Troubled Galaxy Destroyed Dreams, chapter 433
Palash Biswas
http://indianholocaustmyfatherslifeandtime.blogspot.com/
Chapter 1: China, India, and the New World Order
by admin on June 2, 2006
Christopher Flavin and Gary Gardner
China and India are on the verge of becoming far more than economic
powers. (See Table 1-1, p. 7.) These two countries are now also
planetary powers that are shaping the global biosphere and are
therefore central to whether the world succeeds in building a healthy,
prosperous, and environmentally sustainable future for the next
generation. As China and India become world-class economies, they are
set to join already industrialized nations as major consumers of
resources and polluters of local and global ecosystems. And while the
largest burden of these developments will fall on China and India
themselves, the global impact is clear. (See Table 1-4, p. 16.)
The rise of China and India illustrates more clearly than any
development in recent memory that the western, resource-intensive
economic model is simply not capable of meeting the growing needs of
more than 8 billion people in the twenty-first century. Major shifts in
resource use, technologies, policies, and even basic values are needed.
The political ambivalence toward today’s development models that now
characterizes China, India, the United States, and most other countries
will need to give way to a full-fledged commitment to prosper within
the limits imposed by nature.
With their growing economies, expanding ecological footprints, and
rising political influence, China and India will need to be a part of
any plausible global effort to build a sustainable world economy. But
the call for wholesale change in policies needs to sound just as loudly
in the United States, whose footprint is the largest of all. Indeed,
the prospects for success in this venture are greatest if these three
planetary powers pull together to forge a new vision for sustainable
economic development in the twenty-first century.
Christopher Flavin is President of the Worldwatch Institute. Gary Gardner is Director of Research at the Institute.
http://www.worldwatch.org/node/3992
Indo-China's convergence of interests in turbulent times
20 Dec 2009, 0215 hrs IST, Nirmala Ganapathy & Shantanu Nandan Sharma,
ET Bureau
After
months of turbulence in bilateral ties, India
preparations to mark 60 years of diplomatic ties next year. President
Patil will be visiting China in April next year.
The bid to mark the
anniversary can be passed off as soft diplomacy that does nothing to address the
contentious issues at the heart of the relationship. But after months of tension
over the border dispute and visa issues, it is expected to cool down
temperatures.
There is already a perceptible move to improve the
atmospherics. India’s ambassador to China S Jaishankar in an address at
the Sichuan University in China set the ball rolling by listing out New
Delhi’s expectation from Beijing. “What are Indian expectations of
China at this stage? I would sum it up as displaying sensitivity on what matters
most to Indians, while accepting that we cannot agree on all issues just yet...
It is important as well to keep reminding ourselves that India and China
continue
to have a substantial convergence of interests,” he
said. He further acknowledged the border dispute but says that it should not be
“allowed to impede either functional bilateral co-operation or convergence
on global issues.”
A reciprocal gesture is now expected from
the Chinese side. In fact, the importance of Sino-Indian unity, especially on
the international stage, has been brought home by Copenhagen where the two
countries have demonstrated a strong bonding to ensure that developed countries
do not extract unilateral concessions from the developing ones. “India and
China have to cooperate. There is no way out. There are global and multilateral
issues on which the two countries have to cooperate and not let differences
interfere in the main momentum of bilateral ties,” says Wang Yaodong,
South Asia bureau chief of the Chinese newspaper Wen Hui Daily.
Yes,
climate change has broken the ice where India and China have forged common
ground. Significantly, the global economic downturn has also forced developed
nations to recognise the potential of the two countries bringing them together
in some common economic platforms.
Adds Rajat M Nag, managing
director general of the Asian Development Bank (ADB), “Already, China and
India are important players in G-20. There are issues between them, but keeping
in mind the larger picture, we are going to see more co-operation between India
and China”.
The momentum in trade has not slowed down through
the climate of discontentment. China remains the largest trading partner for
India with bilateral trade surpassing $40b, and the new target is as high as
$60b by 2010.
But the speed at which the trade volume has risen over
the years has injected caution on India’s part even on initiating a free
trade agreement with China. A recent ban on Chinese toys, clampdown on Chinese
cellphones in the grey market for security reasons and stricter visa norms have
all been part of the growing trade engagement.
But these issues are
not seen as stumbling blocks even though experts caution against allowing
protectionist tendencies to set in. “We need to make our manufacturing
sector globally competitive. Being protectionist is not the right response at
this juncture. India’s services sector has already been doing well, and it
can tap the market in China too,” says Dr Rajiv Kumar, the director and
chief executive of Indian Council for Research on International Economic
Relations (ICRIER), a non-profit policy research outfit.
But there is
a consensus that as the two countries negotiate a political settlement for the
border dispute, there is a need to focus on the positive areas. “We have
to accept that there are constraints. But at the same time we can’t
perpetually believe that US is the only landing port for both India and China.
We need to depend on each other’s economies as well,” said strategic
analyst C Uday Bhaskar. “We can’t have a relationship which is
purely black and white.”
http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/features/the-sunday-et/special-report/Indo-Chinas-convergence-of-interests-in-turbulent-times/articleshow/5357540.cms
India, China GDP expansion dominates third quarter world growth
India
and China, without ambiguity, are the economies which have come most strongly
through the financial crisis. Their year-on-year GDP
respectively, dominates third quarter world growth. Each slowed significantly
only immediately after September 2008. Even then, their growth rates remained
high by any standards other than their own.
Such outcomes added the
reality that India and China have the greatest counter-cyclical economic
strength to the well known one that they have the greatest potential for longer
term economic growth. Such a combination is evidently of exceptional practical
and theoretical economic importance for other countries to study.
In
reality both this counter-cyclical strength and the long-term growth potential
are rooted in the same factors. To understand these clearly, however, it is
necessary to examine the real macro-economic consequences of the financial
crisis as supposed to various myths concerning it.
The present
international recession is not driven by a supposed downturn of US consumers
— which has factually not occurred. Between the third quarters of 2008 and
2009 US GDP declined by $280 billion.
But US personal consumption
fell by only $80 billion. In contrast US fixed investment fell by $552 billion
or 196% of the decline in GDP — statistically possible as improvement of
the US balance of trade partially offset it.
That what occurred in
the international financial crisis is an investment collapse is shown in an
extreme form in the US but is also clear in the other major economies. With the
exception of Germany, where the biggest factor has been an export drop, fall in
investment accounts for the majority of the decline in GDP in all major
economies — 52% in the UK%, 53% in Japan, 77% in Italy, and 99% in France.
Taking the G7 economies together the figure is 77%.
In contrast, the
strength of India and China has been that their extremely high rates of
investment have not declined significantly. At 35% and 42% of GDP, respectively,
the levels of gross domestic fixed capital formation in India and China are the
highest in the world. It is rising rates of investment in India and China, as
opposed to declines in Japan and South Korea, that have led the former to
replace the latter as Asia’s powerhouses.
There is nothing
mysterious about this development. Modern econometric research, led by Angus
Maddison and Dale Jorgenson, and codified in the revised systems of National
Accounts adopted by both the OECD and US, has swept aside the idea that
technological change or similar factors are the primary source of economic
growth.
It has established that, provided an economy maintains an
external facing orientation, it is accumulation of fixed capital that is the
single biggest factor in economic growth.
India and China’s
success in confronting the financial crisis simply confirms that their ability
to maintain very high investment rates allows them to resist negative cyclical
trends as well as maintain the world’s highest growth rates. A second
condition for success however will be whether they are able to continue to
calibrate the stimulation of domestic demand with the new reality of the
external market which their very success has created.
