Copenhagen’s Reflections in U.S

Copenhagen’s Reflections in U.S
(Madan Menon Thottasseri)
________________________________________________


President Obama who is back in U.S after successfully broking a deal at Copenhagen, described the Accord as a "breakthrough" agreement on climate change. He said that the said Accord reached by him with leaders of India and other emerging economies had laid the foundation of international actions to tackle global warming in the years to come.

For the first time in history all of the major economies of the world could come together to accept their responsibility and take action for confronting the threat of climate change, Obama said. "After extremely difficult and complex negotiations, this important breakthrough lays the foundation for international action in the years to come," Obama said in his first public statement on his return from Copenhagen.

This progress did not come easily and we know that progress on this particular aspect of climate change negotiations is not enough, he said referring to the Copenhagen accord reached by the US and BASIC countries in the final hour of the summit. He said "Going forward we're going to have to build on the momentum that we established in Copenhagen to ensure that international action to significantly reduce emissions is sustained and sufficient over time."

The climate accord reached by world leaders in Copenhagen will drive the US Senate to pass its own blueprint to fight global warming in early 2010, key senator John Kerry said.

"This can be a catalysing moment," the Democratic lawmaker, who chairs the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, said in a statement after President Barack Obama announced a deal on the sidelines of global talks in Denmark's capital.

"President Obama's hands-on engagement broke through the bickering and sets the stage for a final deal and for Senate passage this spring of major legislation at home," said Kerry, the lead author of the US Senate's stalled bill to battle climate change, on Friday.

The Massachusetts lawmaker hailed Obama's announcement after talks with Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao, Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh, and South African President Jacob Zuma as "a meeting of the minds."

"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," said Kerry.

Unfortunately The summit would have failed. The modest agreement may help the Osama administration as it presses Congress to pass a landmark climate-change legislation. By not committing the United States to new standards and by insisting on monitoring cuts made by other nations, the administration can say passage of domestic legislation would not put the United States at a competitive disadvantage with other nations, particularly China. In fact, Obama made U.S, indirectly a beneficiary of the Accord!

The Copenhagen Accord should give an impetus to consolidate the global strength instead of further intensifying differences in global views.

Let EU relinquish selfish interests and think beyond Europe and gracefully co-operate with U.S and BASIC BLOC and take the mantle at the ensuing summit to be held in Mexico during mid 2010.

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

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.

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

Funding EU and Steadfast U.S

Funding EU and Steadfast U.S
(Madan Menon Thottasseri)
_______________________________________________________________

At Brussels the EU leaders resolved to create corpus of 2.4 billion euroes ($3.5 billion) each year a total of $10.50 billion within a period of next three years to contribute poor nations in their task of surmounting adverse effects of global warming and win for a deal at Copenhagen. The EU’s initiative should facilitate for reaching an internationally acceptable accord.

In fact developing world expect EU and powerful nations to commit for providing long-term financing of more than $100 billion each year by the end of the next decade. EU Brussels kept mum and unanswered the call from developing nations.

Finance has appeared as a hesitant wedge to the global climate agreement in Copenhagen to replace the Kyoto Protocol, the U.N.’s main tool for fighting global warming. The Kyoto agreement expires in 2012.

Brussels propelled for funding when a group of negotiators in Copenhagen made a six-page informal outline (framework) of a new climate agreement sought to pull together a growing stream of conflicting proposals from nations involved in the climate-treaty talks.

The outline calls for wealthy nations to commit themselves to sharp reductions in greenhouse-gas emissions in the next decade, and for all nations to seek jointly to nearly eliminate the emissions by 2050.

But the disagreements on vital numbers remained wide, and sections of the outline concerning some contested issues were left entirely blank. Among the sidestepped items were any long-term goals for financing the deal and provisions for how trade rules might be employed. Todd Stern, the top American negotiator was apprehensive and skeptical while U.S cannot view it as an acceptable one which is deficient in any language requiring emerging economic powers like China and India to take concrete steps to curb emissions.

Todd Stern’s point is that the United States has to remain steadfast in demanding such a commitment, given that nearly all of the future increase in emissions of greenhouse gases in the coming decades is anticipated to come from China and India. Thus the draft plan has to be balanced as a whole with due application of futuristic thinking. I think that India and China have to seriously take this point and can address it by relaxing the unbending attitude to some extent.
Stern’s still strikes a note of optimism when he expressed that after months of one-on-one discussions with counterparts from China, he was confident that there was language we could both agree to, if we can get to the serious stage.

Stern made his comments an hour after Chinese vice foreign minister He Yafei said America's top climate negotiator was either lacking "common sense" or being "extremely irresponsible" for saying earlier in the week that the United States would not help China financially to cope with global warming.

