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.

Other observers said that the Accord does not contain the level of ambition with respect to temperature rise that is needed to protect the rights to survival or livelihood of many nations and people.

“[With] the mitigation ambition expressed in the…Accord, we are heading for a 4-degree Celsius rise in temperatures and the disappearance of almost all island states,” said Srinivas Krishnaswamy of Vasudha, a CANSA member. “In addition, this level of ambition will mean that most parts of Africa and perhaps even Asia…will experience large-scale hunger and destruction of livelihoods.”

According to a recent Ecofys analysis, the emission reductions agreed to so far will commit the world to a 3.5 degrees Celsius rise in global temperature, not the agreed 2 degrees.

Getting the U.S. on board

Other advocacy groups have taken a different perspective, highlighting the Accord’s value in establishing an important basis for a shift in U.S. domestic politics. Firmer commitments from large emerging economies such as China and India may facilitate domestic climate change legislation in the U.S. Senate – an action seen as crucial to obtaining strong commitments from Australia, Canada, and Japan, they say.

“Now the Senate can take up clean energy and climate legislation in the certain knowledge that Americans won’t act alone,” said Frances Beinecke, president of the Natural Resources Defense Council.

“It’s a powerful signal to see President Obama, Premier Wen, Prime Minister Singh, and President Zuma agree on a meeting of the minds,” said Senator John Kerry, chair of the foreign relations committee, in a prepared statement. “These are the four horsemen of a climate change solution. With this in hand, we can work to pass domestic legislation early next year to bring us across the finish line.”

The United States has submitted a pledge to reduce national emissions 17 percent below 2005 levels by 2020, and 54 other nations, including Australia, Brazil, Canada, China, India, and South Africa, have also provided commitments to the United Nations.

Moving forward

In the wake of contention over the Accord, major developing countries restated their commitment to concluding a successful global treaty at meetings to be held in Mexico in December 2010. In a joint statement in Delhi, India, last week, environment ministers from the so-called “BASIC” countries – Brazil, South Africa, India, and China – reiterated their support of the Copenhagen Accord and their “commitment to working together with all other countries to ensure an agreed outcome…later this year.”

The ministers called on Danish Prime Minister Lars Løkke Rasmussen, who hosted the Copenhagen summit, to convene meetings of the two negotiating groups by March 2010 and ensure that they meet “at least five times” prior to the Mexico gathering, the 16th Conference of the Parties (COP-16) under the UNFCCC.

Rajendra Pachauri, chair of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, remains optimistic that nations will announce deeper commitments in the months ahead. “I think [the Accord's] adequacy…will depend greatly on what actions the world is willing to take now, and I hope they will take urgent and adequate action in the future,” he said in an interview with Science magazine.

Breach of trust?

The four BASIC countries coordinated their positions closely in Copenhagen, exerting pressure on industrialized nations to commit to ambitious goals for emission reductions as well as to provide technical and financial support to developing nations.

But some observers argue that these large developing countries betrayed the interests of their smaller allies in the Group of 77 (G77), a broader grouping of developing-world nations.

There was concern that by breaking off into a separate bloc, the BASIC nations put at risk many of the fundamental negotiating tenets that the G77 had embraced.

Jairam Ramesh, India’s Minister for Environment and Forests, sought to address this concern at a press conference following a meeting of BASIC leaders last week in New Delhi. “BASIC is embedded in the G77, so there is no fissure,” he said. “Since these four are the big countries, they need to have some coordinated actions towards helping the poor and vulnerable countries within the G77, as well as taking [their] own actions.”

Ramesh further emphasized that after each BASIC meeting – gatherings that are now scheduled to take place quarterly – the group’s decisions will be communicated to the G77 for consideration prior to any wider U.N. meetings.

The future of U.N. involvement?

Some critics have raised questions about the efficacy of the United Nations to manage the global negotiations fairly and effectively.

“This is a declaration that small and poor countries don’t matter, that international civil society doesn’t matter, and that serious limits on carbon don’t matter,” said Bill McKibben, a U.S. environmentalist and founder of the climate action group 350.org. “The president has wrecked the U.N. and he’s wrecked the possibility of a tough plan to control global warming.”