Annual
percentage growth in India and China has long exceeded the US (fig 2). Now the
combination of India and China has overtaken the US as the primary quantitative
source of world growth.
http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/India-China-dominate-world-growth/articleshow/5357615.cms
Copenhagen Accord
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 | This article may need to be wikified to meet Wikipedia's quality standards. Please help by adding relevant internal links, or by improving the article's layout. |
The Copenhagen Accord is the document that delegates at the United Nations Climate Change Conference
agreed to "take note of" at the final plenary session of the Conference
on 18 December 2009. The BBC immediately reported that its status and
legal implications were unclear.[1]
[edit] Summary
 | This Encyclopedias don't include copies of lengthy primary sources. Summarize instead! contains too many quotations for an encyclopedic entry. Please help improve the article by removing excessive quotations or transferring them to Wikiquote. Help is available. |
Text of the Accord
The Heads of State, Heads of Government, Ministers, and other heads
of delegation present at the United Nations Climate Change Conference
2009 in Copenhagen,
In pursuit of the ultimate objective of the Convention as stated in its Article 2,Being guided by the principles and provisions of the Convention,Noting the results of work done by the two Ad hoc Working Groups,Endorsing decision x/CP.15 on the Ad hoc Working Group on Long-term Cooperative Actionand decision x/CMP.5 that requests the Ad hoc Working Group on
Further Commitments of Annex I Parties under the Kyoto Protocol to
continue its work,
Have agreed on this Copenhagen Accord which is operational immediately.
1. 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.
To achieve the ultimate objective of the Convention to stabilize
greenhouse gas concentration in the atmosphere at a level that would
prevent dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system,
we shall, recognizing the scientific view that the increase in global
temperature should be below 2 degrees Celsius, on the basis of equity
and in the context of sustainable development, enhance our long-term
cooperative action to combat climate change. We recognize the critical
impacts of climate change and the potential impacts of response
measures on countries particularly vulnerable to its adverse effects
and stress the need to establish a comprehensive adaptation programme
including international support.
2. We agree that deep cuts in global emissions are required
according to science, and as documented by the IPCC Fourth Assessment
Report with a view to reduce global emissions so as to hold the
increase in global temperature below 2 degrees Celsius, and take action
to meet this objective consistent with science and on the basis of
equity. We should cooperate in achieving the peaking of global and
national emissions as soon as possible, recognizing that the time frame
for peaking will be longer in developing countries and bearing in mind
that social and economic development and poverty eradication are the
first and overriding priorities of developing countries and that a
low-emission development strategy is indispensable to sustainable
development.
3. Adaptation to the adverse effects of climate change and the
potential impacts of response measures is a challenge faced by all
countries. Enhanced action and international cooperation on adaptation
is urgently required to ensure the implementation of the Convention by
enabling and supporting the implementation of adaptation actions aimed
at reducing vulnerability and building resilience in developing
countries, especially in those that are particularly vulnerable,
especially least developed countries, small island developing States
and Africa. We agree 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.
4. Annex I Parties commit to implement individually or jointly the
quantified economywide emissions targets for 2020, to be submitted in
the format given in Appendix I by Annex I Parties to the secretariat by
31 January 2010 for compilation in an INF document. Annex I Parties
that are Party to the Kyoto Protocol will thereby further strengthen
the emissions reductions initiated by the Kyoto Protocol. Delivery of
reductions and financing by developed countries will be measured,
reported and verified in accordance with existing and any further
guidelines adopted by the Conference of the Parties, and will ensure
that accounting of such targets and finance is rigorous, robust and
transparent.
5. Non-Annex I Parties to the Convention will implement mitigation
actions, including those to be submitted to the secretariat by
non-Annex I Parties in the format given in Appendix II by 31 January
2010, for compilation in an INF document, consistent with Article 4.1
and Article 4.7 and in the context of sustainable development. Least
developed countries and small island developing States may undertake
actions voluntarily and on the basis of support. Mitigation actions
subsequently taken and envisaged by Non-Annex I Parties, including
national inventory reports, shall be communicated through national
communications consistent with Article 12.1(b) every two years on the
basis of guidelines to be adopted by the Conference of the Parties.
Those mitigation actions in national communications or otherwise
communicated to the Secretariat will be added to the list in appendix
II. Mitigation actions taken by Non-Annex I Parties will be subject to
their domestic measurement, reporting and verification the result of
which will be reported through their national communications every two
years. Non-Annex I Parties will communicate information on the
implementation of their actions through National Communications, with
provisions for international consultations and analysis under clearly
defined guidelines that will ensure that national sovereignty is
respected. Nationally appropriate mitigation actions seeking
international support will be recorded in a registry along with
relevant technology, finance and capacity building support. Those
actions supported will be added to the list in appendix II. These
supported nationally appropriate mitigation actions will be subject to
international measurement, reporting and verification in accordance
with guidelines adopted by the Conference of the Parties.
6. We recognize the crucial role of reducing emission from
deforestation and forest degradation and the need to enhance removals
of greenhouse gas emission by forests and agree on the need to provide
positive incentives to such actions through the immediate establishment
of a mechanism including REDD-plus, to enable the mobilization of
financial resources from developed countries.
7. We decide to pursue various approaches, including opportunities
to use markets, to enhance the cost-effectiveness of, and to promote
mitigation actions. Developing countries, especially those with low
emitting economies should be provided incentives to continue to develop
on a low emission pathway.
8. Scaled up, new and additional, predictable and adequate funding
as well as improved access shall be provided to developing countries,
in accordance with the relevant provisions of the Convention, to enable
and support enhanced action on mitigation, including substantial
finance to reduce emissions from deforestation and forest degradation
(REDD-plus), adaptation, technology development and transfer and
capacity-building, for enhanced implementation of the Convention. The
collective commitment by developed countries is to provide new and
additional resources, including forestry and investments through
international institutions, approaching USD 30 billion for the period
2010 - 2012 with balanced allocation between adaptation and mitigation.
Funding for adaptation will be prioritized for the most vulnerable
developing countries, such as the least developed countries, small
island developing States and Africa. In the context of meaningful
mitigation actions and transparency on implementation, developed
countries commit to a goal of mobilizing jointly USD 100 billion
dollars a year by 2020 to address the needs of developing countries.
This funding will come from a wide variety of sources, public and
private, bilateral and multilateral, including alternative sources of
finance. New multilateral funding for adaptation will be delivered
through effective and efficient fund arrangements, with a governance
structure providing for equal representation of developed and
developing countries. A significant portion of such funding should flow
through the Copenhagen Green Climate Fund.
9. To this end, a High Level Panel will be established under the
guidance of and accountable to the Conference of the Parties to study
the contribution of the potential sources of revenue, including
alternative sources of finance, towards meeting this goal.
10. We decide that the Copenhagen Green Climate Fund shall be
established as an operating entity of the financial mechanism of the
Convention to support projects, programme, policies and other
activities in developing countries related to mitigation including
REDD-plus, adaptation, capacitybuilding, technology development and
transfer.
11. In order to enhance action on development and transfer of
technology we decide to establish a Technology Mechanism to accelerate
technology development and transfer in support of action on adaptation
and mitigation that will be guided by a country-driven approach and be
based on national circumstances and priorities.