With the future economic trajectory of the world's major powers at stake, fault lines have erupted both within the developing world and between the industrial world and emerging economies.

The current battle is as much about saving individual economies as saving the planet, with China and the United States feuding over their respective obligations while poorer nations insist that the world's two dozen most influential countries are ignoring the scientific imperative to take bolder action.

Chancellor Angela Merkel commented that EU is more than ready to assume the share of responsibility. Copenhagen is at stake for developing nations threatened by climate change and wealthier-developed nations seek to remold the techniques in operation and consumption of energy. The British Prime Minister Gorden Brown emphasized this when he said “ few moments in history when nations are summoned to common decisions that will reshape the lives of men and women potentially for generations to come.”

In Copenhagen, some of the smallest and most vulnerable countries — island states facing the prospect of centuries of rising seas in a warming world fired off a warning shot in the form of a new draft text of their own.

They called for the proposed ceiling for a rise in global temperature accepted by most nations to be lowered by 0.5 degrees Celsius.

The world’s industrialized countries and emerging economic powers have pledged over the past year to work to limit warming to less than 2 degrees Celsius above where temperatures stood in the 1800s. That translates roughly into a rise of no more than 1.3 degrees Fahrenheit from today’s average global temperature of about 59 degrees.

But given projections for greenhouse gas emissions and what is known about how the gases trap heat, even that target will be tough to reach, many climate scientists say.
Money is central to the demands by poor nations. Most African countries and small island states have demanded aid as a condition for signing a new pact to replace the 1997 Kyoto Protocol, which expires in 2012.

The European Union has led efforts to raise money for what is known as a fast-start fund, with its contributions meant to be joined by donations from other advanced nations, including the United States. But it is not clear if or when the money will be available.

The Obama administration has asked Congress for $1.2 billion in financing for adaptation, technology transfer and clean-energy projects in the developing world. But Congress has not yet acted on the request.

The American contribution could come from a government auction of emissions permits as part of a ‘Cap and Trade’ system for limiting emissions by American industries. But legislation on such a system still is stuck in the Senate.

In Brussels, Merkel warned on Friday that long-term financing for developing countries would be crucial to any deal next week. She had said “This is the biggest headache to me” and suggested that the United States needed to make a commitment to long-term financing before the European Union clarified how much it would put on the table.

Gorden Brown and Nicolas Sarkozy had supported using “innovative financing mechanisms,” like a tax on global financial transactions, to help developing countries transform their energy systems.

Advocacy groups and some environmental campaigners condemned the pledges in Brussels as inadequate. Tim Gore, a climate change advisor for Oxfam, a group that fights poverty, said the offer was “mostly a recycling of past promises and payments that have already been made,” and would siphon off funds from areas other than climate protection.

Fredrik Reinfeldt, the Swedish prime minister, acknowledged that the pledges were “a combination of new and old resources.”

Some of the countries most vulnerable to the impact of climate change indicated they would continue to push for a legally binding treaty in Copenhagen, although most of the major participants say the talks will produce a political deal at best. The Alliance of Small Island States, which has 43 members, produced a 24-page draft treaty proposal in the early morning on Friday December 11, 2009.

Artur Runge-Metzger, who heads international climate negotiations on behalf of the European Commission, said the push by small island nations has "put political pressure on the entire political process," in part because they are now unified and demanding action from emerging economies such as China and India.

The talks took on new urgency as delegates focused on the fact that they must resolve most of the outstanding issues before the heads of government arrive to strike a deal. High-level officials such as Indian environment minister Jairam Ramesh and the Chinese vice minister stepped off planes and raced through the Bella Center's halls to closed-door meetings and news conferences so they could stake out claims that will be arbitrated over the next week.

The sheer sprawl of the gathering -- where 13,000 people move in and out of the convention center each day, guitar-playing activists put on nightly shows mocking the countries they think are selling out, and draft proposals are passed hand-to-hand on paper rather than via e-mail -- poses a challenge.

Over the weekend, attention is expected to shift back to Copenhagen, where environment ministers are to hold negotiations. Police officers there have begun bracing for several planned protests. On Friday December 11, 2009 at least 76 protesters were arrested in various parts of the city center after signaling an intention to disrupt business at the sites of several international corporations in Copenhagen, including the shipping giant Maersk, McDonald’s and other firms.
Chants of “our climate is not your business!” could be heard as groups of demonstrators made their way through the streets, many of them carrying maps and instructions about which businesses to make targets.

On Saturday December 12, 2009, a much larger demonstration is planned by a broad coalition of organizations. Protesters are expected to march along an approved route from the Parliament to the Bella Center, where thousands of negotiators and delegates are gathered.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Climategate Scandal and Republican Threat

Climategate Scandal and Republican Threat
(Madan Menon Thottasseri)

___________________________________________________________

When hackers gained access to the documents of the climate research centre of UK-based East Anglia University and leaked confidential data, including thousands of emails and documents between UK and US scientists over the past 10 years have led to accusations that scientists exaggerated the crisis.

