The suggestion of Mr. Marthinus van Schalkwyk presents some very interesting dilemmas:

- first, it proposes an African for the position and we believe this is a bit like putting the carriage before the horse. Indeed, we say all the time that Africa is suffering because of the sins of others, so Africa and the Island States have most reasons to see a Climate  agreement become reality, but then it is not the sufferers, but the sinners, that will have to sign up to an enforceable  agreement, and those are mainly China and the US. Here indeed South Africa is one of the additional three IBSA states that participated in the formulation of the Copenhagen notice. If one where to try to pick a lead country from among the IBSA – we suggested it be Brazil as it would have the least conflicts of interest from among the three.

- then, the appointment of Mr. van Schalwyk, a South African, would also mean that there will be the third Dutch person on that job in a row, albeit, this Dutchman comes from South Africa and not from the Netherlands, but nevertheless the subject will come up.

- also, as we know the 2010 meeting of the UNFCCC, or COP 16, will be held in Mexico, while the following one, the 2011 COP 17 is intended for South Africa. An appointment of a South African to head the UNFCCC at this time would mean that the Mexico meeting that is limping anyway – as we just posted an hour ago – will become completely useless. Some, like the Latin American States, will find this objectionable. This one point leaves us perplexed if we sense that Cancun is just one more UN ritual led so that it has beforehand no chance to succeed – who knows – maybe the appointment of Mr. van Schlkwyk could actually result in annulment of a UN scheduled event. That could then be the first emissions saving UN led activity.

- the last point has to do with the backing of Mugabe’s Zimbabwe from South Africa in the leadership of The UN Commission on Sustainable Development. The facts are that the CSD was destroyed because of that backing by South Africa, and the CSD is needed if one wants to find a base for climate activities at the UN. That past experience might have left, and who knows, perhapse still creates, a sour taste when looking at South Africa’s place in UN leadership. Will we do away also with the CSD and base climate on the Committee of 19 Wise Men that the UN Secretary-General just established?

Without taking a stand on the candidate himself, nevertheless the first three points we raised will probably have to be weighed against the attributes that might be proposed when other names become available.

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

from: BuaNews (Tshwane)
South Africa: Zuma Nominates Van Schalkwyk for Top UN Job.

8 March 2010, Pretoria — President Jacob Zuma has nominated Tourism Minister Marthinus van Schalkwyk for the post of the United Nations’ new climate chief.

Van Schalkwyk has been tipped as a strong contender to take over from Yvo De Boer who headed the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCC). De Boer announced his resignation last month.

“The South African government will consequently forward the name of Minister Van Schalkwyk to the Secretary General for his further consideration,” the Presidency said on Monday.

Zuma and the minister met on Sunday to discuss this issue as well as South Africa’s global positioning, the Presidency said.

“The final decision on the appointment rests with the Secretary General of the United Nations, Mr Ban Ki Moon.”

Van Schalkwyk was deeply involved in climate change issues during his tenure as minister of environmental affairs and tourism.

He built a strong profile for himself during the UN climate treaty negotiations leading up to the Copenhagen summit late last year.

“During this period he commanded significant respect across the developing-developed country divide. This will stand him in good stead in this critical phase of driving the global climate change negotiations to conclusion,” said the Presidency.

Given that South Africa will also be hosting and presiding over the climate change negotiations next year, the Presidency said it would be an “honour for the country to have one of its own to head up this very important UN institution”.

If appointed, Van Schalkwyk will oversee one of the most important treaties of the 21st century – the 2012 treaty on climate change. The treaty is aimed at mitigating the causes and effects of climate change and shape the way countries power their economies.

——————-
And from NASTASYA TAY (AP):  South African minister is nominated for UN post.

JOHANNESBURG — The South African president’s office announced the nomination of its tourism minister for the United Nations’ top climate post on Monday.

The office said in a press release that Marthinus van Schalkwyk is a candidate to direct the U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change. The current leader of the post, Yvo de Boer, announced his resignation in February and will step down July 1.
Van Schalkwyk was South Africa’s former minister for environmental affairs and tourism and is well-regarded in climate change circles. He has a reputation as an effective bridge-builder in a process that often pits developing against industrially advanced countries.

“We are pleased to know Minister Van Schalkwyk is being considered and would be very confident that he would be equal to the task of replacing Mr. de Boer,” said Themba Linden, Political Advisor at Greenpeace Africa. “By all accounts, he has an excellent standing as a negotiator, and has earned a great deal of respect for being very engaged and informed.”

Van Schalkwyk’s chances of being appointed are bolstered by the high likelihood that South Africa will host the U.N.’s climate change negotiations in 2011.

South Africa along with the U.S., India, Brazil and China drafted the climate change agreement reached in Denmark in December. The compromise calls for reducing emissions to keep temperatures from rising more than 2 C (3.6 F) above preindustrial levels. The nonbinding agreement also calls on rich nations to spend billions to help poor nations deal with drought and other impacts of climate change, and to develop clean energy.

Even though it helped draft the accord, South Africa joined a chorus of critics, expressing disappointment at not reaching a legally binding climate change agreement.

—————–
 http://www.businessgreen.com/business-gr…

Could it be that his oponent will be an Indian backed by China? The guesing game may just go wild from now on:

There have also been reports in India that environment minister Jairam Ramesh has nominated Indian environment secretary Vijai Sharma for the role, and his nomination is believed to be supported by China.

However, an Indian or Chinese nomination is likely to be opposed by the US and EU, which remain angry at both country’s negotiating tactics during the final days of the Copenhagen Summit.

As such, Van Schalkwyk is likely to be regarded as a potential conciliatory candidate, securing the support of the many Africa countries that will be most directly affected by climate change and providing a potential link between the US and Europe and the so-called BASIC group of emerging economies, of which South Africa is a member alongside Brazil, India and China.

His nomination chances will be further bolstered by the likelihood that South Africa will host next year’s main UN climate change summit where diplomats still hope an international treaty agreed later this year in Mexico can be formally adopted.

The U.N. Men’s Club

Why are women being left out of climate decision-making?

Tackling Climate Crisis Will Save, Not Ruin, the Economy Mark Hertsgaard January 21, 2010 BLOG Obama should be driving home the message again and again: fighting climate change is in the economic interest of the vast majority of American workers and businesses.

The Battle Ahead: Climate Change After Copenhagen OSI-New York January 19, 2010 AUDIO Open Society Fellow Mark Hertsgaard and OSI’s Nancy Youman share their eyewitness observations of the December 2009 climate change summit and assess its failure to establish ambitious goals for reducing carbon emissions.

UXBRIDGE, Canada, Mar 5, 2010 (IPS) – The frozen cap trapping billions of tonnes of methane under the cold waters of the Arctic Ocean is leaking and venting the powerful greenhouse gas into the atmosphere, new research shows. It is not known if this may be one of the first indicators of a feedback loop accelerating global warming. Researchers estimate that eight million tonnes in annual methane emissions are being released from the shallow East Siberian Arctic Shelf, which is equivalent to all the methane released from the world’s oceans, covering 71 percent of the planet. On a global scale of methane emissions from the land-based sources – animals, rice paddies, rotting vegetation – the newly measured emissions from the Siberian seabed are less than two percent. “That’s still very significant,” Natalia Shakhova, a researcher at the University of Alaska in Fairbanks, told IPS. “Before, it was assumed that this region had zero emissions.” Methane concentrations measured over the oceans are currently about 0.6 to 0.7 parts per million (ppm), but they are now 1.85 in the Arctic Ocean generally, and between 2.6 and 8.2 ppm in the East Siberian Arctic Shelf, an area roughly two million square kilometres in size, said Shakhova. Shakhova, and her University of Alaska colleague Igor Semiletov, led eight international expeditions to one of the world’s most remote and desolate regions and published their results in the Mar. 5 edition of the journal Science. Global methane levels have risen each year since 2007 after being constant for a decade, reports Ed Dlugokencky of the Earth System Research Laboratory in Boulder, Colorado, which is run by the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). “We saw an increase in CH4 (methane) growth rate in 2007 in the Arctic… but it did not increase in 2008,” Dlugokencky, an expert on atmospheric methane told IPS via email. He suspects Siberia’s subsea emissions are not new but have been underway for some time, and he also says Shakhova’s estimate of eight million tonnes needs to be verified by other means. However, he acknowledges this study represents the first direct measurements ever done in the region and stresses the urgency for more investigation. In the last few years, researchers have been shocked to see Arctic Ocean “on the boil” in places as gases from deep below come bubbling to the surface. Large parts of the Arctic Ocean floor along coastal areas is actually permafrost that was flooded thousands of years ago after the big melt from the last ice age. Permafrost is frozen soil and contains very large amounts of carbon and methane. The extremely cold waters of the Arctic and its ice cover kept the subsea permafrost cold enough so it has been melting extremely slowly. Until now. Surface temperatures over much of the Arctic landscape and the Siberian landscape, particularly in summer, have jumped six to 10 degrees C above normal in recent years. That has lead to a massive increase in the flows of the many rivers that terminate in the Arctic Ocean. Shakhova and colleagues believe this substantial increase of warmer water into the shallow East Siberian Shelf has accelerated the melting of the subsea permafrost, in effect fracturing the frozen cap and allowing methane to escape into the atmosphere. “Our concern is that the subsea permafrost has been showing signs of destabilisation already,” she said in a release. “If it further destabilises, the methane emissions may not be teragrammes, it would be significantly larger,” she said. A teragramme is a trillion grammes, or one million tonnes. Methane – a greenhouse gas approximately 25 times more potent than carbon dioxide – is commonly called methane hydrates when it is frozen in permafrost or under the sea. The total volumes are unknown. “The release to the atmosphere of only one percent of the methane assumed to be stored in shallow hydrate deposits might alter the current atmospheric burden of methane up to three to four times,” Shakhova said in a release. “The climatic consequences of this are hard to predict,” she said. Shakhova’s study is just one of at least a dozen others that clearly show the Arctic region is not only melting but also emitting more carbon and methane. Permafrost spans 13 million square kilometres of the land in Alaska, Canada, Siberia and parts of Europe. A new Canadian study documented that the southernmost permafrost limit has retreated 130 kilometres over the past 50 years ago in Quebec’s James Bay region. Another Canadian study released last year showed that the region was getting darker and absorbing more heat in the summer because of a significant shift in plant growth from grasses and lichen to larger shrubs over the past 30 years due to warmer temperatures. A permafrost “retreat” has been observed over much of the southern fringe of the permafrost zone and could result in emissions a billion tonnes of carbon per year – human emissions are seven to eight billion tonnes – by mid-century, a University of Florida study estimated. Without major reductions in those human emissions, mainly burning of fossil fuels and deforestation, the top two to three metres of permafrost across the entire Arctic region could thaw by the end of this century, warned a major report, “Arctic Climate Feedbacks: Global Implications”, released by the World Wildlife Fund last September. Should that happen, the volumes of carbon and methane released could be many times higher than what is presently in the atmosphere, driving up the global average temperatures by six, eight, or even 10 degrees C. The consequences are unimaginable. “The changes we are (currently) seeing are not entirely unexpected, they are just happening far sooner,” said Mark Serreze, senior research scientist at the National Snow and Ice Data Centre in the U.S. state of Colorado and co-author of Arctic Climate Feedbacks report. If the methane hydrates start to melt or large areas of permafrost “that will be very bad news for humanity”, Serreze told IPS in September. “The world is a very small place and we have not been good stewards. Climate change is symptom of this poor stewardship,” he said. “The way we’re going right now, I’m not optimistic that we will avoid some kind of tipping point.”

