Turkey is an important State. It was born from the ashes of the Ottoman Empire after having chosen the loosing side in WW I. It went after that through a distilling process with the secular-military revolution of Ataturk, and was on its way to modernization. In the process Turks killed Armenians – that is well documented, and eventually Armenians said it was genocide. Those were clearly the childhood days of a more modern Turkey.

Growing up would have meant recognizing that in its evolution, Turkey has some darker shadows in its history basin – recognize it and stretch out a hand in peace. Instead Turkey preferred to continue without any relations to Armenia, while at the same time distancing itself from its Middle Eastern and Caucasian neighbors while courting a Europe that refuses to forgive a forgetful Turkey its past behaviour in relation to its Armenians, and then later its Kurds.

Turkey, in its ridiculous courting of Europe, has missed even the boat that was anchored in its doorsteps with the creation of five newly independent Central Asian States most of which being of Turkic ethnicity anyway. Turkey is torn now between Islam and secularism with an Islamic background – whatever they chose, it is going to be neither Christian Greek, nor Christian Armenian while the West – that is Europe and the US – are basically Christian and can be  counted upon as backing Armenia’s simple request to call the killings of a century ago an example of genocide like they are ready to call what went on in Kosovo, much more recently, a genocide against Muslims.

Turkey is important to the West as a bridge to the Islamic world of Asia including the Middle East and Central Asia, but the West can not tell its parliaments that for foreign policy reasons they are not allowed to call an old case of genocide by its name, or to tell their more liberal people that a cartoon or some other free expression that might offend someone’s feelings is not plain satire that they can express if it were their own leaders – secular or religious – be it even the Pope.

Turkey has now recalled its Ambassadors to the US and Sweden as sign of displeasure with Congress and Parliamentarian declarations in States that allow free expression via voting – specially as the direct consequence of it if it was genocide or plain heinous killing is not going to bring anyone to life back anyway.

We belabor this topic because our website has placed great hope in a reorienting Turkey on various issues – be these related to the place of Turkey on Kyoto Protocol and climate change, on oil and gas pipelines, or be it on the OIC, peace efforts in the Middle East, relations with Iran, Iraq etc. We are thus unhappy when Turkey steps back from responsibility that comes with maturity.  Why not just tell Armenia – let’s sign a peace accord based on mutual understanding that what has happened then, call it what you want, and we are sorry for it, will never happen again. The whole world would then applaud. Look at Jews and Germans – it was worse – but they talk and do not walk out on each other.

The EU refuses to see the multi headed Hydra it has become and expects President Obama to play along. Reality calls – EU please get serious at becoming some sort of one headed entity! The US President is a busy man now with all that US Jazz.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Glass half full!

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

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

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

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

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

Support unravelling:

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

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

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

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

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

One EU climate voice {?}

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

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

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

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

Sidelining the UN:

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

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

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

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

Border tariff:

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

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

——–

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

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

——————————————————————————-

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

UN Stumbles by Degrees in Nopenhagen, Stealing the Deal?

By Matthew Russell Lee of the Inner City Press.

UNITED NATIONS, December 17 — In the months leading to the Copenhagen climate talks, UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon veered back and forth between reading out specific statements on how the deal should be sealed and saying it is up to member states, the UN is just the venue.

Then he and his advisors including Janos Pasztor and top humanitarian John Holmes announced that $10 billion for adaptation — or reparations — to developing countries would be enough, or “a good start.”

Inner City Press asked each of these three about the African Union’s much higher figure and threat to walk out. Each was to varying degrees dismissive.

Now with the Danish police pepper spraying demonstrators in the street, along with a crowd of UN accredited but excluded reporters, representatives of non governmental organizations and even some UN personnel, the mainstream media coverage turns negative and Ban urges poor countries to stop pointing fingers.

He also, at least according to them, has inappropriately accepted not only the developed countries’ $10 billion figure, but now their two degree Celsius temperature rise cap, versus the 1.5 degree figure.

UN’s Ban at Bella Center, excluded and pepper spray and 0.5 degrees not shown

In New York, Inner City Press has asked Ban’s spokesman about each of these. On December 15, Inner City Press asked

Inner City Press: I just want to follow up on Copenhagen. Do you have any, a large number of us have received the complaints of people who were there, who went yesterday and were unable, both journalists and NGOs [non-governmental organizations] and even some UN staff, were unable to get into the building. And they seemed to say that the UN accredited 45,000 people, even though only 15,000 could fit in the building. If that’s true, why would the UN have done that?

Spokesperson Nesirky: Two things, the figure I’ve heard is not 45,000 but 34,000. That’s still a lot of people, absolutely.

Inner City Press: The same question.

Spokesperson: Yes, the same question. As I understand it, and as we’ve heard from Copenhagen, they have a system to try to rotate the number of people going into the building, because, obviously, they’re over capacity. Part of it is also, it’s not just NGOs, it’s journalists as well. There are large numbers. And as I’ve said here before, it clearly demonstrates the considerable interest there is in this event and in having access to this event. As for why there was an over-accreditation, I would refer you to the organizers, actually the UNFCCC [United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change], who are actually on the ground organizing this, and they have a media team there who I’m sure could help you with that.

On December 16, Ban’s spokesman Martin Nesirky answered

I was asked yesterday about the delays in accessing the Bella Centre in Copenhagen, that’s obviously where the UN Conference on Climate Change is taking place. The United Nations regrets the long delays today for people wishing to gain access or pick up accreditation, and is doing all it can to alleviate further delays.

And more than 45,000 people did indeed apply to attend the Conference. And an overwhelming number of those who applied actually arrived on Monday. This is what caused the congestion in the area outside the UN venue, which is under the control of the Danish police, and also long delays at the UN accreditation counters.

The access to the venue for NGOs will continue to be controlled by the quota system that I mentioned to allow balanced access by various NGO groups. And the NGO representatives are given over half of the capacity of the Bella Centre, and that’s more than ever for a climate change conference. As of tomorrow, only NGO organizations that have the secondary badges will be able to enter the Bella Centre. And the Danish Government and the Danish NGO Network are organizing an alternative venue for NGOs who can’t get into the Bella Centre over the next two days.

Inner City Press asked two more questions:

Inner City Press: I want to ask you about two things that the Secretary-General said in Copenhagen; maybe you can clarify them. One was, he said that the goal is to cap temperature rise at 2° C, and small island States and other participants, Member States of the United Nations, had set their goal at 1.5° C. So, I guess they’re wondering where he came up with the 2° C number. Maybe you can clarify if that really is what he thinks should happen? And also he was quoted as saying that Kenya should lobby to make UNEP [the United Nations Environment Programme] in Nairobi the global environmental agency. You, know, France has a separate proposal that created a new agency. I’m wondering, does that indicate that he doesn’t support France’s proposal or what does it indicate?

Spokesperson Nesirky: Okay, on the first one, on the temperature rise, he’s made public comments on this, which we distributed this morning. The bottom line is that he has said if it’s possible to get to 1.5° C, that’s great. But if it’s not, then it’s important to have a deal that everybody can sign up to. That’s what he’s said. But I would refer you to his remarks so that you could read them in detail. On the UNEP idea, I will need to follow up on that.

Inner City Press: Just one follow-up on that, because in his press conference before he went on the trip, I think he was asked, somebody said, “What ideas are you taking to Copenhagen?” And he said that’s not his role. It’s up to the Member States to negotiate. So, I’m just wondering, I think that’s why people have this question about coming out with a 2° C number. It seems like more than leaving it up to Member States. Do you see what I’m saying? That seems to be inconsistent with what he said before he left.

Spokesperson: I don’t see any inconsistency there. He’s been consistent in saying that, yes, he has an honest broker role, but he also has firm convictions, strong convictions, about what is happening with climate change and his role in ensuring that everybody can come to the table and sign a deal. I would refer you to the remarks he made this morning, which are fairly explicit about the numbers.

And and Ban’s number is now two degrees Celsius, a figure never agreed to by developing countries. They think the UN is or is supposed to be their venue. But not anymore, it seems.

————————–

As UN Flies 700 Staff to Copenhagen, Coup Leader Set to Speak, Major Emitter Excluded.

