Preserve Copenhagen’s spirit for endearing at Mexico

Preserve Copenhagen’s spirit for endearing at Mexico

(Madan Menon Thottasseri)
_____________________________________________________

U.S President Barrack Obama had an interview with the PBS Newshour programme in which he had openly admitted that "I think that people are justified in being disappointed about the outcome in Copenhagen." According to him, at least he was able to secure non-binding agreements from what he called world’s would be largest emitters, India and China!

He said "What I said was essentially that rather than see a complete collapse in Copenhagen, in which nothing at all got done and would have been a huge backward step, at least we kind of held ground and there wasn't too much backsliding from where we were."

The climate change conference held over the past two weeks in the Danish capital concluded by an Accord, a legally non-binding agreement that skeptical observers believe that it is unlikely to limit emissions sufficiently to halt global warming.

"The science says that we've got to significantly reduce emissions over the next 40 years. There's nothing in the Copenhagen agreement that ensures that that happens," Obama had acknowledged it.

The US President who had attended the summit in its final days to push for a comprehensive agreement, said the deal established an "important principle" but also admitted: "It didn't move us the way we need to."

He said the agreement was hard to win, and came after talks nearly broke down entirely. "The prime minister of India was heading to the airport and the Chinese representatives were essentially skipping negotiations," he said.

Being a person who have kept abreast with the developments of the summit on a day to day basis, I thought it fit to request Obama and all international leaders not to high-light more on the flaws on it’s outcome as each and every nation either directly or indirectly were responsible for the same.

Let me put forth the following for their kind perusal:

The main imperfection in the legally non-binding Accord arrived at the hurriedly concluded Climate Summit was nothing other than one of the missed-out critical points which should have incorporated as a thrust in case a legally binding would have become a reality; it is that the Obama and leaders of Basic Bloc had to ignore in the Accord to commit to a deadline of 2010 for a legally binding global treaty. Further in the last phase of the summit, E.U not only perplexed themselves and made others like African-Island nations to get confused and pre-determined that there will be a just a blemished declaration through the camp of Basic Bloc at the summit.
The global community should not give much credence to the British Environment Minister Ed Milibands’ accusation that China had ‘hijacked’ efforts to agree to significant reductions in global emissions, which tempted Beijing to counter-accuse that U.K and other E.U nations plotted to divide the G77 and basic Bloc at Copenhagen. Fantastic… Obama maintained cool… did not directly accuse any nation or group!

Obama had commented that people are justified in disappointing on the outcome of the Copenhagen Summit. I would like to say like this…. there will be no harm….he and leaders of the Basic Bloc have to positively brag on the subject to motivate themselves and muster support for the mission of getting a legally binding Treaty in the summit to be held next at Mexico City.

Citing too much on the draw-backs of the Accord at Copenhagen should not only dishearten the world community but also disintegrate whatsoever small sketches of mutual understandings and trust gained at Copenhagen. World leaders should not abscond from the spirit gained from Copenhagen and have to remember that the world will slowly get united when each group attempts to take note of grievances of the rival group with a positive mindset.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

An ingenious swerve around Western Perceptions on Climate Change?

An ingenious swerve around Western Perceptions on Climate Change?
(Madan Menon Thottasseri)
_____________________________________________________

Government on Tuesday rejected Opposition charge of compromising with the country's interests at Copenhagen climate meet, insisting that the Accord will in no way affect India's sovereignty.

The Copenhagen Accord on Climate Change is no “sell-out” as far as India is concerned, Minister of State for Environment and Forests Jairam Ramesh assured the Rajya Sabha on Tuesday, in response to the Opposition charge that it compromised the nation’s interests.

Environment Minister Jairam Ramesh, while informing the Rajya Sabha on the outcome of last week's Climate Summit, however, admitted that the government had digressed from its pre-Copenhagen assurance given to Parliament ,allowed the provision for "international consultation and analysis" rather than just informing the UNFCCC about domestic mitigation programmes.
He said the decision to this effect was taken collectively by Brazil, South Africa, India and China (BASIC nations) which did not want to be responsible for the failure of the summit and become “blame boys.” “I plead guilty. I moved from information to consultation. [But] there has to be flexibility.”

The Minister asserted that the accord will in no way affect India’s sovereignty as clear guidelines would be evolved. “The guidelines for international consultations and analysis will be devised and defined in due course. We have been able to incorporate a specific provision that these clearly defined guidelines will ensure that the national sovereignty is respected.”

"I plead guilty. I moved from information to consultation. Yes, there has been a shift," Ramesh said responding to Leader of Opposition Arun Jaitley's contention that government had digressed from its commitment on reporting of mitigation actions on climate change.
Equating the Copenhagen Accord with Sharm-el Sheikh Indo-Pak Joint Statement, Jaitley had said the government was trying to interpret the Accord differently by engaging in "spin doctoring".