Building on the success of Kyoto’s market mechanisms.
by John Kilani, Director of the Sustainable Development Mechanisms programme in the UNFCCC secretariat, Bonn, Germany. In the UNFCCC Newsletter of March 2010 – The first UNFCCC Newsletter since Copenhagen.
Parties are still taking stock of the outcome in Copenhagen, but what Parties have said so far, together with the success of the mechanisms themselves, suggests an expanded role for market-based approaches in the international response to climate change. In-Focus spoke with the UNFCCC secretariat’s John Kilani to get his views on where the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) and Joint Implementation (JI) stand post Copenhagen.

Has the Kyoto Protocol’s clean development mechanism met the goal for which it was designed?
Yes. There are now more than 2050 registered CDM projects in 62 countries – everything from community electrification, to landfill gas capture, to industrial chemical projects, destroying extremely potent greenhouse gases. Of these projects, more than a third transfer climate-friendly technologies to developing countries.

We’ve just concluded the second year of a five-year commitment period and already more than 367 million certified emission reductions have been issued to some 640 projects. That’s equivalent to 367 million tonnes of CO2.

A question asked by stakeholders for the past several years, perhaps since CDM began, is “What will happen to CDM at the end of the first commitment period?”

Stakeholders are right to ask that question. The carbon market and the project-based mechanisms – the Clean Development Mechanism and Joint Implementation – exist because of a political decision by Parties to reduce emissions. Stakeholders are looking for signs that the market will continue when the first commitment period of the Kyoto Protocol ends in 2012. They are finding those signs in various places.

To name a few, they see that the European Emissions Trading Scheme is open-ended, that it will exist beyond 2012; they see the growing interest in market-based approaches elsewhere; they see continuing, strong interest in the mechanisms in developed and developing countries alike; and then there is the commitment, even pressure, from the private sector, together with the strong interest in voluntary offset schemes. And, most significantly, people see climate change as a critical issue that will not go away without concerted, sustained, long-term action.

Since Copenhagen, some 102 Parties have confirmed their intentions to take action on climate change, some in very detailed, specific terms. These countries account for over 80% of global, energy-related CO2 emissions.

The other project-based mechanism under the Kyoto Protocol, Joint Implementation, has been lagging behind the CDM. Will 2010 be the year that JI takes off?

Parties gave CDM a so-called “quick start”, so it’s true that CDM is much farther along in terms of number of projects. However, there are signs that JI is catching on. There are now 17 projects in three countries eligible to earn emission reduction units under so-called JI Track 2, those projects vetted by the Joint Implementation Supervisory Committee. Many dozens more are ready to go, and are awaiting the official go-ahead from countries. Although it’s difficult to predict whether this year will be the break-out year for JI, the signals since Copenhagen have been positive.

Joint Implementation is a useful, unique tool for incentivizing investment in areas of an economy where otherwise there would be little or no incentive. Once countries see the value of the tool, and decide the best way to make use of the tool, I think we will see a vast increase in JI activity. Our challenge then will be to handle the volume of projects. But that would be a good problem to have.

Copenhagen concluded with Parties taking note of an accord calling for the limiting of temperature rise to 2 degrees Celsius and calling for tens of billions of dollars to be directed at the climate change challenge. What does the Copenhagen outcome mean for the mechanisms under the Kyoto Protocol?

The Copenhagen Accord doesn’t speak directly to the mechanisms under the Kyoto Protocol, but it does refer to various approaches, including opportunities to use markets, to enhance cost-effectiveness and promote mitigation actions. It says that developing countries, especially those with low emitting economies, should be provided incentives to continue to develop on a low emission pathway.

This supports what Parties have said previously. They have explicitly endorsed the continuation of market mechanisms to mitigate climate change and generate funds for adaptation to climate change.

In the broader sense, the Accord addresses the essential elements of an international response to climate change. Parties have noted the importance of limiting global warming, and they have noted the large sums that will be needed to address climate change. These two elements are linked fundamentally to the carbon market and the project-based mechanisms.

The carbon market and the mechanisms exist because Parties made a commitment to reduce emissions, thus giving the right to emit a value, and because Parties saw the benefits of using market-based approaches to, among other things, mobilize the vast sums necessary to address climate change.

Aside from the Copenhagen Accord, Parties in Copenhagen did take important decisions on the mechanisms which provide further guidance to the CDM Executive Board and the Joint Implementation Supervisory Committee. The decision relating to the CDM contains specific mandates on how to improve the mechanism.

You mention that Parties took a decision in Copenhagen relating to the Clean Development Mechanism. What are the key features of that decision?

The biggest single element of that decision grants the CDM Executive Board, the body that oversees the mechanism, the flexibility to make changes to the CDM’s registration and issuance procedures. In other words, the Board can take a hard look at all of the procedures and related timelines and make any improvements that they see fit, based on the experience gained in implementing the mechanism to date. This could greatly quicken the process for stakeholders.

The Parties have also allowed for the allocation of financial resources to assist in the development of projects in countries with fewer than 10 projects. This could help extend and expand the benefits of the CDM.

Several other elements of the decision respond directly to requests made by stakeholders, such as the establishment of procedures for stakeholders to appeal decisions, and enhanced support to Designated National Authorities in the form of training and information sharing.

It’s important to note that virtually all of the requests made by Parties in their decision taken in Copenhagen were recommended by the CDM Executive Board. The CDM is continually evolving and improving, based on experience. The Copenhagen decision was a continuation of that process of evolution and improvement.

Where do you see the mechanisms in 10 years?

I see growing awareness about climate change and growing action to address it. Action to mitigate climate change, and address its effects, will require resources, it will require participation by the private sector, and it will take a global response. For these reasons I see a growing role for carbon markets and market-based mechanisms like the CDM and JI. Parties have said virtually the same thing, so my prediction is really a restatement of what Parties have said on the subject. The market mechanisms will continue to scale up, evolve and improve.

from:   CPA <ipa@wmo.int>
date    Fri, Feb 26, 2010 at 5:26 AM
subject    High-Level Task Force for Climate Services Starts Work at WMO

The first meeting of the High-Level Taskforce for climate services selected Jan Egeland of Norway and Mahmoud Abu-Zeid of Egypt as co-chairs.  The High Level Taskforce of independent advisers, which the Secretary-General of the World Meteorological Organization (WMO), Michel Jarraud, was requested by a decision of the World Climate Conference-3 to establish a Global Framework for Climate Services (GFCS), is meeting on 25-26 February, at the WMO Headquarters in Geneva.

Please find attached the press release “High-Level Task Force for Climate Services Starts Work at WMO”.

More information: www.wmo.int

Best regards,

Communications and Public Affairs
Tel: + 41 22 730 83 14
Fax: + 41 22 730 80 27

——————————-

Jan Egeland is an excellent choice – we know him from the UN where he had many past involvements and we know for shure that he was one of those that when in Sudan on efforts regarding Darfur, was ready to look at climate change impact on the evolving atrocities.   was the United Nations Undersecretary-General for Humanitarian Affairs and Emergency Relief Coordinator from June 2003 to December 2006 under UN  Secretary-General Kofi Annan. He traveled extensively, drawing attention to humanitarian emergencies.

