The last item of the August 24, 2010 UN DAILY NEWS:

UN EXPERT URGES RUSSIA TO PICK UP PACE OF PROTECTING RIGHTS OF INDIGENOUS PEOPLE – this requires further investigation that can be performed only via direct access to the UN which is being denied. The real issue is now not only the human rights of those peoples under Russian rule, but also if the UN Secretary-General will act on this if in his judgment talking to the Russians on this may harm his chances for re-election.

Although the Russian Government has made “important steps” to protect the rights of its indigenous people, a United Nations independent human rights expert today urged the country to accelerate progress.

James Anaya, the Special Rapporteur on the situation on the freedom of human rights and fundamental freedoms of indigenous people, called for “continuous and focused attention” in areas such as economic development, health, education and language.

Many indigenous people in Russia continuing to face “multiple impediments” to fully enjoying their human rights, he said, with human development indicators showing that they are “still often faring less well than other sectors of society.”

The expert praised Russia for showing its commitment to improving the living conditions of indigenous people, advancing their cultures and participation in decision-making, as well as developing a comprehensive policy for them.

However, he found that implementing existing laws guaranteeing their rights – at both national and regional levels – “remains a challenge that needs to be resolved.”

Mr. Anaya, who reports in an independent and unpaid capacity to the Geneva-based UN Human Rights Council, launched a new report today based on his visit to Russia last October.

One of the areas of focus on his missions was to examine the situation of groups recognized by the Government as “small-numbered indigenous people,” number fewer than 50,000 people.

“Following the fall of communism, and transition to a market economy, indigenous peoples were in a particularly vulnerable position… unable to shape or define their new role in a drastically shifting political and economic atmosphere,” he writes in the publication.

“Many indigenous communities,” the Rapporteur continues, “suffered extreme hardship with some reaching the brink of extinction during this time, while unemployment, poverty and alcoholism soared.”

He calls on the Government to fully support the provisions of the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. The landmark document, adopted by the General Assembly in 2007, outlines the rights of the world’s estimated 370 million indigenous people and outlaws discrimination against them.

August 19, 2010, before the UN started its meetings, the Asia Society in New York opened the discussion on the Pakistan Flood response by diving right to the bottom truth – the latest mega-disasters have one common cause – human induced climate change. It was Financier George Soros who injected the topic and the media was allowed by Ambassador Holbrooke to follow up. See what you can do when you go outside the UN!

Ambassador Dr. Richard C. Holbrooke, former Chairman of the Board of the Asia Society, and now US Special Representative to Afghanistan and Pakistan,  chaired the 8:30 am event at his New York home – the Asia Society – on the day when for 3:00 pm the UN General Assembly scheduled a pledging event for funding Pakistan relief. At the UN, for the US, spoke Secretary of State Hilary Rodham Clinton, and I saw on TV  the complete  Asia Society American team sitting in the hall. The team included also Judith A. McHale, US Department of State Under Secretary for Public Diplomacy and Public Affairs, Dr. George Erik Rupp, a theologian, President of the International Rescue Committee and former President of Rice University and Columbia University, and Raymond Offenheiser, President of Oxfam America.

The opening speaker after Ambassador Holbrooke was Pakistani Foreign Minister Shah Mehmood Qureshi, and the panel included also USAID Administrator Dr. Rajiv Shah. Then there was a list of guests that made their comments, followed by questions from the floor and answers from Administrator Dr. Shah and Ambassador Qureshi.

enlarge image
L to R: USAID’s Dr. Rajiv Shah, Pakistan Foreign Minister Shah Mehmood Qureshi, and Ambassador Richard C. Holbrooke. (Else Ruiz/Asia Society)

–

Judith A. McHale, a former media head herself ( President and Chief Executive Officer of Discovery Communications – 1987 to 2006), and now with the US Government, said that information is critical. “We work with the government of Pakistan to provide the critical information on the ground. It is posted on www.State.gov

Among the guests were Financier George Soros, whose Open Society Institute and Soros Foundations work on the ground in Pakistan – he announced that he adds another $5 million to the funds that his foundation will work with in helping directly civil society in Pakistan,  Christopher MacCormac of the Asian Development Bank, which is leading the effort to assess the flood damage, said much of the economic infrastructure of the area has been destroyed. 2 million ha. of crops were lost and livestock have been devastated, which has taken a large toll on Pakistan farmers. ADB has said that after the immediate contribution of $3 million from the ASia-Pacific Disaster Fund, it would loan Pakistan $2 billion to help the country rebuild, and Pakistan’s rock star turned political activist Salman Ahmad, known as Pakistan’s Bono, or as Holbrooke pointed out, “Bono is the Irish Salman Ahmad,” pointed out a very important topic:

“This is a defining moment in Pakistan,” Ahmad said. “This flood has set back Pakistan in a huge way. Out of 175 million people, 100 million are under 25. Those young people are skeptical, and they feel abandoned by the world. The international community has to win hearts and minds of those 100 million youth in Pakistan.” “If there is a sluggish response the terrorists/extremists win.” He also said that last year he had a concert at the UN to show to the young people in Pakistan that there was hope – he said that he is sure the international community will react positively.

Ambassador Holbrooke said that in the catastrophe there is also an opportunity, that we should not miss -  the people in Pakistan should see that the world is ready to help. He found that these elements of hope in opportunity were missing in the day’s article in The New York Times.

For the US the strategic implications are clear. The US pulled out helicopters from the military effort in order to help in the rescue effort. Will the Taliban take advantage of this? A US transport ship with materials arrived to Karachi, and Japan will now also send helicopters to help in the rescue effort.

The meeting was summarized by The Asia Society and there is also the full tape at -

 http://asiasociety.org/policy-politics/e…

Further, Ms. Nafis Sadik from the UN, now a Trustee Emeritus of the Asia Society and Chair of the Pakistan Foundation at the Asia Society called for Ramadan giving to the Foundation. Other Pakistan-Americans spoke and told of their own efforts to raise funds for the Pakistan relief program as the State’s capacity to meet the challenge has been overstretched. Today Pakistan , one fifth of its territory submerged, 68 million of its people affected, and 1,600 people dead, crops, animal stock, and infrastructure devastated – Pakistan is calling – humanity is calling they said. We saw a video proving every point. The Pakistan-American Foundation was inspired by Hilary Clinton’s “Pakistani Peacebuilders.”

Oxfam America was joined by “Save the Chidren” NGO  representative Gorel Bogarde said the obvious – what children most need is food, clean drinking water and shelter. She is most concerned for the moment about the outbreak of water-bourne diseases, such as cholera.

We will not repeat here further figures of loss and the size of the calamity. We assume that these are known by our readers by now – we want rather to point out the blunt comments that resulted from the statement by Mr. Soros who linked what happens to our lack of readiness to do something about the human-made climate change. Pakistan is the biggest of the recent disasters he said and we must deal with the root causes he continued. CLIMATE CHANGE IS THE ROOT CAUSE FOR ALL THESE RECENT DISASTERS. Mr. Soros spoke of the coincidence of the Himalaya glaciers melting and the monsoons getting stronger at the same time.

He also said “there is a certain amount of fatigue in responding to these disasters… [but] we have to come to terms with the fact that they are in fact connected, that there is climate change.”