Others suggest that the U.N.-sponsored climate talks have become unwieldy and should be addressed within a smaller forum of the major emitters, such as the G8+5 or the G20. Notably, the 55 nations that are reported to have submitted targets or actions under the Accord to date represent 78 percent of global greenhouse gas emissions.

“We…need to have major reform of the U.N. body overseeing the negotiations and of the way the negotiations are conducted,” wrote UK Climate Secretary Edward Milliband in a late-December commentary in The Guardian.

“It is…impossible to imagine a negotiation of enormous complexity where you have a table of 192 countries involved in all the detail,” U.S. climate negotiator Jonathan Pershing observed in a more recent Guardian interview.

In their joint declaration, the BASIC environment ministers were quick to stress their wish for the Accord’s content to feed into the current framework of climate negotiations, and not to adopt a new framework based on the agreement. “All of us are unanimously of the view that the value of the accord lies not as a stand-alone document but as part of the two-track negotiating process,” India’s Ramesh said.

Cross-posted from Eye on Earth, Worldwatch Institute

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.

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.

I will remember the:

Youth in the negotiations
Who brought heart and tears.
A champion for the voices,
The leaders needed to hear.
The Indigenous people
In the justice fight,
For our Mother’s Land to
Which we have equal right.

I will remember the:

Largest gathering
Of Heads in one room.
Of countries pleading,
To save them from doom.
Prayer to protect nations.
Have you seen such heart?
In a Global affair, it
Is a hopeful start.

But a start is all it is.

Do not ignore the Truth.
Two degrees is death to
Africa, the islands,
And our generation.
In our success there still
Remains a challenge,
A long way to go, it
Needs our dedication

It will take:

One goal.
Seven continents.
A hundred paths.
Thousands of leaders.
Millions of voices and
Billions of hearts.
To arrive at our
Destination.

Many may call this vision naive.
But perhaps naivety is all we have?
As long as there is love in the world,
We are on the right track.

Where there is love,
There is hope.
Where there is hope,
There is inspiration.
Where there is inspiration,
There is change.
And if there is change,
We can stop climate change.

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.’
Agricultural technologies by virtue of scale leave a large impact on populations and each technology will affect different regions and communities differently. Besides, as consumers, the safety of food is of general concern. Without a broad and comprehensive impact assessment, no decision-making can be sound with regard to this technology.
Studies on Bt. cotton show variable and conflicting results with heavy use of pesticide and even crop failures. With GM food like Bt Brinjal, the very health of the country might be at stake. We therefore urge you to consider alternatives to GM crops like organic farming, crop diversification, and change in the consumer behaviour before allowing the entry of GM food in India.

Does the world really need GM crops and foods?
There is ample evidence that other options, including organic farming, will address food security and livelihood security imperatives as well, as also be viable options in an era of climate change. The International Assessment on Agricultural Science and Technology for Development (IAASTD) process has concluded that smallholder ecological farming is the best option for this planet. It is, therefore, obvious that the only conceivable reason for pushing GM crops and foods is the business opportunity it offers to seed corporations and biotech firms.
To cite an example from the ground, women farmers from all over Andhra Pradesh, supported by the Department of Rural Development, are taking the lead in implementing what is probably the world’s largest state-supported ecological farming project called ‘Community Managed Sustainable Agriculture’. These women have shown that pest management in farming is fairly simple to manage provided appropriate extension and other support systems are developed. This experience of non-chemical farming on a whopping 15 lac acres proves that farming without chemicals or GM seeds is indeed possible and that it is only a matter of political will.

Cited from a paper by Kavitha Kuruganti, Member-Secretary, Coalition for a GM-Free India, Jaitu, Faridkot

(Prepared with the help of Ms. Supriya Singh)

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. Even one can find the beautiful black streams emerging, which makes it similar to young fold mountains of Himalayas. My mental condition was similar to William Wordsworth when he was looking at Daffodils. We had a nice trek there. My friends wanted to have a proper picnic; some were in the favor of camping and camp fire. I had the same feeling which Edmund Hillary had while capturing the Mount Everest. This place needs heritage status too. I request all the organizations to come forward and help us in making it a complete mountain range similar to Andes and Himalayas. My appeal to all citizens of India is to make India proud, by creating these types of mountain and plateau ranges in every city, town and village.