Aftermath of the ‘Climate gate’ scandal a major threat has emerged out from United States, when the Sarah Palin the 2008 Republican nominee for vice president and governor of Alaska from 2006 to 2009 reinforced criticisms against the summit with the support of these fresh rumours. Her contention is that these e-mails revealed leading climate experts’ deliberately destroying records, manipulated data to "hide the decline" in global temperatures, and tried to silence their critics by preventing them from publishing in peer-reviewed journals. The Rupublicians now slam President Barack Osama’s proposal very serious cut of long-term carbon emissions. Meeting such targets would require Congress to pass its cap-and-tax plans, which will result in job losses and unbearable energy costs!

“Mr President, don’t make promises in Copenhagen that we can’t keep,” Republican Congressman Mike Pence told a news conference along with six of his colleagues. They explained on their stand by explaining on the worst recession U.S is entangled into, the exposure of questionable science by email-scandal which intensified the revulsion for the consensus on climate change.

They accused that America has lost a lot of credibility when then Vice President Al Gore promised in Kyoto something he knew could never be passed by the US Congress now! As per their version President Obama will be just repeating the same mistake.
What a plight of the democracy in U.S when Congressman Jim Sensenbrenner, Ranking Member of the House Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming who came forward to serve his nation and the world!

He wants UN not make any concrete recommendations until it gets to the bottom of the email-scandal and said “This could be a conspiracy basically to shut out any contrary scientific opinion. We should not be making decisions that will cost the American rate payer billions or even trillions of dollars in higher electric and natural gas bills based upon scientific Fascism”

I suspect that that Republican leaders wants to outsmart for political ends and attempt to dilute the nerve of American initiative under Obama’s leadership in global affairs. This Anti-Obama factor plays a role behind the screen at Copenhagen.They call the mail -scandal as ‘Scientific Fascism’ and urges President Obama to backpedal arguing that there is no consensus favouring for it. In fact the Republicans are fascists expecting Americans to wear iron clad and keep isolated from the rest of the world! Too much of disgrace on their out-look of Internationalism. It is evident that even in U.S, Opposition is becoming more just to oppose without going into the merits of the issue to be opposed. Probably Republicans now-a days learn rhymes and jingles from Indian democracy?

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

Climate Summit: Crusade Against Un-cooked Danish Draft Report and ‘Climategate’

Climate Summit:
Crusade Against Un-cooked Danish Draft Report and ‘Climategate’

(Madan Menon Thottasseri)
_____________________________________________________________

The G-77 group of countries and China on Wednesday December 09, 2009 blasted a Danish draft proposal that threatens the success of reaching an agreement on climate change in the ongoing Copenhagen summit.

Sudan's Lumumba Stanislas Dia Ping, who heads the G-77 group stated that draft text, which was leaked, is a "serious and unfortunate development. It is a major violation that threatens the success of the Copenhagen negotiating process,". The G-77 and China called on the Prime Minister of Denmark, Lars Løkke Rasmussen, and protested for releasing a pre-summit draft, an uncooked report and deviate from such further attempts planned for. The group reaffirmed that it will not walk out of Copenhagen and will indefatigably work towards an unbiased outcome till the last minutes of the conference.

The G77 held the host of the Copenhagen negotiations, Rasmussen personally responsible for the production of the document, stating that it is "very unfortunate that the man trusted to lead the process will fail”

UN climate change chief Yvo de Boer said this draft was on a ‘decision paper’ put forward by Danish Prime Minister. He said "This was an informal paper ahead of the conference given to a number of people for the purposes of consultations. The only formal texts in the UN process are the ones tabled by the Chairs of this Copenhagen conference at the behest of the Parties," he added.

G77 member states cannot afford a failure at Copenhagen wherein Negotiators from 192countries have come to hammer out a climate change treaty as the first commitment period of the Kyoto Protocol expires in 2012.

In the meantime, hackers had gained access to the documents of the climate research centre of UK-based East Anglia University and leaked confidential data, including thousands of emails and documents between UK and US scientists over the past 10 years which have led to accusations that scientists exaggerated the crisis.

Some of the excerpts of the e-mails posted read, "I've just completed Mike's Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (i.e. from 1981 onwards) and from 1961 for Keith's to hide the decline." Another e-mail reads: "The fact is that we can't account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can't."