At the Q & A part of the program, I asked the last question that was intended to bring the attention back to what Mr. Soros said.
My question was something like – I am with Sustainable Development Media and I wonder what Pakistan thinks about Mr. Soros’ statement about climate change – the reason being that the present calamity will repeat itself, so how does one do reconstruction work that makes sense?

Ambassador Holbrooke said Thank You and addressed the question first to Mr. Rajiv Shah.

When asked if there was a connection between the floods and climate change, USAID’s Shah said “while it’s very hard to attribute any single event to what we’re doing to our global environment it is very clear that that trend is leading to a greater number of large hurricanes, a greater number of floods, hotter and dryer conditions in places that are dependent on weather and rainfall for agriculture, and it’s making it very difficult for the least resilient, the most lower income communities of the world to survive.”

We heard from Mr. Christopher MacCormac that after the Earth Quake of 2005 the rebuilding of houses was done according to higher standards – so what we need here in the response to the present calamity is also to build better – but he did not specify, neither did Mr. Holbrooke. This, with the understanding that the increased monsoon floods,  joined with the melting of the Himalaya Glaciers, is indeed not a one time shot – but the beginning of a trend – leaves us with very bad premonitions about the future of Pakistan and other low lying lands of the region. This  has  clearly left me thinking about what means building better? Are we going to take into account these new phenomena resulting from global use of fossil fuels when going from the immediate reaction to the suffering from the floods to the longer range rebuilding stage? This is clearly an area that will be written up much more in the foreseeable future.

Ambassador Qurashi was asked by Mr. Holbrooke to react to the climate change implications. Are there additional run-off from the Himalayas?

The answer included: The Glaciers melt and what we have in Pakistan are Monsoon water plus glacier melts combined. We have above normal moisture.

He also said that “There are local NGOs in Pakistan that help push back the extremists and you have shown the world that you are a helping Nation.”

Permalink | |  Email This Article
Posted in Afghanistan, Arab Asia, Archives, Asia & Australia, Bangladesh, Bhutan, China, Copenhagen COP15, European Union, Futurism, Geneva, Global Warming issues, India, Islands & SIDS, Japan, Kyrgyzstan, Myanmar/Burma, Nairobi, Nepal, Pakistan, Real World's News, Reporting From the UN Headquarters in New York, Reporting from Washington DC, Tajikistan, The New Climate, Three Poles Melting, Tibet, UN Commission on Sustainable Development, United Kingdom

Discuss this article

We are engaged in a project which seeks to address the problem of climate change displacement.
The focus of our project is a proposal for a convention for persons displaced by climate change.

Please find attached a list of frequently asked questions (FAQs) about our climate change displacement convention.
The FAQs can also be found at the ‘Documents’ page of our project website – www.ccdpconvention.com.

Our proposed convention would largely operate prospectively; assistance to climate change displaced persons would be based on an assessment of whether their environment was likely to become uninhabitable due to events consistent with anthropogenic climate change such that resettlement measures and assistance were necessary.  In other words, displacement is viewed as a form of adaptation that creates particular vulnerabilities requiring protection as well as assistance through international cooperation.

If you have any questions about the paper please contact me at d.hodgkinson@hodgkinsongroup.com or on +61 402 824 832.

Best wishes
David

___________________________

David Hodgkinson

The Hodgkinson Group

+61 402 824 832 (international)

0402 824 832 (within Australia)

www.hodgkinsongroup.com

www.ecocarbon.org.au

www.ccdpconvention.com

“COMMON WEALTH:  Economics for a Crowded Planet.”

by Prof. Jeffrey D. Sachs

A New York Times Bestseller

Penguin Books, 2008

ISBN 978-1-59420-127-1  (hc.)

ISBN 978-0-14-311487-1 (pbk.)

386 p.

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

The obligatory textbook for any would-be policy maker in the Twenty-first Century.

Don’t elect any one to Congress unless he testifies that he has read this book.

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

We have a crowded planet and there are common challenges – it does not matter where you live.
We all get nourished from a source of common wealth that we must learn to honor as Environmental Sustainability.

We tried to draw a system in our own “Promptbook on Sustainable Development For The World Summit in Johannesburg August 2002,” but Professor Sachs did a much better job then I was able to do and I tip my hat before him.

Professor Sachs, with his knowledge, and with the tremendous resources of the Earth Institute at Columbia University, clearly achieved a much larger scope then we could have attempted – his book is full of data and still readable – even by policy makers that are not economists.

“Lucid, quietly urgent, and relentlessly logical . . . this is Big think with capital B.” says the New York Times Book Reviewer quote on front cover – and he is right.

——————————————————————————-

Let us start from the realization that the 20th Century saw the end of European dominance of global politics and economics and the 21st Century will witness the decline and end of American dominance.

The world is passing to new powers – China, India and Brazil.

Our own estimate is that Europe could have held on for a little longer had the European Union succeeded in creating a real Union – but in the form of the present cloud of competing States it is finished. The US, had it presented a united leadership, it could also have competed for a while longer, but as we heard today, from Senator Kerry on the Fareed Zakaria show, with the ongoing obstructionism in US Senate, we just watch how China has moved from 5% of the global production of solar panels – just two years ago, to the global production in 2010 of 60% of those panels, and this week’s announcement that the US Senate is incapable of gathering 60 votes for a Climate & Energy Bill this year – and hearing just one day after that the Chinese say that they are going to cap carbon emissions – this means that “WE WILL BE RIPPED OUT OF THE MARKET PLACE – WE ARE CUTTING OUR OWN THROAT HERE,” concluded Senator Kerry.

And why does this happen? The established economies grow fat and complacent – the world turns to new ideas from large and hungry Nations that are ready to learn fast and innovate and grow. They push the old mush to the sideways. Can the obfuscating politicians understand this?


——————————————————————————

The mush starts from the refusal to recognize that resources are scarce, there are environmental stresses, and there will be large areas that become eventually uninhabitable leading again to great mass migration, clashes of civilization, warfare and mayhem. The above will be reinforced by the human created climate change, that gets super imposed on the power change to new Mega-Nations of more then a billion people each, and we must note that the world population has risen by 4 billion people in the span of just 60 years since 1950 – the Korea War – that came after what was thought to be the start of a post WWII peace.

For the world to save itself we must recognize the Anthropocene, when human activity became the dominant driver of the natural environment, and look for Global Solutions to Climate Change and Water Needs – to start a new strategy of Economic Development, end poverty traps, and create economic security in this changing Globalized World.

Our leaders must rethink Foreign Policy in the light of Global Goals which Prof. Sachs ends up as defining as “The Power of One.”

He points out that we are not only the subjects of history, carried along by blind forces, but agents of history.

Further, we have to gird ourselves against the unholy trinity of reactionary rhetoric identified by the great development economist Albert Hirschman. He noted that every new idea for constructive change is met with three attacks.

The first is futility: the course of reform cannot work because the problem is unsolvable.

The second is perversity: any attempt at solution will actually make matters worse.

The third is jeopardy: attempting to solve the problem will take attention and resources away from something even more important.

This negativism is a state of mind, not a view based on facts.

Relentless acceptance of the status quo is not acceptable in the face of the challenges we confront.

