with those countries,” Seb Walhain, the head of environmental markets at Fortis Netherlands, told Reuters. Because so much is at stake and the talks are at such an advanced stage, the appointment is likely to be fiercely contested.

Get it right, and the new head of the UNFCCC will be celebrated as the man or woman who steered the whole world to a historic agreement that could save the planet from calamitous climate change. Get it wrong, and negotiations could be set back a decade.

We are cynics by nature and wonder if the release today has anything to do with Shell Oil Company having announced last weekend that they will invest over a billion dollars in the production of sugar-cane ethanol in Brazil. So, did we have to wait until an oil company steps heavily into this area – so we finally allow US door to be opened to a non-petroleum liquid fuel?

WE ARE VERY PARTIAL TO THIS TOPIC BECAUSE BACK IN 1978 AT UNIDO IN VIENNA, AND IN 1979 IN NEW ORLEANS, I WAS PERSONALLY INVOLVED IN BRINGING THIS SUBJECT TO THE ATTENTION OF THE LIQUID FUEL HUNGRY WESTERN WORLD. IN VIENNA WE SHOWED THE CUBAN EXPERIENCE AT A UN – AUSTRIA – SWEDEN EVENT. IN NEW ORLEANS THIS WAS “THE FIRST INTER-AMERICAN CONFERENCE ON RENEWABLE SOURCES OF ENERGY” THAT I HELPED ORGANIZE. OBVIOUSLY – TO LOUISIANA WE COULD NOT BRING THE CUBANS – BUT BRAZIL, ARGENTINA AND MANY OTHERS WERE PRESENT UNDER THE FRIENDLY EYES OF THE US DEPARTMENT OF STATE. ETHANOL BECAME A RECOGNIZED FUEL, BUT US AGRICULTURE MADE SURE IT WILL BE US CORN AS FEEDSTOCK. WE COULD NOT EVEN GET PREFERENTIAL TREATMENT FOR IMPORTS FROM FRIENDLY COUNTRIES BECAUSE OIL AND AGRICULTURE – SOME OF THE STRONGEST LOBBIES IN WASHINGTON – WOULD NOT ALLOW IT , EVEN AFTER THE INTERVENTION OF US REPUBLICAN SENATORS LIKE FRANK CHURCH, JACOB JAVITS, CHARLES PERCY – SO WHAT WILL IT BE NOW? WILL THOSE TARIFFS COME OFF?

—————-
EPA Reaffirms Sugarcane Biofuel is Advanced Renewable Fuel with 61% Less Emissions than Gasoline.
Brazil Sugarcane Update – Brazilian Sugarcane Industry Welcomes U.S. EPA’s Renewable Fuels Rules.

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has confirmed that ethanol made from sugarcane is a low carbon renewable fuel, which can contribute significantly to the reduction of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. As part of today’s announcement finalizing regulations for the implementation of the Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS2), the EPA designated sugarcane ethanol as an advanced biofuel that lowers GHG emissions by more than 50%.

“The EPA’s decision underscores the many environmental benefits of sugarcane ethanol and reaffirms how this low carbon, advanced renewable fuel can help the world mitigate against climate change while diversifying America’s energy resources,” said Joel Velasco, Chief Representative in Washington for the Brazilian Sugarcane Industry Association (UNICA).

Sugarcane ethanol is a renewable fuel refined from cane that grows typically in tropical climates. Compared to other types of ethanol available today, using sugarcane ethanol to power cars and trucks yields greater reductions in greenhouse gases and is usually much cheaper for drivers to purchase. Brazil has replaced more than half of its fuel needs with sugarcane ethanol – making gasoline the alternative fuel in that country and ethanol the standard.  Many observers point to sugarcane ethanol as a good option for diversifying U.S. energy supplies, increasing healthy competition among biofuel manufacturers and improving America’s energy security.

The RFS2 will help the United States meet energy security and greenhouse gas reduction goals sought by the Energy Security and Independence Act of 2007 (EISA). The new regulations establish minimum biofuels consumption in the U.S. of more than 12 billion gallons (45 billion liters) in 2010, rising to 36 billion gallons (136 billion liters) in 2022, of which 21 billion gallons per year would have to be one of three types of advanced biofuels: cellulosic, biomass diesel, and “other advanced,” that meet required GHG reduction thresholds as determined by the EPA.

Today, EPA affirmed that sugarcane ethanol meets the “other advanced” category in the RFS2, although with a GHG reduction level that exceeds the requirement for all categories as well.  Specifically, EPA’s calculations show that sugarcane ethanol from Brazil reduces GHG emissions compared to gasoline by 61%, using a 30-year payback for indirect land use change (iLUC) emissions.

