Most Recently
Leaders of the BASIC countries (Brazil, South Africa, India, China), along with Mexico, met during last year’s Group of 20 summit in L’Aquila, Italy.
A key deadline for countries to submit emission reduction goals to the United Nations as part of the recently negotiated Copenhagen Accord passed last Sunday. The U.N. received commitments from 55 nations, but 139 countries remain unsupportive of the political statement, leading the international body to push back the commitment deadline indefinitely.
Since the high-level climate change summit in Copenhagen concluded in December, global climate talks have been in a state of confusion. Two parallel tracks are already under way – one that includes the United States and one that omits this significant world emitter. The Copenhagen Accord, some say, threatens to introduce a third procedural track, complicating the already tense deliberations.
The Accord, a non-binding political statement introduced at the 11th hour of the Copenhagen summit, has been praised by some for garnering stronger commitments from major developing nations, which could in turn deliver a binding global climate treaty. Yet its formulation has also threatened to destabilize the nearly 20-year old process developed under the U.N.’s Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), the leading international body for climate change negotiations.
The United States, Brazil, South Africa, India and China formulated the Accord with the understanding that the text would later be adopted by all 194 nations. But many participants considered this outcome to be undemocratic and a departure from a U.N. process meant to offer equal voice to every nation.
Implications of the Accord
Many had hoped that the Copenhagen conference would deliver a legally binding international treaty on climate change, or at least provide direction on many of the core components under negotiation. But the Accord itself contains little of these details and provides instead for countries to set their own emission reduction targets unilaterally.
Among other elements, it states that 2 degrees centigrade is the target above which global temperatures must not rise; it proposes the mobilization of $30 billion by 2012 and $100 billion by 2020 for developing countries to address climate change; and it calls on developed and developing countries to submit their national actions on climate change to the U.N. by January 31, a deadline that has now been postponed “indefinitely.”
Sanjay Vashist, director of Climate Action Network South Asia (CANSA) said that without larger consensus, the Accord reflects “an outcome of a flawed negotiating process…negotiated by a small group of countries,” rather than the 194-nation body.
There are further reservations about the Accord’s content itself. While the text addresses several key negotiation issues, many crucial details remain undetermined. “It is far from clear where the funding [for climate change mitigation and adaptation] will come from, if it is genuinely new and additional, and how it will be allocated and channeled,” said Saleemul Huq, a senior fellow with the International Institute for Environment and Development’s climate change group, who co-authored a recent report on climate finance.
(more…)
31st January,
BASIC,
Bill McKibben,
Copenhagen Accord,
Frances Beinecke,
G77,
Jairam Ramesh,
john kerry,
Jonathan Pershing,
Saleemul Huq,
Sanjay Vashist,
Srinivas Vasudha,
UN /
No Comments »
This has been crossposted from www.itsgettinghotinhere.org
Climategate was a well coordinated, strategic and devestating attack on the Copenhagen climate talks in December last year. With unprecedented moves from U.S. and China in the run-up, the world’s media and attention was hooked onto the alleged manipulation of data at the University of East Anglia. That stolen information framed the entire negotiations, and set it up for failure.
Today the prospect of a clean-energy economy faces a new threat.
Osama bin Laden has called for the world to boycott American goods and the U.S. dollar, blaming the United States for climate change, according to a new audiotape released today. Right-wing media outlets including The Daily Telegraph, Drudge and Fox News, are already seizing on the al-Qaida leader’s comments. All this on the same day that the American administration formally announced it’s 2020 carbon targets, and a 39% increase in wind-power.
Those in the struggle for a clean-energy economy and safe climate future, should ask themselves why bin Laden would come out with this statement. This is the man who has shown no concern for human life, indeed revels in killing innocent people – why does he now care about rising sea-levels?
His plan is to drive the wedge between the climate cynics and climate activists even further, and it’s already working. This is the perfect story to kill any federal climate bill in the U.S. In fact it’s the perfect strategy if you desire chaos and destruction.
Any association with him immediately demonises the climate movement, and will maintain the stranglehold of oil-rich nations over the American economy. More worryingly in the long term, a world in the throws of extreme weather and an unpredictable food-supply is rich pickings for a fanatic totalitarian.
1. So how should the environmental movement respond?
2. Immediately and unequivocally condemn his comments. We can’t let ourselves be aligned with a terrorist. Bin Laden isn’t an environmentalist and cares nothing about climate change (because that would mean caring about people).
Whatever your feelings on climate change; don’t use his comments for your cause, because actually he will be using you.