12. We call for an assessment of the implementation of this Accord
to be completed by 2015, including in light of the Convention's
ultimate objective. This would include consideration of strengthening
the long-term goal referencing various matters presented by the
science, including in relation to temperature rises of 1.5 degrees
Celsius. [2]
[edit] The Danish Text
At the Conference, a leaked document known as "The Danish Text"
started an argument between developed and developing nations. The
document was subtitled as "The Copenhagen Agreement", proposes measures
to keep average global temperature rises to two degrees Celsius above
pre-industrial levels. Developing countries
have reacted over the document saying that the developed countries had
worked behind closed doors and made an agreement according to their
wish without the consent of the Developing nations. Lumumba Stanislaus Di-Aping, speaker of the G77-group,
has said, "It's an incredibly imbalanced text intended to subvert,
absolutely and completely, two years of negotiations. It does not
recognize the proposals and the voice of developing countries,". [3] According to the Guardian, an analysis of the document by developing countries lists the following critical issues: [4]
• Force developing countries to agree to specific emission cuts and measures that were not part of the original UN agreement;
• Divide poor countries further by creating a new category of developing countries called "the most vulnerable";
• Weaken the UN's role in handling climate finance;
• Not allow poor countries to emit more than 1.44 tonnes of carbon per
person by 2050, while allowing rich countries to emit 2.67 tonnes.
[edit] Criticisms of the Accord
 | This section does not cite any references or sources. Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. |
Major opposition to the accord exists, to the extent that most
countries participating at the Copenhagen Summit remain opposed to it
and have chosen only to "acknowledge/take note of" it. Some of the key
criticisms include:
- The accord is not legally binding.
- The accord sets no real targets to achieve in emissions reductions.
- The accord was only drafted by 5 countries.
- The deadline for assessment of the accord was drafted as 6 years, by 2015.
- The mobilisation of USD &100 billion dollars per year to developing countries will not be fully in place until 2020.
- The accord falsely states that all Heads of State, Heads of
Government, Ministers, and other heads of delegation present at the
conference, agreed on the accord. It was merely acknowledged by most
participants.
It has also been criticised by the head of the G77 as only securing the economic security of a few nations.
[edit] See also
[edit] References
- ^ Climate summit recognises US deal, BBC News, 2009-12-19, retrieved 2009-12-19.
- ^ UNFCCC:Text of Copenhagen Accord, 18 December 2009
- ^ http://www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/europe/12/09/danish.draft.climate.text.0850/
- ^ http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/dec/08/copenhagen-climate-summit-disarray-danish-text
[edit] External links
[edit] Texts
- Copenhagen Climate Change Agreement, The "Danish Text"
- NGO Copenhagen treaty - narrative (Vol. 1), Narrative
- NGO Copenhagen treaty - legal text (Vol. 2), Legal text
- United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), September 15, 2009
- Copenhagen Accord, The New York Times
[edit] Coverage
- Copenhagen: Leaked draft deal widens rift between rich and poor nations, Guardian
- What Copenhagen Climate Treaty Might Look Like, NPR
- Kyoto Protocol seen extended in U.N. climate draft, Reuters
 | This United Nations-related article is a stub. You can help Wikipedia by expanding it. |
FACTBOX - World set to overshoot 2 Celsius climate limit
Reuters
Promised cuts in greenhouse gas emissions will put the world on a path to exceed a 2 Celsius rise in temperatures sought by a new "Copenhagen Accord" led by the United States and China, according to U.N. calculations.
A leaked note by the U.N. Climate Change Secretariat during U.N. talks in Copenhagen from Dec. 7 to18 says current pledges by rich and poor nations to restrain emissions put the world on track for a 3C rise above pre-industrial times.
Promised cuts in greenhouse gases by industrialised nations, mainly from burning fossil fuels, work out as a reduction of 14-18 percent below 1990 levels by 2020, according to Reuters calculations.
That is well short of cuts of between 25 and 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2020 outlined by a U.N. panel of scientists in 2007 to avoid the worst of global warming such as droughts, heatwaves, species extinctions and rising seas.
In the same report, the panel also said that developing nations would have to have a "substantial deviation" from projected growth rates in emissions by 2020.
Following is an overview of current plans from the leaked Secretariat note:
INDUSTRIALISED NATIONS:
PERCENTAGE CUT BY 2020 VS 1990
Australia 3 - 23
Belarus 5 - 10
Canada 3
Croatia 6
European Union 20 - 30
Iceland 15
Japan 25
Liechtenstein 20 - 30
Monaco 20
New Zealand 10 - 20
Norway 30 - 40
Russia 22 - 25
Switzerland 20 - 30
Ukraine 20
United States 4
DEVELOPING NATIONS:
The Secretariat says that developing nations' 2020 emissions are harder to calculate because many promises hinge on rates of economic growth by 2020. The Secretariat note, however, gives an estimate of the amount of avoided emissions, compared with what would be "business as usual" without restrictions.
Brazil - reduce emissions by 36.1 to 38.1 percent by 2020 from business as usual, mainly by protecting the Amazon rainforest. Curb: 840-910 million tonnes.
Costa Rica - plans to be "carbon neutral" by 2021. Curb: 18.6 million tonnes
China - cut "carbon intensity" -- the amount of carbon emitted per unit of gross national product by between 40 and 45 percent by 2020 from 2005 levels. Curb: 800-2,700 million tonnes
India - reduce carbon intensity by 20-25 percent below business as usual by 2020 from 2005 levels. Curb: 160 million tonnes
Indonesia - reduce emissions by 26 percent below business as usual and by 41 percent with international support. Curb: 800-1,200 million tonnes
Maldives - Aims to become "carbon neutral" eliminating all net emissions -- by 2019. Curb: N/A
Mexico - Plans to reduce emissions by 5 percent below business as usual by 2020. Curb: 20-180 million tonnes
South Korea - plans to reduce emissions by 2020 by 4 percent below 2005 levels by 2020, or 30 percent below business as usual growth. Curb: 160 million tonnes
Singapore - cut emissions by 16 percent below business as usual. Curb: N/A
South Africa - reduce emissions by 34 percent by 2020 below business as usual levels. Curb: 185 million tonnes
Alternative Conference Venue for Observer Organizations (NGOs, IGOs and others) Participating in COP15
Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Denmark
The Danish Government in cooperation with the Danish NGO-network Peoples’ Climate Action (PCA) is organizing an alternative conference venue at Forum Copenhagen for the observer organizations/NGOs and IGOs and others who, due to access restrictions introduced by the UNFCCC, will not be able to enter the Bella Center Thursday 17 and Friday 18 December.
The alternative conference venue is at Forum Copenhagen, Julius Thomsens Plads 1, 1925 Frederiksberg (Metrolines M1 and M2 go directly to Forum station. For further transport information please see www.forumcopenhagen.dk/ english/location ). It will be available for NGO representatives with valid UNFCCC badges from Thursday 17 December at 0800 hours. TV links to the Bella Center will be established at the venue as well as wireless internet connection. Catering will be available.
The parallel conference, Peoples’ Climate Summit (Klimaforum09) organizes a meeting place as of today at Øksnehallen, Halmtorvet 11, 1700 Copenhagen V. TV links to the Bella Center will also be available here. Peoples’ Climate Summit is part of the parallel conference in the DGI town where seminars, exhibitions, concerts etc. are being organized, please see www.klimaforum09.org .
For further practical information about the alternative conference venue, access, it-facilities, catering etc. please contact PCA tel. +45 7022 2799 ( www.peoplesclimateaction.dk/ uk /).
Would India and China Align Ever Even after Suceeding Together in Formulating Non Binding COPENHAGEN Accord?