“We are pleased that EPA took the time to improve the regulations, particularly by more accurately quantifying the full lifecycle greenhouse emission reductions of biofuels. EPA’s reaffirmation of sugarcane ethanol’s superior GHG reduction confirms that sustainably-produced biofuels can play a important role in climate mitigation. Perhaps this recognition will sway those who have sought to raise trade barriers against clean energy here in the U.S. and around the world. Sugarcane ethanol is a first generation biofuel with third generation performance,” noted Velasco.

Last year, UNICA submitted comments to EPA with abundant scientifically credible evidence showing that – even including indirect emissions – sugarcane ethanol has a reduction of GHG emissions of 73-82% compared with gasoline, on a 30- or 100-year time horizon respectively. The RFS2 requires the use of at least 4 billion gallons (over 15 billion liters) of “other advanced” renewable fuels a year by 2022. In 2010, the RFS requires 200 million gallons of this type of advanced renewable fuels.

“While we are reviewing the final rule, it is clear that EPA has incorporated many of the comments that UNICA and other stakeholders made during the public process. EPA should be congratulated for the way it upheld the Obama’s goals of transparency and scientific integrity in the environmental rulemaking. And we hope that other governments should take note of the manner that EPA has handled this process,” concluded Velasco.

Brazil is a leader in the production of sugarcane ethanol, which is widely considered as the most efficient biofuel available today. In 2009, Brazil produced over 7 billion gallons of sugarcane ethanol, most of which is used in Brazil in flex fuel vehicles. As a result of Brazil’s innovative use of sugarcane ethanol in transportation and biomass for cogeneration, sugarcane is the leading source of renewable energy in the nation, representing 16% of the country’s total energy needs. In fact, gasoline has become the alternative in Brazil, reducing the country’s dependence on fossil fuels lowering emissions. A recent study in the November 2009 edition of the journal Energy Policy indicated that since 1975, over 600 million tons of CO2 emissions have been avoided thanks to the use of ethanol in Brazil.

———

ABOUT UNICA. The Brazilian Sugarcane Industry Association (UNICA) represents the
top producers of sugar and ethanol in the country’s South-Central region, especially the
state of Sao Paulo, which accounts for about 50% of the country’s sugarcane harvest
and 60% of total ethanol production. UNICA develops position papers, statistics and
specific research in support of Brazil’s sugar, ethanol and bioelectricity sectors. In 2008,
Brazil produced an estimated 565 million metric tons of sugarcane, which yielded 31.3
million tons of sugar and 25.7 billion liters (6.8 billion gallons) of ethanol, making it the
number-one sugarcane grower and sugar producer in the world, and the second-largest
ethanol producer on the planet, behind the United States.

—————-

Brazil Hopes Shell-Cosan Can Boost Ethanol Exports

Date: 04-Feb-10, Reuters from Brazil
Author: Inae Riveras – Analysis

SAO PAULO – Brazil’s ethanol industry, which invested heavily to boost output of the cane-based biofuel, is counting on a tie-up between sugar and ethanol producer Cosan and Royal Dutch Shell Plc to revive its prospects after exports fell short of expectations.

“Shell chose ethanol as the renewable fuel they want to be in and it chose Brazil. Whether this will mean more exports will depend on a series of circumstances beyond the companies’ control,” said ethanol expert Eduardo Pereira de Carvalho.

The slow rate of growth for ethanol exports has disappointed Brazil, where more than 450 mills joined the ethanol sector’s expansion drive in recent years.

Some analysts say any growth in ethanol exports will depend on oil prices more than other factor.

“The deal itself does not raise or reduce the economic viability of blending anhydrous ethanol in gasoline. This will be determined by the oil market,” said sugar and ethanol analyst Julio Maria Borges, director at Job Economia.

In 2008, when oil prices reached record highs of $147 per barrel, Brazil exported 5.1 billion liters of ethanol, up sharply from 3.5 billion liters the previous year. Countries simply bought more of the fuel to replace gasoline.

But oil prices tumbled as the global credit crisis intensified, and there was a similar decline in foreign interest for the cane-based fuel. Brazilian ethanol exports in 2009 slipped to 3.3 billion liters despite extremely low prices on the Brazilian market.

STEADY SUPPLIES, TARIFFS

If ethanol is economically viable compared to oil, however, Brazilian ethanol exports should benefit from Shell’s global infrastructure, commercial relationships and know-how.

Shell, with distribution centers and 45,000 filling stations around the world, will have access to annual supplies of 2 billion liters of Cosan ethanol.

“Shell will be able to strike long-term deals with clients around the world, something that currently hardly exists, as it will be backed by a big provider,” Borges said.