I wrote this poem on new years and thought I would share it:
The morning that followed
Our message was echoed.
A failure! A failure!
My heart in despair.
The science lost, funding tossed,
No commitment in sight.
A stench of injustice,
The result: A failed plight.
“What more did you expect?”
Accusing voices chimed,
“Your efforts are a waste
Of carbon, cash and time”.
Is it a failure?
Were we mistaken?
How will we remember
Copenhagen?
How will we remember
Copenhagen?
I will remember the:
Forming of three fifty
In hundreds of states.
The Hundred thousand
Who marched till late.
Millions worldwide that stood,
And more that signed
In protest for the rights
For all Human Kind.
I will remember the:
Largest mobilisation
In world’s history.
Working in unity.
Despite culture or country.
Rising above divisions
In the “social order”;
Be religion, gender
Or a political border.
(more…)
TO: Shri JairamRamesh, Minister for Environment & Forest, Government of India
FROM: Indian Youth Climate Network
DATE: January 29, 2010
SUBJECT: Genetically Modified food is not the answer to Climate change induced crisis.
Genetically modified crop has long been seen as the technological solution to crop losses due to diseases, pests and climate change as well as stagnating yields. Only one GM crop, Bt. cotton, has been introduced in India so far with limited success. Now, as the country readies itself to grow the first GM food crop, Bt. Brinjal, we ask that all considerations regarding its safety and efficacy be considered along with the alternative (to GM crop) viable options before embarking on commercialization of the technology.
The context
We the Youth of India strongly feel that not all alternatives and aspects have been considered before the introduction of GM crops in India. Given that a large part of agriculture in the country is still sustainable agriculture (not commercial farming) we need to give due considerations to implications of this technology, its numerous facets– the situation worldwide, the role of the USA and big transnational companies, the productivity and chemical use of GM crops, food safety issues involved and so on. Studies worldwide have shown limited success of GM food crops, some like the recent study by Professor Gilles-Eric Seralini of the France-based CRIIGEN pointed out that Bt. brinjal had not been properly tested from the safety and environmental point of view. He further observed that in feeding trials significant differences were noted in animals fed with Bt. brinjal compared to those fed non-Bt. brinjal. Differences that he concluded ‘raise food safety concerns and warrant further investigation. The GM Bt. brinjal should be considered as unsuitable for human and animal consumption.’ (more…)
(July 18,2008)
Last day, we had a trip to amazing place in Delhi namely, Okhla Landfill near Tuglakabad fort, the emerging mountain range of Delhi. It is the smallest landfill site in Delhi with an area of 50 acres. The beauty of the region cannot be explained in words. A young fold hill rising from the ground surface, here geomorphological or geological processes are not contributing in this noble cause. But the domestic activities at our homes and construction sites are fulfilling the absence of geo-processes. The site has a very fragile ecology, we need to conserve it. The biodiversity is also emerging, crows flying in the sky, grass and other plants growing around, cows and dogs moving around satisfy the criteria of rich biodiversity. This hill started emerging in 1995, but the load is more than its capacity. Everyday more than 1150 M.T. is contributed to increase the height and make it a mountain. Even this place also fulfills the eligibility for a volcano too, as gases are fuming out. (more…)
(Last to last year in frustration, this letter came out. Now when Commonwealth Games are at the door Mother Yamuna is asking for justice on her death bed)
Revered Citizens of India,
I am mother of one sixth of humanity, But now a stigma on my own sons. My own sons are raping me for their own prosperity and development. I want to tell you what is my story and what are my ideas while sitting on the death bed.
My story starts from a myth and a reality. My sons believe that I came from heaven while scientists say that I have originated from the glaciers of Himalayas. I believe in both. My father is Himalaya and I originate from Yamunotari glacier, now in state of Uttarakhand. My birth was considered as the end of vows of Aryan civilization. The oldest civilization started flourishing on my banks and sister Ganges also supported this cause. World’s greatest religion was founded in my territory. The Godly men like Sri Krishna played in my lap, Hazarat Nizamudin the follower of last Prophet spread the message of peace in front of my eyes, Sahib-e-Kamal Guru Gobind Singh composed divine poems in my company. The mighty rulers came to conquer the lands of mine. My children fought well, many were martyred but they never surrendered. I am the symbol of their courage and spirit of freedom. When Britishers took off the city residing my side, I felt a little bit discouraged. Blood was shed but Alas! Peace came. They gave my daughter Delhi same status which she had before. I felt satisfied.