It is a Billion Dollar Question which will decide the future of the Troubled galaxy as International Media aligned with Indian TOILET Media and the Enemeies of Aboriginal Inidigenous Communities have waged a SINO India War fresh already and diplomacy scored ZERO status till this date to resolve the Puzzle of the Relationship between Two Tradional Neighbous with Great Peaceful Civilsation BONDED Together with the Heritage of BUDDHISM from which India ruled by Zionist Brahaminical Manusmriti Apartheid rule has departed long back in History. In India , now Lord Buddha Smile on the occasion of a Nuclear Explosion only and the Divided Geopolitics has been CONVERTED into a FREE Zone of Terror, Insurgency, Violence, Trouble, Repression, Military Option, Zero Tolerance, Destability, Disintegration, Alienation and Disorganisation, Nothing relating to the legacy of gatam Buddha, thanks to the US Promoted Free market Democracy!Meanwhile, United Nations' top climate change czar Dr Rajendra Pachauri has been accused of making a "fortune" from his links with "carbon trading" companies dependent on the world body's policy recommendations.
India
and China, without ambiguity, are the economies which have come most stronglythrough the financial crisis. Their year-on-year GDP
respectively, dominates third quarter world growth. Each slowed significantly
only immediately after September 2008. Even then, their growth rates remained
high by any standards other than their own.
But it makes no difference with either Diplomacy or Policymaking as the Biliteral relations NEVER improved since 1962 Border clash. The WELL Fed SENSEX FREESEX Ruling Class does everything to highlight ENDANGERED India by China as US Nuclear Weapon Consumer Chemical Corporates targets the Wide markets of both the Countries and widen up systematically the Gap with intense hate Campain.While War and civil war conditions created in South Asia to EXPLOIT Natural resources on the line of Latest Hollywood release AVTAR, US ISRAEL led War Alliance ENSURES that no condition should emerge to stop the Shadow War just because a CHINA India alliance would kill United States of america as well as Israel, both Zionist Leaders aligned with Global Hindutva! CPENHAGEN Accord is a well set Example what India and china may achieve standing together.
India, China should team up for 21st century, rightly writes TK Arun,
ET Bureau in Economic Times:
India  and China are ancient civilisations, neighbours, the two most populous countries of the world, its two fastest-growing economies, friends such as over climate change or world trade, rivals when it comes to winning friends and influencing people around the world, conquering export markets and cornering mineral resources. They tried to be bhai-bhai for some time, then fought a war. |
a mutual relationship as between blood brothers, nor is there any hunger to run
a blood feud. The sensible course for both countries is to rid their rivalry of
overt friction, extend the many areas of cooperation and share the special place
in the sun reserved in the 21st century for those who work economic
miracles.
The biggest irritant in India-China relations is a border
dispute. The dispute is a colonial legacy. The British negotiated an agreement
with Tibet in 1914 in an accord at Simla on the border with India and that
border, named after the then British foreign secretary McMahon, is what the
government of Independent India chose to uphold.
The Chinese never
accepted this boundary, saying that Tibet never had the sovereign authority to
negotiate a border. The Chinese claim some 150,000 sq km south of the McMahon
line as theirs, while India deems this territory as its own.
It is
debatable whether it made sense for New Delhi to view a boundary drawn by the
former colonial power as the final word on defining the geographical limits of
two territories that were new to nationhood but had coexisted for millennia as
great civilisations that respected each other.
The Chinese are not
prone to respecting other civilisations. For centuries, they considered their
Middle Kingdom as the centre of the universe, as the epitome of human
achievement. In early 15th century, legendary admiral Zheng led a naval
expedition and explored south-east and south Asia and Africa (some claim he
discovered Australia and even the Americas).
He reported back to the
peacock throne that the rest of the world did not contain anything worth Chinese
attention. But the Chinese had respect for India, as the land of the Buddha and
as the land from which they procured valuable knowledge, including that of
martial arts.
That culture of respect did not survive the colonial
experience. The British left, leaving opium-smoking Chinamen and tea-swilling
Indians calling each other names from either side of a border dispute, oblivious
of the expiry date on the commercial interests that had made the British get the
Chinese and Indians hooked to stimulants from across their disputed
boundary.
Emancipation from this colonial hangover took time. The
Chinese went through their wrenching experience of the Cultural Revolution
followed by the restoration of order and a new game of cat and mouse in which
the colour of the cat did not matter so long as it caught billions of mice.
India sent AB Vajpayee to Beijing as the foreign minister of the
post-Emergency Janata government, and followed it up with a visit by Rajiv
Gandhi as prime minister. Since then, the two countries have quarantined their
border dispute to a committee of babus from both sides and proceeded to interact
like two normal nations in other matters.
http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/Features/The-Sunday-ET/Special-Report/India-China-should-team-up-for-21st-century/articleshow/5357582.cms
It is not just my vision! Even Economic Times innovates the line. As for me, the peopel who declare death sentence for me to raise the Voices of Indigenous aborigibnal majority Enslaved Masses are just defending the Rotten Hegemony and I hate to take them into any account whatsoever. I have grown amidst Himalayan landslides and Avalances, these threats and hate campaign would not change my stance, mind you!
Ban Ki-moon hailed a controversial accord reached in Copenhagen after all-night talks among world leaders. The agreement has drawn sharp criticism from environmentalists and poorer nations.U.N. officials, climate experts, environmental activists, and leaders of more than 100 nations gathered in Copenhagen, Denmark for a two-week conference on climate change beginning 7 December.On the other hand, Copenhagen: Top climate scientists said Saturday that the eleventh-hour political deal hammered out at UN talks in Copenhagen falls perilously short of what is needed to stave off catastrophic global warming.What many had hoped would be a planet-saving treaty locking major economies into strong commitments to shrink their carbon footprints came out as a three-page political accord with key numbers yet to be filled in.
More confidence building between “emerging economies, the least developed countries and the developed countries” is needed before a legally binding global agreement on climate change can be reached, says US President Barack Obama.
After a meeting of Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao and Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh on the sidelines of the Copenhagen summit on Friday Indian Foreign Secretary Nirupama Rao said that China respects India on the basis of equality and the China-US joint statement on South Asia does not target India.Then, a historic UN climate conference ended with only a nonbinding "Copenhagen Accord" to show for two weeks of debate and frustration. It was a deal short on concrete steps against global warming, but signaling a new start for rich-poor cooperation on climate change.The agreement brokered by US President Barack Obama with China and others in fast-paced hours of diplomacy on Friday sets up the first significant program of climate aid to poorer nations. Although it urges deeper cuts in emissions of carbon dioxide and other gases blamed for global warming, it does nothing to demand them. That will now be subject to continuing talks next year.
The Centre for Science and Environment (CSE) today slammed the deal reached between the US and BASIC countries at Copenhagen, saying it appeared to undermine every principle of effective collective action on climate change.It said the details were still sketchy, but it seemed that the deal would - as with the Australian Proposal - eventually require major developing countries to take on comparable targets to developed countries.
At any rate, the distinction between Annex I and non-Annex I countries would be dissolved. There is no word yet on whether the Kyoto Protocol would - or could - persist, said CSE.
Since it appears to simultaneously destroy the notion of common but differentiated responsibilities, and any hope of setting global targets to avoid dangerous temperature rises, the agreement could deal a fatal blow to any hope of a fair climate treaty.
''It's also unclear why a deal that seems to involve only five countries is being heralded as a successful outcome in international negotiations involving almost two hundred countries,'' said the NGO which was keeping a close watch on developments at Copenhagen with its scientists and researchers stationed there since the climate change conference began on December 7.