"These clearly defined guidelines will ensure that the national sovereignty is respected," he said, adding India will ensure that the consultative process is not "intrusive". Normally there will not be any issue on international measurement; reporting and verification (MRV) on projects funded by foreign donors but will never agree for foreign inspection on domestic mitigation projects when submitted on the floor of the House.

The indigenous mitigation projects were to be reported to the United Nation as a part of India’s national communication every two years. A clear diversion in the Copenhagen Accord, therefore, worries many. According to Pradipto Ghosh, a former Union environment secretary and a member of the Indian negotiating team, it was an “extremely difficult and contentious” issue. “The most difficult and contentious task will be finalisation of the guidelines for international consultation and analysis of the mitigation actions while respecting national sovereignty,” Ghosh said.Rajya Sabha Leader of Opposition Arun Jaitley said that in a clear violation of the UN principles the Copenhagen Accord attempted “to obliterate the distinction between supported and unsupported verification.” Similar sentiments were echoed by CPM’s Sitaram Yechury who was part of an Indian delegation.Arun Jaitley had said that there was complete repugnancy between the obligations under the Copenhagen Accord and the Kyoto Protocol. As “Word by word, phrase by phrase the language of the UNFCCC, Bali Action Plan and Kyoto Protocol stands diluted. Obviously, the Copenhagen Accord is the one which will prevail.”

Jairam Ramesh said that India had to relent because the US had insisted on a transparency clause before agreeing to release funds to India’s neighbours like Bangladesh and Maldives. “Transparency clause is directed at China which emits 23 per cent of the world’s total greenhouse gases. Nobody has anything against India,” he said. Ramesh brushed aside apprehensions, arguing that the negotiations, expected to culminate in mexico city, would not undermine India’s sovereignty.

The US wanted words like ‘scrutiny’, ‘review’ and ‘verification’, which was resisted by the BASIC group. BASIC’s suggestion to use ‘dialogue’ or ‘discussion’ was not acceptable to the US. Both sides finally agreed on the clause on “international consultation and analysis.” “India has been holding consultations with the WTO and the IMF for years. There is no erosion of sovereignty. We should not fear the clause as there is no great sell out,” Ramesh clarified.

The Copenhagen accord sparked a heated debate in the Rajya Sabha on Tuesday December 21,2009. The opposition’s criticism identified it as “disappointing" and "a compromise-document."Jairam Ramesh reiterated that the accord and the International consultation on climate action it entails will not affect the sovereignty of India.

The opposition had been making hue and cry while expressing concern on the Accord , the contour of which were described in a suo motu statement made by Union Minister of State for Environment and Forests Jairam Ramesh.

Sitaram Yechury called the Accord a “compromised document”.said, “we have opened up windows for the possible jettisoning of the Kyoto Protocol.”

By accepting for the international consultation and analysis of mitigation actions,he remarked that it will be a reframing of measures for reporting and verification and if any developing nation violates the same will be susceptible to face trade sanctions in future.
Yechury described the financial commitments under the accord is vague, and the Intellectual Property Rights regime on ‘Technology Transfer’ was effectively negated in the accord.
D. Raja described the Accord for being “no step forward and several steps backward.” And is an attempt to kill the Kyoto Protocol!

The BJP, the CPI(M) and the CPI described the accord as “several steps backward!"

Jairam Ramesh had said “Our thinking on climate change has to evolve and not remain frozen in time“ in the Rajya Sabha. Political Analysts believe that his Ramesh’s obscure statement whether deliberately intended or not, may be a signal that the current Indian government is becoming more futuristically conscious and dynamic while it could be swerving around the perception of developed nations on the responsibility of growing economies toward emission cuts. Jairam Ramesh’s statement on the back-drop of the deal that struck with U.S on the concluding day of the Copenhagen summit may be a relevant proof for the subtle shift of the climate policy of India and other the developing nations!

Seeking “flexibility within a framework of certain non-negotiable,” Ramesh said that the Copenhagen summit was “not a destination but the beginning of a long process”

Less than week after the climate conference ended, many analysts not only believe that Copenhagen was a failure but they apprehend that the summit may lead to a new climate order deviating from the path charted by the Kyoto Protocol.

Now we have many a number of forward thinking people in our great nation; let them judge who is thinking forward and who are not yet?

Copenhagen Adds Value To Obama in U.S

Copenhagen Adds Value To Obama in U.S
(Madan Menon Thottasseri)
__________________________________________________________

The crucial Copenhagen climate conference might have failed as it did not resulted in a consensus despite President Barack Obama's presence at the summit but his attempts that brokered a US-BASIC political deal was hailed by Congress leaders here as "commendable".

Top Congressional leaders praised Obama for reaching a "breakthrough" agreement with China, India, Brazil and South Africa but said this is just a beginning to advance climate change objectives. "The President's personal involvement, and the efforts of Secretary (Hillary) Clinton and her negotiating team, have been extremely focused and commendable," House Majority Leader Steny H Hoyer said.