“It’s difficult to predict (when exports could rise)… but the strategic meaning of a company the size of Shell to invest here is the most important point,” Carvalho said.

It slowly starts sinking in – we said it a long time ago!

Battling the ‘Multilateral Zombie’ – EU climate strategy after Copenhagen.
LEIGH PHILLIPS

February 3, 2010, http://euobserver.com/9/29354/?rk=1,
 http://old.norden.org/analysnorden/defau…

EUOBSERVER / ANALYSIS – “The EU’s post-Copenhagen strategy should be
just to have a strategy, any strategy,” quips one Brussels think-tank
wag during an interview.

The rough hip-check Europe received in the Danish capital in December,
sidelining the bloc during the eleventh-hour huddle between major
powers that produced the Copenhagen Accord, has produced a wave of
despondency and cynicism amongst Brussels politicians, green
lobbyists, and analysts – and carbon traders across the continent to
boot. They’re all having a crack at how poorly the EU played its hand
during climate negotiations.

For the last three years, if it hasn’t been the institutional reform
of the Lisbon Treaty, it’s been the bloc’s obsession with climate
change that has dominated the EU agenda. Even if the EU is well off
the at least 40 percent cut in emissions that science demands if we
are to avoid catastrophic climate change, it remains the case that as
a result of its 2008 climate and energy package, Europe remains the
most advanced rich-country power on the planet in terms of its binding
CO2 reduction commitment.

With its climate boy-scout badge afixed to its sleeve, Brussels headed
off to Camp Copenhagen expecting at least to see its self-proclaimed
leadership reflected in winning something along the lines of a broad
commitment from other powers to at least a 20-percent cut in carbon
emissions below 1990 levels by 2020.

But in the end, the EU ended up the goody-two-shoes pupil who’s top of
the class, but yet, when he invites all the other kids over for a
party, glumly watches as they end up playing among each other instead
of with him. It was the US, China, India, Brazil and South Africa that
cobbled together the last-minute three-page-long Copenhagen Accord
without the EU even in the room, while most of the developing world
complained throughout the two weeks that Brussels was at best just a
cat’s paw for Washington.

Denmark’s Connie Hedegaard, now incoming EU
climate commissioner, was repeatedly attacked for favouring rich
countries over the developing world.

“It was the strangest conference I have been at in my life, from all
points of view,” Mr Barroso told a pow-wow of the leading European
think-tanks in early January.

Typical of the initial EU reaction were comments from Swedish
environment minister Andres Carlgren, who, when meeting in Brussels in
late December with his EU counterparts to debrief after the UN summit
and begin the discussion of what to do next, slammed the result as a
“disaster.”

“It was a really great failure and we have to learn from that,” he
said at the time. { but the gentleman forgot to say whose failure it was!}

Glass half full!

However, after the holidays, a clutch of pollyanna-ish EU officials
have since fervently urged everyone to consider the Accord’s silver
lining. Both President Barroso and the bloc’s chief climate
negotiator, Artur Runge-Metzger, in various venues have emphasised
that many of the things the EU had been pushing for were contained in
the final result – developed countries agreed for the first time a
concrete sum for climate finance, a target maximum average global
temperature increase of two degrees was embraced and a review,
allowing for a ratcheting up of targets if necessary, is foreseen for
2015.

At the same time, EU member states that have never been comfortable
with the bloc’s climate ambitions have used the opportunity to delay
or block European plans to boost its CO2 emissions reduction
commitment from 20 percent on 1990 levels to 30 percent. On 18
January, environment ministers met in Seville, to assess, for the
second time, the reasons for the failure in the Danish capital. UK,
France, Germany, Belgium and Spain continued to push for the increased
pledge, while Italy and Poland said now was not the time given the
poverty of ambition by other states at Copenhagen.

As of this week, the consensus in the bloc is to maintain its target
of 20 percent and conditional offer of 30 percent if other powers make
comparable efforts – in other words exactly the same position the EU
has held for the last year, although Ms Hedegaard has publicly said
she hopes to see a move to 30 percent “by Mexico,” meaning the next UN
climate summit in the Central American nation at the end of 2010.

At the same time, the commission itself is in the ‘twenty-percenter’
camp, pushing this position in Copenhagen, “afraid to be naked” with
nothing left to put on the table in the game of climate strip poker.
Moreover, crucially, the executive’s goal of a transatlantic emissions
trading system is unworkable with cuts pledges that are wildly
divergent and without legally binding commitments from Washington.

The US is looking to a 17 percent emissions reduction on 2005 levels,
which works out to be just three percent when using the same 1990
baseline year as the EU. Watch for the US, if legislation gets
through, at some point to somehow nudge up its cut to 20 percent and
the EU to stick to the same figure, dressed up in language about how
the two targets are now comparable, with a fudge over the differing
baseline years.