The following is just another example of efforts to keep us do what we are used to do – squander fossil carbon because some interests want us to stay hooked to that stored global poison. Instead of us changing our ways – the idea here is to change the world around us. This is so much hubris and some say a real danger to the planet. We are no proponents of the methods mentioned below. But whatever, it surely lets our imagination wander in new directions.

We touched on this last week in our:

Bastille Day was celebrated in Rockland County, NY, on Saturday July 17, 2010. We had a great time that started at the Public Library in South Nyack where Eli Kintisch presented his new book “HACK THE PLANET: SCIENCE’S BEST HOPE – OR WORST NIGHTMARE FOR AVERTING CLIMATE CATASTROPHE.” From there I continued to Piermont, NY, where they were shooting in the street and eating cornichons. The Climate Change walls must come down with geoengineering? That is something like a new quantum jump of logic.

Posted on Sustainabilitank.info on July 20th, 2010
by Pincas Jawetz ( PJ at SustainabiliTank.com)
 http://www.sustainabilitank.info/page/2/…

and we will do the subject better justice based on “HACK THE PLANET” – Science’s Best Hope – or Worst Nightmare – for Averting Climate Catastrophe, the recently released book by Eli Kintish  Wiley.com Publishers) that reached us today by mail.

=====================================
 http://www.truth-out.org/climate-control…

Climate: Controlled

Sunday 25 July 2010

by: Jason Mark, t r u t h o u t | Op-Ed

Geoengineering Threatens to Save the Planet from Global Warming.

The sky would look white, but the sunsets would be an out-of-this world explosion of reds and oranges. The clouds would have a chrome sheen to them. Giant dirigibles might dot the horizon in a kind of Blade Runner set piece – but at least they’d keep the temperatures in check.

Such scenes are what we could expect to see if, as some of the world’s top climatologists are warning, we have to resort to what’s called “geoengineering”: large-scale manipulation of Earth to counteract global warming.

Worried that global political systems aren’t responding to changes in the planet’s physical systems, some scientists and environmentalists say that we might need to artificially reduce the amount of sunlight striking the globe and/or manipulate plants or the oceans to absorb huge amounts of CO2. Having unintentionally warmed the planet, we may have little choice but to intentionally cool it back down.

Since they sometimes sound like science fiction (a space-based mirror umbrella?), geoengineering schemes were, until recently, relegated to the imaginations of the tinfoil hat crowd. But at least two geoengineering approaches are now generating serious discussion. In a planetary version of pulling down the shades, Stanford climatologist Ken Caldeira has proposed sowing the stratosphere with sulfur dioxide to catalyze water condensation that would reflect sunlight away from the planet. This idea enjoys the advantage of a real-world experiment – the 1991 eruption of Mount Pinutabo in the Philippines, which blew 20 million tons of sulfur dioxide into the stratosphere and cooled global temperatures by half a degree Celsius. Caldeira and others envision using massive artillery or a fleet of high altitude blimps to inject the sulfur aerosol into the sky.

Another geoengineering strategy – called cloud bleaching – imagines an armada of robotic ships sailing the oceans, equipped with giant fans to kick seawater into the clouds to make them more reflective. This idea has big money behind it. The Times of London reported earlier this month that Bill Gates has invested $300,000 in a firm investigating cloud whitening.

The Gates investment is fueling fears of what’s been dubbed a “greenfinger scenario”: that is, a maverick, if well-meaning, billionaire who decides to do an end-run around paralyzed governments and start manipulating the globe’s climate without the consent of the rest of us. That prospect has scientists, NGOs, and governments scrambling to work out a system for governing geoengineering. In March, scientific ethicists met at Asilomar in California to lay out rules for experimenting with the atmosphere. United Nations officials working under the Convention on Biological Diversity meeting in Nairobi in mid-May discussed protocols for global climate control. The British Parliament and the US Congress are looking into the issue.

As with any new technology, the tensions surrounding geoengineering come down to the issue of power. Who would decide how, whether, and when to start modifying the entire planet? Or, as Alan Robock, a Rutgers University philosopher with a National Science Foundation grant to investigate geoengineering, put it to me, “Whose hand will be on the thermostat? What if Russia and Canada decide they want it warmer and India wants it cooler? How do you decide those things?”

Geopolitical complications aside, there’s no question that geoengineering is tempting. With scientists warning that we are on the edge of serious ecosystem disruptions – and our politicians unwilling to respond to the threat – who doesn’t want some kind of deus ex machina to swoop in and save us?

But this is a temptation we should resist, because, in the final analysis, geoengineering isn’t any solution to the problem of global climate change. It’s merely a perpetuation of the same mindset that has led us to this emergency situation. If mitigation (reducing emissions) is the hope of the idealist, and adaptation (preparing for rising waters) is the consolation of the realist, then geo-engineering (call it circumvention) has become the refuge of the cynic. Geoengineering assumes that although we may be able to alter how the planet works, we are incapable of changing the way we run the world.

Geoengineering is a great example of the old Albert Einstein aphorism, “We can’t solve problems by using the same kind of thinking we used when we created them.” Geoengineering takes a problem, simplifies its cause, and then exaggerates its solution. It’s like a Rube Goldberg machine, employing eight or nine steps when one or two would do. Instead of pursuing the elegant solutions – trading in our cars for buses, turning off the coal and turning on the wind – we are going to build a contraption to make the clouds shinier.

This makes geoengineering (the ambivalence of its supporters notwithstanding) human hubris compounded. It’s like doubling down on self-regard, a bet that we can save ourselves by divorcing our species from the rest of the planet. Bill McKibben warned about just such a fate in his seminal book The End of Nature when he cautioned that global warming would turn us into a “bubble species.”

As soon as we put our hand on the lever controlling the weather, we will be in charge in a way we never have been before, knowing that if for any reason we were to cease overseeing the sunlight, global temperatures would shoot upward again, leading to even worse trouble. The new role will force on us an existential anxiety much like the Cold War “strategy” of mutually assured destruction. If we take control of the sky, we will always be fearful of letting our grip slip from the machines that keep the planet in a semblance of balance.

Even were geoengineering to succeed, it would nonetheless mark a failure of humanity. Resorting to geoengineering would prove that we can’t act in concert to address collective problems. Worse, it would transform Earth, our home for all of history, into a trap, a place where we are held captive by our own technology.

Eli Kintisch is reporter for Science Magazine and author of “Hack the Planet” released by Wiley April 19, 2010.

Bill McKibben, author of “EARTH: MAKING A LIFE ON A TOUGH NEW PLANET” and co-founder of 350.org, an organization that our readers know that we hold in very high esteem,  wrote about “HACK THE PLANET:”

“Anyone who considers themselves scientifically literate had better get versed in the new discipline of geo-engineering — or planethacking, as Eli Kintisch calls it in his nuanced and useful new account. This discussion is not going to go away anytime soon!”

Once the stuff of science fiction, geoengineering has come into the mainstream, with top scientists, the National Academy of Science and Congress investigating this radical concept.

please look at www.hacktheplanetbook.com

and if you need a contact – the book’s publicity is with Erin Beam of  ebeam at wiley.com

———————–

I got a few minutes late to the library’s lower level and so a nice size roomful of very mixed crowd – from the young shoeless intellectual in the front row to the spectacled white hair retiree in the back row. They all listened very intent and at the end asked good questions.