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, December 10 — In the run up to the Copenhagen climate change conference, Inner City Press on December 4 asked UN climateer Janos Pasztor how many UN system staff, officials and consultants would be traveling to Denmark, with what carbon footprint. Pasztor said it wouldn’t be known until the conference began.

On December 10, UN spokesman Martin Nesirky finally answered the question, or part of it. He said that the Copenhagen conference has among its participants 477 people from the UN Secretariat and 309 from 19 specialized agencies and related organizations. That is, 786 people from the UN. But does this include consultants? And what is the carbon footprint and will it be offset?

Nesirky did however answer two questions Inner City Press asked on December 10, after an ill attended noon briefing held at the same time as a media stakeout by U.S. Ambassador Susan Rice. Inner City Press asked if Ban Ki-moon is aware of the request that the coup leader of Madagascar not be allowed to participate in the Copenhagen conference, just as he was barred from speaking before the General Assembly in September.

Nesirky answered, “As for Madagascar, it is scheduled to speak on next Wednesday 16 December, sometime after 6 p.m., so they seem to have been invited.” But what about the request that, as at the UN General Debate in September, they be disinvited?

On December 8, Inner City Press asked Ban Ki-moon

Inner City Press: Has Ethiopia’s Prime Minister Meles Zenawi, has he indicated to you – we’ve heard that you’ve spoken to him weekly by videoconference – he represents the African Union. Is the $10 billion enough? They threatened to walk out if not sufficient funds were committed. What’s you stance on how that issue’s going to play out?

SG: As you know I, together with Prime Minister [Lars Løkke] Rasmussen [of Denmark], have been engaging in weekly videoconferences with major stakeholders on climate change – particularly the representatives of the most vulnerable countries, including the African Union and small island developing countries. We are going to continue to do that, as we did in Trinidad and Tobago. Now the idea of short-term fast-track financial support is supported by developing countries. We had a very in-depth discussion on this issue during our Commonwealth summit meeting in Trinidad and Tobago. As you know the 53-Member State Commonwealth adopted a consensus declaration where this financial support – fast-track support – was agreed by all the Member States, including a provision that 10% of this $10 billion will be provided to small island developing countries.

So the Commonweath agreed — but has the African Union? Inner City Press asked Ban’s top humanitarian John Holmes on December 10, but he said he hadn’t been involved in setting the $10 billion figure. So who was?

UN’s Ban pre-signs Deal, coup leader coming, major emitter not shown

Inner City Press also asking about the block on participation by Taiwan, which is a major industrial emitter. Nesirky answered only that “Taiwan is not a party to the UNFCCC.” But why not? Would the UN want a major source of emission like Taiwan to participate?

The answer, of course, in China, a senior diplomat of which told Inner City Press a good joke on Thursday. He noted that U.S.’ Susan Rice had been harsh against Iran in that morning’s Council meeting. She has to play to the electorate, he said, just as Iran’s teetered regime tries to strengthen its power by being ever more hard-line. The Chinese diplomat said, “This is the problem with democracy.” And then he laughed.

The following is just in time – please see what President Obama just said in Oslo after receiving the Nobel Prize:

Speaking as U.N.-sponsored climate talks continued in Copenhagen, Obama linked global warming to international security, telling his audience that “the world must come together to confront climate change.”

He said: “There is little scientific dispute that if we do nothing, we will face more drought, more famine, more mass displacement — all of which will fuel more conflict for decades.”

Now at the Copenhagen Conference on Climate Change will be heard something that the leadership of the UN managed to hide for many years – this until the taboo was broken by the UK at the time they chaired the UN Security Council three years ago. They declared, as part of their prerogative for naming a topic of their choosing, with full voice, that climate change is a security issue. We know what we say because our web was a victim of a UN that by policy of some individuals made the clear decision not to allow the UN DPI to see in its rooms the truth come out via the UN accredited press.

—————–

Latest News from the Harvard Project on International Climate Agreements
Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs
Harvard Kennedy School
December 7, 2009

———-
BREAKING THE CLIMATE IMPASSE WITH CHINA: A GLOBAL SOLUTION

By Kelly Sims Gallagher

The paper is aimed at finding a partial solution that would be likely to bring both the United States and China into an international climate change mitigation regime. It proposes a “deal,” whereby all major-emitting countries, including the United States and China, agree to reduce emissions through implementation of significant, mutually agreeable, domestic emission-reduction policies. To resolve competitiveness and equity concerns, a proposed Carbon Mitigation Fund would be created.

More: http://belfercenter.ksg.harvard.edu/publication/19698

——————————–

CREATING A CLIMATE POLICY REVIEW MECHANISM

By Michael A. Levi

International climate negotiations are becoming increasingly focused on suites of emissions-cutting policies and measures, rather than solely on traditional targets and timetables, particularly for developing countries. This approach raises at least two important challenges. First, how can negotiators judge whether states’ proposed policies and measures are commensurate with ambitious global goals for controlling emissions? Second, how can policymakers evaluate whether climate policies and measures (in both developed and developing countries) are succeeding?

More: http://belfercenter.ksg.harvard.edu/publication/19738
——————————–

CLIMATE FINANCE: KEY CONCEPTS AND WAYS FORWARD

By Richard B. Stewart, Benedict Kingsbury, Bryce Rudyk

The Copenhagen process must, at a minimum, reach agreement on a comprehensive framework and set of principles for both public and private climate finance, as well as an agenda for future elaboration and implementation. Such agreement (which should include credible arrangements for significant adaptation as well as mitigation funding) is essential to winning developing country trust and engagement and providing resources sufficient to curb, and adapt to, anthropogenic climate change. This Viewpoint examines some of the key issues facing negotiators.

More: http://belfercenter.ksg.harvard.edu/publication/19772

——————————–
ROBERT STAVINS TO BLOG FOR THE FINANCIAL TIMES FROM COPENHAGEN

Professor Robert Stavins, director of the Harvard Project on International Climate Agreements, will be blogging periodically from Copenhagen for the Financial Times. Prof. Stavins will offer his analysis of the key issues before the climate negotiators in response to questions from the Financial Times’ editors and reporters. Prof. Stavins’ posts can be viewed at the Financial Times – http://blogs.ft.com/energysource –
or at his own blog, An Economic View of the Environment – http://belfercenter.ksg.harvard.edu/analysis/stavins/

Siemens study says Scandinavian cities are cleanest
December 8, 2009 from DPA

Northern cool meets northern clean: The Scandinavian capitals come out best in a survey by German electrotechnical giant Siemens on Europe’s greenest conurbations.

Top of the list is Copenhagen, where the biggest UN climate summit of all time is curently into its 2nd day, followed by squeaky-clean Stockholm and the Norwegian capital Oslo. Vienna and Amsterdam score high too.

The analysis is based on the efforts of 30 European cities with a total population of 75 million people towards sustainable living and economic development in line with the so-called Green City Index. The Ukrainian capital Kiev – not renowned for its ecological correctness – comes bottom of the list of clean cities.

When it comes to yearly C02 output per citizen, the Norwegians are tops. They churn out just 2.2 tonnes of C02 per head each year compared to a EU-average of 8.5 tonnes annually. The survey said most cities has drawn up a climate strategy and all faced challenges ahead. For instance the proportion of renewable energy used by the power utiities averaged out at 7 per cent – well under the 20 per cent which the EU hoeps to achieve by 2020.

Martin Bensley, dpa

[Comment] EU-US energy council should act as model for others

by RICHARD MORNINGSTAR AND JULIA NESHEIWAT, the US’ Special Envoy for Eurasian Energy,  and the Senior Advisor on Policy at the US Department of State

posted on  EUObserver as a comment (opinion piece) on 07.12.2009

President Barack Obama will travel to Copenhagen on 9 December to support the United Nations climate change conference, where he is eager to work with the international community to lay the foundation for a new, sustainable and prosperous clean energy future.