Forward this message to every enlightened Indian. We need your support. Issued in public interest by Garbage Mountain Preservation Campaign, New Delhi.

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.

At the mighty night on 14th August, 1947 my sons claimed independence. The first Prime Minister of India removed the flag of slavery from Red Fort and displayed the flag of sovereignty. My eyes were full of tears and my heart was filled with happiness. I felt proud of my sons.

My hopes started shattering with the rise of India. I saw the development happening; my soul started questioning the inhuman face of ongoing progress. My own sons started encroaching my hands, somewhere they constructed huge dams to suck my blood, I said nothing instead felt proud with the idea that I am serving my sons. On the door of my daughter Delhi, Wazirabad I was again captured. The water from my body was satisfying the thirst of capital. My heart was delighted with this. While I was welcomed by Najafgarh drain in the entrance, I made the cancerous water part of my pure blood. After this episode I didn’t stop many other drains were thrown in me forcibly. The cities like Agra, Vrindavan, Mathura and Allahabad instead of protesting started competing with Delhi. I felt betrayed.

Today, when more than 60 years of independence have been completed, I am dying. On the death bed only sometimes my lips start moving. I start laughing on my sons. On one side they are raping me and my sisters, their own mothers. While on the other hand, they are fighting for the temple of Rama in Ayodhya, burned whole of Gujarat and Mumbai for that, this seems to me very contradictory. I am their mother existing in this world serving them, instead of fighting for my cause. They are killing thousands of innocent people for a person whose mere existence has been questioned by many intellectuals. Now the Amarnath issue, my sons are the foolish people I have seen in the world. For a mere piece of land they have placed heaven of earth on fire. The lands of me and my sisters, their mothers with whose pure milk they have flourished are being encroached. They themselves celebrating the encroachment and fighting for God, about whose existence nobody is sure.

Shame on me and my sons.

Mother of 115 crores of shameless people.

Yamuna

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

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.

As part of the campaign, residents of Fazilka organised the Fazilka Heritage Festival-2007 with the theme “global warming”. Here the residents took a pledge to stop using plastic bags and use bicycles for short-distance travel. The town, says Asija, is consciously trying to maintain and use the 160-year-old narrow residential street design by the East India Company.

This has made Fazilka the safest town in India and perhaps the world with no pedestrian and cyclist road crash death having been reported within the city zone.

According to Asija, some other initiatives of Fazilka residents in the recent past include a cycle rally in association with the Army, to promote the message of “global warming”. The Army also planted more than 9,000 tree saplings in and around Fazilka to improve the green belt in association with Prem Bubber, leading agriculturist from the region.

Interestingly, during the past 10 years, despite Fazilka and its neighbourhood giving Punjab two forest ministers, the green belt of Fazilka has beem reduced to less than 1 per cent, says Asija. He says people now realise that they cannot depend on the government for any help to improve their environment, so community participation has picked up.