As my usual way, I went directly to the table loaded with the books for sale, took one and stood next to the wall – leafing from cover to cover. That is how I learned that the book starts with old-time friend Academician Yuriy Izrael from Moscow with whom I shared before the Rio Summit of 1992 two weeks in Fortaleza, Ceara, Brazil, where local Professor Jose Oswaldo Carioca was preparing for a Brazilian submission to the upcoming UN Conference on Environment and Development. Since then I visited with Academician Izrael a couple of times in Moscow – the last time in Moscow during the September 29 – October 3, 2003 World Climate Change Conference where he was the head of the local organizing scientific committee and co-chair of the Conference, with Mr. A. N. Illarionov (Andrey Nikolayevich), the Adviser of then Russia President Vladimir Putin. Bert Bolin of Sweden, a pioneering climatologist and the first chairman of the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), was the foreign co-chair of the event.

That was a very important meeting, with participants from over 100 countries, because it dealt with the crucial question – Will Russia Ratify the Kyoto Protocol? At the time Putin was relying on Yu. Izrael and Andrey Nikolayevich, and the world still thought that the KP is imperative for a Multilateral approach to Climate Change. With the US clearly out – Russia became all important in order to reach the magic number of ratifications so the KP gets into effect. Eventually it became Putins decision to say – DA – YES – while his two advisers still said NO!
That was real drama.

Somehow I still have my stash of papers from that meeting and I was looking now at hints at geoengineering in Russia’s position. But I did find a list of 10 questions Illarionov did put before the conference in his presentation that had the title: “Antropogenic Factors in Global Warming: Some Questions.” It was Bert Bolin, chair emeritus of IPCC, who gave the two answers with the last one answering to “How much will it cost.” This is fascinating history from the days we thought we had a plan – but the Russians seemingly were already convinced then that we really had no plan.

Strangely, when I looked up Google I found there on first page for Illarionov -

Answers to the questions raised by A.N. Illarionov during his talk …

File Format: PDF/Adobe Acrobat – Quick View
Answers to Questions by A. Illarionov (Adviser of the President of Russian Federation). Moscow – World Climate Change Conference 2003 …
www.sysecol.ethz.ch/Articles_Reports/Illarionov_QandA_WCCC_2003.pdf

further: As a senior advisor to Russian President Putin, Illarionov was outspoken against Russia’s ratification of Kyoto. Despite Illarionov’s vocal opposition, Putin ratified the Kyoto Protocol in 2004. In October 2006, Illarionov was appointed senior researcher of the Center for Global Liberty and Prosperity of the US libertarian think tank Cato Institute in Washington, DC.

————

The above was just an aside and I will get back to it after doing full justice by reading “Hack the Planet” as I am convinced that some form of geoengineering will eventually become part of humanity’s effort to put a lid – cap in BP’s language – in order to control the runaway increase of concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere.

Yuriy Izrael was talking of placing sulfur compounds in the upper atmosphere – others may have various sun deflectors in mind,
I for one may think that the Peter Glazer idea of concentrating sun light in outer space and beaming it back to earth might be a way to provide clean solar energy for our needs. I have no trust in the Carbon Capture and Sequestration concept – this because I do not think that we know how to do it and I mistrust those that promote the idea as it feels rather like an attempt to keep us away from research in positive directions that can wean us from our dependence on oil and coal. Further, it is clear that just companies like Haliburton and large oil companies will be the only ones to be able to implement these programs if there is ever some success with these ideas. This is also a geoengineering concept. Changing fish population in a pond is a case of forced change of nature and we have many examples that led to negative results because of unintended consequences.

Anyway – this is a large topic that serves our attention, so after talking to the great family of presenter Eli Kintisch – he was there with both his parents and kid brother – all knowledgeable in the subject – and to one of the people that asked questions, I continued to Piermont.

There it was all fun, but my connection to the book presentation is clear to me. It will eventually take a revolution to break down the Bastille walls of the anti-progress interests when dealing with climate change.

I saw in Piermont a friend from the UN, bought two interesting T-shirts and went home.

I still visited a great cooperative gallery – The Piermont Flywheel Gallery – that was about half works of Howard Berelson – a colorist with many scenes from East Africa.

He has a great painting from the Serengeti Plain in Tanzania – “Death in the Garden of Eden.” Was that bull failed also because of the high heat? Are the colors of the Hudson River Odyssey – another painting – so that we are reminded of the turning of our area into another hot Africa?

————————————

and if someone is interested in contacting Academician Izrael:

Yuri IZRAEL
Institute of Global Climate and Ecology
Glebovskaya str., 20B
107258 Moscow
RUSSIA
Tel: +(7 095) 1692430
Fax: +(7 095) 1600831
E-mail:  Yu.Izrael at g23.relcom.ru

and as an appetizer see the following:

The journal Russian Meteorology and Hydrology recently published a new kind of geoengineering study whose lead author is the journal’s editor, the prominent Russian scientist Yuri A. Izrael.

Izrael and his team of scientists mounted aerosol generators on a helicopter and a car chassis, and proceeded to blast out particles at ground level and at heights of up to 200 meters. Then they attempted to measure just how much sunlight reaching Earth was reduced due to the aerosol plume.

This small-scale intervention was effective, the Russian scientists say. And in an accompanying article on geoengineering alternatives, Izrael and colleagues note that “Already in the near future, the technological possibilities of a full scale use of [aerosol-based geoengineering] will be studied.”

——————

Above leads to brain storming:

Billionaire airline tycoon Richard Branson baldly told the press last year, ‘If we could come up with a geoengineering answer to this problem, then Copenhagen wouldn’t be necesary. We could carry on flying our planes and driving our cars.’

And what do you know – there is already a clear reaction to the geoengineering ideas:

But on the eve of this year’s UN-designated International Mother Earth Day, over 60 national and international organizations launched Hands Off Mother Earth (H.O.M.E.). The global campaign, now supported by the Ecologist, includes a website  handsoffmotherearth.org) where signatories upload photos of themselves with their hands up in a ‘stop’ gesture.

The campaign insists that a halt be placed on geoengineering experiments and that the ‘rights’ of Planet Earth be respected. ‘Not just human beings have rights, but the planet has rights,’ asserts Evo Morales, Bolivian president and host of the recently concluded Cochabamba Climate Change Conference in Bolivia. The first right, he says, is ‘the right for no ecosystem to be eliminated’. The second, ‘for Mother Earth to live without contamination’. The final statement by the 35,000 people attending Cochabamba called out geoengineering as a false solution to the climate problem.

Much of the UN rebuttal is mush and we will report on how this unfolds.

——————————

Departing U.N. official calls Ban’s leadership ‘deplorable’ in 50-page memo.

Inga-Britt Ahlenius wrote a 50-page memo upon the end of her term as head of the U.N. Office of Internal Oversight Services. (2008 Photo By Mark Garten/Associated Press)

By Colum Lynch

Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, July 20, 2010

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/07/19/AR2010071904734.html?referrer=emailarticle

UNITED NATIONS — The outgoing chief of a U.N. office charged with combating corruption at the United Nations has issued a stinging rebuke of Secretary General Ban Ki-moon, accusing him of undermining her efforts and leading the global institution into an era of decline, according to a confidential end-of-assignment report.