{obviously, that date was changed now to December 18, 2009 and accordingly the presentation the US President will be making in Copenhagen will be very different from what he would have said on December 9th. As such, we wonder what the purpose of this posting was when intended to be viewed close to that date, and how things might change after the December 18th date in case Copenhagen will have laid out the foundation for a larger scope climate, and thus energy, global horizon. (the SustainabiliTank editor)}

Copenhagen presents a critical opportunity to take decisive and immediate global action, to build the institutions that we will need to combat climate change and to speed the transition to a low-carbon global economy. Agreement on – and implementation of – a climate deal at Copenhagen is critical, but will be weakened without effective corresponding energy policies.

The right kinds of energy and their distribution across the globe will determine whether the international economy can maintain production levels while meeting the climate change goals set out in Copenhagen.

Energy is the prime nutrient that powers the global economy. It is the common thread that connects many of today’s global challenges, from rebuilding the global economy and combating climate change to forging new partnerships around the world. To ultimately be successful in combating climate change, we need a plan for clean, secure, and abundant energy not only for us for but for our friends around the world.

For these reasons, last month, President Obama, Swedish Prime Minister Reinfeldt, and President Barroso of the European Commission announced a new partnership that will help the United States and the European Union work together to meet our energy-related challenges: the US-EU Energy Council.

The Council will help drive diversification of energy sources, such as increased use of liquefied natural gas, solar and wind power and biofuels. It will facilitate cooperation in technical areas, such as energy efficiency and clean energy technology. And it will help us coordinate our approaches with other energy producers and consumers to increase sources of supply, diversify routes, strengthen energy markets in today’s financial crisis and increase transparency.

The new Council will help us address four major trends that will likely shape energy policy in the coming years: rising energy demand, increasingly interdependent markets, a growing imperative for global co-operation to reorient away from fossil fuels, and a clearer understanding that energy and climate change policy are inseparable.

First, despite the current decrease in global energy demand, increased demand over the medium term will likely result in increased reliance on fossil energy resources, with its accompanying environmental challenges. Unless we act now with fortified partnerships, these challenges will move ahead with increased demand for fossil fuels.

Second, global energy markets are interdependent. Disruptions in one market can have adverse impacts in distant places. In this global economy, countries and companies must realize that we can no longer afford “zero-sum games.” Clean energy and environmentally sustainable production are critical – as is maintaining global supply. A disruption of gas to Europe – apart from potentially severe humanitarian consequences – will have a direct effect on the supply and price of liquefied natural gas on a global basis. Instability of countries affected by climate change or by political volatility can also have dramatic effects.

Third, to ultimately reduce dependence on fossil fuels countries must work together to promote the development and commercialisation of alternative technologies and renewable energy, as well as improve energy efficiency and conservation. The brightest and most creative thinkers should be directed at this vital challenge.

The time is now to work with the European Union and other global partners and take authentic, concrete and quantifiable actions to exchange commercial ideas and address energy security challenges. Our partnerships must be standard bearers bringing about global co-operation and ultimately reduce dependence on fossil fuels. We must be leaders in promoting efficiency and developing alternative energy technologies. Together, we must pursue hydrogen and solar, wind, biomass, and geothermal energy.

One of the principal sources of alternative energy is via improved energy efficiency. Given that the largest sources of C02 are in the exceedingly inefficient thermal electricity and transportation sectors, there is a great deal of room for joint, international victories with the EU and Asia.

We are already engaging with other major energy players, such as Russia through the US-Russia Bilateral Presidential Commission Energy Working Group. We will work together in technical areas, such as energy efficiency and clean energy technology. And we will discuss new investment opportunities in both countries, while at the same time encouraging diversified supply routes. By deepening the US-Russia dialogue on energy, we will increase transparency and promote stability and predictability in our relationship. While we may not agree on every issue, we can work together to foster an open dialogue that builds trust.

Fourth, our understanding of energy challenges must include environmentally suitable sources of supply that are compatible with

climate change objectives that will be outlined in Copenhagen. Addressing energy security and meeting the climate change challenge are inextricably linked. Since President Obama took office, the United States has demonstrated its renewed commitment to combating climate change both by supporting domestic policies that advance clean energy, climate security, and economic recovery; and by vigorously re-engaging in international climate negotiations.

Domestically, the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act included over $80 billion for clean energy investment. President Obama set a new policy to increase fuel economy and reduce greenhouse gas pollution for all new cars and trucks. And the administration supports mandatory emissions reduction targets. On the international front, the United States is working with its partners around the world to forge a strong international agreement through the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change negotiating process.

Global issues need global solutions and we can not go at this alone. A secure energy future is fostered by building relations internationally through many cross-cutting issues that will determine peace, prosperity and quality of life, not only for Americans, but for the world.

Richard Morningstar is the US’ Special Envoy for Eurasian Energy. Julia Nesheiwat is a Senior Advisor at the US Department of State

UNCTAD Publishes Analysis of Alternative Biofuels Policy Options

7 December 2009: The UN Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD) has released a report titled “The Biofuels Market: Current Situation and Alternative Scenarios,” which assesses six different biofuels policy scenarios, along with their possible global impacts.

The report is based on a scenario-building exercise that explicitly recognizes the contingency and volatility of biofuels viability, and frames its analyses accordingly. The report examines: the role and implications of biofuels blending targets; the establishment of a carbon dioxide price as incentive for the development of a global biofuels market; the commercial viability of second generation biofuel technology; trade opportunities for developing countries; and trade implications, including a discussion of intellectual property rights. The report also contains a chapter dedicated to biodiesel and the potential role of jatropha. [UNCTAD Press Release][The Report]

From Stephen Boehm: Why Carbon Offsetting Will Not Save the Planet – Book launch

A new book has been published to coincide with the Copenhagen climate summit.

‘Upsetting the Offset: The Political Economy of Carbon Markets’
Steffen Böhm and Siddhartha Dabhi (eds)

The book can be downloaded for free at
 http://mayflybooks.org/?page_id=194

The book will be launched in Colchester, UK, and Lund, Sweden (near Copenhagen); at both events some free copies of the book will be available:

‘The atmosphere business: on the politics and organization of climate change’
Department of Business Administration, Lund University, Sweden (1 hour from Copenhagen), room EC3-109.

15 December 2009, 12.30-17.00.
The seminar is free and open to all but the number of participants is limited. Please confirm your attendance by sending an email to  sverre.spoelstra at fek.lu.se
 http://mayflybooks.org/?p=309

Press release: 1 December 2009

Why Carbon Offsetting Will Not Save the Planet

Global carbon markets may well have been hailed as the saviour of the planet by reducing greenhouse gas emissions, but in many ways they are doing more harm than good, according to new evidence. In fact, two academics from the University of Essex argue that measures put in place to reduce carbon emissions following the Kyoto Protocol on climate change have only made matters worse.

Launched to tie-in with the United Nations Climate Change Summit in Copenhagen (COP15), Dr Steffen Böhm and Siddhartha Dabhi’s new book, Upsetting the Offset: The Political Economy of Carbon Markets, challenges the environmental claims made about carbon markets and carbon offsetting schemes. The book – which collates contributions from more than 30 leading experts – is another voice in the growing criticism about the business of carbon and how it has failed to deliver promised reductions in greenhouse gases.

Few would argue that climate change is the biggest challenge the world has ever faced, and reducing our carbon footprint is essential to the future of the planet. Carbon offsetting has become a multi-billion-dollar global business which has captured the imagination of organisations worldwide who want to do something to help combat global warming. The reality, however, is that many of these schemes have actually made matters worse.

Dr Böhm and Mr Dabhi, of the University of Essex-based Essex Business School, advise governments, businesses and other organisations to reduce their carbon footprint by undertaking initiatives closer to home than funding carbon offsetting programmes in deprived countries thousands of miles away.

‘Carbon offsetting and carbon markets haven’t really delivered the reductions of greenhouse gas emissions they claimed and in many ways have just made the problem worse,’ they explained. ‘These schemes have often just provided an incentive for big polluting companies to continue emitting greenhouse gases rather than to change their ways.’ ‘Often, carbon offsetting schemes have very negative effects on local communities and eco-systems in developing countries.’

The book contributes to a growing field of critics of carbon markets by highlighting several up-to-date examples of where the system has failed and often led to negative social, economic and environmental impacts in deprived countries.