In UN fashion – he was balanced out with a representative of the Arab world who has a background in water engineering – so at least there will be a link of climate change and growing water shortage in arid and semi-arid lands. Abu-Zeid is Egyptian Water Minister active on global water problems and has Saudi Arabian support.

http://engineering.ucdavis.edu/pages/about/profiles/abu-zeid.html

Our Recent articles were:

From Campaign for America’s Future – Your Progressive Breakfast: Pressure on EPA To Suspend Climate Action. (February 24th, 2010)

An analysis of the Copenhagen pledges by the 60 Developed and Developing Countries, when analyzed by 9 different leading policy and science institutions were found very short of the needed goals of GHG emissions reduction by 2050. (February 24th, 2010)

On Climate Change – Sinners (Annex 1) and Sinned (the rest) is a division that proved it leads nowhere. Professor Jagdish Bhagawati suggests a Stock & Flow methodology that allows the funding of new technology and passing the know how as a way to have an impact on the future. William Antholis of Brookings is working on similar ideas. (February 24th, 2010)

These articles dealt with post-Copenhagen policy realities and our main preoccupation now -  how do we follow up. Also the question of the July 1, 2010 vacancy in the Executive Secretary of the UNFCCC office in Bonn. Have we reached the end of an era and do we understand how to open the door for next era in climate negotiations?

The UN Think-Tank at the UN University office in New York promised us several weeks ago an event with Dr. William J. Antholis, Managing Director at the Washington DC Brookings Institution. The event was postponed and it finally came about on February 23. 2010 3:00-5:00 pm and as you see from above three postings, and from our following posting – the speaker has lost quite a bit of his thunder because of the fact that above articles in the press estimate the situation very closely to his opinions – and had he presented them two weeks earlier – he clearly would have been first. Nevertheless, today, I can say that a new positive consensus is being established despite the attacks in Washington DC from the American Red-Right. The Brookings Institution knows the Washington establishment and has now close links to the Administration – so the brain picking we love to do is now:  how does Dr. William Antholis see the practical way of tackling the subject so it overcomes the real man-made hurdles that are being set up by paid lobbyists that swarm to the US capital?

In Washington, when one looks at how difficult it seems to come up with a Health-Care bill, Dr. Antholis says that under the UNFCCC rules, coming up with a consensus on climate will be 192 times more difficult then that. But he is here to praise the UN, not bury it – so, let us say that without the UN we would not even be where we are today. We must look at the flows of the system the way it was designed. All agree that a global agreement is necessary but do not agree on what has to happen – there is no common view on what the treaty has to have. Like in Washington, everyone wants to be a free rider and any major free rider on a common effort undermines the common effort.

The UN system asks for unanimity as a surrogate for the process – so the 60 % of US Senate votes is easy compared to this. Also, the division between Annex I and Annex B is a hindrance. The ritual of the yearly meeting of the UNFCCC has nevertheless served a purpose – it publicized the problem.

What Dr. Antholis suggested is that now we start a system with the countries that really matter on the issue – the greatest emitters. We also realize that regulation is best executed on the National level – so we have to deal with the Nation States – that brings back the system to the need that all Nations of the UN do something within their own borders.

He also says we should learn from the way the GATT was created with a system that allows countries to join as they were able to do it. There is a commitment – then one looks for when they develop the capacity to implement it. This is a far cry from what the UNFCCC has now. Under GATT – the US Europe, and Japan can develop the commitment and trade among themselves – others should eventually be part of that system! This approach could work with what exists already under the KP  What is needed is a Carbon Tax on the border of countries that have not done enough! Simple and useful! Start with the Four biggest entities (he called it countries) – there is 50% of the population and 60% of emissions, 2/3 of global nuclear power – these are:  China, US, EU, India. Then figure on bringing in Russia and Japan. Russia has 20% of world’s forests that account for two years og global emissions worth. Then Brazil that actually stepped up as a leader with largest forest. South Africa is a player – so are the SIDS.

What Dr. Antholis described has similarity to what Professor Jagdish Bhagawati suggests as a  Stock & Flow methodology that starts with working first with the greatest emitters who could then start working with the greatest forest wardens. They could find ways to make their dealings to best mutual benefits – but this is done via work within the National territory and in cooperation between the Nations that cooperate. We do not think that this is a blow to multilateralism – it is rather the recognition that there must be a clear limit to obstruction from countries that are not among the major concerns when it comes to the harmful emissions release to the atmosphere.

When question were allowed from the participants, it became clear that all UN points of view were present in the room.

We heard about historical guilt and we heard about the Solar Cookers that can help people in poor rural areas in the developing countries – both positions forget that while we scratch for our past sins, the major transgressions go on just now before our nose.

Then came the suggestion that in effect, what he described was the end of phase one in the raising of the issue of Climate Change and even though skeptics of climate science abound, we know clearly that we did spew CO2 into the atmosphere in the last 200 years by burning fossil fuels – so whatever one says there is a need for action. That calls for a second phase – the implementation of an action program that is different from the search for an agreement between 192 States.

Dr. Antholis thinks that the new leader of this effort, that will replace outgoing UNFCCC Executive Secretary Yvo de Boer ought to be a politician apt to come up with agreements between the initial small group that will start the activities. He will learn from President Obama who will sell the needed program to the US public not as a climate change bill but as clean energy, energy security, job creation – something clearly good for you – today. This should work with everyone for his personal advantage. For the sake of continuing also through the UN system, it would be nice if the new person in Bonn would be a Brazilian politician, or as Dr. Antholis said an Indian – though it seems that China might go along easier with a Brazilian.

Then there are further avenues for one to travel – there are levels closer to the people – State and Local Governments like City Mayors.

If one goes through these lesser routes, for the global commitment – the UN could take on ultimately the job of the verifier.

He described the so called Copenhagen Accord rather as an Accordion making it clear that there will be now a continuously change in size of the instrument. Also let us remember the consultancy profession’s main rule – 80% of the solution lies in 20% of the problem – go thus for the 20% in order to reach towards the 80%. Will the UN be able to live up to such ideas?

———-

What about my question of who will be that new man or woman at the UN?

The only indication comes from Mr. Janos Pasztor from Secretary General Ban Ki-moon’s climate office at UN Headquarters. He said that the UNSG started to discus the issue immediately after Mr. de Boer’s phone call, with the members of the Board of the Conference of the Parties of the UNFCCC. The new head will be chosen well before the July 1, date – but the UNSG wants to see it happen well soon. Until then he has confidence in Richard Kinley is the Deputy Executive Secretary of the United Nations
Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC).

Since joining the Climate Change Secretariat in 1993, Mr. Kinley has held a number of senior positions including as Coordinator;
Intergovernmental and Conference Affairs (2000 to 2006) and Coordinator; Resources, Management and Coordination (1996-2000), overseeing the secretariat’s teams dealing with intergovernmental process management, conference affairs, administration and budget, and national communications. He has been Secretary of the Conference of the Parties since 1996 and led the secretariat support for the negotiation of the Kyoto Protocol (1995-1997). He was also the Officer-in-Charge of the secretariat from September 2005 to August 2006.

Prior to joining the climate change secretariat, Mr. Kinley was an official in the Government of Canada, working in the areas of
international environmental policy, northern environment and resource management, and international climate policy.
Richard Kinley is a national of Canada.

The William Antholis of Brookings  ideas will constitute a separate reporting from a discussion today at the UN University Think Tank.

———-

A new approach to tackling climate change.
By Jagdish Bhagwati
Published: February 23 2010
 http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/8a147a62-201a-…

The resignation last week of Yvo de Boer, the Dutch diplomat, as executive secretary of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, reflected his frustration over the Copenhagen meeting andproblems in climate change treaty design.

In fact, the soon-to-expire Kyoto protocol before it was also flawed. Nearly all of the 36 industrialised rich countries in annex 1 (which excluded the developing countries) failed to fulfil the emission-reduction targets they had signed on to. The US (along with Australia) had not even ratified the protocol. The Senate, in a bipartisan 99-1 demonstration of defiance, had also rejected the protocol under the administration of Bill Clinton.

The failure of Copenhagen lay in the fact that creativity was required to bridge differences between rich and poor countries. It was badly missing. Building international institutions requires that we seek their principles in actual practice, not utopian ideas. We need to build the new protocol on principles in existing international institutions, such as the World Trade Organisation. How can this be done?

First, while the Kyoto protocol had obfuscated the distinction, it is now customary for negotiators to distinguish between commitments arising from the “stock” and “flow” aspects of climate change. The former relates to commitments arising from historical carbon emissions; the latter to current emissions. But, though the language of “legally binding” commitments is routinely used, there is no process by which anyone’s feet can be held to the fire if the delivery falls short.

With the new protocol we need to draw on the example of the WTO. There, failure to deliver on accepted trade-openness obligations can be challenged and a dispute settlement process exists where an adverse finding leads to penalties. A climate change protocol where the commitments on stock or flow aspects are mere declarations with no consequences would lead to a charade and breed cynicism, not produce action.

Second, the pledge by rich countries at Copenhagen to spend $100bn (€73.5bn, £64.5bn) on mitigation and local adaptation may be seen as a response to the “stock” issue of past damage. But the sum has been explained as funds to be given to the poorest countries and that it can come at the expense of normal aid. This reflects faulty thinking.

The US in addressing domestic pollution created the superfund after the Love Canal incident, where a successful tort action was filed against Pacific Gas & Electric in 1996 for leaking toxic chromium into the ground water. Under the superfund legislation, hazardous waste has to be eliminated by the offending company. This tort liability is also “strict”, such that it exists even if the material discharged was not known at the time to be hazardous (as carbon emissions were until recently). In addition, the people hurt can make their own tort claims.