The memo by Inga-Britt Ahlenius, a Swedish auditor who stepped down Friday as undersecretary general of the Office of Internal Oversight Services, represents an extraordinary personal attack on Ban from a senior U.N. official. The memo also marks a challenge to Ban’s studiously cultivated image as a champion of accountability.

Shortly after taking office in 2007, Ban committed himself to restoring the United Nations’ reputation, which had been sullied by revelations of corruption in the agency’s oil-for-food program in Iraq.

But Ahlenius says that, rather than being an advocate for accountability, Ban, along with his top advisers, has systematically sought to undercut the independence of her office, initially by trying to set up a competing investigations unit under his control and then by thwarting her efforts to hire her own staff.

“Your actions are not only deplorable, but seriously reprehensible. . . . Your action is without precedent and in my opinion seriously embarrassing for yourself,” Ahlenius wrote in the 50-page memo to Ban, a copy of which was obtained by The Washington Post. “I regret to say that the secretariat now is in a process of decay.”

Ban’s top advisers said that Ahlenius’s memo constituted a deeply unbalanced account of their differences and that her criticism of Ban’s stewardship of the United Nations was patently unfair.

“A look at his record shows that Secretary General Ban has provided genuine visionary leadership on important issues from climate change to development to women’s empowerment. He has promoted the cause of gender balance in general as well as within the organization. He has led from the front on important political issues from Gaza to Haiti to Sudan,” Ban’s chief of staff, Vijay Nambiar, wrote in a response.

“It is regrettable to note,” Nambiar added, “that many pertinent facts were overlooked or misrepresented” in Ahlenius’s memo.

The departure of Ahlenius, 72, coincides with a period of crisis in the United Nations’ internal investigations division. During the past two years, the world body has shed some of its top investigators. It has also failed to fill dozens of vacancies, including that of the chief of the investigations division in the Office of Internal Oversight Services. That post has been vacant since 2006, leaving a void in the United Nations’ ability to police itself, diplomats say.

“We are disappointed with the recent performance of [the U.N.'s] investigations division,” said Mark Kornblau, spokesman for the U.S. mission to the United Nations. “The coming change in . . . leadership is an opportunity to bring about a significant improvement in its performance to increase oversight and transparency throughout the organization.”

The U.N. General Assembly established the Office of Internal Oversight Services in 1994 to conduct management audits of the United Nations’ principal departments and to conduct investigations into corruption and misconduct. The founding resolution granted the office “operational independence” but placed it under the authority of the secretary general and made it dependent on the U.N. departments it policed for much of its funding and administrative support.

The dispute between Ahlenius and Ban has underscored some of the resulting tensions and exposed a protracted and acrimonious struggle for power over the course of U.N. investigations.

While Ahlenius cited Ban’s move to set up a new investigations unit as a sign that he was seeking to undermine her independence, Nambiar said that it was intended to strengthen the United Nations’ ability to fight corruption.

Ahlenius also clashed with Ban over her efforts to hire a former federal prosecutor, Robert Appleton, who headed the U.N. Procurement Task Force, a temporary white-collar crime unit that carried out aggressive investigations into corruption in U.N. peacekeeping missions from 2006 to last year. The unit’s investigations led to an unprecedented number of misconduct findings by U.N. officials and prompted federal probes into corruption.

Ban’s advisers said they blocked Appleton’s appointment on the grounds that female candidates had not been properly considered and said that the final selection should have been made by Ban, not Ahlenius.

“The secretary general fully recognizes the operational independence of OIOS,” Nambiar said. But that, he said, “does not excuse her from applying the standard rules of recruitment.”

—————————————-

The above story, as per – http://www.orf.at/#/stories/2004590/ - also echoed in Vienna.

Scheidende UNO-Diplomatin rechnet mit Ban ab.

Die scheidende Chefkontrolleurin der Vereinten Nationen geht laut Medienberichten mit Generalsekretär Ban Ki Moon hart ins Gericht. Ban habe ihre Arbeit als oberste Korruptionsbekämpferin unterlaufen und die UNO in eine Ära des Niedergangs geführt, schrieb Inga-Britt Ahlenius laut einem Bericht der „Washington Post“ gestern in einem vertraulichen Memorandum.

Entgegen seinen Ankündigungen zum Amtsantritt 2007 habe Ban die durch mehrere Affären angeschlagene Reputation der Vereinten Nationen nicht mit allen Mitteln geschützt.

——————————
„Verwerflich“

Vielmehr habe er ihr Amt der Chefrevisorin mehr und mehr geschwächt, schreibe Ahlenius in dem 50-Seiten-Papier an Ban: „Ihr Handeln ist nicht nur bedauerlich, sondern sogar verwerflich.“ Es sei beispiellos und „meiner Meinung nach für Sie selbst beschämend“. Das Blatt zitierte: „Ich bedaure es, sagen zu müssen, dass das Sekretariat in einem Zerfallsprozess ist.“

Kritiker werfen Ban seit langem vor, die UNO nur zu verwalten und vor wirksamen politischen Initiativen zurückzuschrecken. UNO-Mitarbeiter wiesen die Vorwürfe in der „Washington Post“ als „unfair“ zurück. Ban habe mehrere politische Schwerpunkte gesetzt, etwa beim Klimaschutz und bei der Gleichstellung der Frau. Die Abrechnung der scheidenden Schwedin sei ein „höchst unausgewogener Ausdruck ihrer Differenzen“ mit Ban.,

Pop goes the green myth On World Population Day, take note: population isn’t the problem.

by Fred Pearce, www.grist.org
 http://www.grist.org/article/2010-07-11-…

11 Jul 2010.

Assistant Secretary of Energy for Policy & International Affairs David Sandalow.

TOPIC:              Upcoming Clean Energy Ministerial July 19-20^th

This is written on the basis of a US Department of State Press Conference  – Thursday, July 15, 2010.

————

This article follows our posting of July 14, 2010:

The Major 17 Economies were joined by Bangladesh, Denmark, Barbados, Ethiopia, Singapore and the UAE at the recent Rome meeting – to be followed by a July 19-20, 2010 Washington DC Meeting on Clean Energy – all this to build a program for Cancun.  Posted on Sustainabilitank.info on July 14th, 2010 by Pincas Jawetz ( PJ at SustainabiliTank.com)

We said at the time that the July 19 – 20, 2010  Washington DC Ministerial meeting will be a sequel – now we are convonced that is actually a different kind of meeting and I do not think that its eyes will be towards Cancun.

———–

The Department of Energy’s Assistant Secretary for Policy and International Affairs, David Sandalow, gave a background briefing and answered questions on the web regarding the importance of the upcoming Washington DC – Clean Energy Ministerial meeting. He discussed Energy Secretary Chu’s hopes on what will be accomplished.

The following countries will be represented:  Australia, Belgium, Brazil, Canada, China, Denmark, the European Commission, Finland, France, Germany, India, Italy, Korea, Japan, Mexico, Norway, the Russian Federation, Spain, South Africa, Sweden, the U.A.E. and the U.K.