US brokered a political deal with India and three other emerging economies over non-legally-binding emission cuts which was rejected by an overwhelming number of developing nations which called it one-sided and "suicidal".

However, Congress leaders, in their initial reactions said the "breakthrough," including transparency measures, a mitigation target of two degree Celsius and a financing mechanism, was "an important step forward that lays a key marker both in the global fight against climate change and in US participation in such efforts".

As consensus for a deal to tackle climate change eluded the 12-day Conference of Parties (COP), Obama pushed for a pact during parleys that went down to the wire.
Terming it as a bold agreement, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said this will help secure a safer, cleaner and more prosperous future for the world.

"This Copenhagen Accord was made possible by strong US leadership and recent investments in our national energy policies. This agreement was also aided by constructive engagement with the world community a result of President Obama's leadership," he said.

This is a significant and historic agreement, but there is more negotiating and trust building to do before there is a treaty for the Senate to review," Reid said.

Nancy Pelosi, Speaker of the US House of Representatives, said: "The agreement... could not have been reached without President Obama's active involvement and leadership".

Senator Barbara Boxer, Chairman of the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works, said for the first time, the world's major emitting countries, including China and India, have committed to specific actions to cut emissions. American leadership, especially Obama's personal engagement, fundamentally changed the dynamic at the global warming talks, she said.

With Obama on his way back from Copenhagen, the American media said the deal falls short of key goals, even though it could be considered as a breakthrough by some. "The deal falls far short of many countries' expectations for the summit and leaves a comprehensive battle plan for climate change potentially years away," said The Washington Post in its news dispatch from Copenhagen.

The Wall Street Journal said Obama's very presence made a "significant breakthrough a political imperative, no matter how flimsy".

"The agreement addresses many of the issues that leaders came here to settle. But it has left many of the participants in the climate talks unhappy, from the Europeans, who now have the only binding carbon control regime in the world, to the delegates from the poorest nations, who objected to being left out of the critical negotiations," The New York Times said.

The Post said, the deal, under which each country needs only to list its current domestic pledges for emissions reductions and to promise to allow monitoring of their progress, sparked a rebellion among vulnerable nations. "No doubt under the agreement China will continue to get a free climate pass despite its role as the world's No 1 emitter," it said.

The accord, The New York Times, said provides a system for monitoring and reporting progress toward national pollution reduction goals, a compromise on an issue over which China bargained hard.

"But it was an equivocal agreement that was, to many, a disappointing conclusion to a two-year process that had the goal of producing a comprehensive and enforceable action plan for addressing dangerous changes to the global climate," it said.

Finall we all can say that Obama administraion is also a benificiary of the Accord!

Copenhagen’s Operational Accord?

Copenhagen’s Operational Accord?
(Madan Menon Thottasseri)

_________________________________________________________________

The UN climate summit could reach an accord,which was ,finally passed on Saturday December 19, 2009 after two days of intensive negotiations and backroom maneuvers. The Accord, proposed by India and four other countries, is now ''operational'', a relieved UN chief said.

Danish Prime Minister Lars Rasmuessen, who chaired the UN-sponsored meeting, acknowledged the lack of consensus and the inability to get the deal adopted. But after a break in the plenary session with a number of countries supporting the accord, the Conference chair announced the decision to “take note” of the agreement instead of formally approving it.
The Accord that is meant to be a first step towards fighting the climate change which affects millions worldwide was still held up for hours by four countries.

Tuvalu and Sudan said it was too weak, while Venezuela and Bolivia were upset because it had not been negotiated in the open form by all the 192 countries attending the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) conference.The stalemate lasted seven hours - including three adjournments - after the final plenary session of the conference was convened at 3 a.m. Saturday, already 12 hours behind schedule.

But when it was reconvened after the third adjournment, the chairman took just 30 seconds to say this conference was "taking note" of the Copenhagen Accord, and brought down the gavel before any of the surprised delegates in the main plenary hall could react.

The chair's only concession to the countries with objections: The countries that approved the Accord would be listed on the title page, he said.
Once they had taken in what happened, almost all the delegates stood and applauded loud and long. Soon afterwards, a relieved-looking UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon came out of the plenary hall to tell the media: "Finally we sealed the deal."

"It has been a long and interesting couple of days," Ban said, referring to the negotiations after US President Barack Obama got together with the heads of India, China, Brazil and South Africa Thursday evening to stitch the Accord together.Ban, who had not gone to his hotel room for two nights and had slept for a total of two hours during this period, said: "Bringing world leaders to the table paid off. This may not deliver what everyone hoped for, but it's an essential beginning."Four benchmarks:

According to the UN chief, the Accord had the four benchmarks. They are- a common long-term goal of keeping global temperature rise within two degrees Celsius; a commitment by all countries to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases that are warming the atmosphere; progress on tackling deforestation and the start of a fund which developing countries - especially the poorest ones - could use to cope
With climate change effects.