Rejecting this legal tradition in US domestic pollution, Todd Stern, the principal US negotiator, refused to concede any liability for past emissions. This stand is even more astonishing given that Barack Obama, the US president, belongs to a party that thrives on contributions from tort lawyers.

Evidently, the US needs to reverse this stand. Each of the rich countries needs to accept a tort liability which can be pro rata to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change-estimated share of historic world carbon emissions. Since the payment would be on the tort principle, the idea that the funds would substitute for normal aid would be outrageous: you do not take away the pension of a person who has won a tort settlement.

Third, on “flow” liability for current emissions, the WTO principle of a “single undertaking”, where each member state accepts obligations, is a better model than one where the world is divided into annex 1 countries and the rest. But, as with the WTO, special treatment can be accorded to developing countries in the shape of suitably extended grace periods before the obligations kick in.

Finally, in determining these obligations for developing countries such as India, it is clear thatcutting emissions can damage growth. New technologies can help, provided they can be accessed at negligible cost. However, no one will subsidise the sale of technologies to India and China. But, why not take a sizeable fraction of the tort funds in each country and use them to create the technologies by open tenders and make them freely accessible to India or China – just as we did when the US used its public funds to develop new seeds in the 1960s and made them freely accessible by India et al. Those seeds created the Green Revolution in agriculture. The same strategy could create a revolution in climate change.

————
The writer is a professor at Columbia University and senior fellow in international economics at the Council on Foreign Relations. He is chair of the Independent India-US Task Force on Copenhagen at Columbia Law School

WORLD METEOROLOGICAL ORGANIZATION

A SPECIALIZED AGENCY OF THE UNITED NATIONS

___________________________________________

INVITATION TO THE MEDIA

WMO PRESS CONFERENCE
Date and time:          Friday 26 February, 11:45 am

Subject: First meeting of the High-Level Taskforce for the Global Framework for   Climate Services

Speakers:  Mr Michel Jarraud, WMO Secretary-General, with Members from the High-Level Taskforce

Venue: WMO Headquarters, Room B

7 bis, Avenue de la Paix, Geneva, Switzerland

BACKGROUND:
In September 2009, World Climate Conference-3 (WCC-3) decided to establish a Global Framework for Climate Services to “strengthen production, availability, delivery and application of science-based climate prediction and services”. Terms of reference were recently approved, and the composition of a High-Level Taskforce of independent advisers endorsed. On 25-26 February, the Taskforce will meet for the first time in Geneva, at the World Meteorological Organization (WMO).

HIGH-LEVEL TASKFORCE
Joaquim Chissano (Mozambique)
Jan Egeland (Norway)
Angus Friday (Grenada)
Eugenia Kalnay (Ms) (Argentina/USA)
Ricardo Lagos (Chile)
Julia Marton-Lefevre (Ms) (Hungary/France/USA)
Khotso Mokhele (South Africa)
Chiaki Mukai (Ms) (Japan)
Cristina Narbona Ruiz (Ms) (Spain)
Rajendra Singh Paroda (India)
Qin Dahe (China)
Emil Salim (Indonesia)
Mahmoud Abu-Zeid (Egypt)
Fiame Naomi Mata’afa (Ms) (Samoa)

For more information, including biographies: http://www.wmo.int/hlt-gfcs/index_en.htm…

————————

MEDIA ACCREDITATION

Journalists not accredited to the Palais des Nations, who wish to participate in the press conference, are encouraged to send a request to Gaëlle Sévenier, WMO Press Officer ( gsevenier at wmo.int) prior to 25 February 2010.

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

For more information please contact:  Communications and Public Affairs Office, WMO
Ms Carine Richard-Van Maele, Chief, Tel: +41 (0)22 730 83 15, E-mail:  cpa at wmo.int,
Ms Gaëlle Sévenier, Press Officer, Tel: +41 (0) 22 730 84 17, E-mail:  gsevenier at wmo.int

Internet website: http://www.wmo.int

Yvo de Boer, the new free man, gives  to The Financial Times his first interview as elder statesman – and we gleaned three elements in his statement as his very balanced views after 20 years of experience with the climate international problematics.

(1) The Copenhagen non-binding outcome has nevertheless provided us with a good basis for a treaty.

It Copenhagen accord has for the first time drown from from both – rich and poor countries pledges to limit their  GHG emissions, and promised financial assistance from the developed to the developing world to do so. (we did in effect earlier today post already such an agreement between Japan and Kenya.)

(2) There is no practical hope that a binding treaty that has both form and content – can be signed at the meeting of December 2010 in Mexico. (Mr. de Boer has removed the smiley face that the UNSG has imposed on him these last two years)

(3) While governments provide the necessary policy framework for addressing climate change, the real solutions must come from business. As such there are two stages in the process:

(a) Governments must use Taxes or a Cap & Trade methodology to limit emissions.  No corporation can justify the investment required to reduce their carbon intensity without confidence that carbon emissions will become and remain much costlier than today, with few loopholes for those unwilling to pay. Only government can provide that predictability. As we see it today – the EU failed in its effort because of the permit system that allowed for too many permits to float around, and for the US – even the bill that is stalled in Congress is useless as it was emasculated by emission permits giveaways to favored sectors. (what he is saying is what we say all the time – government is there in order to govern – without this nothing logical will evolve from plain empty handed competition.)

(b) If governments dared to embark on real efforts to limit emissions – as long as it is more then just a token idea – the private sector would take it in its stride, it would even thrive, especially the low-carbon companies and sectors that would emerge to replace those unable to kick the carbon habit.

———

We knew already that Yvo de Boer will join KPMG consulting. We know that he is not the first to jump the public policy wagon for the private sector. Al Gore, former US Vice President and father of The Inconvenient Truth” has shown the way He is doing very well – thank you – in the corporate world. We know of people that were formerly with Greenpeace that make now a good living supporting renewable energy corporations.

What we did not know before this interview is that in the academic world, Mr. de Boer chose Yale University and the University of Utrecht that will benefit from his direct involvement.

———

Strange remarks we saw from some that did very little to help the climate cause earlier, but now look down at Mr. de Boer as if he were a traitor to that lost cause to which they did not put their honest heart earlier. Specifically we found the mention to Paul Bledsoe the policy director at the Washington – US National Commission on Energy Policy and former White House adviser.

He said: “This resignation is simply dispiriting – if someone as politically adept, dedicated and charismatic as Yvo de Boer can’t bring the UN process to heel, then the process is broken and has to be reformed.” That is true but disingenuous – why did he not work harder at creating the US government solution that could have been helpful to that UN process? After all, there were times that even the UN was trying to achieve climate goals. On the other hand, the fact that BP and ConocoPhillips walked out from a business pro-climate group this week, came about because they found that the White House will subsidize nuclear power so the price of energy stays low – but oil companies are not electric utilities to be subsidized under this plan – so why should they be part of a program that can only harm them. This was clearly a give-away to the nuclear lobby on the back of the oil lobby – and thus two out of the only three progressive oil companies, that dream of becoming energy companies, found it completely irrational of participating in the backing of an Administration that did not think through all aspects of the issues.

Now, just two nights ago, at a meeting at a top University here, I saw people from Academia and Businesses (the AB of the process) trying to spread the word about what they are doing, but did also not understand the basic policy logic on which they were trying to sell – but on this on a different posting. Here it will suffice to say that we will look forward at what Mr. de Boer will do for Yale University with the strong hope that from now on he will be ready to stand up for what he believes, without bowing to UN or business interests that will flock on him like vultures trying to push him in their preferred directions. We had our difficulty with his bowing to the UN bosses, but we expect to see no future problem in his AB role.

Executive Secretary Yvo de Boer leaves United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change Secretariat.
We knew Yvo since his work for the Dutch government and held him in high esteem. The problem with Yvo was that he fell in for the nothingness of the UN and was not ready to stand up and fight for his subject in face of that nothingness. The UN is nothing more then the lowest common denominator of its member states and on climate it was the oil industry of the major industrial states and the monarchs of the oil exporting states that colluded in holding the subject under the table. The Rio UNCED ghost of Maurice Strong was still around and pushing for the importance of the conventions signed at the 1992 UN meeting on Environment and Development, so the subject could not be killed, but then most countries were ready to push it under the table. The US did not ratify any of those conventions anyway. Morris Strong is now active in China – we saw him last December in Copenhagen outside the UNFCCC compound.

When Yvo de Boer – the Executive Secretary of the UNFCCC, headquartered in Bonn, thanks to a wish of the  German government to find some use for that city after moving its capital back to Berlin, a UN body run by delegates of UN Member States that was located in Bonn together with the Secretariats of the other Rio Conventions Secretariats, according to UN rules set up in New York, came for the first time to New York as a UN official, back in 2006, when I was still  an official  member of the UN Press Corps, I fought for having UN Department of Public Information set up a Press Conference with the head of this important new UN body. He was given about 10 minutes in the Press briefing-room – that infamous S-226. I organized a few correspondents to demand more time with him, and we did have the chance to talk with him, officially,  further using the UNCA room (UN Correspondents Association) as a venue. The Pakistani head of UNCA did not like it. Neither  The New York Times nor the CNN came. Their correspondents at the time did not believe yet in climate change – actually very few – but the best journalists came – those that were the budding internet breed. Just four years ago – the UN was still considered as the place where one should be able to explain the global aspects of CO2 emissions. The problems with not being able to do so were palpable. I thought then that Yvo understood where his main opposition will be – in this  New York spirit of the UN – and thanks to his EU base Yvo de Boer will be ready to fight for the cause and not be just another UN bureaucrat.