‘Carbon markets simply don’t address the underlying and root causes of climate change, which is an over-consumption of finite fossil fuels,’ added Dr Böhm and Mr Dabhi. ‘We are addicted to oil, gas, coal and a whole range of other fossil fuels, which, when burned for heating, electricity generation or other usages, release greenhouse gases. It is now time to make up for the lost decade since Kyoto and start to deal with our underlying reliance on fossil fuels.’

‘This book is a very constructive and rigorous critique of CDM offset approaches to deal with carbon footprints. I recommend this book to any student, policy maker or administrator of climate change complexities in developed or developing countries.’ Professor Anil Gupta, Indian Institute of Management – Ahmedabad, India

‘If you wondered whether capitalism could ever produce the perfect weapon of its own destruction, try this heady mix of carbon fuels, the trade in financial derivatives, and more than a dash of neo-colonialism, and boom! But this book is far from resigned to that fate. After examining the case against carbon trading. the book turns to alternatives, to hope, to sanity, and to the future.’ Professor Stefano Harney, Queen Mary, University of London, UK

‘The politics of carbon trading is a subject far too important to be left to politicians, industrialists and technocrats. This is an issue that is affecting everyone on the planet. In this important book, a series of well known commentators explain the perverse economics that lies behind the impossible idea of trading our future for profit.’ Professor Martin Parker, University of Leicester, UK

‘Anyone concerned about the future of the planet (is anyone not?) should read this book. The contributors give powerful evidence and argument to show that the carbon trading regimes favoured by the world’s elites will not work – and are, indeed, set to make things worse. But the message is not negative. There are alternatives, both effective and desirable.’ Professor Ted Benton, University of Essex, UK

____________________________________________

Dr Steffen Boehm
Reader in Management
Essex Business School
University of Essex
Colchester CO4 3SQ UK
Rm 5NW.4.4
Tel. +44(0)1206 87 3843

Europe Bypassed on Climate Summit.

Europeans claim great strides in moving toward a low-carbon economy, but their political bloc will be tested in Copenhagen.

By JAMES KANTER
Published online December 1, 2009 but various versions are in existence – the printed version of December 3, 2009 has as title: “EUROPE STEWS AS ITS CLOUT DIMINISHES ON CLIMATE.”

BRUSSELS — No political entity has pushed harder for the Copenhagen conference on climate change to succeed than the European Union.

But just days before the opening of the United Nations-sponsored meeting, the Europeans have been largely pushed to the sidelines, watching as the world’s two largest emitters of greenhouse gases, China and the United States, seek to set the rules of the game.

“That’s of course the unfortunate situation for Copenhagen,” said Jo Leinen, a German member of theEuropean Parliament who is leading the chamber’s delegation to the conference that is intended to follow up on the soon-to-expire Kyoto Protocol. “It’s turning into a bit of a ping-pong match between China and the United States, with each just looking at the other,” he said.

Europeans say they have gone further than anybody else in moving toward a low-carbon economy that could serve as a model for the rest of the world. But the bloc’s ability to exercise global influence through progressive standards and moral leadership, rather than through superpower status, is facing a key test.

“The E.U. frankly doesn’t have the political clout to determine the outcome at Copenhagen,” said Peter Haas, a professor of political science at the University of Massachusetts, Amherst.

The E.U. still has much at stake in Copenhagen, however. It is facing huge pressure, Mr. Haas added, to “keep the prospects of a global deal alive so that European business leaders and voters believe they are on track to take advantage of green technology markets of the future.”

That will be a challenge. The E.U. remains internally divided on key issues, among them how much to pay developing countries to limit emissions and how deeply to cut their own output.

So far, New Zealand is the only country outside Europe to have passed into law a national plan to trade emissions, leaving the bloc looking increasingly isolated. Jürgen R. Thumann, the president of BusinessEurope, a powerful confederation of industry and employer groups, has criticized the system as the most “costly climate policy program in the world.”

Last year, in a bold move to stamp its environmental policies on the rest of the world, the E.U. required all airlines arriving or leaving from its airports to buy some pollution credits beginning in 2012. But the move infuriated Washington, which said it risked breaking international aviation rules by forcing non-European airlines into the system.

Mistrust between Europe and the United States lingers even after President Barack Obama pledged right after his election victory that the United States would finally tackle greenhouse gases.

This summer, the Europeans were particularly irked by a U.S. decision to negotiate with China bilaterally rather than to come to Bonn, where climate talks under the U.N. umbrella were under way at the same time. The Europeans regard the United Nations as the best forum to ensure developing countries rally behind the treaty-making process.

When President Obama omitted any mention of money for developing countries last week, the European Commission tartly responded that finance was “one element we need to continue to discuss.”
Brussels also has taken a lukewarm view of Mr. Obama’s provisional commitment to reduce U.S. emissions by 17 percent by 2020 compared to 2005 levels, which it views as falling far short of what is needed to secure a global agreement to prevent the Earth’s temperature from rising too much.

Todd Stern, the chief American climate negotiator, noted several months ago that some people “across the pond” did not fully understand how difficult it was to move the U.S. Congress to approve economy-wide greenhouse gas measures.

In an interview Monday, Mr. Stern said his counterparts in Europe had gained a more sophisticated understanding of the limitations and frustrations of the American system through the process of negotiating over the climate treaty.

E.U. officials also expressed disappointment in a Chinese offer, made last week, to slow emissions growth, saying that it did not appear to go beyond “business as usual.”

Despite the setbacks, E.U. officials maintain that their first-mover strategy encouraged Brazil, Russia, Japan, Indonesia and South Korea to make more ambitious bids than they would have done otherwise ahead of the Copenhagen meeting.

The bloc’s environment commissioner, Stavros Dimas, has called for Europe to keep up that momentum by unilaterally cutting emissions by 30 percent from 1990 levels, from the current agreed offer of 20 percent, rather than wait for other nations to sweeten their bids.

“The moral pressure would be much stronger on the developed countries and developing countries alike,” Mr. Dimas said.

According to diplomats, Britain, Denmark, the Netherlands and Slovenia are among member states that would support cutting emissions further at an E.U. summit in Brussels on Dec. 10 and Dec. 11, which will take place during the first week of the Copenhagen conference. They see it as a way to improve the chances of producing a treaty to replace Kyoto before it expires in 2012.

But leaders in Italy and Poland, which has a big coal mining industry, plus a number of East European countries, fear that such a step would be far too expensive. That has created the potential for an embarrassing public dispute among E.U. nations right when the bloc most hopes to assert its leadership.

India To Slow Greenhouse Growth In Step To What may become the Copenhagen U.N. Deal.

Date: 04-Dec-09
Author: Krittivas Mukherjee, Reuters.

NEW DELHI – India set a goal on Thursday for slowing the growth of its greenhouse gas emissions, the last major economy to offer a climate target four days before the start of U.N. talks on combating global warming.

The unilateral announcement contrasted with a harder line on Wednesday when diplomats said India, China, Brazil and South Africa opposed the setting of goals advocated by the Danish hosts, including a halving of world emissions by 2050.

The big emerging economies have often insisted that rich nations have caused global warming by spewing out greenhouse gases since the Industrial Revolution, and want to see deep cuts by these rich nations before joining the effort.

“This means that all of the world’s biggest emitters have reacted to the deadline in Copenhagen. It is very good news that India has brought numbers to the table,” said Connie Hedegaard, Denmark’s Environment Minister who will preside at the talks.

India’s goal will let emissions rise, albeit at a slower rate than gross domestic product growth (GDP).

“Under this intensity target…the absolute level of Indian carbon emissions might still rise by around 90-95 percent between 2005 and 2020, according to our GDP growth model estimates,” PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP said in a statement.

Still, it called the target “very encouraging.”

RICH-POOR DIVIDE

Fault lines between rich and poor about sharing out the burden of combating global warming — projected to bring more floods, droughts, wildfires and heatwaves — are likely to dominate Copenhagen, where about 100 world leaders will gather on the final two days.

In London, the climate consultancy Ecofys said global greenhouse gas emissions would almost double from 1990 levels by 2040 with current emissions promises.