Ban pointed out that the Accord was backed by money - $10 billion a year for the next three years, and then $100 billion a year that the US government had promised to put together from all sources around the globe.He added that now there was "convergence" on "transparency" over actions taken developing countries to control their greenhouse gas emissions, referring to a long-fought dispute between rich countries and emerging economies.

The Copenhagen Accord would "launch a new era of green growth", Ban was confident.
He listed the next steps in the process - turning the accord into a legally binding global treaty; the launch of the Copenhagen Green Climate Fund; and "turning our backs on the path of least resistance when it comes to mitigation actions".The Accord had to be passed by the plenary session of the conference so that these steps could now be taken, explained an expert on UN procedures.

Ban said: "It's a political accord, but with immediate operational effect."He expected the fund to have $10 billion next month. The Accord also says developed countries should report their mitigation actions by Feb 1, 2010, while large developing countries like India and China had to report their "mitigation ambitions by the same deadline.

Asked why the conference used the phrase that it had "taken note" of the Accord, Ban explained it was to satisfy "some member states that were still reluctant. These are very difficult and complex negotiations".The UN chief could not give a timeframe within which the Copenhagen Accord would be turned into a legally binding treaty, but said he would do his best to complete the process nextyear.

The deal was brought to the plenary as a draft document but was strongly opposed by Sudan, Cuba, Bolivia, Venezuela and some other countries on the ground it lacked specific targets for reducing carbon emissions. They contended that it was
One-sided and suicidal.

Several countries including Japan, Germany and Britain besides Maldives supported the deal.
It is to be noted that earlier Rasmuessen had said, "If we strictly stick to the principle of consensus, this (the US-BASIC accord) cannot be adopted". Thus later he himself quoted this and said "I really regret it for this reason that we cannot adopt this document".

"It is true that this document cannot be put into operational effect. It is true but it is a reality," he said. But also said that Denmark can be proud of its efforts to secure an agreement.

The 3-page US-BASIC accord, taken as a final conference draft, contained elements like limiting temperature rise to 2 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels, peaking of global and national emissions as soon as possible, factoring in overriding priorities of poverty for developing nations.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Copenhagen Treaty

Copenhagen Treaty
(Madan Menon Thottasseri)
___________________________________________
US President Barack Obama reached a climate agreement on Friday with India, South Africa, China and Brazil. The deal outlined fell far short of the ambitions for the Copenhagen summit.

Here are key points from the agreement, which is titled Copenhagen Accord.

Long-Term Goals:

Deep cuts in global emissions are required according to science...with a view to reduce global emissions so as to hold the increase in global temperature below 2 degrees Celsius.
Legally Binding Deal?

A reference in an earlier draft to adopt a legally binding climate agreement by next year was missing in the final draft. This upset the EU and a number of other nations, such as the Pacific island country of Tuvalu, which fears being swamped by rising sea levels.

Financing For Poor Nations:
The text says that Developed countries shall provide adequate, predictable and sustainable financial resources, technology and capacity-building to support the implementation of adaptation action in developing countries. It mentions as particularly vulnerable and in need of help are the least developed countries, small island developing states and countries in Africa.

Developed countries set a goal of mobilizing jointly $100 billion a year by 2020 to address the needs of developing countries. The funds will come from a wide variety of sources, public and private, bilateral and multilateral.

An annex carries the following short-term financing pledges from developed countries for 2010-2012:
EU - $10.6 billion
Japan - $11 billion
United States - $3.6 billion

Emissions Reduction:

Details of mitigation plans are included in two separate annexes, one for developed country targets and one for the voluntary pledges of major developing countries.

These are not binding, and describe the current status of pledges -- ranging from under consideration for the United States to Adopted by legislation for the European Union.
Verification

A sticking point for a deal, largely because China refused to accept international controls, the section on monitoring of developing nation pledges is one of the longest in the accord.

It says emerging economies must monitor their efforts and report the results to the United Nations every two years, with some international checks to meet Western transparency concerns but to ensure that national sovereignty is respected.
Forest Protection

The accord recognises the importance of reducing emission from deforestation and forest degradation and the need to enhance removals or greenhouse gas emission by forests, and agrees to provide positive incentives to fund such action with financial resources from the developed world.

Carbon Markets:
Mentioned, but not in detail. The accord says - "We decide to pursue various approaches, including opportunities to use markets to enhance the cost-effectiveness of and to promote mitigations actions."

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

A Promise worth $100 : Will India and China fall prey?

A Promise worth $100 : Will India and China fall prey?
(Madan Menon Thottasseri)
_____________________________________________________

World leaders were racing against time to hammer out a deal to combat global warming, Still, a confident India represented by jairam Ramesh interacted with US and other key negotiators in an attempt to reach a "coordinated" position prior to the table at the final meeting.