With Gratitude from The Tribune

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.
The first of the speakers was Dr. Om Rupela, from Hyderabad. Dr. Rupela had worked for many years as an agricultural scientist in the field of microbiology, but resigned after concluding that the dominant research institutions are not acting in the interests of the small farmers of the world. He has since been a passionate campaigner for reforming the research system so that it is focused more on the needs of farmers and on sustainable agricultural practice. Dr. Rupela spoke about how the nitrogen needs of crops can easily be met through re-building the microbial content of the soil.
Dr. Rupela also spoke about the different messages being put forward on whether chemical inputs should be used in agriculture. He told farmers that when they consider these debates that they need to start thinking about who is their friend and who is not. So many people and agencies gather around farmers to try to influence them: governments, corporations, research institutions, NGOs. Most of them have their own interests in mind, and their interests are often tied up with the corporations. It is only the civil society groups, like KVM, that are really looking out for the farmer, and Dr. Rupela encouraged farmers to forge stronger relationships with them, and not be conned by those with vested interests.
The next speaker was Deepak Sachade, a highly respected natural farmer from Madhya Pradesh. Sachade ji taught the principles of his own farming method which he calls “natueco farming” (natural-ecological farming). This approach takes inspiration from the ecology of forests. Using its principles, one can build a highly productive ecosystem which can support human life and all other life forms as well. Sachade stressed the resonance of the principles of natural farming with India’s ancient philosophy, in which violence against any creature was considered sinful.
Over the three days of the workshop, Deepak Sachade also gave several interactive, practical demonstrations on the techniques of natural farming. He demonstrated how to produce amrit mitthi and liquid manures in which nitrogen-fixing bacteria can develop and provide plants with all of the nitrates they require. He also gave a demonstration of his “seed ball” technique, which assists germination. Throughout his demonstrations, Sachade ji explained to farmers, in his very eloquent Hindi, the science behind the techniques. This was very inspirational, and gave farmers confidence that natural farming is backed by sound, scientific reasoning.
The next speaker was Dr. T. A. V. S. Raghunath, from the Centre for Sustainable Agriculture, Hyderabad. He told of the great success of natural and organic farming in Andhra Pradesh and of some ways in which this might be replicated in Punjab. Importantly, he spoke on how government support in A. P. gave farmers greater confidence in making the transition to natural farming. He also told of how the involvement of women was crucial to success in A. P., as it allowed for a more complete transformation of social relations. Now in A. P. the chemical input companies are projecting losses, as both farmers and consumers are moving away from the toxic approach.
Dr. Raghunath gave a practical demonstration on how to produce natural bio-pesticides. These pesticides, unlike the chemical varieties, are not hazardous to the health of humans or the ecosystem and can be made using mostly items which can be found on or around the farm. He showed how bio-pesticides can be made with plants that grow abundantly in Punjab, including congress grass and neem. Even troublesome plants like eucalyptus and lantana can be put to some positive use in bio-pesticides. One of the mixtures that he demonstrated has the additional benefit of promoting the growth of flowers, which attracts friendly insects like bees and butterflies to promote pollination.
Over the three days of the workshop, there were several sessions in which farmers were able to share their experiences in natural farming. Jarnail Singh from Majhi village and Hartej Singh from village Mehta told of how their lifestyle has improved since they converted their respective farms to natural techniques. They are no longer need to go to the market to be exploited by the chemical companies; they are free. Both have experienced no major difficulties in their transition, and their stories were very important in showing farmers that these methods can be applied to success in Punjab. Several of the farmers who were still practicing chemical farming became enthusiastic about changing to a more natural approach.
Towards the end of the workshop there was a discussion of marketing strategies, in recognition that natural farmers need reliable avenues to sell their produce. Several important strategies were discussed. It was suggested that farmers should begin by networking locally to find markets. By establishing live contact with consumers in this way there will be less need for farmers to depend upon organic certification, a process which has frequently been to the detriment of farmers.
At the conclusion of the workshop, Dr. Om Rupela made a commitment to having a deeper involvement in Punjab, to assist farmers in their transition to natural farming. In his experiences during the workshop, and in the visits he made to local farms, he found that many farmers are doing natural farming on one or two acres of land only, and have been going like this for several years. Clearly, he deduced, they are interested in natural farming but feeling unsatisfied with their yield so far. “They need further input of knowledge and experience,” he said, “on how to get the yields equal to or better than can be obtained through farming with chemicals. At present they are not fully aware of how to manage biomass and surface mulch. In all these respects I can be of value to them”.
Dr. Rupela has proposed a joint project, between himself, Kheti Virasat Mission, local research institutions, and the farmers themselves, to implement innovative natural farming techniques. This will be a comparative study, to try to prove the benefits of natural farming on a number of variables. It will also help farmers in making their transition. At the workshop itself, he had seven farmers volunteer to be a part of his study and is anticipating more.
Those who attended the workshop were provided with delicious, naturally and locally grown food. They also enjoyed listening to Jagdeesh Pappra and Gurpreet Singh, who sang uplifting songs about nature to a traditional Punjabi beat.
Overall, the workshop was a great success. Farmers gained confidence through hearing from those with expertise and through networking with each other. They learned important techniques which they will take to their fields. Umendra Dutt, Director of Kheti Virasat Mission, who was part of the team who organised the event said “This a continuation of our attempt to make Punjab free of contamination and disease. In Hindi we say zehir mukt Punjab, rogh mukt Punjab, karz mukt kisan, sogh mukt samaj, chiranjeevi Punjab.”
In English, this means: ‘a Punjab without pesticides, a Punjab without disease, farmers without debt, a society without sorrow, Punjab’s sustainable and eternal prosperity’. May natural farming take it there.