Support unravelling:

Separately, four of the five architects of the Accord, Brazil, South
Africa, India and China, have themselves gone lukewarm on the project,
smarting from accusations from much of the rest of the developing
world that these four richest of the poor countries had broken ranks
after a year of unprecedented global south unity.

“The two-track negotiating process …is the only legitimate process
to reach a legally binding treaty in Mexico,” he added.

Meanwhile, the cornerstone of the Accord, an understanding that
however limited America’s commitment, Washington would at least be
able to deliver on this promise.

But with the surprise election to the US Senate of Massachusetts
Republican Scott Brown on an anti-climate-bill ticket, killing the
Democrat’s filibuster-proof majority, the country’s climate
legislation is threatened. A defeated or heavily watered down bill
only engenders further reservations in the minds of Chinese, Indian
and even European leadership about promising tough reduction targets.

For all the public talk of Latin American, Chinese and African climate
“villains” blocking the process in Copenhagen, privately, there is
frustration with Washington as well. A senior EU policy official
speaking to EUobserver described President Obama’s position as the
same as that of George Bush. “We are willing but only if others move,”
the official said, attributing the position to both the current and
former US leaders.

One EU climate voice {?}

A popular post-Copenhagen analysis from the Brookings Institute, the
centrist US think-tank, that has made the rounds of officialdom and
NGO-land warns of a slow-motion failure scenario similar to the Doha
round of WTO talks, a process it describes as a “multilateral zombie”
in which climate negotiations “stagger on piteously, never making much
progress while never quite dying either.”

Nevertheless, despite the dark days and the cynicism of some
onlookers, we can already begin to sense the outlines of a European
strategy.

EU Council President Herman Van Rompuy has already said he hopes to
see a common climate strategy emerge from an 11 February extraordinary
EU summit originally scheduled to deal with the economy. Angela
Merkel, as well, has upgraded a climate meeting in Bonn in June from
expert to ministerial level and the European Commission is preparing a
series of proposals that it is to put to the member states.

While this sort of member-state activity is likely to continue, the
Lisbon Treaty has given the commission a powerful new diplomatic
weapon it intends to use to the fullest.

Sidelining the UN:

Related to this, the major task will be to break the remarkable unity
shown by developing nations. The UNFCCC’s principle dating back to
Kyoto of “common but differentiated responsibility,” is understood by
developing nations to mean that those countries that caused the
problem should pay for solving it and make binding commitments to CO2
reductions.

The third world has said that it would be happy to develop along a
low-carbon path itself, but that the rich north will have to pay for
this and that their emissions cuts should in any case be voluntary.
The World Bank, unhelpfully, has estimated the cost of all this to be
$400 billion a year. Meanwhile, wealthy nations, would rather that the
developing world, but specifically China and to a lesser extent India,
agree to binding, verifiable CO2 cuts without the price tag.

The key advantage of the Copenhagen Accord for rich countries is that
it “weakens or even does away with the principle of common but
differentiated responsibilities,” as the South Centre, a Geneva-based
think-tank close to developing world governments, warns – another
reason why the Basic countries, upon reflection, have taken a distance
from the deal.

In many ways, Copenhagen was a victory for the developing world, in
that it managed to hold off against pressure to junk the Kyoto
Protocol and in the end ensured that the Copenhagen Accord was only
“noted” by the UN plenary instead of endorsed, making it a document
floating in a legal limbo.

Border tariff:

It should also be remembered that many other major powers were
sidelined at Copenhagen. Japan and Russia were also absent from
Copenhagen’s endgame. In many ways, the EU’s limited influence has
been largely a product of its own climate success. Although Europe is
the world’s third largest emitter, this will likely change in the near
future. Ironically, if the continent isn’t going to be as much of a
problem in absolute (as opposed to per capita) terms as China or India
by 2030, it doesn’t have much of a bargaining chip. Washington was
always going to be far more interested in Beijing.

Copenhagen was very much the US and China show, but it won’t always be.

——–

This feature was originially written for the Nordic Council’s Analys
Norden website.

{ We wonder at the last sentence of the article because we think that unless the EU does in fact unite under  one leadership it will not amount to much when the US continues to deal with the BASICs – I mean the countries that are form the basic future. The EU should aim at becoming the G3 to be added to China and the US in future global negotiations that will include also the IBSA and one or two more states. See please next article.}

——————————————————————————-

US blames Lisbon Treaty for EU summit fiasco. Mr Obama – the Madrid summit decision is being seen as a diplomatic snub to Spain.
by ANDREW RETTMAN from Brussels.