The deal, which could not get the endorsement of all the 193 nations gathered in the Danish capital, sets a target of limiting global warming to a maximum 2 degree
Celsius rise over pre-industrial times and holds out the prospect of 100 billion dollar in annual aid from 2020 for developing nations.
There is no specification in the plan of greenhouse gas cuts needed to achieve the 2 degree Celsius goal, a rise beyond which would result in catastrophic changes in the climate.
The Accord contains no reference to a legally binding agreement, as demanded by some developing countries and climate activists.
Also, there was no deadline for transforming it into a binding deal, though UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon said it needed to be turned into a legally binding treaty next year.
It was not clear yet whether it is a formal UN deal.
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:
Developed countries shall provide adequate, predictable and sustainable
financial resources, technology and capacity-building to support the
implementation of adaptation action in developing countries.
Indian Express reports:
A US-brokered deal with four emerging
economies, including India, on climate change that places no
legally-binding emission cuts on developed countries ran into rough
weather on Saturday with a majority of poor countries rejecting it,
saying that it was one-sided.
The deal between
the US and BASIC (Brazil, South Africa, India and China) bloc is
apparently a gain for develop countries which are required under the
1997 Kyoto Protocol to take legally binding emission cuts.
The Protocol
expires on 2012 and the 194-nation Conference of Parties (COP) of the
United Nations here has apparently failed to get a word on its
extension.
Indian negotiators
-- Environment Minister Jairam Ramesh and Prime Minister's Special
Envoy on Climate Shyam Saran -- themselves acknowledged the fact that
the deal is not done until it is approved by the plenary. However,
Ramesh claimed that it was "a good deal."
"Right now we have a document that
says that we continue with negotiations on what to do about the future,
including the Bali Action Plan and Kyoto Protocol," Saran said.
Angry delegates of
many countries like Tuvalu, Bolivia, Costa Rica, Venezuela and Cuba
slammed the US-BASIC deal for showing them great "disrespect" by
leaving them out of the drafting process and imposing their document on
vast majority.
Cuban delegates
said that US President Barack Obama, who brokered the US-BASIC deal,
was "behaving like an emperor" and claimed that the draft was a "gross
violation principle of sovereign equality."
Sudanese delegate
Lumumba Di-Aping compared the deal to the "Holocaust." "This document
cannot be accepted for adoption by the parties present here," said
delegates from Costa Rica, adding that there was an absence of a
legally-binding treaty.
"The easiest yardstick to evaluate is the two degree target," said Andrew Watson, a professor at the University of East Anglia in Britain.
"This agreement will almost certainly not be sufficient to enable that target to be met -- legally-binding tough limits in place over the next few years would be needed for that," he said.
The Nobel-winning UN science panel warned in a benchmark 2007 report that if average temperatures increase by more than 2.0 degrees Celsius (3.6 degrees Fahrenheit) on pre-industrial levels, it could lead to runaway climate change and severe impact.
We have already travelled 0.7 C along that path.
More recent studies suggest the planet could hot up by a devastating 6.0 C (10.8 F), and that sea levels could rise by more than a metre (3.25 feet) by 2100 unless we slash CO2 concentrations in the Earth's atmosphere.
Such a hothouse scenario would create hundreds of millions of environmental refugees.
"Strictly speaking, it is a disappointment. We expected more," French climate scientist Herve Le Treut said of the new accord.
"What we have seen is the diverging interests of nation states and the planet."
Part of the problem is that most of the key mitigation targets have yet to be finalised.
"There is not much here to analyse. The accord doesn't have specific emissions targets for industrial countries, it doesn't have deviation from 'business as usual' goals for developing countries," said Alden Meyer of the Washington-based Union of Concerned Scientists.
"If you look at what is likely going to be listed in the annexes, you are going to be well over a 3.0 C," he said. "The accord also fails to set a target for 'peak year' for global CO2 emissions, ideally around 2015.
"It is very critical that you get a peak and a decline starting soon," he added.
UN climate chief Yvo de Boer made much the same point in closing out the 13-day marathon meeting: "The opportunity to actually make it into the scientific window of opportunity is getting smaller and smaller."
The deal does contain a few silver linings, the scientists said.
"At least it may signal that there is some willingness to take action, so that we might have a hope of limiting the rise to 3.0 C - 4.0 C, and avoid the really unknown territory that lies beyond that," Watson said.
In a special report, The Sunday Telegraph said that "although Dr Pachauri is often presented as a (climate) scientist, as a former railway engineer with a PhD in economics, he has no qualifications in climate science.
"What has also almost entirely escaped attention, however, is how Pachauri has established a worldwide portfolio of business interests with bodies that have been investing billions of dollars in organisations dependent on the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's policy recommendations.
"These include banks, oil and energy companies and investment funds heavily involved in 'carbon trading' and 'sustainable technologies' which together make up the fastest-growing commodity market in the world estimated soon to be worth trillions of dollars a year."
The report said, "Today, in addition to his role as chairman of the IPCC, Dr Pachauri occupies more than a score of such posts, acting as director or adviser to many of the bodies that play a leading role in what has become known as the climate industry."
The newspaper, however, did not carry any reaction of Pachauri on its report.
The report claimed that the potential conflict of interest was first publicly raised on last Tuesday when, after giving a lecture at Copenhagen University, he was handed over a letter by two eminent climate sceptics.
One was Stephen Fielding, the Australian senator who started the revolt which recently led to the defeat of his government's "cap and trade scheme" that would place a limit on emissions.
The other, from Britain, was Lord Monckton, a longtime critic of the IPCC's science, who has recently played a key part in stiffening opposition to a cap and trade bill in the United States Senate. Their open letter first challenged the scientific honesty of a graph prominently used in the IPCC's 2007 report, and shown again by Dr Pachauri in his lecture, demanding that he should withdraw it.
But they went on to question why the report had not declared Pachauri's personal interest in so many organisations that seemingly stood to profit from its findings.
The letter was circulated to all the 192 national conference delegations, calling on them to dismiss Pachauri as IPCC chairman because of recent revelations of his conflicting interests, the paper said.
Head of The Energy Research Institute TERI, Pachuri shared the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize on behalf of IPCC with former US Vice President Al Gore.
As delegates wrapped up an exhausting overnight negotiating marathon on Saturday afternoon, to end the 193-nation conference, UN climate chief Yvo de Boer assessed the results for reporters.
It's "an impressive accord," he said of the three-page document. "But it's not an accord that is legally binding, not an accord that pins down industrialised countries to targets."
A legally binding international agreement -- a treaty -- requiring further emissions cuts by richer nations was the goal in Bali, Indonesia, in 2007 when the annual UN conference set a two-year timetable leading to Copenhagen.
A new pact would succeed the first phase of the 1997 Kyoto Protocol, whose relatively modest emissions cuts by 37 nations expire in 2012. It was hoped a new regime would encompass the US, which rejected Kyoto.
But the hopes for Copenhagen faded as 2009 wore on and the first US legislation to cap carbon emissions worked its way only slowly through Congress. Without a US commitment, others were wary of submitting to a new legally binding deal.
Big polluters, nonetheless, submitted plans for reductions ahead of the UN talks.
United Nations Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon hailed a controversial climate change accord reached in Copenhagen after all-night talks among world leaders. The agreement has drawn sharp criticism from environmentalists and poorer nations.
Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon said that a nonbinding climate change agreement reached with difficulty by world leaders in Copenhagen was nonetheless a real deal.