A major threat has emerged out from United States, when the Sarah Palin the 2008 Republican nominee for vice president and governor of Alaska from 2006 to 2009 refurbished criticisms against the summit with the support of these fresh rumours. His contention is that these e-mails revealed leading climate experts’ deliberately destroying records, manipulated data to "hide the decline" in global temperatures, and tried to silence their critics by preventing them from publishing in peer-reviewed journals. There were incidences which established that there existed wast differences of opinions, ideas and research observations and never had consensus within the CRU personnel! Many had strong doubts about the accuracy of estimates of temperatures from centuries ago, estimates used to back claims that more recent temperatures are rising at an alarming rate.

Sarah Palin believes that the scandal obviously calls into question the proposals being pushed in Copenhagen. He thinks that the policy should be based on sound science, not politics. He cited his experience as Governor of Alaska, when he took the stand against politicized science against which he sued the federal government over the decision to list the polar bear as an endangered species despite the fact that the polar bear population had more than doubled then. He was widely criticized and got bashed for his efforts by radical environmentalists in United States. Still he stood by my view that adding a healthy species to the endangered list under the guise of "climate change impacts" was an abuse of the Endangered Species Act. This would have irreversibly hurt both Alaska's economy and the nation's, while also reducing opportunities for responsible development.

He wanted U.S diplomats and Officials Copenhagen should remember that good environmental policymaking is about weighing real-world costs and benefits -- not pursuing a political agenda. In the meantime he asserted that he is not unaware on the global warming and the reality of changing climate. He proudly remembers his achievement as one of the first governors to create a sub-committee to deal specifically with the issue of changing weather patterns and to recommend common-sense policies to respond to the coastal erosion, thawing permafrost and retreating sea ice that affect Alaska's communities and infrastructure.

He says that while we recognize the occurrence of these natural, cyclical environmental trends, we can't say with assurance that man's activities cause weather changes. We can say, however, that any potential benefits of proposed emissions reduction policies are far outweighed by their economic costs. And those costs are real. Unlike the proposals China and India offered prior to Copenhagen which actually allow to increase emissions, President Barack Obama’s proposal calls for very serious cut of long-term carbon emissions. Meeting such targets would require Congress to pass its cap-and-tax plans, which will result in job losses and higher energy costs as admitted by the President during his campaign.

Sarah Palin commented that Americans are not hoping for the cap-and-tax plans.The public opposition mounting to stall Congress's legislation, Environmental Protection Agency bureaucrats plan to regulate carbon emission themselves doing an end run around the American people. He wanted U.S people to know on the plight of European Union, where energy prices skyrocketed after it began a cap-and-tax program. Meanwhile, Australia's Parliament recently defeated a cap-and-tax bill. Surely other nations have to follow suit, particularly as the climate e-mail scandal continues to unfold.

He attacked Obama for opting to reach Copenhagenon the final day of the summit, stating that the the deal Obama gets will be no deal for American people.He wanted the president to stay back in home by sending a message stating that the U.S cannot be apartyto fraudulent scientific practices! His advise to the U.S regime was clear, when he said “Without trustworthy science and with so much at stake, Americans should be wary about what comes out of this politicized conference. The president should boycott Copenhagen

Saudi Arabia's negotiator Mohammed Al-Sabban had stated that climate science had been "shaken" by the leaked e-mails. Reacting to this statement, Chairman of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Rajendra Pachauri said "Wouldn't you expect that? Oil and politics mix very well. I'm not too sure that oil and science mixes very well." The UN Climate Change Chief noted that incident was not a source of friction at the talks. "I think the science produced by the IPCC is rock-solid."

ajendra Pachauri along with fellow scientists stood up for their colleagues allegedly involved in the 'Climategate' scandal, stating that they had been "unfairly targeted."
The persons who have worked on this report, and those who unfortunately have been victims of this terrible and illegal act, are outstanding scientists, and have contributed enormously over the 20, 21 years of the existence of the IPCC, Now they are being very unfairly targeted. The only issue that has to be dealt with as far as this occurrence is concerned is to find out who is behind it .

In his opening statement at the UN Copenhagen conference on Monday, the head of IPCC called the incident as an "illegal act" done by those who continued to deny the existence of climate change. At a news conference yesterday, Pachauri restated this position stating that the act had been timed to interfere with Copenhagen conference and called for an investigation as well.
Defending the integrity and veracity of the IPCC and its report in the strongest terms, Pachauri noted that "barring a few isolated voices, people over here are totally convinced of the solidity of the findings in the IPCC report."

The US Deputy Special Envoy for Climate Change, Jonathan Pershing, had already criticised the media for blowing the controversy out of proportion and maligning scientists involved in this episode.

He remarked that the science is incredibly robust and in fact as all nations looked forward and he is worried much more about not acting urgently than will ultimately be a small blip on the history of this process.

I suspect that Republican leaders and Anti-Obama factor plays a role behind the screen at Copenhagen.

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