February 3, 2010, http://euobserver.com/9/29398/?rk=1
EUOBSERVER / BRUSSELS  writes -  The US State Department has said that President Barack Obama’s decision not to come to an EU summit in Madrid in May is partly due to confusion arising from the Lisbon Treaty.

State department spokesman Philip J. Crowley told press in Washington on Tuesday (2 February) that the treaty has made it unclear who the US leader should meet and when. { that sounds very clear to me.}

“Up until recently, they [summits] would occur on six-month intervals,
as I recall, with one meeting in Europe and one meeting here. And that
was part of – the foundation of that was the rotating presidency
within the EU. Now you have a new structure regarding not only the
rotating EU presidency, you’ve got an EU Council president, you’ve got
a European Commission president,” he said.

“We are working through this just as Europeans themselves are working
through this: When you have a future EU-US summit meeting, who will
host it and where will it be held?” he added. “All of this is kind of
being reassessed in light of architectural changes in Europe.”

The Lisbon Treaty came into force on 1 December, 2009. It created the post
of a new EU Council president and EU foreign relations chief in order
to give the union a stronger voice abroad.

It kept the institution of the six-month rotating EU presidency as
well, with the member state holding the chairmanship to do the bulk of
behind-the-scenes policy work in Brussels.

The Spanish EU presidency is being closely watched to see how the EU
manages the transition to the new power structure. The EU Council
president has so far taken charge of summits in the EU capital. But
Madrid was to share the limelight with a few top-level events at home.

The state department’s Mr Crowley said the US and Spain have been in
touch “directly” to discuss Mr Obama’s decision after Madrid learned
about it through the media on Monday.

“Obviously, there’s been some disappointment expressed by the
government of Spain, and we understand that and we’ll be working with
them on that,” he said.

Spanish Prime Minister Jose Luis Zapatero and Mr Obama are both
expected to attend the National Prayer Breakfast in Washington on
Thursday. But no bilateral meeting has been announced so far.

Mr Zapatero, a centre-left secularist, has taken flak for his trip in
Spanish media, with the El Pais daily calling his decision to attend
the prayer event “shocking.”

The topic was – BRAZIL: ECONOMIC, INVESTMENT and POLITICAL OUTLOOK.

The Breakfast Seminar was organized by the Brazilian-American Chamber of Commerce, Inc. (BACC) - www.brazilcham.com, Chaired by Paulo Vieira da Cunha, Partner & Head of Research – Emerging Markets at Tandem Global Markets Fund, and Chairman, Banking and Capital Markets Committee, BACC.

His panel included Lisa Schineller, Director, Sovereign Ratings, Standard & Poor’s; Tony Volpon, Senior Economist, Nocura Securities International Inc.; Geoffrey Dennis, Managing Director and Global Emerging Markets Strategist Analyst, Citigroup (CIRA); Demian Reidel, Founding Member of QFR Capital Management, LP with previous important positions at Goldman Sachs, JPMorgan, background in Petroleum and Nuclear strategy in Argentina and economics at Harvard, who replaced as speaker the Founder of QFR, Jose Luis Daza; and Chris Garman, Managing and Practice Head, Latin America, Eurasia Group.

As expected, there was lots of talk about macroeconomics, how Brazil moved in the last years to the point that assets exceed debt; how Brazil survived well this last World Crisis. The present low indebtedness with a combination of FDI and equity and great export markets stretching from Asia to the US and the EU. They have managed very well the newly found oil wealth and the hope is that they can continue to manage it well and not open the country up too much to the international oil companies.    A main key is not to start to increase, without solid plans, the expenditures so they get addicted to that oil money as it happened in Mexico. The presentations were informative and very calculated as expected. But I really did not come for this.

What brought me to this early morning event was the expectation that there will be a presentation of the Political Outlook, specially as Brazil will have Presidential Elections this year – and I had my fill in the last presentation – the one by Mr. Garman.

As I am keeping coming back to it on our website – Brazil is the only “BRICS” from Latin America, actually in this world the third BRIC in size – after China and India. Brazil may not be able to match their 1,3 billion population each, but it clearly has more Natural Resources then either of them, and being in the Western Hemisphere, it is the one and only BRIC that shares space with the US – albeit – at quite a distance – and that is an advantage. If you wish – you may see this as sort of an anti pod to the US – about equal in size and potential and tied – even though the US is slow to admit – in a future love-hate relationship that will be main factor of the development of both countries the moment the US has realized that its addiction to Afro-Asian oil has lead to its downfall. Past mischief North Americans have committed in Brazil is hopefully over, and solid and wise cooperation could be in the cards with the people in that room as potential movers of the economic links.