Trent Brown is an Australian student and activist, travelling India to learn about its sustainable agriculture movements. He is currently staying in Jaito and working with Kheti Virasat Mission

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.

At the end of the speeches of the 16 chosen, Evo Morales, with the authority of his indigenous Aymara origin and his recent reelection with 65% of the vote as well as the support of two-thirds of the Bolivian House and Senate, requested the floor. The Danish president had no choice but to yield to the insistence of the other delegations. When Evo had concluded his wise and deep observations, the Danish had to give the floor to Hugo Chavez. Both speeches will be registered by history as examples of short and timely remarks. Then, with their mission duly accomplished they both left for their respective countries. But when Obama disappeared, he had yet to fulfill his task in the host country.

From the evening of the 17th and the early morning hours of the 18th, the Prime Minister of Denmark and senior representatives of the United States had been meeting with the Chairman of the European Commission and the leaders of 27 nations to introduce to them –on behalf of Obama– a draft agreement in whose elaboration none of the other leaders of the rest of the world had taken part. It was an antidemocratic and practically clandestine initiative that disregarded the thousands of representatives of social movements, scientific and religious institutions and other participants in the Summit.

Through the night of the 18th and until 3:00 a.m. of the 19th, when many Heads of States had already departed, the representatives of the countries waited for the resumption of the sessions and the conclusion of the event. Throughout the 18th, Obama held meetings and press conferences, and the same did the European leaders. Then, they left.

Something unexpected happened then: at three in the morning of the 19th, the Prime Minister of Denmark convened a meeting to conclude the Summit. By then, the countries were represented by ministers, officials, ambassadors and technical staff.

However, an amazing battle was waged that morning by a group of representatives of Third World countries challenging the attempt by Obama and the wealthiest on the planet to introduce a document imposed by the United States as one agreed by consensus in the Summit.

The representative of Venezuela, Claudia Salerno, showed with impressive energy her right hand bleeding from strongly slamming on the table to claim her right to take the floor. Her tone of voice and the dignity of her arguments will never be forgotten.

The Minister of Foreign Affairs of Cuba made a vigorous speech of approximately one thousand words from which I have chosen a few paragraphs to include in this Reflection:

“The document that you, Mister Chairman, repeatedly claimed that did not exist shows up now. […] we have seen drafts circulating surreptitiously and being discussed in secret meetings…”

“…I deeply resent the way you have led this conference.”

“…Cuba considers the text of this apocryphal draft extremely inadequate and inadmissible. The goal of 2 degrees centigrade is unacceptable and it would have incalculable catastrophic consequences…”

“The document that you are unfortunately introducing is not binding in any way with respect to the reduction of the greenhouse effect gas emissions.”

“I am aware of the previous drafts, which also through questionable and clandestine procedures, were negotiated by small groups of people…”

“The document you are introducing now fails to include the already meager and lacking key phrases contained in that draft…”

“…as far as Cuba is concerned, it is incompatible with the universally recognized scientific view sustaining that it is urgent and inescapable to ensure the reduction of at least 45% of the emissions by the year 2020, and of no less than 80% or 90% by 2050.”

“Any argument on the continuation of the negotiations to reach agreement in the future to cut down emissions must inevitably include the concept of the validity of the Kyoto Protocol […] Your paper, Mister Chairman, is a death certificate of the Kyoto Protocol and my delegation cannot accept it.”

“The Cuban delegation would like to emphasize the preeminence of the principle of ‘common by differentiated responsibilities,’ as the core of the future process of negotiations. Your paper does not include a word on that.”

“This draft declaration fails to mention concrete financial commitments and the transfers of technologies to developing countries, which are part of the obligations contracted by the developed countries under the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change […] Mister Chairman, by imposing their interests through your document, the developed nations are avoiding any concrete commitment.”

“…What you, Mister Chairman, define as ‘a group of representative leaders’ is to me a gross violation of the principle of sovereign equality consecrated in the United Nations Charter…”

“Mr. Chairman, I formally request that this statement be included in the final report of the works of this regrettable and shameful 15th session of the Conference of the Parties.”