After doubts, disappointments and feelings that two weeks of climate change talks in the Danish capital were going nowhere, Mr. Ban said bringing world leaders to the table for the final stage of negotiations had paid off. He said progress had been made on four key benchmarks he had laid out in September for Copenhagen to be a success.
"All countries have agreed to work towards a common long-term goal to limit global temperature rise to below two degrees Celsius. Many governments have made important commitments to reduce or limit emissions," he said.
The so-called Copenhagen Accord is a compromise plan spearheaded by the United States and four key emerging economies - China, Brazil, India and South Africa. It sets targets to prevent the planet's average temperature from rising more than two degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels and outlines a plan of $100 billion in annual aid to poor nations to deal with climate change, starting in 2020.
But the accord is nonbinding. And it failed to earn universal support from the 193 nations participating at the summit, leaving the conference chair to conclude that participants merely "take note" of the deal.
Mr. Ban also said the accord only marked a beginning - with a lot of work still ahead.
"First, we need to turn this agreement into a legally binding treaty," he said. "I will work with world leaders over the coming months to make this happen. Second, we must launch the Copenhagen Green Climate fund. The UN system will work to ensure that it can immediately start to deliver immediate results to people in need and jump-start clean energy growth in developing countries.
Mr. Ban also said it was important for nations to be more ambitious in fighting climate change, noting country commitments to date fell short of what science said was needed. The Copenhagen agreement leaves lots of details undecided. It sets a January 2010 deadline for all nations to submit their emissions-cutting plans to the United Nations.
The Copenhagen Accord, the first global agreement of the 21st century to
comprehensively influence the flow and share of natural
upon by 26 most influential countries in the wee hours of Saturday morning in
the snow drenched capital of Denmark.
The US led the pack of
architects with the BASIC four -- China, India, Brazil and South Africa (in that
serial order) -- working as sometimes reluctant and sometimes willing but always
the key partners in framing the agreement. Global warming, having given rise to
the occasion for such a framework, itself became an orphaned issue though as
most of the other 192 countries, by keeping silent, accepted that this was the
template for climate negotiations from now on.
The Accord demands
that increase in global temperatures be kept below 2 degrees on the basis of
equity. It requires global emissions as well as all national emissions peak at a
certain time but is mindful of concerns for economic development. It asks
industrialized countries, except the US, to take emission cuts in future but not
necessarily under the Kyoto Protocol.
It lays out up to US $30
billion of quick start finance
routes of transfer possible -- private or not. It requires mitigation actions
from developing countries for the first time to be listed in an international
agreement.
The agreement, a compromise, as every head of state
characterized it, came about after hardnosed hour-long negotiations between
Obama in a meeting with Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh, his Chinese
counterpart Wen Jiabao. amd Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva and Jacob Zuma, Presidents
of Brazil and South Africa, respectively, on Friday night. The rules of
multilateral engagement got rewritten as new alignments created a coterie of the
powerful that brokered deals in closed rooms: each working at the end to
preserve if not improve its immediate economic status.
The pact they
forged did cause heartburn as less powerful economies felt left out. They
complained. Angry reaction from Nicaragua, Bolivia, Venezuela from Latin
America, Pakistan and Malaysia form Asia and Sudan from Africa ensured the
accord did not get stamped officially under the UN climate convention.
The low ambition deal was seen as a triumph of the US which defied
estimates to influence the outcome. But the negotiations also saw the Chinese
leveraging their clout in the resource rich African continent in a multilateral
forum.
On Saturday at 4:15 pm, when the meeting finally ended, even
as delegates walked out, many wondered loud had China played its cards the best,
played the good cop to get on the high table and let countries like Sudan
balance that out in public by annulling the power of the Copenhagen accord.
The meeting that led to the Copenhagen Accord was called as talks of
five countries with the larger group of 26 countries including the European and
rich country power-packs and representatives of all other country blocks -- the
Africans, the small island states and least developed countries -- were getting
logjammed.
The other developed countries had been asking for peaking
of emissions and international scrutiny of emerging economies, and the small
island states wanted to have a global target of 1.5 degrees embedded in the
document which the others were not to keen upon. As the talks got stuck, those
who mattered proved they did.
India found its place at the high
table, many in India would believe rightly so, but it was asked to book some
future costs against the seat it was filling.
The emerging four
economies, for this once, found common cause in protecting their energy base.
Their economic strength lent greater radius to their circle of influence as they
emerged the power brokers for the developing world. At the end, many would
assess, that they may have sacrificed the interests of those smaller developing
countries they rode on to enter the hallowed portals but, at least this once,
they altered the climate game.
Till now some small island countries
and some least developed countries, with their moral persuasion but economic
dependence, had played spoil sport in the G77 camp, causing heartburn to
developing economies. This time, the big four emerging economies made some
common cause with the US at the cost of smaller players in the developing
country block.
The block, always divergent and rancorous, would not
be less or more fractured than before after this shift, but it did feel the
tremors from the tectonic shift in geopolitics.
U.S-India Security Relations
Implications for China
Zhang Guihong*
| The increasing attention being President Clinton’s visit to India What are the changes in US-India US-India Relations: From Estrangement to Rapprochement With the beginning of the Cold As opposed to Pakistan, who joined India was also opposed to the As a third corollary, India began The other important factor was During the Cold War, America’s With the end of the Cold War, During the Kargil crisis of 1999, President Clinton’s India visit President George W. Bush continued The September 11, 2001, attack However, the partnership between First, India’s five nuclear tests Secondly, America realized that Thirdly, Americans and Indians Finally, India and the United United States’ South Asia Policy: Beyond Balance United States and India’s relationship A change in the United States In terms of non-proliferation, An article published in Washington
United States changed its security The advantage is demonstrated In sum, against the backdrop of United States changed its security This is primarily demonstrated The change in United States While Pakistan has attempted to It is widely accepted both in With the end of the Cold War, In conclusion, based on the rise U.S.-India Security Relationship and China’s The India-China-U.S. Triangle: There are two defining characteristics China and India, the two largest The United States and India, the China and the United States, the What is more likely is the emergence South Asian security and China’s South Asia is one of the most Nuclear proliferation in South Asia The struggle against terrorism In conclusion, nuclear tests and The America factor in Sino-India India, in the assessment of one In comparison to the up-and-down The economic development of China Within China, in recent years, NOTES
|
Climate leaders: The rhetoric vs the reality
COPENHAGEN:
They had been urged to side with the angels but ultimately, base political
instinct seems to have prevailed among the world's most
sealed a climate
From the eve of the 12-day marathon right until its finale, the
overwhelming message in Copenhagen was that it was time to put aside national
self-interest for the greater good of saving the planet for future generations.
But a survey of the wreckage from the negotiations indicated that
none of the world's economic powerhouses was willing to make the leap of faith.
Instead, they opted for a lowest common denominator accord -- devoid
of targets for greenhouse-gas emissions cuts and not legally binding.
Nnimmo Bassey, chair of Friends of the Earth International, said a
delay in wide-ranging action to limit emissions had "condemned millions of the
world's poorest people to hunger, suffering and loss of life."
| Also Read |
| → Investors give cautious thumbs up to climate deal |
| → UN climate talks acknowledge Copenhagen accord |
| → Copenhagen, RIP: Time to look beyond climate summit |
| → For common man, climate disaster still his neighbour’s problem |
An editorial published
in 56 newspapers around the world as the gathering kicked off nearly a fortnight
earlier, invoked Abraham Lincoln by imploring the leaders to embrace "the better
angels of our nature".