{Facts: On October 3, 2010, Brazilian citizens eligible to vote will choose the successor of current President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva, of the Workers’ Party. If none of the candidates receives more than a half of the valid votes, a run-off will be held on October 31, 2010. According to the Constitution, the President is elected directly to a four-year term, with a limit of two terms. Lula is not eligible, since he was elected in 2002 and re-elected in 2006. This will mark the first time since 1989 that he will not run for President.

Lula is backing his Chief of Staff Dilma Rousseff of his Partido dos Trabalhadores (PT) – her main opponent is Sao Paulo State Governor Jose Serra, of the Partido da Social Democracia Brasileira (PSDB). Usually elections in Brazil are very lively and the event is third in importance to the Carnival and a good soccer game.}

Now to the Garman presentation: Actually for 15 years, even with changes in Government, Brazil showed an amazing continuity that led to the present growth.There is low inflation for the last 7 years and all of this came about with industrial policy and macroeconomics that made President Lula get approval ratings of 80%. Had he been able to run again the Brazilians would have gone for him, but in his absence, they still would like with an 80% majority to see his policies continued. Nevertheless, there is a problem with his choice for his replacement – it is not a strong choice – so there is not going to be a coronation but an election. This allows for the possibility that Brazilians might decide to take more risk then expected under Lula. This is more risk at fiscal policy. Thanks to the discovery of the pre-salt oil deposits there is more fiscal room and the Government driven policy of Petrobras might loosen up.  So – it is now clear that actually the elections do matter, and the contest has to be watched. The real question is – what do the voters want? Or let me put it differently, are they so bored with success that they want change?

Now I had my chance and ceased it without thinking twice. When the time for questions came, my question was right there. “Could foreign policy have an impact on the outcome of the elections in Brazil? With Brazil trying to get a seat at the UN Security Council and with its economic situation and growth having become a BRIC, would it not be the right thing for President Lula to suggest Brazil take a leadership position on the Haiti issue. Brazil is actually already involved with troops in Haiti – has even taken loses – why not claim the leadership position. There are many points of similarity in background, sugar cane etc.?”

So, having written earlier that “Brazil could lead if asked” this turned now into “Brazil should ask to lead in order to do good not only to others but also to its own Administration.” Even economic analysts of Brazil can see that this makes sense.

Rush of Medical Aid to Haiti Follows History of Suffering.

Andrew Schneider
Senior Public Health Correspondent, aol

Washington (Jan. 15) — Along with all the horrors it wrought, Tuesday’s
earthquake brought a bitter irony to Haiti: The crumbled, chaotic
country will soon have more physicians, medics and operating hospitals
than ever in its tormented history.

But while the medical teams from around the world will close wounds
and set shattered bones, there will be less they can do to stem the
preventable deaths that have always plagued this hemisphere’s poorest
country.

Soon, enough mobile hospitals, medical personnel, equipment, medicine
and supplies will be in place in Haiti to treat 20,000 or more of the
injured, according to interviews late Thursday with the World Health
Organization, the Pentagon, the United Nations, FEMA and several
embassies in Washington — a rainbow of uniforms operating under tent
canvas, inside inflatable structures or aboard ships. And more
reinforcements could arrive shortly.

On Friday morning, the U.S. Public Health Service and Homeland Security sent notice to the volunteer members of the National Disaster Medical System that they should be ready for possible deployment.

Thousands of Haitians died in the collapse of poorly constructed
buildings, but the bodies being crammed into family crypts built atop
the cracked ground or dusted with lime and buried in mass graves
represent just the first wave of casualties, health experts predict.
Physicians from the WHO and the Pan American Health Organization say
that the deaths that will surely continue for months or even years
will not come from untreated trauma but, rather, untreated water.

Diseased water has long been Haiti’s most aggressive killer, far more
lethal than even its high rates of AIDS and tuberculosis. (Incidents
of malaria and dengue follow right behind.)

An examination of the country’s public health and medical system makes
the problem clear. According to the Haitian Institute for Statistics,
water supply and sewage treatment systems are unheard of among the
majority of the country’s 9 million people. What’s more, with a
fertility rate of almost five children per woman, infant mortality
soars, due to diarrheal disease caused by bad water and the lack of
adequate health care.

Haiti’s health ministry reported in 2008 that there were just 39
hospitals and about 70 other inpatient facilities for the entire
country. But even that scant health care is unevenly divided: Private
for-profit hospitals treat the country’s wealthy and some foreign
business and embassy workers. Then there are the handful of public
hospitals and clinics — most of them falling apart — which are
ill-equipped and badly understaffed. The poor, who represent more than
80 percent of country’s population, also rely on the missionaries and
nongovernment volunteer groups, who sometimes offer superb medicine,
but only for those patients who can get to them.