And rich nations are far from united in their approach.

Australian Prime Minister Kevin Rudd said on Thursday he would not rule out calling an early election to end a political deadlock over climate change policy, after parliament rejected for a second time his policy on cutting carbon emissions.

In Brussels, a European Commission official said the European Union wanted more from China.

China last week said it would aim to cut its carbon intensity goal by 40-45 percent by 2020, from 2005 levels. Some analysts say that could still mean a doubling of emissions.

“There’s an expectation they could go further,” the EU official said.

Summit hosts Denmark reiterated that it was now too late to agree a full, legally binding treaty in Copenhagen. Hedegaard said nations would have to set a deadline for completing work “as soon as possible in 2010.”

“I think that right now the biggest obstacle for Copenhagen will be finance,” she told Reuters. Developed nations have yet to put cash on the table to help fund a deal.

In Italy, environmentalists accused Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi of doing too little to avert climate change, and put up an ice statue of him in the ancient Roman Forum. It is timed to melt away on the day the conference opens.

Climate Talk Collapse Better For Planet: NASA’s Hansen.

Date: 04-Dec-09
Author: Kylie MacLellan, Reuters.

LONDON – The planet would be better off if the forthcoming Copenhagen climate change talks ended in collapse, according to a leading U.S. scientist who helped alert the world to dangers of global warming.

“The whole approach is so fundamentally wrong that it is better to reassess the situation. If it is going to be the Kyoto-type thing then will spend years trying to determine exactly what that means.”

On Wednesday China and other big developing nations rejected core targets for a climate deal proposed by the Danish hosts in a draft text, such as halving world greenhouse gas emissions by 2050.

Developing nations want richer countries to do much more to cut their emissions now before they agree to global emissions targets which they fear may shift the burden of action to them and hinder their economic growth.

Hansen is strongly opposed to carbon market schemes, in which permits to pollute are bought and sold, seen by the European Union and other governments as the most efficient way to cut emissions and move to a new clean energy economy.

“We don’t have a leader who is able to grasp it and say what is really needed,” he added.

Saudi Arabia’s influence in the negotiations stems from a long-term strategy of obstructionism, the ultimate aim being to prevent an agreement from emerging. Because of the Saudi heavy dependence on oil revenues and its vast oil reserves, it regards global climate change mitigation as a greater threat to stability than climate change.

The Saudi approach to climate change negotiations is plain filibuster. They are neither a key player in the climate regime nor in the negotiations, however, due to the country’s perceived interests, allies in the Muslim world, among some of the G77, and  among oil industry north and south, inroads in UN personnel, thanks to financial resources and negotiating skills and strategy, they may considerably influence certain key issues, particularly adaptation.

But the Saudi strategy that evolved around the four pillars; preserving oil revenues, receiving compensation for the adverse impacts of climate change mitigation, avoiding commitments, and acquiring technology and capacity for adaptation, has turned away many of the G77 and practically all environmental and solid thinking NGOs.

Also, the country’s status as a developing country is increasingly contested due to its high GDP per capita figures. while its call for compensation for loses in oil revenues is strongly criticized. Yes, Saudi Arabia has yet tremendous developmental needs and that is what can perhaps provide for a basis for negotiations with them by those that would like to see an outcome at Copenhagen. This is what the author of the just published study from Finland has in mind.
 http://www.upi-fiia.fi/en/publication/95…

Briefing Paper 48 (2009)       ISBN 978-951-769-243-4

Bargaining in the Saudi bazaar: Common ground for a post-2012 climate agreement?
Published 1.12.2009
Mari Luomi
Finnish Institute of International Affairs
Download PDF (0.84 Mb)
Suomenkielinen tiivistelmä:

Kaupantekoa ilmastosopimuksesta saudien basaarissa

COUNTDOWN TO COPENHAGEN: Misinformation or Disinformation?

 http://www.indepthnews.net/ presents a good view of Third World Network positions towards the Copenhagen meetings.

The post we picked up here explains well how the non-Annex I States want to hold on to Kyoto even though it obviously failed.

The following article is clearly right that Kyoto Protocol is not yogurt with an expiration date – but if it is not extended it just dies by itself. That is the underlying situation when we go to Copenhagen. LET US REPEAT – WITHOUT THE US THERE IS NO GLOBAL AGREEMENT. WITHOUT CHINA THERE IS NO US AND THERE IS NO GLOBAL AGREEMENT. There was no China in the Kyot so there was no US ratification of Kyoto – so Kyoto became a temporary ideal – the only game in town we used to say. That is right, but in Copenhagen we must start seeing the beginning of the end as we say. It does not matter at all if it is called Kyoto II, Copenhagen I, or Poznan II, or simply the first base for the agreement of 2010, 2011, or 2012 – the reality is that it must contain in some form the inclusion of those that are now sitting on the fence.

BY RAMESH JAURA – IDN-InDepthNews Service

BERLIN (IDN) – Call it misinformation or disinformation. The industrialised countries are insisting that the Kyoto Protocol expires in 2012 and that the foundations of a new treaty, the so-called post-Kyoto agreement, should be laid at the forthcoming UN climate change conference.

Nothing could be further from the truth. “The Kyoto Protocol is not yogurt, it does not have an expiry date,” says a senior negotiator. The fact is that only the first commitment period of Annex I (developed countries) Parties’ greenhouse gas emission reductions, which began in 2008, ends in 2012. All other provisions and elements of the Kyoto Protocol remain in force. This is how the Kyoto Protocol is structured.

The second and subsequent commitment periods for Annex I Parties are to be negotiated on an ongoing basis, explains Lim Li Lin, a Legal Adviser and senior researcher with the Third World Network.

“The truth should come as no surprise,” says Lin in a paper distributed by the South Centre, an intergovernmental think-tank of developing countries. Since 2006 the international community has been negotiating the next commitment period for Annex I Parties under the Kyoto Protocol in a working group known as the Ad hoc Working Group on Further Commitments for Annex I Parties under the Kyoto Protocol (AWG-KP).

These negotiations are scheduled for completion in 2009, so that the second commitment period can enter into force by 2013, thereby ensuring there is no gap between the two commitment periods. The negotiations are not about ending the Kyoto Protocol, but implementing it.

In Dec 2007 at the global climate change conference in Bali, the international community launched a second track of negotiations in parallel under the ‘Bali Action Plan’ – The Ad hoc Working Group on Long-term Cooperative Action (AWG-LCA).

This working group aims to enhance the implementation of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change, the framework agreement, under which the Kyoto Protocol sets out specifically how much Annex I countries should reduce their emissions by, and how. The AWG-LCA’s work is to be concluded in 2009, and the agreed action will be for “now, up to and beyond 2012″.

The AWG-KP is a negotiating track under the Kyoto Protocol. The AWG-LCA is a negotiating track under the Convention. The understanding is that there will be two outcomes in Copenhagen, and they are to be legally and substantively distinct.

For the AWG-KP, the legal outcome is clear — an amendment of the Kyoto Protocol according to the mandate clearly set out in its Article 3.9 for the amount of emission reductions by industrialised countries in their subsequent commitment period.

Twelve proposals for amending the Kyoto Protocol have been submitted by Parties to the UNFCCC convention. These will be discussed Dec 7-18 in Copenhagen, where an agreed amendment should be adopted at the meeting of the Parties to the Kyoto Protocol.

For the AWG-LCA, the legal outcome is less certain. Discussions are still under way. The Bali Action Plan only specifies that an “agreed outcome” should be reached and a decision should be adopted in Copenhagen.

There are a number of options ranging from a decision of the Conference of the Parties (COP) or a set of COP decisions, to another international treaty or Protocol under the Convention — also referred to as the “ratifiable outcome” by the UNFCCC Secretariat and some countries.

FORCING TERMINATION OF KYOTO PROTOCOL

Some industrialised countries want to have one single agreement — or lay the foundations for it — in Copenhagen, merging the two negotiating tracks and outcomes. Precisely this will mean the termination of the Kyoto Protocol after 2012.

This stance has been advocated by a number of developed countries including Japan and Australia. The United States has said it will not become a Party to the Kyoto Protocol.