But I was disappointed. He did become a UN bureaucrat and smiled – ear to ear – along with UNSG Ban Ki-moon in that “SEAL THE DEAL” – when there was no deal – CHARADE. The following press release that is being released by the official UNFCCC Press officers that worked along his side all those years, shows that Yvo de Boer understood the reality of the situation all along – but does not explain why he did not try to manage the subject with personal pride in what he was doing there. Though personal, but this is nevertheless something that throws a shadow on Mr. de Boer, is the fact that when under the new UN Secretary General, Mr. Ahmad Fawzi managed finally the feat to declare our website as non-UN-Press under his rules, something he fought for but was rejected by Mr. Sashi Tharoor, the Under Secretary General under UNSG Kofi Annan, Yvo de Boer bowed to the decision – though he knew well that our website is fighting for what should have been his cause in his job. Yvo de Boer ran an organization that was lacking positive press because he bowed to those in New York that did not want climate change positive press. It is as simple as that – so he is responsible for failures by not having fought strong enough for success.

Yes, we knew all the time that it will eventually be the industry and business that will, come the day, move on climate change work. We knew all the time that China is in the lead despite everything that they were saying in public – climate change does work well for innovative business and that is why it will win in the end. We knew that the meeting in Poznan is a waste of time and there is no deal for Copenhagen. We had misgivings about going to Bali, and when I came to Vienna to participate at a pre-Bali meeting Mr. De Boer bowed to a note from Mr. Ahmad Fawzi and was not ready to let me in as Press. Had he been ready to show backbone for the subject he was in charge off – he could have found ways to resolve the conflict by granting limited accreditation – for God’s sake – he knew me, knew what I was doing, knew the problems, where was his fighting spirit?

Yes, we think that Yvo de Boer will be a good addition to the climate consultancy business, and lobby within the States that can start implement such programs internally, and within business relationships, in context of more limited groupings – like a G2 – a possible G5 or G7 – a United EU, etc. They need the experience he has accumulated, and we hope that in these contexts he will indeed develop his career and find himself as well. KPMG is a good outfit for this. Work with Universities is good as well, and personally would love to see him involved at the Earth Institute at Columbia University where he could still be around at the UN periphery and finally not be hindered from speaking  truth.

Also, let me repeat once more – Copenhagen was not the disaster as the UN contends. It was thanks to President Obama’s trip to Beijing that it has become the start to moves in the real world – with China and The White House officially on board. Will the new Secretary General of the UNFCCC be chosen so that he leads within the context of the reality that is now open for all to see? Pitty that Mr. Yvo de Boer did burn himself out by putting himself too much in those losing dancing shoes – though we see now that the dance was not unknown to him.

——————–

A UNFCCC PRESS RELEASE

Executive Secretary leaves United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change Secretariat

<http://unfccc.int/press/press_releases_advisories/items/4712.php>

(Bonn, 18 February 2010) – Mr. Yvo de Boer has announced today that he will
resign his position as Executive Secretary of the United Nations Framework
Convention on Climate Change as of 1 July 2010. Mr. de Boer will be joining
the consultancy group KPMG as Global Adviser on Climate and Sustainability,
as well as working with a number of universities.

“Working with my colleagues at the UNFCCC Secretariat in support of the
climate change negotiations has been a tremendous experience”, said Mr. de
Boer who has led the organisation since September 2006. “It was a difficult
decision to make, but I believe the time is ripe for me to take on a new
challenge, working on climate and sustainability with the private sector
and academia,” he explained.

“I have always maintained that while governments provide the necessary
policy framework, the real solutions must come from business,” said Yvo de
Boer. “Copenhagen did not provide us with a clear agreement in legal terms,
but the political commitment and sense of direction toward a low-emissions
world are overwhelming. This calls for new partnerships with the business
sector and I now have the chance to help make this happen”, he added.

Mr. de Boer will remain in his current position until 1st July and help
negotiations move forward ahead of the Climate Change Conference in Mexico
in November this year. “Countries responsible for 80% of energy related CO2
emissions have submitted national plans and targets to address the climate
change. This underlines their commitment to meet the challenge of climate
change and work towards an agreed outcome in Cancun”, he said.

Mr. de Boer (1954) was appointed Executive Secretary of the UNFCCC in
September 2006. Before that he was extensively involved in European Union
environmental policy as deputy Director General of the Dutch Environment
Ministry.  Mr. de Boer has also served as Vice-chair of the U.N. Commission
on Sustainable Development, acted as an advisor to the Government of China
and the World Bank and worked closely with the World Business Council on
Sustainable Development.

About the UNFCCC

With 194 Parties, the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change
(UNFCCC) has near universal membership and is the parent treaty of the 1997
Kyoto Protocol. The Kyoto Protocol has been ratified by 190 of the UNFCCC
Parties. Under the Protocol, 37 States, consisting of highly industrialized
countries and countries undergoing the process of transition to a market
economy, have legally binding emission limitation and reduction
commitments. The ultimate objective of both treaties is to stabilize
greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere at a level that will
prevent dangerous human interference with the climate system.

For further information, please contact:

Mr. Eric Hall, Spokesperson/Manager of Communications and Media
Tel.: (+49-228) 815-1398; mobile: (+49-172) 259-0443; e-mail: ehall
(at)unfccc.int

Mr. John Hay, Media Information Officer
Tel.: (+49-228) 815-1404; mobile: (+49-172) 258-6944; e-mail: jhay
(at)unfccc.int

 http://www.tnr.com/blog/the-vine/what-th…

What The Snowpocalypse Tells Us About Global Warming.
by Bradford Plumer, February 10, 2010, The New Republic online

Washington D.C.’s getting slammed by record snowfall right now, which means that in addition to unplowed roads and Mad Max-style scenes at Safeway, we also have to suffer through a flurry of Al Gore jokes and Republicans snorting about how this proves global warming is all fake. I guess the prim, boring response is that a single weather event, even an extreme one, doesn’t tell us very much about long-term climate trends. But blah, blah, everyone’s heard that line before.

A more thoughtful reply comes from meteorologist Jeff Masters, who explains how massive snowstorms in the Northeast are, in fact, quite consistent with a steadily warming world:

There are two requirements for a record snow storm:

1) A near-record amount of moisture in the air (or a very slow moving storm).

2) Temperatures cold enough for snow.

It’s not hard at all to get temperatures cold enough for snow in a world experiencing global warming.

According to the 2007 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report, the globe warmed 0.74°C (1.3°F) over the past 100 years. There will still be colder than average winters in a world that is experiencing warming, with plenty of opportunities for snow.

The more difficult ingredient for producing a record snowstorm is the requirement of near-record levels of moisture.

Global warming theory predicts that global precipitation will increase, and that heavy precipitation events–the ones most likely to cause flash flooding–will also increase. This occurs because as the climate warms, evaporation of moisture from the oceans increases, resulting in more water vapor in the air.

According to the 2007 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report, water vapor in the global atmosphere has increased by about 5% over the 20th century, and 4% since 1970. This extra moisture in the air will tend to produce heavier snowstorms, assuming it is cold enough to snow. Groisman et al. (2004) found a 14% increase in heavy (top 5%) and 20% increase in very heavy (top 1%) precipitation events in the U.S. over the past 100 years, though mainly in spring and summer. However, the authors did find a significant increase in winter heavy precipitation events have occurred in the Northeast U.S.

This was echoed by Changnon et al. (2006), who found, “The temporal distribution of snowstorms exhibited wide fluctuations during 1901-2000, with downward 100-yr trends in the lower Midwest, South, and West Coast. Upward trends occurred in the upper Midwest, East, and Northeast, and the national trend for 1901-2000 was upward, corresponding to trends in strong cyclonic activity.”

Meanwhile, it’s worth noting the U.S. Global Change Research Program actually predicted stronger winter storms for the Northeast, in its 2009 report on potential climate-change impacts for the United States:

Storm tracks have shifted northward over the last 50 years as evidenced by a decrease in the frequency of storms in mid-latitude areas of the Northern Hemisphere, while high-latitude activity has increased. There is also evidence of an increase in the intensity of storms in both the mid- and high-latitude areas of the Northern Hemisphere, with greater confidence in the increases occurring in high latitudes (Kunkel et al., 2008). The northward shift is projected to continue, and strong cold season storms are likely to become stronger and more frequent, with greater wind speeds and more extreme wave heights.”

Now, that doesn’t mean we can definitely say that global warming caused this snow monstrosity—again, it’s too hard to attribute any single weather event to long-term climate shifts. (For instance, El Niño may be playing a bigger role right now in feeding these storms.) At most, we can say that a warming climate will create the conditions that make fierce winter storms in the Northeast and mid-Atlantic more likely. Or at least it will for awhile: If the planet keeps heating up, then at some point freezing conditions in the Northeast will become very rare, at which point snowstorms will, too But we’re not at that point—the Earth hasn’t warmed that much yet.

On the other hand, climate models do predict that snowstorms in the southernmost parts of the United States should become much rarer in the coming decades: There’s plenty of moisture down south, but freezing temperatures are likely to decrease and the jet stream is expected to shift northward. So if those regions start seeing a sustained uptick in snowfall, then something’s gone awry in climate predictions. But the blizzard in the Northeast, while miserable and incredibly disruptive, doesn’t appear whack with long-term forecasts. (That’s not exactly cheerful news for those of us who have to live here.)

—————
Dr. Jeff Masters’ WunderBlog

Last Updated: 1:02 PM GMT on February 11, 2010.
Heavy snowfall in a warming world.