(more…)
JOIN TO PROTECT OUR FOOD SOVEREIGNTY AND SECURITY
Keynote Address by Dr Shiv Chopra, Health Canada’s Whistle Blower, Stopped Monsanto’s genetically modified rBGH Injection in the Fight for Safe Food, Presided over by Professor Manjit Singh, President, Panjab University Teachers Association
Date: 24th of January, 2010 (Sunday)
Venue: CRRID, Sector 19A, Madhya Marg, Chandigarh
Time: 11 a.m. onwards
Followed by the Screening of “Poison on the Platter” A Film by Mahesh Bhatt
Jointly organised by:
Consumers Association Chandigarh, Kheti Virasat Mission, Greenpeace, Yuv Satta, Consumer Coordination Council, New Delhi, Azadi Bachao Andolan, Alliance for GM Free and Safe Food
For More Information Contact
R. K. Kaplash: 98141 73342
Umendra Dutt: 98726 82161
Not many will be able to point out Fazilka on the map of Punjab. But this small town has done most Punjabis proud by being selected first amongst all Asian cities for adopting best energy-saving practices to fight against global warming in transportation.
Located barely 11 km from the Indo-Pak border, the Graduate Welfare Association of Fazilka (GWAF), comprising well-placed people from this town, now serving in India and abroad, have launched a campaign which has been recognised by the World Carfree Network Community for setting up best examples to reduce the effect of global warming using religion.
Disclosing this to The Tribune, Navdeep Asija, a senior scientist at IIT, Delhi, and one of the forces behind GWAF, said, “Efforts of Fazilka residents in curbing global warming has been recognised as the best in Asia by the World Carfree Network, an NGO based in Czech Republic.”
Besides Asija, Bhupinder Singh, a retired professor from IIT, Roorkee, IAS and IPS officers, businessmen with the help of local residents started spreading awareness about global warning and environment. (more…)
A Report by Trent Brown
In many ways now is not a good time to be a farmer in Punjab, or anywhere in India, for that matter. Debts are high. The price of inputs is increasing. Soil quality has diminished. The development of pesticide-resistant insects is leading farmers to use more and more toxic chemicals on their crops, thus increasing the risk of cancer for them and their families. The combination of these factors has led many farmers to commit suicide. The Natural Farming Workshop, hosted by Kheti Virsat Mission from the 25th to the 27th of December 2009, showed farmers another way. It showed them a type of farming that requires no external inputs whatsoever, that does not involve violence against humans or nature and whose yields are good.
The workshop was held at the Bhai Bhagtu Institute of Higher Education, in Bhagtuana village, near Jaito, Faridkot District, where Kheti Virasat Mission has an education centre for natural farming. The workshop had the support of its founder Swami Krishna Anand ji who has himself been a powerful advocate of natural farming for several years. Over the course of the three days, farmers learned about the philosophy, science and techniques of natural farming. They were addressed by several of the most respected figures in the field, who gave them confidence that natural farming can take them into a brighter future.
There were over 150 people who attended the workshop. They were a diverse crowd. Not only were there farmers, but also teachers, college lecturers, activists and doctors, all wanting to take the message of natural farming to the wider world. Among the farmers there were some who have been farming using natural methods for several years. Others were still practicing chemical farming, but looking for a better way. They came from all parts of Punjab and from other states. There was a group of women from the Self-Employed Women’s Association (SEWA) who travelled all the way from Gujarat just to attend the workshop.
They came to the workshop for a variety of reasons. Some were fed up with paying the chemical companies excessive amounts of money for fertilisers and pesticides. Others were concerned for the impact of these chemicals on the health of their families and communities. Others wanted to live a lifestyle that was more in tune with the rhythms of nature. All of them recognised the importance of natural farming for the future of Punjab, India and the world. (more…)
By Fidel Castro
21st December 2009
(Cross posted from Countercurrents.org, )
The youth is more interested than anyone else in the future.
Until very recently, the discussion revolved around the kind of society we would have. Today, the discussion centers on whether human society will survive.
These are not dramatic phrases. We must get used to the true facts. Hope is the last thing human beings can relinquish. With truthful arguments, men and women of all ages, especially young people, have waged an exemplary battle at the Summit and taught the world a great lesson.
It is important now that Cuba and the world come to know as much as possible of what happened in Copenhagen. The truth can be stronger than the influenced and often misinformed minds of those holding in their hands the destiny of the world.