The representatives of the countries had been given only one hour to present their views. This led to complicated, shameful and embarrassing situations.

Then, a lengthy debate ensued where the delegations from the developed countries put a heavy pressure on the rest to make the conference adopt the abovementioned document as the final result of their deliberations.

A small number of countries firmly insisted on the grave omissions and ambiguities of the document promoted by the United States, particularly the absence of a commitment by the developed countries on the reduction of carbon emissions and on the financing that would allow the South countries to adopt alleviating and adjustment measures.

After a long and extremely tense discussion, the position of the ALBA countries and Sudan, as President of the G-77, prevailed that the document was unacceptable to the conference thus it could not be adopted.

In view of the absence of consensus, the Conference could only “take note” of the existence of that document representing the position of a group of about 25 countries.

After that decision was made, –at 10:30 in the morning Denmark’s time– Bruno, together with other ALBA representatives, had a friendly discussion with the UN Secretary to whom they expressed their willingness to continue struggling alongside the United Nations to prevent the terrible consequences of climate change. Their mission completed, our Foreign Minister and Cuban Vicepresident Esteban Lazo departed to come back home and attend the National Assembly session. A few members of the delegation and the ambassador stayed in Copenhagen to take part in the final procedures.

This afternoon they reported the following:

“…both, those who were involved in the elaboration of the document, and those like the President of the United States who anticipated its adoption by the conference…as they could not disregard the decision to simply ‘take note’ of the alleged ‘Copenhagen Agreement,’ they tried to introduce a procedure allowing the other COP countries that had not been a part of the shady deal to adhere to it, and make it public, the intention being to pretend such an agreement was legal, something that could precondition the results of the negotiations that should carry on.”

“Such belated attempt was again firmly opposed by Cuba, Venezuela and Bolivia. These countries warned that a document which had not been adopted by the Convention could not be considered legal and that there was not a COP document; therefore, no regulations could be established for its alleged adoption…”

“This is how the meeting in Copenhagen is coming to an end, without the adoption of the document surreptitiously worked out in the past few days under the clear ideological guidance of the US Administration…”

Tomorrow our attention will be focused on the National Assembly.

Lazo, Bruno and the other members of the delegation will be arriving at midnight today. On Monday, the Minister of Foreign Affairs will be able to explain in details and with the necessary accuracy the truth of what happened at the Summit.

Fidel Castro Ruz
December 19, 2009
8:17p.m.

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!

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!

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

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:

• An overall goal with a reference to carbon and to ending gross
deforestation as well as a timeline (conditional to adequate financing),
• Safeguards against the conversion of natural forests including text
related to implementation and monitoring,
• A monitoring system based on national- level accounting, and
• A clear picture of how financing will look.

The overall goal should be ambitious and focus on ending gross deforestation as soon as possible – 2020 is ambitious but realistic. Time is running short for saving the world’s last natural forests and we need to resolve this issue as possible. Gross deforestation means that you cannot compensate cutting down a forest – so this would aim at preserving the forests that already exist. This is the major input from the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD). Old-growth forest (together with peatlands) are the most carbon-rich habitats existing so a reference to the reduction of carbon emissions from deforestation and degradation will help to target these biodiversity-rich forests. Of course, as developing countries rightly pointed out, this needs to be a backed up by adequate funding. One of the main fates of primary forests is their conversion into plantations and other land uses. REDD must not become an incentive for this conversion, especially as the forest definition used in the UNFCCC includes plantations. To work in practice, there must be monitoring.

Also, if REDD is to be results-based, there must be an independent body that can ensure compliance over this and other safeguards – including critical safeguards for indigenous people’s rights – when allocating REDD funding. While it is obvious that national level accounting is crucial for avoiding leakage and parties having difficulties with this are now holding the whole process hostage, the issue on finance is more complex. It is a ‘good thing’ that finance will be based on funding rather than on markets alone, but there is a need for long-term financial commitments by industrialized nations.

The outcome of REDD and its value will depend on these
requirements. Any deletion of watering down of these demands will severely affect the environmental integrity of the upcoming REDD deal.

So please, ministers and heads of state, resolve these issues and remove the brackets so NGOs won’t have to say “No REDD deal is better than this REDD deal”.