Posted by: JeffMasters on February 08, 2010

A major new winter storm is headed east over the U.S. today, and threatens to dump a foot or more of snow on Philadelphia, New York City, and surrounding regions Tuesday and Wednesday. Philadelphia is still digging out from its second top-ten snowstorm of recorded history to hit the city this winter, and the streets are going to begin looking like canyons if this week’s snowstorm adds a significant amount of snow to the incredible 28.5″ that fell during “Snowmageddon” last Friday and Saturday. Philadelphia has had two snowstorms exceeding 23″ this winter. According to the National Climatic Data Center, the return period for a 22+ inch snow storm is once every 100 years–and we’ve had two 100-year snow storms in Philadelphia this winter. It is true that if the winter pattern of jet stream location, sea surface temperatures, etc, are suitable for a 100-year storm to form, that will increase the chances for a second such storm to occur that same year, and thus the odds have having two 100-year storms the same year are not 1 in 10,000. Still, the two huge snowstorms this winter in the Mid-Atlantic are definitely a very rare event one should see only once every few hundred years, and is something that has not occurred since modern records began in 1870. The situation is similar for Baltimore and Washington D.C. According to the National Climatic Data Center, the expected return period in the Washington D.C./Baltimore region for snowstorms with more than 16 inches of snow is about once every 25 years. This one-two punch of two major Nor’easters in one winter with 16+ inches of snow is unprecedented in the historical record for the region, which goes back to the late 1800s.

Top 9 snowstorms on record for Philadelphia:

1. 30.7″, Jan 7-8, 1996
2. 28.5″, Feb 5-6, 2010 (Snowmageddon)
3. 23.2″, Dec 19-20, 2009 (Snowpocalypse)
4. 21.3″, Feb 11-12, 1983
5. 21.0″, Dec 25-26, 1909
6. 19.4″, Apr 3-4, 1915
7. 18.9″, Feb 12-14, 1899
8. 16.7″, Jan 22-24, 1935
9. 15.1″, Feb 28-Mar 1, 1941

The top 10 snowstorms on record for Baltimore:

1. 28.2″, Feb 15-18, 2003
2. 26.5″, Jan 27-29, 1922
3. 24.8″, Feb 5-6, 2010 (Snowmageddon)
4. 22.8″, Feb 11-12, 1983
5. 22.5″, Jan 7-8, 1996
6. 22.0″, Mar 29-30, 1942
7. 21.4″, Feb 11-14, 1899
8. 21.0″, Dec 19-20, 2009 (Snowpocalypse)
9. 20.0″, Feb 18-19, 1979
10. 16.0″, Mar 15-18, 1892

The top 10 snowstorms on record for Washington, D.C.:

1. 28.0″, Jan 27-28, 1922
2. 20.5″, Feb 11-13, 1899
3. 18.7″, Feb 18-19, 1979
4. 17.8″ Feb 5-6, 2010 (Snowmageddon)
5. 17.1″, Jan 6-8, 1996
6. 16.7″, Feb 15-18, 2003
7. 16.6″, Feb 11-12, 1983
8. 16.4″, Dec 19-20, 2009 (Snowpocalypse)
9. 14.4″, Feb 15-16, 1958
10. 14.4″, Feb 7, 1936

 http://www.soros.org/initiatives/fellows…

 http://www.southcentre.org/index.php?opt…

Arctic Melt To Cost Up To $24 Trillion By 2050: Report

Date: 08-Feb-10
Author: Timothy Gardner, Reuthers

WASHINGTON – Arctic ice melting could cost global agriculture, real estate and insurance anywhere from $2.4 trillion to $24 trillion by 2050 in damage from rising sea levels, floods and heat waves, according to a report released on Friday.

“Everybody around the world is going to bear these costs,” said Eban Goodstein, a resource economist at Bard College in New York state who co-authored the report, called “Arctic Treasure, Global Assets Melting Away.”

He said the report, reviewed by more than a dozen scientists and economists and funded by the Pew Environment Group, an arm of the Pew Charitable Trusts, provides a first attempt to monetize the cost of the loss of one of the world’s great weather makers.

“The Arctic is the planet’s air conditioner and it’s starting to break down,” he said.

The loss of Arctic Sea ice and snow cover is already costing the world about $61 billion to $371 billion annually from costs associated with heat waves, flooding and other factors, the report said.

The losses could grow as a warmer Arctic unlocks vast stores of methane in the permafrost. The gas has about 21 times the global warming impact of carbon dioxide.

Melting of Arctic sea ice is already triggering a feedback of more warming as dark water revealed by the receding ice absorbs more of the sun’s energy, he said. That could lead to more melting of glaciers on land and raise global sea levels.

While much of Europe and the United States has suffered heavy snowstorms and unusually low temperatures this winter, evidence has built that the Arctic is at risk from warming.

Greenhouse gases generated by tailpipes and smokestacks have pushed Arctic temperatures in the last decade to the highest levels in at least 2,000 years, reversing a natural cooling trend, an international team of researchers reported in the journal Science in September.

Arctic emissions of methane have jumped 30 percent in recent years, scientists said last month.

Thin ice over the Arctic Sea this winter could mean a powerful ice-melt next summer, a top U.S. climate scientist said this week.

And early findings from a major research project in Canada involving more than 370 scientists from 27 countries showed on Friday that climate change is transforming the Arctic environment faster than expected and accelerating the disappearance of sea ice.

Goodstein’s study did not look at worst-case scenarios Arctic melting could have, such as warmer temperatures that trigger massive releases of crystallized methane formations in Arctic soils and ocean beds known as methane hydrates. It also did not look at sea ice erosion troubling people in the Arctic.

from    Luis Gutierrez <luisgutierrez@peoplepc.com>

date    Sun, Feb 7, 2010 at 12:56 AM
subject    Pelican Journal of Sustainable Development
 http://www.pelicanweb.org/solisustv06n02…

Page 1 is a book review of “State of the World 2010″:
Transforming Cultures from Consumerism to Sustainability
By Erik Assadourian & Staff, Worldwatch Institute, 2010

Pages 2 to 4 are three invited articles:

- Truth and Consequences on the Last Frontier
by Richard Steiner, University of Alaska-Anchorage, USA
 http://www.pelicanweb.org/solisustv06n02…

- Woman as “Other” in Monotheistic Religious Discourse
by Zilka Spahic-Šiljak, University of Sarajevo, Bosnia-Herzegovina
 http://www.pelicanweb.org/solisustv06n02…

- A Path to Sustainable Energy by 2030
by Mark Jacobson & Mark Delucchi, Stanford University, USA
 http://www.pelicanweb.org/solisustv06n02…

There are also two supplements: one is on news and tools for sustainable
development, and the other is a directory of online reference material.

————————————
Luis T. Gutierrez, Ph.D.
The Pelican Web
Editor, PelicanWeb Journal of Sustainable Development
 http://www.pelicanweb.org

Shackleton’s Whiskey Found Buried Near South Pole.

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

Researchers from New Zealand found the crates while restoring a hut Shackleton built and used during the expedition. He and his team were forced to cut short the trip and abandon supplies, including their booze, to sail away before winter ice trapped them there.

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

The second trip was backed by the same Scottish company that distilled Shackleton’s whiskey, Mackinlay’s Rare Old Scotch. It could be the longest booze run in history. The Whyte and Mackay distillery hopes to replicate the whiskey, which hasn’t been made in a lifetime after the original recipe was lost.

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

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

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

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

Shackleton’s expedition ran short of supplies on a long trek to the South Pole that began in 1907. He had to turn back about 100 miles from the pole in 1909. The team had to move quickly to escape as winter ice began to form, so they were forced to abandon all but essential equipment and supplies – including their whiskey. No lives were lost.

A Norwegian explorer, Roald Amundsen, was first to reach the South Pole two years later, in 1911.

As for what the future holds for Shackleton’s whiskey, there are international treaties preventing the removal of artifacts from Antarctica, but Paterson wrote on his blog that he hopes to get his hands on at least a sample of the whiskey, if not a couple bottles.

“What you all want to know is: How will it taste?” Paterson wrote. “To which the answer is: Cold.”

The strongest commitments came from some of the world’s smallest countries, like the Maldives. The low-lying island nation, at great risk from rising sea levels, set a goal of being carbon neutral by 2020.

55 Countries Submit Copenhagen Pledges to Cut Emissions.

The number 55 is coincidentally  was required by the Kyoto Protocol to go into effect.
Kyoto Protocol – Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia:
Of the two conditions, the “55 parties” clause was reached on 23 May … Annex I countries under the Kyoto Protocol, their 2012 commitments (% of …. The scheme went into operation on 1 January 2005, although a forward market has existed since 2003. … CDM projects produce Certified Emission Reductions (CERs), …
 aol.com Contributor

(Feb. 2, 2010) – The United States, China and dozens of other countries have submitted pledges to limit greenhouse gas emissions by 2020 – the first hurdle required in a voluntary pact set up at last year’s U.N. climate change summit in Copenhagen.

Fifty-five countries made good on a Jan. 31 deadline to submit their commitments, the United Nations announced Monday night. Altogether they account for 78 percent of global carbon dioxide emissions, it said.

For wealthy nations, this week’s pledges formalize previous promises made in Copenhagen. But for many developing nations – whose emissions are growing more quickly than those from the rest of the world – this is the first time they’ve made public the details of their plans to slow the release of harmful gases.

The pledges, if honored, will dramatically reduce greenhouse gas emissions, which scientists blame for global warming. But the commitments fall short of what scientists believe is necessary to prevent even a slight rise in temperatures – exacerbating risks of drought, flooding and other catastrophic climate effects.