"The politicians in Copenhagen have the power
to shape history's judgment on this generation: one that saw a challenge and
rose to it, or one so stupid that we saw calamity coming but did nothing to
avert it."
In their speeches from the floor, many of the leaders
spoke of their encounters with school pupils or name-checked grandchildren.
"When I arrive home at the end of this week, will I be able to sit
down, look my children in the eyes and tell them in clear conscience that I did
absolutely everything I could to achieve an outcome to tackle climate change?"
Australian Prime Minister Kevin Rudd asked rhetorically.
US
President Barack Obama likewise urged his peers to be "part of a historic
endeavor -- one that makes life better for our children and our grandchildren."
Tip of a new climate order A weak deal plus a model with US and India role | ||
| JAYANTA BASU IN COPENHAGEN AND G.S. MUDUR IN NEW DELHI | ||
Dec. 19: The India The The The That “I She “I But The Leaders India tightrope walk India’s On But “The He Ramesh, “We Asked As Subsequently, “Overnight, But A “The “What | ||
 |
No-drama Obama? Not this time | |||
Dec. 19: A The It According Manmohan Sergio
The The two sides then scheduled the bilateral meeting that eventually became a multilateral event. Obama, He Later, The “The “We When Obama entered the room, there was no chair for him. Obama himself was reported as saying that there weren’t any seats. Obama said, “No, no, don’t worry, I am going to go sit by my friend Lula,” and said, “Hey, Lula.” He walked over, moved a chair and sat down next to Lula. Clinton sat next to him. The meeting started at 7pm local time and concluded at 8.15-8.20pm (about 12.45-12.50am in India on Saturday). An The When “When “Brazil The Obama, At Wen Obama The The | |||
| PTI AND NEW YORK TIMES NEWS SERVICE | |||
|
China praises Copenhagen's international climate talks' outcome as 'significant and positive'
EIJING (AP) — China, the world's largest emitter of greenhouse gases,
lauded Sunday the outcome of a historic U.N. climate conference that
ended with a nonbinding agreement that urges major polluters to make
deeper emissions cuts — but does not require it.
The
international climate talks that brought more than 110 leaders together
in Copenhagen produced "significant and positive" results, Foreign
Minister Yang Jiechi said.
Disputes between rich and poor
countries and between the world's biggest carbon polluters — China and
the United States — dominated the two-week conference. Tens of
thousands of protesters took to the streets to demand action to cool an
overheating planet.
The meeting ended Saturday after a 31-hour
negotiating marathon, with delegates accepting a U.S.-brokered
compromise. The so-called Copenhagen Accord gives billions of dollars
in climate aid to poor nations but does not require the world's major
polluters to make deeper cuts in their greenhouse gas emissions.
German Chancellor Angela Merkel defended the much-criticized outcome as
a first step that paves the way for action. Merkel was quoted Sunday as
telling the Bild am Sonntag newspaper that "Copenhagen is a first step
toward a new world climate order — no more, but also no less."
Merkel said that "anyone who just badmouths Copenhagen now is engaging
in the business of those who are applying the brakes rather than moving
forward."
Yang said the positive outcomes of the conference
were that it upheld the principle of "common but differentiated
responsibilities" recognized by the Kyoto Protocol, and made a step
forward in promoting binding emissions cuts for developed countries and
voluntary mitigating actions by developing countries.
"Developing and developed countries are very different in their
historical emissions responsibilities and current emissions levels, and
in their basic national characteristics and development stages," Yang
said in a statement. "Therefore, they should shoulder different
responsibilities and obligations in fighting climate change."
He said the conference also created a consensus on key issues such as
long-term global emissions reduction targets, funding and technology
support to developing countries, and transparency. He did not go into
details.
"The Copenhagen conference is not a destination but a new beginning," Yang said.
China has said it will rein in its greenhouse gas output, pledging to
reduce its carbon intensity — its use of fossil fuels per unit of
economic output — by 40 to 45 percent.
The Copenhagen Accord
emerged principally from President Barack Obama's meeting with Chinese
Premier Wen Jiabao and the leaders of India, Brazil and South Africa.
But the agreement was protested by several nations that demanded deeper
emissions cuts by the industrialized world.
Its key elements,
with no legal obligation, were that richer nations will finance a $10
billion-a-year, three-year program to fund poorer nations' projects to
deal with drought and other impacts of climate change, and to develop
clean energy.
A goal was also set to mobilize $100 billion a year by 2020 for the same adaptation and mitigation purposes.
In a U.S. concession to China and other developing nations, text was
dropped from the declaration that would have set a goal of reducing
global emissions by 50 percent by 2050. Developing nations thought that
would hamper efforts to raise their people from poverty.
Related links
http://www.fox40.com/news/nationworld/sns-ap-climate,0,2911325.story
Copenhagen Accord: half-baked text and unclear substance - WWF
21 Dec 2009
The UN climate talks in Copenhagen have ended with a weak Accord
being accepted by most parties, but the present ambition is far too low
to tackle dangerous climate change, WWF said today.
"Copenhagen was at the brink of failure due to poor leadership
combined with an unconvincing level of ambition", said Kim Carstensen,
Leader of WWF's Global Climate Initiative.
WWF analysed the conference outcome against 10 performance criteria,
finding that none of the objectives needed to fulfil the aim of keeping
average global warming below the 2 degree C high risk level had been
met, although some had
been partly fulfilled.
"Well meant but half-hearted pledges to protect our planet from
dangerous climate change are simply not sufficient to address a crisis
that calls for completely new ways of collaboration across rich and
poor countries," said Mr Carstensen.
"Millions of lives, hundreds of billions of dollars and a wealth of
lost opportunities lie in the difference between rhetoric and reality
on climate change action."
Politicians around the world seem to be in agreement that we must
stay below the 2 degree C threshold of unacceptable risks of climate
change - in theory. However, practically what leaders have put on the
table adds up to 3 degrees C of warming or more, according to WWF
estimates.
Attention will now shift to follow up negotiations which need to
fill out many details in the often vague accord - and, on a more
positive note, to a host of initiatives by countries, cities, companies
and communities that are starting to build low carbon economies from
the base up.
The draft Copenhagen Accord is a long way from developing into a
legally binding framework for decisive action on climate change.
"We needed a treaty now and at best, we will be working on one in half a year's time," said Carstensen.
"What we have after two years of negotiation is a half-baked text of
unclear substance. None of the political obstacles to effective climate
action have been solved with the possible exception of the beginnings
of financial flows.
The lack of clarity is illustrated by a call for a global peak in
emissions "as soon as possible", in contrast to the 2007 call of the
IPCC for emissions to peak in 2017.
Emissions reductions pledges remain far lower than what is required,
with a leaked analysis by the UNFCCC secretariat showing a shortfall
that would lead to 3 degrees C of warming even without considering
extensive loopholes.
"We are disappointed but the story continues," said Carstensen.
"Civil society was excluded from these final negotiations to an
extraordinary degree, and that was felt during the concluding days in
Copenhagen."
"We can assure the world, however, that WWF and other elements of
civil society will continue engaging in every step of further
negotiations."
http://wwf.org.au/news/copenhagen-accord-half-baked-text-and-unclear-substance-wwf/
Read More:
#cop15, Brazil, China, Climate Change, Copenhagen, Copenhagen 2009, Copenhagen Accord, Copenhagen Agreement, Copenhagen Deal, Copenhagen Details, Copenhagen Pact, Emissions, Global Warming, Greenhouse Gases, Non-Binding, Read The Deal, Us,
Green News
***Click here to read the document released to the media***
Here is what's known about the broad, nonbinding accord reached by
the U.S., China, India, Brazil, South Africa and several other
countries at the U.N. climate talks – along with current elements in
place earlier:
Greenhouse gas emissions
The
deal does not commit any nation to emissions cuts beyond a general
acknowledgment that global temperatures should be held along the lines
agreed to by leading nations in July. There are no overall emissions
targets for rich countries.