Ramesh remarked that Todd Stern representing U.S had expressed a desired support for some of the elements but could not agree for other elements that was put forth to them,. He said that India is continuing to work out a coordinated position. In fact India and the US held discussions on the contentious issue of monitoring, review and verification (MRV) and made some progress but there was no major breakthrough.

According to Ramesh Seventy five per cent of the formula has been accepted. The remaining 25 per cent originates to the review mechanism issue wherein India had given the understanding that only informations can be provided and no inspection by outside agencies are not agreeable. US has been pushing up for a consultative mechanism , unacceptable to India and China as well.

Of course Ramesh had welcomed the US secretary of state, Ms Hillary Clinton’s announcement of American contribution to a $100 billion climate cleanup fund.

Earlier on Thursday Denmark seemed to have given up efforts to push a text for the meeting that was strongly resisted by India, China and the G-77 nations. Just a day before the closure of the climate change summit, its fate still hangs in balance as heads of state and government in Denmark began hectic parleys to approve an agreed document which has so far proved elusive. Now it would be up to the leaders of the US, China, India and other G-77 nations to forge a last-minute agreement.

Denmark was said to be working on a “political agreement” text that would postpone the decisions on the Kyoto Protocol and the long-term cooperative action to next year. British PM Gordon Brown was also said to be bringing together negotiators for an agreed text.
After the meeting, Ramesh said that he had told the Americans- "You should be transparent about the word transparency."

The U.N. climate talks ran into serious problems Friday morning as negotiators tried to forge a political agreement for the summit meeting of President Barack Obama, China’s premier and more than 110 other world leaders.

Delegates spoke of continuing disputes behind closed doors between developed and developing countries, the divide that has dogged the two-week U.N. climate conference from the beginning.
Swedish Environment Minister Andreas Carlgren said that no agreed text had emerged just an hour before the presidents and premiers were to gather at a Copenhagen convention hall.

With negotiations reaching a final stage at the climate change meet, Prime Minister Manmohan Singh arrived here last night to lead the Indian delegation at the crucial talks.

Prime Minister Manmohan Singh and his Chinese counterpart Wen Jiabao on Friday held talks in a bid to consolidate the position of developing countries ahead of the world leaders' meeting in Copenhagen.

In his opening remarks during his meeting with Wen, Singh recalled that the two countries have been cooperating at various front including the G-20.

"We need to continue the cooperation," said the Prime Minister, who arrived in the Danish capital late last night to take part in the high-level segment of the 12-day UN climate talks.

Besides Singh and Wen, US President Barack Obama, British Prime Minister Gordon Brown and French President Nicholas Sarkozy are among the 110 world leaders who would attend the 15th Conference of Parties (COP) on its final day today.

The developing countries have been resisting attempts by the rich nations to set aside the Kyoto Protocol, which sets legally binding greenhouse gas emissions reduction targets for industrialized nations. The 1997 protocol also has a strong compliance mechanism which penalises the rich nations if they do not meet emission reduction targets agreed upon by them.
Prime Minister man Mohan Singh arrived at Copenhagen at a time when the consensus is getting eluded. He landed there with a message to preserve the areas of consensus on mitigation actions and finances and transfers of green technologies to developing countries enshrined in the Bali Action Plan.

Prior to the meeting of over 110 world leaders at the climate change conference, Singh is scheduled to meet with his Chinese counterpart Wen Jiabao in a bid to consolidate position of the developing countries for the plenary.

"The UNFCCC and its Kyoto Protocol embody the international agreed regime for addressing the global challenge of climate change," the Prime Minister had given a press statement before flying from New Delhi.

The 12-day 15th Conference of Parties, which concludes here on Friday, is expected to issue a short communique on the need and urgency to arrest climate change instead of a political statement which could form a basis that could be the basis of a legally-binding agreement in the future.

The rich nations are expected to make a Strong pitch for limiting the global temperature rise to two degrees Celsius, agreeing to achieve 80 per cent emission cuts by 2050 and prompt e developing countries to undertake strong mitigation actions which would see a significant deviation from the business as usual approach.

However, the above points do not mention a base year for from which the emission reductions would be undertaken but stresses on transparent verification actions for all the parties.
As mentioned earlier, the group of four comprising Brazil, South Africa, India and China (BASIC) cannot compromise and will strongly oppose this proposal contending that it makes no reference to the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change, the Bali Action Plan and the Kyoto Protocol.

Despite certain nations not ratifying the Kyoto Protocol, the Bali Action Plan of 2007 and the UNFCCC were adopted by consensus. It wants nations which have not ratified Kyoto to take commitments comparable to those agreed to it.

The Prime Minister is there just to reiterate the Indian stand and apply pressure by thrusting this point for insisting that it is of prime importance to preserve the areas of consensus and agree to continue negotiations based on the Bali Action Plan and the UNFCCC.
India and other developing countries have been insisting that neither would they take up legally binding emission cuts, nor accept a year by which their emissions would peak.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Still Violence Outside……. When All Failed Inside

Still Violence Outside……. When All Failed Inside
(Madan Menon Thottasseri)
______________________________________________________________

There were violence on Wednesday December 16, 2009 also ouside the Bella center. Protestors marched from the Railway Station just a mile away to made their way to the summit venue where representatives from nearly 200 countries are meeting to try to reach an accord on climate Change.Police officers used pepper spray and wielded batons and finally arrested 250 people for violence.