This list excludes Indonesia from the Major Economies Forum which are 16 + The EU and then at their Rome meeting of June 30 – July 1, 2010, added on Ministers from a variety of representative smaller economies: Bangladesh, Denmark, Barbados, Ethiopia, Singapore, UAE.

This list includes in addition to the EU also all The Scandinavian States: Denmark, Norway, Spain and Sweden. As well it includes Belgium and Spain. It does not include Bangladesh, Barbados, Ethiopia, Singapore which were part of the meeting of June 30 – July 1, 2010 but it does include from that meeting Denmark that was a participant because of its hosting the Copenhagen meeting, and the UAE that seemingly represents the oil exporting countries.

The Washington meeting includes also Belgium because by now they have become the half year Presidents of the EU for July 1 till  December 31, 2010, and it retains Spain that held this position during the first half of 2010. To top this there is also an actual EU delegation at the table besides the temporary Presidents. We assume that this delegation is there because Malta, Cyprus and other EU delegations are not there. Place was also found for all major four Scandinavian Countries – Denmark, Finland, Norway, Sweden – surely nice people all of them.

I write all of this in order to say that some better way has to be found on how to treat the EU and the World, when the Obama Administration wants indeed to show that it is serious about climate change by inviting just the large emitters that total 80% of the global emissions, or, if intent to bring in also some small representation of the small countries, that do not have substantial emissions, but proportionately are going to bear a major part of the suffering, the Rome initiative of having present also Bangladesh, Barbados and Ethiopia would have been just fine – and the total figure would have been then 16 + 1 (the EU) + 3 (this for Bangladesh, Barbados, Ethiopia) and it obviously would have included as part of the 16 also Indonesia.

For more information, the link to the website is:   http://cleanenergyministerial.org/

——————-

At question time I asked from Mr. Sandalow why is Indonesia not at the meeting, and why was the symbolic, but important participation of the small number of really very small economies dropped?

The answer was that Indonesia said they are not coming because they participate at that time at a South  Asia meeting. The fact that the small economies were dropped is “because this is for the large energy markets – for 80% of the ENERGY MARKET  and not for the whole world.”  THE IDEA IS COME UP WITH ACTIONS TO PROMOTE CLEAN ENERGY, he said.

It would have been easier to accept that answer had the US also kept out the additional 6 EU States that were not among the original 16 + EU. We also would like to ask why UAE – though we think that they clearly are a better choice then Saudi Arabia – but still not exactly your ideal partner when you try to disengage from oil even though they do in effect – as holders of serious financial reserves – also participate in the financial benefits from looking for a cleaner future.

The above, because after Copenhagen we hoped for the involvement of business interests in order to create the working alternative to the Kyoto process – the interest of business in going green. For this to be effective one must have at the table mainly the real big emitters who indeed coincide with the biggest economies.

We thought that amounted to the maximum of 16 and – under EU conditions – just one more chair for the EU. Now there will be 23 chairs at the Washington table. The higher number decreasing the chance for success.

Monday, July 19, 2010 at 9am there will be an open press conference when the meeting starts.

New Power Capacity from Renewables Tops Fossil Fuels.

07/16/2010  – SustainableBusiness.com News
http://www.sustainablebusiness.com/index.cfm/go/news.display/id/20692
——–

UN ADVISORY GROUP SEEKS TO ENHANCE PUBLIC-PRIVATE LINKS TO BOOST ACCESS TO ENERGY.

The potential of new public-private partnerships to enhance energy access and efficiency topped today’s discussions by Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon’s high-level advisory group on the nexus between energy and climate change.

“Governments alone will not be able to deal with the challenges,” said Kandeh K. Yumkella, Director-General of the United Nations Industrial Development Organization (UNIDO), at the latest meeting of the Energy and Climate Change Advisory Group.

“We need a commitment from all sectors of society, including the private sector, academia and civil society, as well as from international organizations and NGOs [non-governmental organizations],” he added.

The meeting in Mexico City was hosted by Carlos Slim Helú, Mexican businessman and one the world’s wealthiest people, who is also a member of the Group, set up by Mr. Ban last year and comprising 20 business leaders, academics and representatives of the UN and civil society.

In April, the Group launched a report calling on nations to commit themselves to two complementary goals.

First, it urged universal access to modern energy services that are reliable, affordable, sustainable, and, if possible, from low-emissions sources by 2030.

It also underlined the need to slash global energy intensity, measured by the quantity of energy per unit of gross domestic product (GDP).

Currently, some 3 billion people worldwide rely on traditional biomass for cooking and heating, resulting in adverse health effects if used in inadequately ventilated buildings, with 1.6 billion having no access to electricity.

“This is why we are looking at launching a worldwide campaign to ensure that access to modern energy services no longer represents a barrier to development,” Mr. Yumkella said. “A reliable, affordable energy supply is the key to economic growth and the achievement of the Millennium Development Goals [MDGs],” the eight anti-poverty targets with a 2015 deadline.

Private companies, he pointed out, already have the technology needed to make global energy systems less dependent on fossil fuels, while many governments are offering financial incentives and support for this transition.

“What we need today is to forge strong public-private partnerships to tackle these goals,” the UNIDO chief, who chairs the Advisory Group, said.

Today’s meeting, co-hosted by Mexican Energy Minister Georgina Kessel Martínez, drew top UN officials and business executives, while representatives of Sharp and other corporations presented some of the latest renewable technologies.

In a related development, a new report launched today by the UN Environment Programme (UNEP) found that the United States and Europe have added more capacity to their electricity supplies from renewable sources, such as wind and solar, for the second consecutive year.

In 2009, renewables accounted for 60 per cent of newly-installed capacity in Europe and more than 50 per cent in the USA.

“The sustainable energy investment story of 2009 was one of resilience, frustration and determination,” said UNEP Executive Director Achim Steiner.

The sector was able to weather the global financial downturn, but faced setbacks given that last December’s UN climate change conference in Copenhagen, Denmark, did not achieve the targets that had been hoped for, he noted.

“Yet there was determination on the part of many industry actors and governments, especially in rapidly developing economies, to transform the financial and economic crisis into an opportunity for greener growth,” the official said.

* * *

TODAY’S GLOBAL CRISES HIGHLIGHT NEED TO PROMOTE HUMAN SECURITY – BAN.

Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon has emphasized the need to promote the concept of human security, noting that the challenges facing the world today threaten the lives of millions and undermine development efforts.

“Everyone has a right to enjoy freedom from fear…freedom from want…and freedom to live in dignity,” Mr. Ban said in a video message for a symposium on human security taking place in Tokyo.

“These mutually reinforcing aspirations are at the heart of human security and our mission to build a better world for all,” he stated.

More than ever, “we live in an interconnected world,” where crises transcend borders and threaten the lives and livelihoods of millions of men, women and children, he noted.

“They increase human insecurity and undermine progress towards the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs),” he added, referring to the targets world leaders have pledged to achieve by 2015, ranging from ensuring quality education and a clean environment to reducing hunger and disease.

He said the symposium can help inform and advance discussions at the high-level summit he will be convening in New York in September at which world leaders will gather to push for further progress on the MDGs.