There are very few ambulances in the countryside, and no 9-1-1 to
call. So Haitians fend for themselves.

The mainstay for the sick and injured are Voodoo clinics. In a country where medicine is hard to
come by unless you are among the elite, their traditional herbal medicines fill the void.

And so it was in the immediate aftermath of the quake: On Thursday, a
government health source said that a United Nation’s peacekeeper
relayed that the first organized medical care in Cite Soleil, the
capital’s vast slums, came from groups of Voodoo practitioners.

Early Friday, a senior officer at the 82nd’s headquarters in Fort
Bragg, N.C., said half the people in the division’s supply chain had
been scrambled for a critical part of the relief effort. Their
mission: to round up clean drinking water to bring to the Haitians.

———————-

Clinton Pledges Cooperation in Haiti Relief Effort.

Jennifer Kay, AP

PORT-AU-PRINCE, Haiti (Jan. 16) – U.S. Secretary of State Hillary
Rodham Clinton met Saturday with Haitian President Rene Preval and
promised that U.S. quake relief efforts would be closely coordinated
with local officials.

Clinton’s remarks appeared designed to counter any notion of a
too-intrusive American involvement in the aftermath of the quake,
while also assuring Haitians the humanitarian mission would continue
as long as it’s needed.

“We are here at the invitation of your government to help you,” she
said at a news conference at the Port-au-Prince airport. “As President
Obama has said, we will be here today, tomorrow and for the time
ahead. And speaking personally, I know of the great resilience and
strength of the Haitian people. You have been severely tested. But I
believe that Haiti can come back even stronger and better in the
future.”

Clinton, the highest-ranking Obama administration official to visit
since the magnitude-7.0 quake struck Tuesday, arrived in a Coast Guard
C-130 transport that carried bottled water, packaged food, soap and
other supplies. She was accompanied by Rajiv Shah, the U.S. Agency for
International Development administrator who is acting as the top U.S.
relief coordinator.

Clinton also met with U.N. officials and U.S. civilians and military
personnel working on the relief effort. She said she and Preval
discussed his government’s priorities: restoring communications,
electricity and transportation.

“And we agreed that we will be coordinating closely together to
achieve these goals,” she said, adding that she and Preval would issue
a communique on Sunday outlining cooperation between the two
countries.

Preval said he was encouraged to see former presidents Bill Clinton
and George W. Bush together with President Barack Obama at the White
House earlier Saturday in a joint plea for international assistance to
Haiti.

He noted that U.S. aid has already arrived, and he told reporters he
met a survivor who was pulled from the rubble Saturday and receiving
care from American medical teams. He thanked Clinton for her visit and
for Obama’s continued support of Haiti.

“Mrs. Clinton’s visit really warms our heart today,” he said.

During the news conference, officials noted the clatter of military
helicopters landing and taking off nearby.

“That’s a good sound,” Clinton said. “That means that good things are
going to the people of Haiti.”

OK, we came back pleased with President Obama’s performance on the international negotiations on climate change. We followed with interest his trip to China and the State Visit of the Indian Head of State to the White House. We knew that the President is right in leading to some sort of agreement between the major emitters – China and the US – to be supported by next line of evolving strong economies – the IBSA. We know those three leaders met with China separately from the Obama trip to Beijing. An agreement between the emitters is clearly much more valuable then agreements between lesser emitters, and Kyoto is just the great tub that says there was no wash for ten years.

Now, let us be honest. With eight years of GW Bush/Cheney government very little has been achieved in emissions reduction by the US federal government, but some States imposed rules and even laws that caused people to start changing behavior. But that was not all – in effect the increase of price of oil led people to drive less and to move to smaller cars. I know that there are still Hummer affectionados even in New York City, but I also see tiny cars on the street, I know about hybrids that I dislike, but also of electric cars that are coming on the market very soon. Our website is following this closely. We just posted about “Better Place” and “Balqon.” Our postings on the metal Lithium that will be used in batteries are among the most read postings.

OK – so money saving talks to people. But not just money – think also of convenience. In the 1970′s when people were scared of shortages in fuel, they changed to CNG and moved to more efficient vehicles – but they also wanted electric cars, hoping that if they lived in a suburb they will be able to “refuel” in their own garrage at home, without ever having to visit a supplier. The automotive industry killed that early thought because they make one third of their profit from parts and repairs – and their horror dreams – electric motors have no moving parts and need no repair.