“The commitment to confront climate change at the highest level is beyond doubt. These pledges have been formally communicated,” Yvo de Boer, executive secretary of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, said in a statement posted on his group’s Web site. “Greater ambition is required to meet the scale of the challenge. But I see these pledges as clear signals of willingness to move negotiations towards a successful conclusion.”

More than 190 countries sent delegates to a December summit in Copenhagen, but they couldn’t reach a unanimous and binding agreement on how best to combat global warming. Instead, they settled for a voluntary accord that asks each country to set its own target to reduce emissions of damaging greenhouse gases. Fast-developing countries such as China promised to limit emissions as a share of their growing economies, while wealthy nations such as the United States pledged overall reductions. But the pact has no enforcement mechanism.

In this week’s filings, the U.S. promised to reduce emissions “in the range of 17 percent, in conformity with anticipated U.S. energy and climate legislation.” Congress is still weighing a bill that would enact the changes, and on Monday President Barack Obama asked for $1.4 billion in the 2011 budget for international climate efforts. His administration has pledged to help raise as much as $100 billion annually by 2020.

China pledged to lower its carbon dioxide per unit of gross domestic product by 40 to 45 percent, and to boost its use of non-fossil fuels to a 15 percent share of its economy.

The group of 55 countries that submitted their pledges on time also includes India, Brazil, the European Union and Japan.

Mexico and Russia had planned to submit pledges but the U.N. said they had not received them by Monday evening.

Countries that did not sign the voluntary accord include OPEC nations such as Saudi Arabia and Iran. Turkey and Malaysia are eventually expected to sign on, but have not yet done so.

But even the most ambitious pledges submitted this week are not likely to meet the Copenhagen accord’s goal of holding global warming to 3.6 degrees Fahrenheit (2 degrees Celsius) above pre-industrial levels. Signatories still have major issues to hash out, including how wealthy nations can help poor ones invest in technology to reduce harmful emissions, and develop cleaner energy sources.

The next round of formal negotiations on climate change, sponsored by the U.N., is planned for May in Germany. But de Boer said additional meetings could happen before then. “Several countries have indicated their wish to see a quick return to the negotiations with more meetings than the scheduled sessions. We are seeking further guidance from governments,” his statement read.

———————
The United States submitted a target of cutting its emissions 17 percent below 2005 levels by 2020, “in conformity” with targets to be set by Congress. That equates to about 4 percent below 1990 levels. The 27-nation European Union pledged to reduce emissions 20 percent below its 1990 levels, increasing that to 30 percent if other countries agree to binding targets. Australia also made its target contingent on other countries, with an unconditional 5 percent below 2000 levels and as much as 25 percent with global participation.
Among developing nations, India and China both affirmed their pledges to lower their carbon intensity, or carbon emissions per unit of gross domestic product — China at 40 to 45 percent of 2005 levels, and India at 20 to 25 percent of 2005 levels. Brazil repeated a pledge it signed into law to reduce emissions as much as 20 percent below 2005 levels.
But all these promises combined will not slow warming to the extent needed to avoid the most drastic and damaging effects of climate change.

———————
U.S., China, others join Copenhagen Accord on climate – Each nation determines its own target for reducing greenhouse gas emissions.

Great photo – Fumes from vehicles and smoke from factories fog the air on the outskirts of Ahmadabad last week. India was among the nations that joined the Copenhagen Accord by the Sunday deadline. (Ajit Solanki / Associated Press / January 23, 2010)

Copenhagen’s moment of truth

By Jim Tankersley
Los Angeles Times, February 2, 2010

Reporting from Washington – The United States, China and dozens of other countries accounting for nearly 80% of the world’s greenhouse gas emissions have signed onto a voluntary agreement to curb climate change.

If the countries make good on their pledges, they will dramatically reduce the emissions scientists link to global warming, but not enough to hold temperatures to levels scientists say are needed to minimize risks of drought, flooding and other catastrophic effects.

Still, the number of nations signing on, along with the amount they pledged in reductions, buoyed many environmentalists after the December climate summit meeting in Copenhagen.

The 193 countries represented in Copenhagen could not reach agreement on a pact to reduce carbon emissions. They settled instead for a voluntary accord that asks each nation to pledge to reduce them.

“What we now know that we did get out of Copenhagen was clarity of what countries are going to be doing to fight climate change,” said Keya Chatterjee, director of the World Wildlife Fund’s climate change program. The situation is “much better than we had a couple months ago. But it’s still not where we need to be.”

In addition to the United States and China, the two largest emitters of greenhouse gases, the countries that met a Sunday deadline to formally join the Copenhagen Accord include India, Japan and the nations of the European Union, the United Nations announced Monday.

Each nation determined its own target for reducing emissions. Fast-developing countries such as China promised to limit emissions as a share of their growing economies, while wealthy nations such as the United States pledged reductions from historic levels.

The accord has no enforcement provision, though it does require participants to allow international scrutiny of their efforts.

Many of the pledges are contingent: The United States, for example, refuses to set a concrete target until Congress passes a climate bill, and Canada’s pledge is linked to that of the U.S.

Even at their most stringent, the pledges do not meet the accord’s goal of holding warming to 2 degrees Celsius (3.6 degrees Fahrenheit) above pre-industrial levels, climate scientists and environmental groups say.

The list of countries not signing onto the accord includes OPEC nations such as Saudi Arabia and Iran, which environmentalists do not expect to join. Other countries such as Turkey and Malaysia are expected to eventually sign on.

The countries still have major issues to hash out, including how to handle the billions of dollars to be funneled from wealthy nations to poorer ones to help them adapt to climate change and develop cleaner sources of energy.

The Obama administration asked Congress on Monday to allocate $1.4 billion in the 2011 budget for international climate efforts. The administration has pledged to help raise as much as $100 billion annually by 2020.

—————-

BRUSSELS (Dow Jones)–Fifty five countries have submitted to the United Nations their pledges to limit greenhouse gas emissions by 2020, after they were asked to send in their commitments by the end of January, the U.N. said late Monday.

These countries account for 78% of global CO2 emissions from energy use, the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, the U.N. body leading the negotiations for an international agreement on how to limit global warming, said in a statement.

“Greater ambition is required to meet the scale of the (climate change) challenge, but I see these pledges as clear signals of willingness to move negotiations towards a successful conclusion,” Yvo de Boer, UNFCCC executive secretary, said in the statement.

After two weeks of talks in Copenhagen in December at a U.N.-sponsored conference with more than 190 governments, some countries agreed to a light political accord, called the Copenhagen Accord, which asked countries to submit their pledges in cutting carbon dioxide emissions, or in limiting their growth, by Jan. 31.

De Boer later said the deadline was “soft,” and he expects some governments won’t meet it, but will likely still submit pledges later in the year.

Major emitters and growing economies such as China, the U.S., the European Union, India, Brazil, Russia and South Africa have all submitted their pledges, the UNFCCC said in the statement.

These pledges remain national targets, and their communication to the U.N. won’t create an international obligation for governments to meet them.

The Copenhagen Accord is seen as a basis for future negotiations on a potential international agreement on how to limit global warming, even though the Copenhagen summit was a big disappointment for many, because countries weren’t able to agree on any substantial step–such a long-term targets–in reducing CO2 emissions.

-By Alessandro Torello, Dow Jones Newswires; +32 2 741 14 88;  alessandro.torello at dowjones.com

———-

If  OPEC will remain outside  even this weak agreement – why not tax their oil exports to the pont needed to force the introduction of non-fossil fuel systems? Will the 55 countries, and the other many countries that will join, not realize what is important to their own economies?

The International Conference “Deltas in Times of Climate Change.”

from: Ottelien van Steenis  – Call for abstracts for The International Conference ‘Deltas in Times of Climate Change’          September 29 – October 1, 2010, Rotterdam, the Netherlands

The two official Dutch research programmes on climate change and spatial planning (Climate changes Spatial Planning and Knowledge for Climate), the City of Rotterdam and the C40 (a group of the world’s largest cities committed to tackling climate change) invite scientists, politicians, policy-makers and practitioners to share their knowledge and experience in a major international conference on climate adaptation.

The conference pursues three main goals:
1. exchanging up-to-date top science on climate change and delta planning
2. strengthening international cooperation between deltas and delta cities
3. exploring and strengthening the links between science, policy and practitioners

Authors who wish to present a paper or poster related to the scientific programme are invited to submit an abstract.

The abstracts have to be submitted before 15 February 2010, and will be expected to fit within one of the themes:
1.     Regional climate, sea level rise, storm surges, river run-off and coastal flooding
2.     Fresh water availability under sea level rise and climate change
3.     Climate change and estuarine ecosystems
4.     Climate change and climate proofing in urban areas
5.     Competing claims and land use in deltas under climate change
6.     Governance and economics of climate adaptation
7.     Decision support instruments for climate adaptation policy
8.     Climate and health in delta areas
9.     Managing extreme weather risks

Dates to be remembered:
February 15     deadline for submission of abstract
February    registration open (fee: approximately € 350)
April   notification of abstract/poster selection
August 1    submission of draft full paper

During the conference, the Delta Alliance, Connecting Delta Cities and the C40 will be working to develop worldwide cooperation between deltas and delta cities. The Delta Alliance is an international alliance promoting effective cooperation among deltas in their efforts to manage existing and new challenges. The Connecting Delta Cities is an international network that unites delta cities that strive to make their cities climate proof.

More information is available at the  conference website and the brochure of the conference.