Police dispersed the chanting, drum-beating protesters and few delegates came out ot interact with tem. They were not permitted for the same.

In the meantime, the Danish chairwoman of the conference, Connie Hedegaard, said that she is stepping down and that the Danish Prime Minister, Lars Lokke Rasmussen, would take her place as heads of state from around the world are arriving in Copenhagen. Hedegaard, a conservative, Denmark’s Minister of climate and energy and her stepping down is be seen as an attempt to shift the global environmental issues from the periphery into the political mainstream.

On Wednesday’s demonstrations, protesters began massing north of the center shortly before noon and pressed into a tight line of riot police blocking access to the hall. Some of the officers wielded truncheons against the chanting, shoving protesters in a close-order scrum. After forcibly removing protesters from a truck parked in an intersection outside the Bella Center, police in blue vans kept moving the protesters backwards, nearly pushing some into a watery marsh.

When Police advanced ,a scuffle broke out with protesters who formed human chains and chanted their commitment to nonviolence so as to people in all parts of the world who will be hardest hit by climate change. A number of protesters encouraged individual groups to keep pushing against the police.

Police deployed water cannon at the southeast corner of the center to push back the marchers if necessary. Climate Justice Action, a Danish umbrella group that has served as the organizing agent for a number of planned and spontaneous demonstrations during the conference, has a permit to march along a specified route south of the venue.

According to one organizer, Anne Petermann, the overarching message of Wednesday’s action is that the U.N process for curbing climate change is a failure, and that there are “thousands of other solutions to climate change that aren’t being considered,” she said.

Another member of the protest group, Richard Bernard, said he expected arrests and possible clashes with policeand said “Danish police have been violating human rights all week.”

Authorities were restricting access to the rail station serving the Bella Center, forcing many conference attendees to walk a mile or more in cold drizzle and biting winds.

Groups of delegates and members of nongovernmental organizations continued to stream on foot past subway stations that had been closed to prevent demonstrators from converging. They passed groups of detained protesters seated in neat rows, their hands tied with plastic police strips. Behind a department store, about a dozen detained protesters under police guard chanted anti-capitalist slogans.

Inside the center, the British P.M Gorden Brown and Australian P.M Kevin Rudd arrived ahead of other world leaders to begin what was expected to be an intense day of discussions to untangle some of the many issues standing in the way of a global agreement.

Negotiators debated until just before dawn without setting new goals for reducing greenhouse gas emissions or for financing poorer countries’ efforts to cope with coming climate change, key elements of any deal, The Associated Press reported.

“In these very hours, we are balancing between success and failure,” Hedegaard told delegates Tuesday night before she stepped down. “Success is still within reach. But I must also warn you: we can fail.”

Much of the focus on Wednesday was expected to be on the financing arrangements of the deal, under which industrialized nations would transfer billions of dollars annually to poor nations to help them cope with a changing climate.

One of the proposals to be discussed Wednesday was put forward by Meles the prime minister of Ethiopia, who has been in talks with Goden Brown, Obama and other leaders. The amount and timing of payments were still under discussion.

Norway and Mexico have also offered a financing plan, which envisions annual payments to developing countries substantially higher than the $10 billion annual figure that Mr. Obama said the United States would support in the near term.

Developing countries have said that they will need $100 billion to $200 billion a year by 2020 to pay for low-carbon energy development and adaptation to global warming changes.
Outside the hall, police searched the bags of potential protesters and watched warily as crowds began to gather at rail stops within walking distance of the Bella Center.

Mette Hermansen, 27,a Teacher Trainee and a member of the International Socialists of Denmark, said, “In the Bella Center they are not discussing solutions to climate change. They are discussing how rich countries can continue emitting and how to sell that to the public. We are not preventing leaders from making solutions but encouraging them to make solutions.”

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Count Down…. Less than 48 hours and still no progress at Summit

Count Down…. Less than 48 hours and still no progress at Summit
(Madan Menon Thottasseri)
__________________________________________________________________

With a little over 48-hours left of the two-week Copenhagen climate change conference, there has been no significant progress on any of the major issues.

There are no numbers from individual countries on how much each would be willing to contribute to a global climate protection fund. Nor has any country improved on its opening offer for cutting emissions.

Most developing countries, led by China, are still refusing to commit to legally binding actions to reduce the rate of growth of their emissions. They are clinging to the ten-year-old Kyoto Protocol, which allows them to carry on increasing their emissions indefinitely.

There is no certainty that any of the pledges made to date will be fulfilled because the 193 countries cannot agree on a consistent, independent monitoring system.