The landmark 2005 World Summit referred to the concept of human security, recognizing that “that all individuals, in particular vulnerable people, are entitled to freedom from fear and freedom from want, with an equal opportunity to enjoy all their rights and fully develop their human potential.”

In May, the General Assembly held its first formal debate on human security, during which Mr. Ban presented his report on the issue.

Addressing that meeting, he had stressed that “we must ensure that the gains of today are not lost to the crises of tomorrow,” calling for actions focusing on “people-centred, comprehensive, context-specific and preventive strategies at every level.”

Such an approach, the report pointed out, helps address both current and emerging threats, as well as their causes. The report also emphasized the need for strong and stable institutions to advance human security.

Calender of Events for Gold Standard Presentations in September 2010 for Mexico City and Chicago.

The Gold Standard was established for listing Premium Quality Carbon Credits.

The Gold Standard Foundation Newsletter Issue II 2010 is available at
http://cts.vresp.com/c/?GoldStandardFoundati/1f6ee2e1ce/3fc4f97dfb/fac3e1c798

Carbon Market Mexico & Central America.
A Green Power Conference Event.
Presenter: Ivan Hernandez
Date: September 8-9, 2010
Location: Mexico City
www2.greenpowerconferences.co.uk

Carbon TradeEx America
Presenter:TBD
Date: September 28-29, 2010
Location: Chicago, IL
www.carbontradeex.com

—————-

The Gold Standard Foundation
Avenue Louis Casai 79
CH-1216 Geneva-Cointrin
Switzerland

UNEP NEWS RELEASE: Green Goes Mainstream: Biodiversity Is Climbing the Corporate Agenda.
July 13, 2010

from James Sniffen :

The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity (TEEB) for Business Report.

Green Goes Mainstream: Biodiversity Is Climbing the Corporate Agenda.
Companies with ‘Net Positive Impact’ on Biological Diversity are Winners in
Resource-Constrained World.

One in four global CEOs sees biodiversity loss as a strategic issue for
business growth: Latin American and African CEOs are most concerned about
impacts of biodiversity loss on business growth prospects—European CEOs are
least concerned.

————

13 July, 2010 – Business leaders in biodiversity-rich developing economies
are concerned about losses of “natural capital”, a new report launched
today highlights.

Over 50 per cent of Chief Executive Officers (CEOs) surveyed in Latin
America and 45 per cent in Africa see declines in biodiversity as a
challenge to business growth. In contrast, less than 20 per cent of their
counterparts in Western Europe share such concerns.

The findings, compiled by a study of “The Economics of Ecosystems and
Biodiversity” (TEEB), indicate that those corporate chiefs who fail to make
sustainable management of biodiversity part of their business plans may
find themselves increasingly out of step with the market place.

Another recent survey, also spotlighted in the TEEB report for business,
shows rising interest among consumers with 60 per cent of those surveyed in
America and Europe and over 90 per cent in Brazil aware of biodiversity
loss.

Over 80 per cent of those consumers surveyed said they would stop buying
products from companies that disregard ethical considerations in their
sourcing practices.

The “TEEB for Business” report indicates that scrutiny of big business and
its impacts on the world’s natural capital is likely to intensify as better
evaluations and assessments come to the fore.

The UK-based consultancy TruCost, on behalf of the UN’s Principles for
Responsible Investment, is set to publish a study on the activities of the
world’s top 3,000 listed companies, estimating that their negative impacts
or “environmental externalities” total around $2.2 trillion annually.

Pavan Sukhdev, the TEEB Study Leader and also head of UNEP’s Green Economy
Initiative, said: “Through the work of TEEB and others, the economic
importance of biodiversity and ecosystems is emerging from the invisible
into the visible spectrum. It is clear that some companies in some sectors
and on some continents are hearing and acting on that message in order to
build more sustainable, 21st century businesses.”

Today’s report, entitled “TEEB for Business” and part of a suite of reports
being launched in the UN’s International Year of Biodiversity, calls for
companies to embrace concepts such as “No Net Loss”; “Ecological
Neutrality” and ultimately “Net Positive Impact” on the environment.

Achim Steiner, UN Under-Secretary-General and Executive Director of UNEP
which hosts TEEB, said: “We are entering an era where the multi-trillion
dollar losses of natural and nature-based resources are starting to shape
markets and consumer concerns. How companies respond to these risks,
realities and opportunities will increasingly define their profitability;
corporate profile in the market-place and the overall development paradigm
of the coming decades on a planet of six billion, going to over nine
billion people by 2050.”

Julia Marton-Lefevre, TEEB advisory board member and Director-General of
the International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN), which
coordinated the “TEEB for Business” report, urged companies attending the
1st Global Business for Biodiversity Symposium at the Excel Centre in
London on 13 July to back new and transformational policies such as those
outlined in the report.

“Together Governments and business, in both developed and developing
economies, can show leadership by establishing networks of committed
corporations across all sectors dedicated to achieving a ‘Net Positive
Impact’ on biodiversity and ecosystem services.”

The TEEB report cites the case of the multinational mining giant Rio Tinto
as one company that has committed itself to achieving “Net Positive Impact”
on biodiversity. In association with leading conservation experts the
company has developed new ways of assessing the biodiversity values of its
land holdings, and has begun to apply biodiversity compensation or “offset”
methodologies in Madagascar, Australia and North America.

Other companies with similar commitments on biodiversity include Wal-Mart
(Acres for America initiative), Coca Cola (water neutral by 2020) and BC
Hydro (no net incremental ecological impact).

In addition to minimizing and mitigating adverse impacts, business can also
generate revenue from conserving biodiversity and delivering ecosystem
services. Agriculture, forestry and fisheries all depend on healthy
ecosystems to ensure healthy profits.

The tourism sector has a major stake and role to play in conserving
biodiversity. Realizing its reliance on the biodiversity rich but fragile
coral reefs, Chumbe Island Coral Park Ltd in Tanzania has invested over
$1.2million to establish a marine park to protect the corals surrounding
Chumbe Island. The company actively supports park management as well as its
own resort facilities.

The “TEEB for Business” report, which will form part of a final TEEB
synthesis report to be launched at a meeting of the Convention on
Biological Diversity in Nagoya, Japan in October 2010, calls on
professional associations to develop new accounting and reporting tools for
business.

The measurement and valuation of biodiversity and ecosystem services in
business is improving. The report recommends that accounting professions,
financial reporting bodies and others should accelerate efforts to develop
common standards and metrics to enable business to assess and disclose
their biodiversity impacts and responses in annual reports.

Joshua Bishop, the “TEEB for Business” report coordinator and Chief
Economist of IUCN, said: “Better accounting of business impacts on
biodiversity – both positive and negative – is essential to spur change in
business investment and operations. Smart business leaders realise that
integrating biodiversity and ecosystem services in their value chains can
generate substantial cost savings and new revenues, as well as improved
business reputation and license to operate.”

In another recent report by the World Business Council for Sustainable
Development, business leaders expressed their vision of a sustainable
future, which include “prices that reflect all externalities: costs and
benefits” (WBCSD Vision 2050).