The Steering Committee – Pier Vellinga and Pavel Kabat
________________________________________
Programme Office Climate changes Spatial Planning / Programme Office Knowledge for Climate
p/a Wageningen UR, P.O. Box 47, 6700 AA  Wageningen, the Netherlands
T +31 30 48 6540
M +31 2120 2447
E  o.van.steenis at programmabureauklimaat….
W www.climatedeltaconference.org

 http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/con…

U.S. pledges 17 percent emissions reduction by 2020.

By Juliet Eilperin
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, January 29, 2010

The United States pledged Thursday to cut its greenhouse gas emissions by 17 percent by 2020 from 2005 levels under an international climate agreement, though it made its commitment contingent on passing legislation at home.

The Obama administration submitted its much-anticipated reduction target to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change Secretariat under the Copenhagen Accord, a non-binding deal brokered by the United States last month at the U.N.-sponsored climate talks. Under the deal President Obama helped secure in Copenhagen, major emitters of greenhouse gases are expected to “inscribe” their reduction targets by Jan. 31.

The commitment states that the United States will cut its emissions “in the range of 17 percent, in conformity with anticipated U.S. energy and climate legislation, recognizing that the final target will be reported to the Secretariat in light of enacted legislation.” It remains unclear if Congress will pass a comprehensive climate bill this year.

Ned Helme, president of the D.C.-based Center for Clean Air Policy, said as the deadline approaches, it is becoming clear that the world’s biggest carbon emitters are going to follow through on voluntary pledges they made in the run-up to last month’s talks.

“Now the smoke has cleared, people are now taking the Copenhagen Accord more seriously,” Helme said. “You’re going to see all the major players sign up.”

Several key developing nations, such as China and India, have not yet indicated what they will commit to under the agreement.

Todd Stern, the U.S. special envoy on climate change, said in a statement Thursday the administration expects “that all major economies will honor their agreement in Copenhagen to submit their mitigation targets or actions as provided in the Accord.”

On the same day the United States made its pledge public, the low-lying Marshall Islands announced it would reduce emissions 40 percent by 2020 under the accord. “If one of the smallest and most vulnerable island states can take action, the largest countries have no excuse not to follow our example,” said Marshall Islands Foreign Minister John Silk.

—————–
 http://voices.washingtonpost.com/44/2010…

Obama announces government greenhouse gas emissions targets. It would aim to reduce its emissions by 28 percent in 2020. This obviously compares favorably with the 17% National figure and thus throws further shadow over that lower figure that will thus go for the non-federal government sectors i.e. the private sector and State and local governments even seriously bellow that 17% figure.

Further, assuming that the States of the West Coast and the East Coast will be aiming to even higher reductions then the Federal Government, one can thus conclude that the private sector that is not regulated by the State Governments, will clearly escape with reduction figures lower then 10% – that is lower then under scenarios of normal business. These figures might not be appreciated very well by worldwide competing business interests. So – lets say – the trek to finding the answer to climate change/Global Warming is only starting.

By Juliet Eilperin and Anne E. Kornblut, Friday January 28, 2010

President Obama set greenhouse gas emissions targets for the federal government, announcing Friday that it would aim to reduce its emissions by 28 percent in 2020.

“As the largest energy consumer in the United States, we have a responsibility to American citizens to reduce our energy use and become more efficient,” Obama said in a statement.  “Our goal is to lower costs, reduce pollution, and shift Federal energy expenses away from oil and towards local, clean energy.”

The White House estimated a savings of $8 billion to $11 billion in energy costs, and Nancy Sutley, who chairs the White House Council on Environmental Quality, estimated that it would amount to reducing greenhouse gas emissions by 88 million metric tons by 2020 — equivalent to taking 17 million cars off the road for one year

The initiative, Sutley told reporters, “will hold the federal government accountable for leading by example.”

But it is not as sweeping as it could have been: It does not, for instance, include emissions that stem from the actiivity of federal suppliers, or from federal employees’ commutes. And while the Defense Department pledged Friday to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in non-combat areas 34 percent by 2020, this pledge does not include combat operations, which account for 62 percent of the department’s carbon footprint.

“That would not be responsible,” said Dorothy Robyn, deputy undersecretary of defense for installations and environment at the Pentagon.

Still, environmentalists and Democrats in Congress praised the move.

“I am very pleased that President Obama has set aggressive, but realistic, targets for reducing energy use by federal agencies,” said Sen. Tom Carper (D-Del.), who chairs the Subcommittee on Federal Financial Management, Government Information, Federal Services and International Security.

And Frances Beinecke, president of the advocacy group Natural Resources Defense Council, called the initiative “a great deal for the American taxpayers and a great example for the rest of the country.”

Obama’s announcement came hours after his administration delivered a non-binding pledge to other countries that the United States would cut its greenhouse gas emissions by 2020.

The Obama administration submitted its reduction target to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change Secretariat under the Copenhagen Accord, a non-binding deal brokered by the United States last month at the U.N.-sponsored climate talks. Under the deal President Obama helped secure in Copenhagen, major emitters of greenhouse gases are expected to “inscribe” their reduction targets by Jan. 31.

The international commitment states that the United States will cut its emissions “in the range of 17 percent, in conformity with anticipated U.S. energy and climate legislation, recognizing that the final target will be reported to the Secretariat in light of enacted legislation.” It remains unclear if Congress will pass a comprehensive climate bill this year.

Several key developing nations, such as China and India, have not yet indicated what they will commit to under the agreement.

——————–

Friday, Jan. 29, 2010

Building on Copenhagen. Japan wants space at the Table.

By SHINJI FUKUKAWA
Last month the 15th Conference of the Parties to the U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change (COP15) closed by announcing the Copenhagen Accord drawn up by major participating countries. Although the process produced some positive results — such as calls for steps to hold the global temperature increase below 2 degrees Celsius and to streamline the mechanism for funding developing nations — agreement on a new framework to succeed the Kyoto Protocol was put off. Signatories were asked to work for a new strategy formulation.

COP15 provides two lessons for the international community. The first is the realization of how difficult consensus building is at the global level. Neither the European Union, which had continued to take the lead on the global warming issue, nor Japan, which had proposed a drastic 25 percent cut in greenhouse gas emissions by 2020 from 1990 levels, were able to take the initiative at the conference.

An agreement drafted with the two major polluting countries — the United States and China — playing a central role was not adopted because of objections from small countries. As long as the U.N. unanimous-agreement formula continues, adopting a resolution will be almost impossible.

The second lesson is that it is extremely difficult to settle on a measure that will ensure a balance between the economy and the environment. Developing countries, while demanding that advanced nations acknowledge their historical responsibilities by making drastic emissions cuts, continued to reject requests to accept the imposition of emissions restraints on themselves. They feared that their economic growth might be restricted. The question of whether binding control measures and market functioning can go together remains unresolved.

By Jan. 31, advanced nations are required to submit their emissions-cut targets for 2020; and developing countries, their emissions-control action plans. Signatory countries are supposed to look for new methods to address the issue. Three options should be considered:

• Formulate an international framework to replace the Kyoto Protocol.

Continuation of the cap-and-trade formula on which the Kyoto accord is based is no longer feasible. Whether the pledge-and-review formula can serve as the foundation of a new framework will become a point of contention. That mechanism calls for the respective countries to pledge emissions cuts based on the world’s total allowable emissions and on the content and results of the pledges to be reviewed internationally.

I think this is an effective and practical method under the circumstances, although China, despite persuasive efforts by the U.S. at COP15, refused to accept international inspection unless it receives international assistance.

• Work out an emissions-cut mechanism on a group basis.

During the leadup to COP15, a number of mechanisms for cooperation, including the Asia-Pacific Partnership on Clean Development and Climate, were in operation, as their utilization was strongly called for. These cooperative ties resemble the relationship between the World Trade Organization and free trade agreements.

I propose utilizing the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation forum (APEC), which is rich in flexibility and has already addressed energy and environment problems. I am interested in the fact that the three largest economic powers — the U.S., China and Japan — participate in the forum. This year Japan will chair an APEC meeting. If a common framework can be worked out, the forum could present the world with an exemplary mechanism for cooperation.

• Let countries take their own measures.

China and India have already announced their respective emissions-cut targets. It is hoped that signatory nations will consider world opinion and available technological knowhow in taking policy measures aimed at achieving maximum possible reduction targets that match their national circumstances. Some countries might implement environmental taxes, domestic emissions rights trading or technological policy measures for emissions control.

From hereon the signatories will step up discussion on a new framework in preparation for COP16. The U.S., China and India will probably hold the key to the success of that process.

The Japanese government is reported to be planning to submit its target of a 25 percent emissions cut by 2020 from 1990 levels — “premised on agreement on ambitious targets by all the major economies.” I don’t think this precondition will hold; still, it’s important that Japan take the lead in the reform of lifestyles, industrial structures and technological systems, present a practical reduction target and control its greenhouse gas emissions.

If Japan can show an excellent model of improved energy efficiency and environmental protection to developing countries by utilizing the technical capabilities it has accumulated up to now, the impact will be great. And it will receive high praise from other nations if, in addition to expanding financial assistance to developing countries, it endeavors to accelerate measures to protect intellectual property rights and promote technology transfers.

My view is that Japan should contribute to the world particularly in the field of substantive structural reform.
——————–
Shinji Fukukawa, formerly vice minister of the Ministry of International Trade and Industry (now the Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry) and president of Dentsu Research Institute, is currently chairman of the Machine Industry Memorial Foundation.