The Conclusions of the European Union Council on its position for Copenhagen refer to a “single legally binding instrument” and emphasises the need for “a legally binding agreement for the period starting 1 January 2013 that builds on the Kyoto Protocol and incorporates all its essentials, as an outcome from Copenhagen in December 2009″.

In effect, the EU is calling for the end of the Kyoto Protocol after the first commitment period.

Initially, it seemed that the main motivation for this position by some developed countries is to force “major economies/emitters” or “advanced developing countries” — among others, China, India, Brazil, South Africa — to also take on internationally binding commitments to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, by dismantling the distinction between Annex I and non-Annex I countries and lifting some developing countries toward the level of commitments taken on by the developed countries.

The Kyoto Protocol sets quantified targets only for Annex I (industrialised) countries, and the category of Annex I countries is established under the Convention.

However, it now seems that the motivation may also be for some developed countries to lower the level of their commitments or avoid taking on internationally binding emission reduction commitments altogether.

‘GREAT ESCAPE’

This mirrors the position of the U.S., which has recently been insisting on taking on emission reduction commitments/actions on a unilateral or domestic basis. By this, it means that it will only bind itself domestically through national legislation to reduce its emissions, and will not commit internationally — as other industrialised countries have — to a multilateral system of emission reductions. It also means that its national target will only be what it determines itself, and is not subject to negotiation with the international community.

The U.S. withdrew from the Kyoto Protocol, but it remains a Party to the Convention. Under the Bali Action Plan, which the U.S. agreed to, it is required to undertake efforts comparable to those of other Annex I countries under the Kyoto Protocol.

The details are being worked out in the Ad hoc Working Group on Long-term Cooperative Action.

This is the concession the international community has already granted to the U.S. not least because it the biggest historical emitter of greenhouse gases and continues to be among the largest polluter on an absolute and per capita basis.

“It may be that the U.S. position has spurred a race to the bottom instead of drawing in the U.S. to join the rest of the Annex I countries though the ‘comparability of efforts’ provision in the Bali Action Plan,” says Lin. “The special treatment of the U.S. may be instigating a ‘great escape’ from the Kyoto Protocol by the other developed countries.”

This has grave implications. The Kyoto Protocol is the only legally binding international law that sets quantified commitment targets for each Annex I Party to reduce its greenhouse gas emissions. There is an aggregate target, which all Annex I Parties must collectively meet in a given commitment period, and an individual — or joint, in the case of the European Community — target for each country.

These specific targets must be met within a specified time period, and there are international compliance measures if the Parties do not meet their targets according to the timetable.

Lin argues that the Kyoto Protocol has many flaws but the prospect of losing the only international treaty that requires specific amounts of emission reductions by Annex I Parties, with a binding timetable and compliance measures is hazardous, particularly because there is no better alternative in place and the prospects of achieving this seem increasingly slim.

In fact a failure to agree on subsequent commitment periods will be a violation of international law. Under the Kyoto Protocol, Parties are required to establish second and subsequent commitment periods for Annex I Parties.

Article 3.9 provides that, “Commitments for subsequent periods for Parties included in Annex I shall be established in amendments to Annex B to this Protocol, which shall be adopted in accordance with the provisions of Article 21, paragraph 7″.

“Under the single new agreement that some developed countries are proposing, the nature of the commitments may be different — nationally binding targets, as opposed to internationally binding targets. This would be a drastic downgrading of international disciplines, and would take the international climate change regime many steps backwards,” warns Lin.

If the Kyoto Protocol is abandoned and a single new agreement negotiated, this will mean risking that the new international climate change treaty may take many years to enter into force or may never enter into force, if insufficient countries ratify it. The negotiations will be more complicated and controversial, and could also likely take a very long time. This is something that the planet and the poor cannot afford, adds Lin.

The international compliance regime under the Kyoto Protocol also faces an uncertain future. While it can always be further improved, the risk is now the possibility of no longer having a system of international compliance.

Legally, it is difficult to terminate the Kyoto Protocol because all Parties have to agree by consensus to end it. Aware of this, some developed countries are working on innovative technical solutions which, however, would seriously damage responsible global climate diplomacy.

Success in Copenhagen and beyond requires an effort to bridge the implementation gaps that have undermined effective action and left a legacy of mistrust among the Parties. Nothing less than full implementation by developed countries will be required to secure success in Copenhagen and to provide the foundation for a genuine partnership among all countries to curb climate change and to achieve the ultimate objectives of the UN Convention.

With all the crises left in the air by the several previous US Administrations now converging on the Obama Administration, will the US have  trustworthy media to follow the issues? Now – that is something for America to chew over very well.

—————-

On Climate Change and on the Economy in general, The US is heading to an internal war of supremacy between forces of old polluting industry and new entrepreneurs – some of them aligned with the better of the old industries. With President Obama going to Copenhagen the war burst into the open. We smell the fire-powder all over us, and we posted quite a few of the activities we witnessed – as an example the so called “Sustainability” event at the UN that was a vehicle for the Shell Oil Company.

If you want to find out what goes on in Washington or in the US in general – don’t read or listen to the US media – go rather to The Financial Times or the BBC of London – and say that we told you so a long time ago.

From today’s media – read please the FT article “INDUSTRIAL GROUPS WARN OVER CLIMATE LAW.”
 Reading the above, it was not my feeling for the industry that got excited, but rather the clear understanding that President Obama has the power to set regulations through the EPA – so his promise in Copenhagen is not empty words as some media wants us to believe. IN FACT PRESIDENT OBAMA WILL HAVE AT LEAST THREE YEARS TO RULE BY REGULATORY FORCE SO HE SETS THE US ON A PATH THAT ALLOWS IT TO REJOIN THE CIVILIZED WORLD OF THE WEST, AND BY DOING SO NEGOTIATE A COMMON PATH WITH THE ASPIRING WORLD OF THE EAST AND SOUTH.

————-

The 3C Initiative as per www.CombatClimateChange.org aims at forming a global opinion group consisting of companies showing leadership by demanding an integration of climate issues into the world of markets and trade facilitated by means of a global framework coming into force in 2013.

A change in the climate could potentially alter the conditions that govern human life and lead to major costs. Therefore, we believe that the global community should aim at reducing the emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases to acceptable levels as rapidly as possible, as well as providing secure and affordable energy for a stable, global development.

Drawing a roadmap to a low-emitting society: The 3C Initiative is committed to 9 overall principles.

The organizers claim that their goal is to underline the need for urgent action by the global community by demanding a global framework supporting a market based solution to the climate change issue. This can be achieved by getting as many companies as possible aboard and by getting our common platform well known and well understood.

Vattenfall is responsible for coordinating the initiative. Other companies are invited to take part. The initiative stems from Vattenfall’s proposal for a low carbon emitting society “Curbing Climate Change”.  www.vattenfall.com

Many of the companies signing the 3C Initiative also take part in other activities on climate change such as the World Economic Forum’s G8 Climate Change Roundtable, and various Trade Associations’ initiatives.
 http://www.combatclimatechange.org/www/c…

shows the 66 major companies that have joined 3C – The Combat Climate Change Business Group that calls for firm CO2 treaty that will make it possible for them to find market solutions to the problem.

Among the companies are: GE, BP, Unilever, Gazprom, Bayer, Dow Chemicals, Reuters, Citicorp……

The only remaining missing detail are the agreements on what to legislate.

From the PRESS RELEASE of ALDE in the European Parliament:

Distribution: immediate – November 27, 2009, 12:43 pm
Liberals to play a major role in new Commission

Guy Verhofstadt, Liberal and Democrat group leader in the European Parliament, responded positively to the announcement today by President Barroso that Liberal commissioners will be assigned a number of key portfolios in the new Commission. As the Commission is the engine of the European Union, the Liberal group will play a key role in the policy of the Union in the next five years. This is what the ALDE Group and its leader Guy Verhofstadt aimed for.