Even assuming all the commitments to emissions reductions were implemented, global emissions of CO2 equivalent would still be five billion tonnes, or 11 per cent, higher than they need to be in 2020 to have a 50/50 chance of the average temperature increase remaining below 2C.
It is still possible that the arrival of 115 heads of state today and tomorrow will force a breakthrough. Many, like Gordon Brown, are counting on returning to their countries on Friday night or Saturday morning with a piece of paper to wave at voters to convince them they have secured a planet-saving deal.

Everyone is waiting to see if President Obama will improve the offer from the US when he joins the conference on Friday. There is a widespread reluctance among other countries to make significant concessions until the country which has caused most of the problem takes more of its fair share of the burden of solving it.

Yet the British Government is publicly defending Mr Obama’s weak offer because it has decided it is the best the world is likely to get, given the degree of opposition in the US Congress to making any sacrifices or spending any significant sums to tackle emissions.

The only concrete agreement to emerge on Friday may be a deal on halting the destruction of the world’s rainforests by 2030. Everyone here seems to agree that the rainforests are worth saving and that people in rich countries must pay to protect them by making the trees more valuable alive than dead for their owners. The negotiators seem to find it easier agreeing on something tangible like trees rather than something invisible like CO2.

The communiqué signed by the leaders on Friday will confirm the intention of capping the temperature increase at 2C but the details of how to achieve that will be left to future negotiations. Ed Miliband, the Energy and Climate Secretary, said that he wants the intentions expressed on Friday to be turned into a legally binding treaty within six months. That timescale is likely to prove wildly optimistic.

Many world leaders are leaving for Copenhagen . Of course Prime Minister Man Mohan Sign too leaves for the capital of Denmark just to witness the disappointing threats while the close of the summit of 12 days!P.M will be there on Thursday and Friday, ie. December 17 and 18, 2009.Foreign Secretary Nirupama Rao had epressed that the Danish chairmanship seemed to be working for a political agreement and not a legally binding traty that would cover the immediate and strong action in areas covered by Bali summit in 2007 so as to achieve a comprehensive legal framework during 2010.

The key objective of India and its coalition partners have to ensure that any further work in the post-Copenhagen phase of negotiations has to be proceeded on the basis of the principles and provisions of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) and the Bali Action Plan.

Obviously we have wait for the next summit at Mexico in second half of 2010.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Two Climate Drafts

Two Climate Drafts
(Madan Menon Thottasseri)
________________________________________________________________

Connie Hedegaard, the Danish President of the Climate summit who is stepping down enabling Prime Minister Lars Loekke Rasmussen declared on two drafts, on the Kyoto Protocol and Long Term Cooperative Action (LCA) tracks of negotiation triggered uproar, stunned many delegates with indignant demands of of 'inclusivity' and 'transparency'.

India’s Vijai Sharma expressed unhappiness as the move was against the essence of multilateralism.

In the plenary session there was confusion while discussing the Kyoto Protocol tough many areas are still heavily-bracketed , ie.unresolved while is presented for conclusion to the respective ministers.

When Hedegaard announced about the preparation of "two texts" -- one on Kyoto Protocol - and another on the Long Term Cooperative Action (LCA), all delegates were at their wits end!
There was a visibly dividing response in the session.Despite the shocking expression against the unprecedented move by China and India, developed nations including Australia, the EU and the U.S have Stated that the G77 and China were responsible for the situation as they have spoiled negotiations.

For 10 days now negotiators from 192 countries, who were later joined by their ministers, have been struggling to hammer out a climate deal to combat global warming.
The overall climate negotiations are moving under two tracks - the LCA under the Bali Action Plan that requires parties to produce a legally-binding treaty before the first commitment period of the Kyoto Protocol ends in 2012.

The second track is the extension of the Kyoto Protocol into the second commitment period from 2013 to 2018 where developed countries listed under Annex B will have to take binding cuts.

The essence of Bali plans are as follows:

For developed countries such as the United States, the result of the exercise was supposed to be "Measurable, reportable and verifiable nationally appropriate mitigation commitments or actions, including quantified emission limitation and reduction objectives, by all developed country Parties, while ensuring the comparability of efforts among them, taking into account differences in their national circumstances."

For developing countries such as China, India and Brazil, the negotiating objective was "Nationally appropriate mitigation actions by developing country Parties in the context of sustainable development, supported and enabled by technology, financing and capacity-building, in a measurable, reportable and verifiable manner."

It is to be noted that when the agreement was inked, the Bush administration had made it clear that it did not think this language would preclude binding emission cuts for major emerging economies. But countries like China and India made it clear then itself that they think it does, and their officials have to refer back to the Bali Action Plan any time they're asked to commit to mandatory cuts.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Australian Recipe for Disaster at Copenhagen

Australian Recipe for Disaster at Copenhagen
(Madan Menon Thottasseri)
___________________________________________________________________

Lumumba Di-Aping , chief negotiator for 'G77 and China' had a reason to accuse Australian Premier Kevin Rudd of misleading his people of his position on climate change.