Steps in this direction are already being taken, as evidenced by the growth
of markets for biodiversity and ecosystem services.  Market data compiled
by Forest Trends and the Ecosystem Marketplace showed:

* The certified agricultural products market was valued at over $40bn in
2008 and may reach up to $210bn by 2020.

* Biodiversity offsets, such as wetland mitigation banking in the United
States or “bio-banking” in Australia, are predicted to rise from $3 billion
in 2008 to $10 billion in 2020.

* Bio carbon/forest offsets including REDD are expected to rise from just
$21m in 2006 to over $10bn in 2020.

Starting today, businesses can show leadership on biodiversity and
ecosystem services (BES) by:

1. Identifying their impacts and dependencies on biodiversity and ecosystem
services
2. Assessing the business risks and opportunities associated with these
impacts and dependencies
3. Developing BES information systems, set targets and report results
4. Taking action to avoid, minimize and mitigate BES risks
5. Integrating BES actions with wider Corporate Social Responsibility
initiatives
6. Engaging with business peers and stakeholders to improve guidance and
policy
7. Grasping emerging BES business opportunities

The “TEEB for Business” report will be launched at the first Global
Business of Biodiversity Symposium on 13 July at the Excel Centre, London.
 http://www.businessofbiodiversity.co.uk/

———-

The “TEEB for Business” report is available at www.teebweb.org

The lead authors and editors of the “TEEB for Business” report include
staff from Business for Social Responsibility (BSR), Earthmind, the Global
Reporting Initiative (GRI), PricewaterhouseCoopers (PwC), IUCN, UNEP and
WBCSD.

The survey of CEOs and their attitudes to biodiversity loss was carried out
by Price WaterhouseCoopers.

The survey of consumer attitudes to biodiversity and business was carried
out by global market survey company IPSOS.

The TEEB project is hosted by UNEP and supported by the European
Commission; the German Federal Environment Ministry; the UK Government’s
Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs; the UK Department for
International Development; Norway’s Ministry for Foreign Affairs; The
Netherlands’ Interministerial Program Biodiversity; and the Swedish
International Development Cooperation Agency.

For more information, please contact:

Georgina Langdale, Communications, TEEB, Tel: +49-1707-617-138, Email
Georgina.langdale@unep-teeb.org

Brian Thomson, Media Relations and Campaigns, IUCN, Tel: + 41-22-999-0251,
Email Brian.Thomson@iucn.org

Or Nick Nuttall, UNEP Spokesperson/Head of Media, Tel: +254-733-632755
Email nick.nuttall@unep.org

***********************************
Jim Sniffen
Programme Officer
UN Environment Programme
New York
tel: +1-212-963-8094/8210
sniffenj@un.org
www.unep.org
*********************************

Verónica Michelle Bachelet Jeria (Spanish pronunciation: [mi?t?el ?at?e?let]; born September 29, 1951) is a moderate socialist politician who was President of Chile from 11 March 2006 to 11 March 2010—the first woman president in the country’s history.

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.

Commitment to CSR leads to Employee Engagement.

By Thomas Miner

July 7, 2010 – A new study by the Center for Creative Leadership shows that the more committed a company is to its corporate social responsibility initiatives, the more engaged and committed their employees are likely to be to the company.

The report, “Employee Perceptions of Corporate Social Responsibility: The Implications for Your Organization,” used data from The 2008-2009 World Leadership Study, which sampled the opinions of 2,215 workers around the globe. The report made 3 broad findings:

1. A company’s CSR programs are directly linked to an employee’s commitment to an employer. This finding is consistent among job functions and age groups, but is truer of women than of men. The graphic below illustrates that the higher an employee rates the organization’s commitment to CSR, the more committed the employee is to the company
2. The recession did not change employee attitudes. During the recession, employee attitudes regarding their company’s CSR activities did not change, and the majority of employees still felt that their employers were acting responsibly in their communities.
3. CSR Programs are not a panacea for employee retention. While employee perception of your CSR programs are important, they are not a replacement for basic job satisfaction

To read the entire report from the Center for Creative Leadership, click here to download the pdf here.

El Nino and La Nina. What are El Nino and La Nina? El Nino – (El Nee-nyo) is the warming of water in the Pacific Ocean. La Nina – (Lah Nee-Nyah) is the cooling of water in the Pacific Ocean.

• El Nino was first discovered hundreds of years ago by fishermen off the coast of Peru.
• El Nino means “Little Boy” and was named after the Christ child, because it usually starts around Christmas.
• El Nino is officially called ENSO – El Nino Southern Oscillation.
• La Nina means “Little Girl.” It is also called El Viejo, which means “old man,” or an ENSO cold event.
• La Nina occurs roughly half as often as El Nino
• El Nino and La Nina are the most powerful phenomenon on the earth and alter the climate across more than half the planet.
• El Nino may be caused by underwater volcanoes in the Pacific.

 http://library.thinkquest.org/5818/elnin…

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

THE LATEST NEWS:

El Niño  Has Ended. Possibility of La Niña Watched Closely. —-  WMO-892

Geneva, 6 July 2010 (WMO) – Following the rapid dissipation of El Niño in early May 2010, cool-neutral to weak La Niña conditions have developed in the tropical Pacific. These conditions are more likely than not to strengthen into a basin-wide La Niña over the coming months, according to the El Niño/La Niña Update issued today by the World Meteorological Organization (WMO).

La Niña is characterized by unusually cool ocean temperatures in the eastern equatorial Pacific. It is the opposite condition of El Niño, which is characterized by unusually warm ocean temperatures in the central and eastern equatorial Pacific. Both events can disrupt the normal patterns of tropical precipitation and atmospheric circulation, and have widespread impacts on climate in many parts of the world.

By mid-June, the sea-surface temperatures had decreased to approximately 0.5 degrees Celsius below normal over the central and eastern equatorial Pacific, near the borderline of La Niña conditions. Further, below average sea temperatures exist beneath the surface of the central and eastern equatorial Pacific.  Forecast models continue to predict further decreases in the central and eastern Equatorial Pacific sea-surface temperature. In particular, most dynamical models strongly favour further La Niña development.

While it is likely that La Niña conditions will further develop in the next several months, the timing and magnitude of such an event in 2010 are as yet uncertain, with no indications at this time of a particularly strong event in terms of sea-surface temperatures.

WMO prepares El Niño/La Niña Updates in collaboration with the International Research Institute for Climate and Society (IRI), USA, by consulting climate prediction centres and experts around the world and facilitating the development of a consensus. WMO Members will continue to carefully monitor the situation in the tropical Pacific. The unusual climate patterns and extremes that occur in association with La Niña conditions also occur independently of La Niña, and therefore individual users of climate information should seek detailed interpretation for their locations and sectors. Over the coming months, the climate forecasting community will provide detailed interpretations of regional climate conditions through the National Meteorological and Hydrological Services.

For more information:

El Niño/La Niña Update, full report:

http://www.wmo.int/pages/prog/wcp/wcasp/enso_update_latest.html

WMO is the United Nations’ authoritative voice on weather, climate and water.

For more information please contact:

Ms Carine Richard-Van Maele, Chief, Communications and Public Affairs, WMO.  Tel: +41 (0) 22 730 8315, Fax: +41 (0) 22 730 8027.  E-mail: cvanmaele@wmo.int

Web site: http://www.wmo.int