“I am satisfied that President Barroso is putting his trust in the Liberal commissioners in so many important dossiers which will be vital in the months and ahead to pull Europe out of recession and improve prospects in the job market.”
“Liberals have proven their worth in the past and will undoubtedly do so again in the next five years. The European Commission, in cooperation with the European Parliament, is the engine of European integration and the guardian of the Treaties which underpin our Union. The significant presence of Liberals in the new Commission will enable us to play a major role in Europe under the new Treaty of Lisbon.”

“Liberals in both the Commission and Parliament will work hard to ensure a coherent, principled and pro-European approach is always upheld in the various policy fields and that the Community method takes precedence over nationalism or intergovernmentalism.”

“Finally I am delighted that Liberals remained true to their commitment to gender balance in the selection of commissioners. At the end of the day actions speak louder than words and President Barroso can be pleased that he has both high quality and an even balance of men and women amongst the Liberal colleagues in his new team.”

Almost one third of the Barroso II Commission will be Liberals and half of the Liberal commissioners will be female providing almost half of the total number of female commissioners. The Liberal commissioners and their portfolios are as follows:

Siim Kallas (Vice President):        Transport
Neelie Kroes (Vice President):      Digital agenda
Máire Geoghegan Quinn:              Research, science & innovation
Karel De Gucht:                           Trade
Cecilia Malmström:                      Home affairs
Janez Potocnik:                           Environment
Olli Rehn:                                    Economic and monetary affairs
Androulla Vassiliou:                     Education & culture, multilingualism and youth

For more information, please contact:
Neil Corlett: +32-2-284 20 77 or +32-478-78 22 84
e-mail:  neil.corlett at europarl.europa.eu

—————–

And from EUObserver we learn some more:

The EU commission’s most influential jobs – competition and economic affairs – seem to have been earmarked for two veterans on the Barroso team – Spaniard Joaquin Almunia and Finn Olli Rehn, news wires and national media in Germany, France and Italy report.

All commission pieces need to fall into place for Barroso to announce its composition. (Photo: wikipedia)Comment article

Mr Rehn, currently the enlargement commissioner known for his rigour in applying EU rules to candidate countries, will take up Mr Almunia’s present portfolio, economic and monetary affairs. His task will not raise his popularity among EU capitals – to make sure that national governments bring their deficits down, after lax spending policies due to the economic crisis.

Mr Almunia will be promoted to the competition file, where he sill oversee anti-trust cases, the commission’s most feared instrument. Its current commissioner, Dutch Liberal Neelie Kroes, is set to take over telecoms, a dossier with fast-growing prominence around internet copyright issues.

Germany’s surprise candidate for the EU commission, Gunther Oettinger, is set to get the energy dossier, which has risen in prominence after Russia’s gas cut-offs in the winter of 2006 and 2009. Some diplomats quoted by Reuters allude to Mr Oettinger’s nationality as a warranty of having more clout when dealing with Moscow on energy issues than the current commissioner, Andris Piebalgs from Latvia.

Another relatively new face to the EU commission, Belgian commissioner Karel de Gucht, will most likely win the trade portfolio, Der Spiegel and Belgian media report. Mr de Gucht, a Flemish centre-right politician, has been in charge of development in the past four months, after former commissioner Louis Michel resigned to take up his mandate as an MEP following the June elections.

One point of uncertainty concerns France’s Michel Barnier, who could get the internal market file, but stripped of its financial regulation elements, which most likely will become a separate portfolio. It is still unclear what Paris’ next move will be if this is the case. President Nicolas Sarkozy could even withdraw Mr Barnier and put forward Christine Lagarde, whose strong credentials could re-jig the whole scheme, some EU officials speculate.

As for Italy, Adkronos reports that “chances are at 70 percent” that its current commissioner Antonio

Tajani will get the industry portfolio. Otherwise he could also stay on as transport commissioner, which he held since May 2008 when former Italian commissioner Franco Frattini resigned to become foreign minister in Rome.

Another sure bid seems to be Denmark’s enviroment minister Connie Hedegaard for climate commissioner, which will be split from the current environment portfolio.

New member states, especially eastern ones, seem to be less certain of what they will get, with several options on the table, such as enlargement, justice and home affairs, research, education, agriculture and fisheries. It is unlikely, however, that Bulgaria, as has been speculated, will get justice and home affairs, due to its constant problems with corruption.

Romania is still strongly pushing for the agriculture portfolio, with a former farming minister put forward for this specific file. But MEPs may object to giving agriculture to a country that has had some farm aid frozen due to problems in the management of funds. Fishieries may be a compromise option.

The European Parliament will hold hearings on all the commissioner nominees in January.

—————————

and some more from:
 dominic.hamer at nortonrose.com

<img src=”http://www.nortonrose.com/images/img-nortonrose-20714.gif”>

Hopes for Copenhagen
A Norton Rose Group Survey

A survey analysing the perceived consequences to business from the UNFCCC (COP 15) negotiations in Copenhagen.
An unsuccessful outcome at Copenhagen will have a detrimental impact on business

Over three quarters of business respondents involved in aspects of environmental, sustainability and climate change issues believe if Copenhagen fails it will have a detrimental impact on their business
Success or failure

· 79% think an unsuccessful outcome at Copenhagen will have a detrimental impact on business

· 70% believe the US government’s position on negotiations is the most significant barrier to an agreement being successfully negotiated at Copenhagen

· 72% believe the negotiations will be a ‘compromised success’
To read the full report, please follow the link below

Hopes for Copenhagen

Norton Rose Group Survey

Norton Rose Group Climate Change Team in Copenhagen

Our international climate change team will attend the negotiations in Copenhagen, and send daily updates on developments to their blog
Norton Rose Group global climate change team – Copenhagen blog.
The team are also on Twitter at www.twitter.com

If you would like to receive the blog updates by daily email, to subscribe please click here and send a return email.
———–

Global Climate Change Team
Norton Rose LLP
3 More London Riverside, London SE1 2AQ, United Kingdom
Tel +44 (0)20 7444 2534 Fax +44 (0)20 7283 6500
 climatechange at nortonrose.com

China on Reducing Its Carbon Footprint: Why Should We Have to? They’ve got a point. Per capita, China only produces 20 percent of America’s carbon emissions. Post Tools.

Posted by Robert Dreyfuss, The Nation at 3:29 PM on November 24, 2009.

BEIJING — Ambassador Yu Qingtai is China’s point man on global warming. As special representative to the climate change talks for China’s ministry of foreign affairs, Yu is a forceful advocate for China’s view that while his country will do its part, the primary responsibility for fixing the problem rests squarely on the shoulders of the United States and other industrialized countries. And he bristles when reminded that many US experts put on the onus on China’s rapidly growing economy and industrial might.

“There were those who came to China years ago and described us as a kingdom of bicycles,” he says, when I mention some of that criticism. We’re sitting in a conference room at the foreign ministry, where Yu has come to be questioned by a small group of journalists invited to Beijing by the Chinese People’s Institute for Foreign Affairs. As China modernizes, he says, every Chinese citizen has the right to all of the modern industrial and transportation options enjoyed by, say, Americans – including the right to own a car. “We should not be expected to stay forever as a kingdom of bicycles!” he says.

He has a point. BUT…

“The environmental problems we face today are not the making of China and India,” he says. The accumulation of carbon in the atmosphere has been growing for the past two centuries, during which Europe and the United States emerged as industrial powers. “Eighty percent of the gases in the atmosphere are the result of emissions by the developed countries, and on a per capita basis it is even more,” he says. That’s a view that has been widely accepted during worldwide climate-change talks through the United Nations and elsewhere, resulting in an international convention that calls upon the developed countries to take major steps to reduce carbon emissions while providing financial assistance and technology to less developed countries such as China and India. So far, however, no accord has been struck, and it isn’t likely that a breakthrough will occur next month at the Copenhagen summit, either. The fund set up to provide financial aid to the Third World on climate change is virtually empty. How much is in it? I asked Yu. “Nothing,” he answers.

“The International Energy Agency estimates that China’s energy-related CO2 emissions will be twice that of the United States by 2030 … China is on track to overwhelm the global effort to address climate change.
“The United States and the world need China to do more than any other country in terms of deviating from business as usual. This will not be cheap.”