Lumumba Di-Aping, said that he had high expectations of Rudd, but throughout negotiations Australia has not matched its actions with its rhetoric. "The message Kevin Rudd is giving to his people, his citizens, is a fabrication, it's fiction," he said.

"All that Australia has done so far is simply not good enough. It's puzzling in the sense that here is a Prime Minister who actually won the elections because of his commitment to climate change," he added.

Rudd was the only Prime Minister who came and clearly said "we have to do something, we have to join Kyoto protocol and all the rest". And within a very short period of time he changed his mind,position and started acting as if he has been converted into climate change skepticism.
Di-Aping accused Rudd of trying to gain a strategic economic advantage by siding with the United States and the European Union at Copenhagen.

Di Aping commented "Australia is committed to killing Kyoto,"

Rudd told a news conference in Copenhagen that his aim at the climate change talks is to get the best possible agreement in Australia's national interest.

Very serious differences had emerged out between India and Australia over the direction of talks at the climate summit here while Environment Minister Jairam Ramesh lashed out at Canberra, by dubbing it as an "ayatollah" for its one-way approach.

"Australia is sort of the ayatollah of the single track," That was the quoting by Environment Minister Jairam Ramesh , even reported in Australia’s 'Sydney Morning Herald'.

Developing countries are arguing that Australia and its allies are trying to push the outcome of talks away from the Kyoto Protocol, and Ramesh called it "a recipe for disaster". Ramesh, who cancelled a meeting with Australia's Climate Change Minister Penny Wong aimed at breaking the deadlock on Tuesday, told the daily that he had not "pulled out... as he was unfortunately too busy" to hold the meet. "Penny Wong remains a good friend of mine, a very valued colleague," he said.

Wong said: "You will have to ask him," when asked why the meeting was cancelled.
Ramesh also said he would not be cooperating in a session with her to try to break the deadlock even after a request from the Danish head of the UN conference Connie Hedegaard.

Wong said that it was regrettable that there are some who are willing to fight about process rather than to negotiate on the substance when what is asked of them required so much more.
With Australia and its allies coming under intense attack over claims that they want to "kill" the Kyoto Protocol, Wong attempted to offer lukewarm support for it.

But her rhetoric skills still continue- "I wanted to make very clear there is a lot in the Kyoto Protocol which is good... We need to do what is in the Kyoto Protocol and we need to go further".
If this is diplomacy and negotiation, will Copenhagen reach an accord? Answer is known to all….

Australia’s credentials in respect of Climate Change at stake?

Australia’s credentials in respect of Climate Change at stake?
(Madan Menon Thottasseri)
______________________________________________

Australia has allegedly wrongly presented its carbon emissions report by ignoring a massive rise in polluting gases from its agricultural and forestry industries, This "misrepresentation" by the Australian Government has already led to severe criticism from all quarters at the UN climate summit in the last week.

ABC reported that Australia had ignored a massive rise in polluting gases but still managed to make its overall emissions seem much lower than factual figures.

Australia under the Kyoto Protocol, is allowed to up carbon emissions by eight per cent compared to the 1990 levels. But as per factual figures say that between 1990 and 2007,the nation's real carbon emissions actually was raised by 82 per cent, the report said. This dramatic increase had mainly been caused by rising emissions from rural lands, caused by bushfires and drought.


Ironically in Australia, Political parties were hopeful of offsetting the rising industrial emissions with the support from the same agricultural, grazing plains and grass lands. In fact Australia had leaded the charge on proposed land use rule changes to the new global climate deal.

The changes will open the door to the bonanza of green carbon that can be stored away in the world's rural lands, the report said. But this move is deeply dividing the Copenhagen conference. Australia and other big players have been accused of a trying to pull off a fort.

Christine Milne, climate change spokesperson for Australian political party, the Australian Greens, said in Copenhagen that the country has been trying to "cook the books".
The United States has always wanted to use Land Use Land Use Change and Forestry as a mechanism for not having to do as much in its fossil fuel sector, and Australia has always been the fall guy for the US," she said. "So I think what you are seeing is the umbrella group, chaired by Australia, including the US, including Canada, trying to really cook the books in some dodgy deals on land use."

"That is not an error. It is actually called Land Use Land Use Change and Forestry. Everything in these negotiations has an acronym -- this one is LULU_CF," she said.
But developing nations fear that with some changes to the existing rules, LULU_CF may be the way that countries like Australia will wriggle out of the reductions currently being negotiated for 2020 greenhouse targets.

A climate scientist for International Rivers network, Payal Parekh, says such loopholes will water down the carbon targets. "It essentially means that developed countries, including Australia, could actually increase their emissions in the next few years," she said.

She said "What it means is that it is a total scam. It appears as if something is done, but it is not. The best way to sum it up is that it is a 'get out of jail free card'".