Prime Minister Manmohan Singh declares that a fair deal can only be reached through further talks

In a speech immediately following President Barack Obama, Prime Minister Manmohan Singh stated unequivocally that negotiations would need to continue until 2010, to strike any kind of agreement that would enhance global action on climate change.

“To settle for something that would be seen as diminished expectations and diminished implementation,” he said, “would be in our view a very wrong message to emerge from this conference. We should therefore reaffirm categorically that our negotiations will continue on the basis of the Bali mandate.”

Singh also emphasised and re-emphasised the importance of equity in any global climate deal, adding, “any new regime will have moral credibility and authority only if it acknowledges that every citizen of this globe has an equal entitlement to the global atmospheric space.”

Like all the leaders who spoke before him, Singh described plans for voluntary domestic action on climate change. However, unlike President Obama, who suggested that “America has made our choice; we have charted our commitments,” and that the rest of the world must follow, Prime Minister Singh said that India would be willing to consider additional actions as part of a fair global deal.

Given the enduring gulf between the expectations expressed by world leaders this morning, it would seem highly unlikely that a deal can be concluded in the coming hours.

However, it’s not yet clear whether any of the political texts drafted earlier today could provide a high-level agreement that would satisfy all parties; or if not, how an alternative would now be developed.

Good morning. It’s an honor to for me to join this distinguished group of leaders from nations around the world. We come together here in Copenhagen because climate change poses a grave and growing danger to our people. You would not be here unless you – like me – were convinced that this danger is real. This is not fiction, this is science. Unchecked, climate change will pose unacceptable risks to our security, our economies, and our planet. That much we know.

So the question before us is no longer the nature of the challenge – the question is our capacity to meet it. For while the reality of climate change is not in doubt, our ability to take collective action hangs in the balance.

I believe that we can act boldly, and decisively, in the face of this common threat. And that is why I have come here today.

As the world’s largest economy and the world’s second largest emitter, America bears our share of responsibility in addressing climate change, and we intend to meet that responsibility. That is why we have renewed our leadership within international climate negotiations, and worked with other nations to phase out fossil fuel subsidies. And that is why we have taken bold action at home – by making historic investments in renewable energy; by putting our people to work increasing efficiency in our homes and buildings; and by pursuing comprehensive legislation to transform to a clean energy economy.

These actions are ambitious, and we are taking them not simply to meet our global responsibilities. We are convinced that changing the way that we produce and use energy is essential to America’s economic future – that it will create millions of new jobs, power new industry, keep us competitive, and spark new innovation. And we are convinced that changing the way we use energy is essential to America’s national security, because it will reduce our dependence on foreign oil, and help us deal with some of the dangers posed by climate change.

So America is going to continue on this course of action no matter what happens in Copenhagen. But we will all be stronger and safer and more secure if we act together. That is why it is in our mutual interest to achieve a global accord in which we agree to take certain steps, and to hold each other accountable for our commitments.

After months of talk, and two weeks of negotiations, I believe that the pieces of that accord are now clear.

First, all major economies must put forward decisive national actions that will reduce their emissions, and begin to turn the corner on climate change. I’m pleased that many of us have already done so, and I’m confident that America will fulfill the commitments that we have made: cutting our emissions in the range of 17 percent by 2020, and by more than 80 percent by 2050 in line with final legislation.

Second, we must have a mechanism to review whether we are keeping our commitments, and to exchange this information in a transparent manner. These measures need not be intrusive, or infringe upon sovereignty. They must, however, ensure that an accord is credible, and that we are living up to our obligations. For without such accountability, any agreement would be empty words on a page.

Third, we must have financing that helps developing countries adapt, particularly the least-developed and most vulnerable to climate change. America will be a part of fast-start funding that will ramp up to $10 billion in 2012. And, yesterday, Secretary Clinton made it clear that we will engage in a global effort to mobilize $100 billion in financing by 2020, if – and only if – it is part of the broader accord that I have just described.

Mitigation. Transparency. And financing. It is a clear formula – one that embraces the principle of common but differentiated responses and respective capabilities. And it adds up to a significant accord – one that takes us farther than we have ever gone before as an international community.