If anything significant was achieved in the Danish capital, it was that the media coverage allowed the world public to watch the political chaos created there and the humiliating treatment accorded to Heads of States or Governments, ministers and thousands of representatives of social movements and institutions that in hope and expectation traveled to the Summit’s venue in Copenhagen. The brutal repression of peaceful protesters by the police was a reminder of the behavior of the Nazi assault troops that occupied neighboring Denmark on April 1940.
But no one could have thought that on December 18, 2009, the last day of the Summit, this would be suspended by the Danish government –a NATO ally associated with the carnage in Afghanistan– to offer the conference’s plenary hall to President Obama for a meeting where only he and a selected group of guests, 16 in all, would have the exclusive right to speak.
Obama’s deceitful, demagogic and ambiguous remarks failed to involve a binding commitment and ignored the Kyoto Framework Convention. He then left the room shortly after listening to a few other speakers. Among those invited to take the floor were the highest industrialized nations, several emerging economies and some of the poorest countries in the world. The leaders and representatives of over 170 countries were only allowed to listen.
(more…)
As was being expected in the last few days of the COP, we do not have a “fair, ambitious and binding deal” in place. What we have is an agreement which is neither fair nor binding. It is being called the “Copenhagen Accord”.
“We underline that climate change is one of the greatest challenges of our time. We emphasise our strong political will to urgently combat climate change in accordance with the principle of common but differentiated responsibilities and respective capabilities.” Though the accord boldly talks about the adverse impacts of climate change and claims to sympathize with the vulnerable regions, it’s mostly talk at the end of the day.
“We agree that developed countries shall provide adequate, predictable and sustainable financial resources, technology and capacity building to support the implementation of adaptation actions in developing countries.” This is a great acknowledgement but $30 bn till 2012 and $100 bn till 2020 with no clue of where this money will come from and no agreement on how it will be distributed is not substantive at all.
“Annex I Parties to the Convention commit to reducing their emissions individually or jointly by at least 80 percent by 2050. They also commit to implement individually or jointly, the quantified economy-wide emissions targets for 2020 as listed in appendix 1, yielding in aggregate reductions of greenhouse gas emissions of X percent in 2020 compared to 1990 and Y percent in 2020 compared to 2005.” This is probably the best statement in the accord, given the amount of flexibility it provides. A heart-rendering display of sympathy towards the small island states and least developing countries!
“We call for a review of this Accord and its implementation to be completed by 2016, including in light of the Convention’s ultimate objective. This review would include consideration of strengthening the long term goal to limit the increase in global average temperature of 1.5 degrees” Yes, we need to agree on something that’s urgent, in 2016! We are working on 2 degrees as of now and have put 1.5 as part of a long-term goal!
When I was in grade V and I had a tough time with Math, I was somehow able to find answers! Even while sitting for the entrance examinations, I sometimes struggled but was able to answer! IIT was not a smooth ride either but still, we could find answers! But when a fourteen year old kid in my building asks me (back in Mumbai) whether I was able to save the planet, I had no answers.
For the first time, I felt extremely hollow. I have sympathized and felt bad for the vulnerable countries time and again, particularly after Tuvalu’s speech in the COP but questioning one’s own purpose of life and integrity is much more painful. Though climate-change equations can be solved with some math and science, the question of morality still remains open! I don’t know whether what we have arrived on, is “accord” or discord and deep down we all know what it is but I do know that if a fourteen year old kid in Kandivali, Mumbai understands what happened in Copenhagen, the movement is moving in the right direction.
Now whether we want to lose hope and agree to the “accord” or continue fighting for it is something only we can decide!
It is 6:13 am and in the Bella Conference Center I am listening to the chair of the AOSIS (Association of Small Island States) trying to fight off uncontrollable tears. I am almost certain that the Group of 77 (a behemoth of 130 plus developing country states) is coming to an end. Countries are divided and I am witnessing accusations fly across the plenary. Why has it taken us so long to arrive at this point? We sit here with the “Copenhangen Accord” staring at our faces. It is a document full of hot air and is not what billions of people across the planet had been promised to deliver atmospheric restitution.
Once again the developed nations have managed to gain somewhat of an upper hand in the wake of greater sacrifices of the larger developing countries. That aside, negotiators had feared from day one of the talks that the documents and the process of negotiating would not mature to the point required in order to allow negotiations to move into the high level segment where over 100 Heads of States would come to sign a just climate deal. Their fears were realized. The process has been deeply flawed and the voices of nations regarding lack of transparency, conspiracy to kill off the Kyoto protocol has been true. I often found myself being witness to the injustice within the UNFCCC process (where had I not gone to certain meetings, I would have missed out on joint drafting sessions which I assumed were only scheduled G-77 coordination meetings). Text messages were sent, rooms were changed, information was not available to all.