People think nothing of taking a taxi to the airport and catching a flight – but thanks to our enemies we will have now to spend three and four hours before we can get on that half hour flight from New York to Washington. In effect we will be making better time catching a train. Then, after the “shoe bomber” we were made to take off our shoes in good Muslim fashion, when on our way to the plane, but after the “underwear bomber” we will yet have to prove that our underwear is clean – and watch the face of the agent that will be made to check them. That is more then what we are ready to bear – so we will be pushed by those Islamists, to cry out – WE WANT GOOD, FAST, AND CHEAP TRAINS – if the Chinese can have them we want them also!

The bottom line for this article is thus – we thank the unsuccessful bomber for making us do what we were not ready to do otherwise – to call for a high speed line from Washington to Chicago and make sure that the air connection is eliminated. This so that we buy less oil from the home country of that bomber, and from any other country that suports with our oil-money his agressive coreligionist brothers and sisters in arms.

The lesson from the Christmas day attack, less then one week after the Copenhagen meeting, and exactly one week since the NGOs there demanded it – air transport for the civilized world will be reduced to only where absolutely necessary – like in Washington – Beijing traffic.

And think for a moment – on December 22nd we thought that waiting in an airliner on the tarmac was the major problem, and the Administration decreed a very serious penalty on those airlines that keep the passengers cooped inside the plane. See how much more serious can be the problems imposed on the industry by outsiders. But then, the delays showed us that even in best of conditions it makes no sense to fly short distances.

————

Chinese Harmony Train Sets Speed Record.
By UCN on December 28, 2009

China streaked ahead of its western and Asian rivals at the weekend by unveiling the world’s fastest longdistance passenger train service.

The Harmony express raced 1,100km in less than three hours on Saturday, travelling from Guangzhou, capital of southern Guangdong province, to the central city of Wuhan. The journey previously took at least 11 hours.

The improvement illustrates how China’s huge investment in infrastructure is dramatically shrinking the country, yet the economics of the new service, which runs 56 times a day, remain unproven amid a build-it-and-they-will-come approach to transport.

“China has focused on building expressways but that is an American method,” said Zheng Tianxiang, a Guangzhou-based infrastructure expert and government adviser.

“Expressways are not suited for China, which has large numbers of people but little space to spare. China should learn from Japan and Europe.”

The Harmony express, which reached a top speed of 394km per hour in pre-launch trials, travelled at an average rate of 350km per hour on its debut. This compared with a maximum service speed of 300km per hour for Japan’s Shinkansen bullet trains and France’s TGV service. In America, Amtrak’s Acela “Express” service takes 3½ hours to trundle between Boston and New York, a distance of only 300km.

According to state media reports, the government spent $17bn (€12bn, £11bn) on the Harmony express line’s construction over 4½ years. Wuhan invested $2.4bn in a new Frenchdesigned train station, which boasts 20 tracks and 11 platforms. Officials this weekend declined to confirm project costs.

Ticket prices have been set at Rmb780 ($115, €80, £72) for first class and Rmb490 for second. The country’s airlines, which like the railway are mostly state-owned, have responded by slashing fares to undercut those for the new train, with China Southern Airlines, based in Guangzhou, offering tickets for advance purchase starting at Rmb250 and introducing hourly flights.

Huang Xin, head of passenger services for Guangzhou Railway Group, said on the inaugural ride that pricing might have to be adjusted.

Even the second-class fares may prove too rich for the biggest pool of potential passengers for the line, the estimated 20m workers in the Pearl river delta manufacturing belt around Guangzhou who hail from inland provinces. About half of them usually return home during the Chinese new year holiday in the world’s biggest human migration. The round-trip express fare is priced at about two-thirds of an average factory worker’s monthly wage.

Most passengers on the sold-out debut run were middle-class leisure travellers drawn by the journey’s novelty value. “We are not staying in Wuhan,” said Qiu Chaoyue, a Guangzhou resident who tried out the new rail link with a group of friends. “We’re going to take the next train back to Guangzhou.”

Another disadvantage of the new service is that the stations at each end of the line are at least an hour’s drive from their respective city centres.

The railways ministry intends to complete 18,000km of high-speed rail lines by 2012, allowing travel between most Chinese provincial capitals in eight hours or less.

One reason for the enormous construction outlay for the Harmony express was difficult terrain. The train travels along 713km of elevated tracks and tunnels, accounting for about 70 per cent of its length.

Police were posted along the route to guard potential sabotage points, while burly railway security personnel monitored each passenger car. The police outside were often joined by farmers, who stopped to watch the Harmony express rush by their rural homes.

In spring and summer, the train will travel through a lush agricultural breadbasket, especially in the rice-growing areas of southern Hunan province. But in the dead of winter, it traverses a bleak, monochrome landscape of fallow fields and dirt roads that turn to mud in the rain.