The question is whether we will move forward together, or split apart. This is not a perfect agreement, and no country would get everything that it wants. There are those developing countries that want aid with no strings attached, and who think that the most advanced nations should pay a higher price. And there are those advanced nations who think that developing countries cannot absorb this assistance, or that the world’s fastest-growing emitters should bear a greater share of the burden.

We know the fault lines because we’ve been imprisoned by them for years. But here is the bottom line: we can embrace this accord, take a substantial step forward, and continue to refine it and build upon its foundation. We can do that, and everyone who is in this room will be a part of an historic endeavor – one that makes life better for our children and grandchildren.

Or we can again choose delay, falling back into the same divisions that have stood in the way of action for years. And we will be back having the same stale arguments month after month, year after year – all while the danger of climate change grows until it is irreversible.

There is no time to waste. America has made our choice. We have charted our course, we have made our commitments, and we will do what we say. Now, I believe that it’s time for the nations and people of the world to come together behind a common purpose.

We must choose action over inaction; the future over the past – with courage and faith, let us meet our responsibility to our people, and to the future of our planet.

Thank you.

Days and weeks before the negotiations began, a pale sense of gloom already crept into the minds of civil society and the negotiators themselves as the size of the task ahead of them grew gargantuan with every passing day. Nothing was done and now at the end, confusion and desperation prevails which is the result of a last ditch attempt to saving the COP and signing a deal.

As the news pours in, even a political deal seems to be a distant reality. India and China threaten to walk out of the negotiations for being continuously put under pressure to accept a Danish text and disobey the Kyoto and the BAP process. The third Danish was rejected and rightly so. Denmark is dragging its face through the mud to get a deal signed. The BASIC text which was to be reformed after taking into consideration the strong proposals by the African countries and the AOSIS is still in the docks. A COP15 Copenhagen declaration is expected that will only have the essentials with confirmed figures on issues like REDD that has seen good progress. Emissions cuts and finances are still in the dark and a shared vision under long term cooperative action may form partial Annex texts of the declaration.

The youth delegations and civil society is completely disappointed and angry at the negotiations and the world leaders who have once again failed to deliver. This is nothing less than a criminal offense on the world and the leaders have been caught red handed.

” Only a miracle can make sure we have a legally binging deal in Copenhagen” – Jairam Ramesh.

I am one of those people who needs to eat every two hours – my happiness, and consequently the safety of those around me {as my roommates learned when I had two hours of fasting left} is dependent on the number of things I shove down my throat! So no food for an entire day seemed impossible – and in the words of the long-term fasters – this is why we fast – to show that what we see is impossible is actually possible.

Here’s what I realised – I realised that if Obama, if Manmohan Singh, if all these heads of state had fasted with us, they would have understood the fate they were sentencing people to.

I realised that if they had been with us as we stood in the room civil society has been relegated to {still disgusted with the UNFCCC for that} and had seen people’s expressions as they wrote letters and lit candles they would have finally felt the truth of climate change the way we do.

My fast started at 2 a.m. on December 17 and ended at 2:00 a.m. on December 18. By 11 a.m. on the 18th I was midly hungry, by 2:00 p.m., restless and by the evening, a downright crank. I spent my last minutes carefully arranging my food on the table – noodles, cookies, chips and a muffin and literally counted the seconds to when I could eat.

And as I stuffed my face, my day made sense. There were hundreds of us in that room bound by the simple ‘token’ act of fasting. And it is that moment that it created that will see us through the bad deal we are going to get. So if my participating in a ‘populist’, ’stereotypically youth activitist’ act of ‘tokenism’ helped the climate movement then I say it was well worth it.

a) Maintain the consistence of the outcomes. Bali Action plan was adopted by all the nations of the world a couple of years back and to drift away from the road map and adopt new pathways only undermines the UNFCCC process.

b) Uphold the fairness of rules. Kyoto called for common but differentiated responsibility and here in Copenhagen we seem to be ignoring the fairness that is embedded in those principles.

c) Assess the practicality of the targets. ” A thousand mile journey starts with the first step”. ” Rome was not built in a day”. With these proverbs, he called for giving people hope by doing credible actions. Long term efforts are important but moving with a sense of practicality is important.

“China will honour the world with its actions”. The premier was hopeful of a deal in Copenhagen that will not undermine the efforts of developing nations.

The entire text can be read here.