Economy admits that it’s impossible, practically speaking, to require China (and India) to cut back on carbon dioxide emissions as dramatically as the United States and Europe must do. In fact, China is doing a lot – perhaps, in part, because it doesn’t have to push legislation through a recalcitrant, filibuster-ridden.  {Senate she must have meant but did not say} Quite apart from the international talks, China is taking steps of its own to reduce its emissions. From 2000 through 2008, China installed an enormous number of non-coal-burning power plants, increasing its wind energy capacity thirtyfold, doubling its hydroelectric capacity, and increasing its nuclear power generating capacity more than fourfold. China has planted billions of trees, raising the percent of its forested land from 12 percent to 18 percent of China’s territory. They’ve set a series of ambitious goals for 2010, 2015 and 2020 for increasing energy efficiency, phasing out old and inefficient iron, steel and cement plants, eliminating subsidies to high-energy businesses, and investing heavily in hybrid cars, efficient lighting, and more.

Still, China gets about 70 percent of its electricity from coal-burning power plants, the chief culprits in CO2 emissions, and it’s building more coal plants quickly. (Over the past 5 years, China has built more new coal plants than the entire existing, installed capacity of coal plants in the United States.)

But as Ambassador Yu points out, the West cannot expect China not to increase both its energy production and, thus, its emissions, as its economy (currently growing at roughly 8 percent per year, despite the after-effects of the financial crisis worldwide) skyrockets. “China currently is responsible for 20 percent of carbon emissions as the United States, on a per capita basis. Suppose we grow our economy by 100 percent. We’ll still be at only 40 percent of the US level,” he says. “You can’t expect China to accept the idea that each Chinese citizen has only 20 percent of the right of an American.”

Yu says that China has accepted that climate change is a serious challenge, posing grave threats to low-lying and coastal areas in China and threatening to decimate food production in agricultural areas.

Despite the measures being taken by China, however, the Chinese government is unlikely to put the brakes on development in order to reduce carbon emissions. While some environment-focused Chinese agencies are accelerating their efforts to deal with the problem, they often meet resistance from ministries responsible for commerce, industrial development, and trade. Some in China see Western demands that China reduce emissions as an under-handed way by the United States and its allies to weaken the Chinese economy. A January 2009 report from the Brookings Institution noted a Chinese perception in some quarters that the United States is using talk about climate change and clean energy “as a way to put obstacles in the path of China’s rise.”

Yet, across China, there are more and more signs that China is taking the problem seriously, right down to the solar-powered traffic signals that dot intersections. Driven in part by its realization that China’s international standing can be affected if it ignores the problem, and in part by the fact that greater energy efficiency can reduce China’s strategic dependence on expensive imports of oil and natural gas, China is investing billions of dollars in green technology, research, and high-tech solutions.

Meanwhile, the Copenhagen summit is drawing near, and Ambassador Yu says that he is “cautiously optimistic.” The reason, he says: “It’s too important to fail.”

Robert Dreyfuss, a Nation contributing editor, is an investigative journalist in Alexandria, Virginia, specializing in politics and national security. He is the author of Devil’s Game: How the United States Helped Unleash Fundamentalist Islam and is a frequent contributor to Rolling Stone, The American Prospect, and Mother Jones.

Reviewing the OXFORD HANDBOOK OF CLIMATE CHANGE AND SOCIETY,  at the University of Copenhagen – December 11, 2009 – all invited.

The Copenhagen Symposium for the OXFORD HANDBOOK OF CLIMATE CHANGE AND SOCIETY will be held on 11 December, at the University of Copenhagen.

If you are attending COP-15, you are most welcome to attend. Several contributors to this forthcoming book will be discussing their chapters. See attachment for venue and program details.

RSVP is not required and attendance is free.

FIRST SESSION, 2pm?3.20pm

Introduction and Overview of the Handbook
John Dryzek, Australian National University
(for the editors, John Dryzek, Richard Norgaard, and David Schlosberg)

The Reconfiguration of Policy Discourses
Maarten A. Hajer, University of Amsterdam and Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency

Critique of Cost Estimates
Clive Spash, Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation, Australia

From International to Global Climate Governance
Matthew Paterson, University of Ottawa

The Global South
Sivan Kartha, Stockholm Environmental Institute

SECOND SESSION 3.35pm-5pm

Comparative State Responses
Robyn Eckersley, University of Melbourne

Corporate Responses
Simone Pulver, University of California, Santa Barbara

Effects on the Welfare State
Ian Gough, University of Bath, and James Meadowcroft, Carleton University

International Justice
Paul Baer, Georgia Tech

New Modes of Governance
Frank Biermann, Free University of Amsterdam

Improving the Performance of the Climate Regime: Lessons from Regime Analysis
Oran Young, University of California, Santa Barbara (To be confirmed)

Thanks.

Hayley Stevenson
Postdoctoral Fellow
Centre for Deliberative Democracy and Global Governance
Political Science Program
Research School of Social Sciences
The Australian National University
CANBERRA  ACT  0200
Ph. +61 2 6125 1723
 http://polsc.anu.edu.au/staff/stevenson/

 http://deliberativedemocracy.anu.edu.au/

Help islands fight climate change

from

Ben Wikler - Avaaz.org     to PJ

Dear friends,

As leaders like Obama waver on global climate negotiations, the voices of the most vulnerable are needed in the climate debate. Avaaz has a chance to help small island states, whose very survival is at stake, make their voices heard in Copenhagen — click to help:

Donate now!

With the biggest climate summit in history just weeks away, leaders are backing off their promises for a deal to stop catastrophic climate change.

If they fail, it won’t just mean less snow on ski slopes. Millions of families in Africa will see their farms turn to dust as the desert advances, many in Asia will die in worsening floods and storms, and whole island nations will be threatened by rising seas — all within 10-15 years.

The climate issue can get lost in statistics. But at critical moments, voices of moral authority can cut through the noise.

So Avaaz is launching a critical effort to build the capacity of negotiating teams from vulnerable islands like Nauru and Palau at the Copenhagen climate talks — and gearing up to support their message with intensive on-the-ground advocacy for a strong treaty. Even a contribution of $50US/€33 can cover signs and photocopying for a press conference — and more is needed for airfare, food, and training materials … please chip in what you can:
 https://secure.avaaz.org/en/their_voices…

We know the power of voices from the front lines climate change. At the climate summit in Bali two years ago, a stunning speech by the negotiator from Papua New Guinea pushed the US to relent — breaking a critical deadlock and rescuing the talks from collapse in the final hours. Island states continue to lead the world — demanding bold action where others are timid.

The problem is that Europe, Canada, and the US typically send dozens of negotiators and support staff to these summits — while most small island states have trouble sending more than two or three delegates. Multiple negotiations happen simultaneously. If a country has a tiny delegation, it literally has no seat at the table as decisions are made that will determine its survival.

What happens first to islands will one day happen to us all. We need the voices of island leaders in Copenhagen. And if each of us donates, even a small amount, we can help ensure that they will be heard — at the climate talks and around the world. Let’s do our part:
 https://secure.avaaz.org/en/their_voices…

The time has come to stand with our brothers and sisters at the front lines of climate change. Their fight, and their fate, is ours as well.

With hope,

Ben, Taren, Iain, Sam, Ricken, Alice, Milena, Paul, Luis, Julius, and the whole Avaaz team

PS: We’ve supported the island states before. Last year, over 150,000 of us signed a petition to support their UN resolution, which demanded that climate change at last be recognized as a threat to international peace and security. The island-state Ambassadors delivered the petition–and the UN passed the resolution. Now, we have a chance to help once more. Click below to stand in solidarity with those hit first and worst by climate change: https://secure.avaaz.org/en/their_voices…

——————————-

ABOUT AVAAZ Avaaz.org is an independent, not-for-profit global campaigning organization that works to ensure that the views and values of the world’s people inform global decision-making. (Avaaz means “voice” in many languages.) Avaaz receives no money from governments or corporations, and is staffed by a global team based in Ottawa, London, Rio de Janeiro, New York, Buenos Aires, and Geneva. Click here to learn more about our largest campaigns. Don’t forget to check out our Facebook and Myspace and Bebo pages! You can also follow Avaaz on Twitter!