All of this, in the wake of the greatest climate conference the world has ever seen since the birth of the Convention some 18 years ago. Why did it take us so long? How did we get so bitterly entrenched in this process? I have seen and learned more about the process as a negotiator in the last 2 weeks than I could have my entire life. As a result, I have become deeply disillusioned. Two nights ago, at the launch of the Maldives “Survival Kit” for nations, President Nasheed had all but given up on the process and called on youth to take to the streets and make this the absolute issue in politics. For nations like the Maldives that lie 1.5 meters above sea level at their highest point, this is an issue of their survival.
I would agree. After a bitter impasse, and stalling of the talks due to the flawed process, negotiators had still not made progress on many of the key issues. In the group discussing “enhanced action on mitigation” I found myself transported back in time as if no progress had been made between the developed and rapidly developing countries on any of the points on emissions reductions. On the issue of Nationally Appropriate Mitigation Actions by developing countries, the parties talked in circles and could not arrive at any concrete conclusions. Finally the Heads of States arrived adding further confusion to an already impossible situation. Having lost a day and half due to the boycott of the talks by members of the African Group and other major developing countries didn’t help but probably was the only thing that kept the two track process (the Kyoto protocol) alive. Late last night, the heads of 25 nations were invited as part of a “friends of the chair” group to help broker a deal: United States, United Kingdom, Sweden, Spain, Saudi Arabia, Russia, China, India, Brazil, South Africa, Mexico, Maldives, Grenada, Ethiopia, Lesotho, Algeria, Denmark, Germany, Korea, Bangladesh, France, Gabon, and three others. The leaders of this group tried to hammer out a rough document to provide the basis for further negotiations. This was the Copenhagen Accord.
The deal is far from perfect. It is non-binding for starters and has a range of base years from which the many countries putting up targets can choose. If one looks closely, there is probably no way that it meets the 2 degrees guard rail target that we need at the MOST in order to avert a run-away climate disaster (even though it claims to use 2 degrees as the upper limit). It is far from what the islands need, far from what the Least Developed Nations require and still leaves many questions to be resolved. Yet it is the only thing that can salvage the absolute and utter lack of trust and faith that has been built up over the last two years between parties of the United Nations.
Climate poses the biggest question to humanity as to whether or not we are going to be able to save ourselves. That is after all, what we are trying to do here. At this time, what we need is trust, faith, and greater understanding to move forward. I am only 25 years old. I fear bringing children into this world and as I sit here listening to nation after nation make statements in favor of or against supporting the passing of the Copenhagen Accord, I am now as uncertain as ever as to the future of humanity. We have not attained “climate justice” here today. Nor have we secured our future. Outside over 200 protesters mobilized to arrive at the conference center to organize a “Shame Vigil.” Mind you civil society suffered the most fatal defeat during these talks by having been forcibly locked out in the final days. However, with an unprecedented over 45,000 registered delegates to the talks I think we have indeed arrived at a crucial point where the movement is unstoppable and will only continue to grow.
It is 7:00 am on December 19th and I am unsure as to what the outcome will be. I leave you with this:
“In my anger, I am not blind, and in my fear, I am not afraid to tell the world how I feel.” –Severn Suzuki (age 12), Rio Earth Summit 1992
By Freidrich Wulf, Pro Natura, Switzerland
Cross posted from Eco, CAN International
Emotions have been going up and down on UNFCCC
COP 15’s most dynamic topic: Reducing Emissions form
Deforestation and forest Degradation (REDD).
On Friday Facilitator Tony La Viña (Philippines) put together a chair’ text based on what he heard from Parties in the first part of the week. The text had the charm of being short – but that was all. NGOs were
delighted when Monday’s text showed up with a lot of improvements and only one main disadvantage: the most important points were in brackets. But instead of these being removed in the final session before passing the document on to ministers, it seemed that the agreement
almost reached was falling apart again on Tuesday morning.
So what is the discussion all about?
REDD is about keeping forest carbon out of the atmosphere. But forests aren’t only just carbon. They are also the world’s major treasuries for biodiversity. And it is easy to serve both issues best without any additional effort by conserving primary and natural forests. As the heavily negotiated text is now going up to ministers, several key issues of major importance for biodiversity will be left for them to resolve.
As – due to the extension of REDD to REDD+ – there is no priority for directing the limited financial resources to the conservation of primary forests rather than plantations or the “sustainable“ management of forests1, other safeguards for biodiversity are all the more important. This includes:
(more…)