The already agreed-upon emissions cuts fall far short of action
needed to avoid potentially dangerous effects of climate change. These
cuts are to be made by 2020:
_U.S., a 17 percent reduction from 2005 levels (or 3-4 percent from 1990 levels).
_China, a cut of 40 to 45 percent below "business as usual," that
is, judged against 2005 figures for energy used versus economic output.
_India, 20 to 25 percent cut from 2005 levels
_European Union, 20 percent cut from 1990, and possibly 30 percent.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/12/18/copenhagen-accord-details_n_397879.html
Obama forges semblence of an accordmydigitalfc.com - - 20 hours ago to cobble together an agreement with India, China, South Africa and Brazil or what's called the Basic nations, ... PM extends stay for elusive Copenhagen accordGaea Times (blog) - Dec 18, 2009 The announcement came amid dimming prospects for a new global climate-change pact at next month's UN November 16th, 2009 Summit urged to set climate accord ...  US-BASIC 'Copenhagen Accord' disappoints poor nationsIndian Express - 12 hours ago US-Basic AccordBy: Ashok K Gupta | 19-Dec-2009 Reply | Forward India has some scope in per capita & per unit GDP emission.But need to focus more on the ... PM returns from CopenhagenGaea Times (blog) - Dec 19, 2009 December 18th, 2009 COPENHAGEN - Leaders of major economies finalised a Copenhagen accord to tackle climate change late Friday night. The accord, which is ...  Contentious Trade Issue Arises in Copenhagen As Obama Arrives at Divisive ...CNSNews.com - - Dec 18, 2009 16, 2009. (AP Photo) (CNSNews.com) – As President Obama joins other world leaders at the Copenhagen climate conference on Friday, the subject of carbon ... Rep. Jim Sensenbrenner: Don't be fooled in CopenhagenWashington Examiner - Dec 17, 2009 My opposition to these latest proposals from Asia is essentially for the same reasons as my opposition to the original Kyoto climate accord: It puts the ... 5 nations forge climate pactSan Jose Mercury News - - Dec 18, 2009 Obama said before he left Copenhagen that he was confident that a final accord would be reached here. He looked weary, and his eyes were bloodshot as he ... Climate talks may fail; PM, Obama, China stick to their gunsRediff - Dec 18, 2009 Earlier, US President Barack Obama said at the Copenhagen meet: "It is in our mutual interest to achieve a global climate accord. There is no time to waste, ...  PM extends stay for elusive Copenhagen accordOnline Latest News (blog) - Dec 18, 2009 by Pankaj Akhori on December 19, 2009 Prime Minister Manmohan Singh extended his stay here another night Friday as consensus on a Copenhagen accord ...  PM stuck in Copenhagen as accord stalls againOnline Latest News (blog) - Dec 18, 2009 As the drafting of the Copenhagen Accord stalled yet again due to differences between rich and poor countries, Denmark's Prime Minister Lars Lokke Rasmussen ... India: Kyoto in intensive care if not deadCOP15 Copenhagen - Dec 16, 2009 16/12/2009 14:33No-one has the right to pollute the world, rich, poor, developed or emerging nations. Developed Nations now have the responsibility to clean ...  India says Kyoto climate pact in intensive careBernama - Dec 16, 2009 Protestors carry a banner as they march towards Bella Center where the UN Climate Change 2009 Conference takes place to disrupt proceedings in Copenhagen ... Climate deal good for the developing world: IndiaGulf Times - 17 hours ago The so-called Copenhagen Accord had been brokered by the US and China and endorsed by the European Union, India and South Africa . ...  INTERVIEW - India says climate talks lack clarity, may break downMalaysia Star - - Dec 15, 2009 COPENHAGEN Reuters) - Global talks on climate change still lack clarity and could even break down over "serious" outstanding issues ... |
Low targets, goals dropped: Copenhagen ends in failure
Deal thrashed out at talks condemned as climate change scepticism in action
-
guardian.co.uk,
Saturday 19 December 2009 00.47 GMT
- Article history
Onlookers
stretch to shake the hand of the US president, Barack Obama, as he
walks through the press conference room at the Bella centre.
Photograph: Adrian Dennis/AFP/Getty Images
The
UN climate summit reached a weak outline of a global agreement in
Copenhagen tonight, falling far short of what Britain and many poor
countries were seeking and leaving months of tough negotiations to come.
After
eight draft texts and all-day talks between 115 world leaders, it was
left to Barack Obama and Wen Jiabao, the Chinese premier, to broker a
political agreement. The so-called Copenhagen accord "recognises" the
scientific case for keeping temperature rises to no more than 2C but
does not contain commitments to emissions reductions to achieve that
goal.
American officials spun the deal as a "meaningful agreement", but even Obama said: "This progress is not enough."
"We have come a long way, but we have much further to go," he added.
Gordon Brown hailed the night as a success on five out of six measures.
In
a press conference held after the talks broke up, Brown said the
agreement was a "vital first step" and accepted there was a lot more
work to do to get assurances it would become a legally binding
agreement. He declined to call it a "historic" conference: "This is the
first step we are taking towards a green and low carbon future for the
world, steps we are taking together. But like all first steps, the
steps are difficult and they are hard."
"I know what we rally need is a legally binding treaty as quickly as possible."
The deal was brokered between China,
South Africa, India, Brazil and the US, but late last night it was
unclear whether it would be adopted by all 192 countries in the full
plenary session. The deal aims to provide $30bn a year for poor
countries to adapt to climate change from next year to 2012, and $100bn a year by 2020.
But
it disappointed African and other vulnerable countries which had been
holding out for deeper emission cuts to hold the global temperature
rise to 1.5C this century. As widely expected, all references to 1.5C
in past drafts were removed at the last minute, but more surprisingly,
the earlier 2050 goal of reducing global CO2 emissions by 80% was also dropped.
The
agreement also set up a forestry deal which is hoped would
significantly reduce deforestation in return for cash. It lacked the
kind of independent verification of emission reductions by developing
countries that the US and others demanded.
Obama hinted that
China was to blame for the lack of a substantial deal. In a press
conference he condemned the insistence of some countries to look
backwards to previous environmental agreements. He said developing
countries should be "getting out of that mindset, and moving towards
the position where everybody recognises that we all need to move
together".
This was a not-so-veiled reference to the row over
whether to ditch the Kyoto protocol and its legal distinction between
developed and developing countries. Developing nations saw this as an
attempt by the rich world to wriggle out of its responsibility for
climate change. Many observers blamed the US for coming to the talks
with an offer of just 4% emissions cuts on 1990 levels. The final text
made no obligations on developing countries to make cuts.
Negotiators
will now work on individual agreements such as forests, technology, and
finance – but, without strong leadership, the chances are that it will
take years to complete.
Obama cast his trip as a sign of renewed
US global leadership: "The time has come for us to get off the
sidelines and shape the future that we seek; that is why I came to
Copenhagen."
But the US president also said he would not be staying for the final vote "because of weather constraints in Washington".
Lumumba
Di-Aping, chief negotiator for the G77 group of 130 developing
countries, said the deal had "the lowest level of ambition you can
imagine. It's nothing short of climate change scepticism in action. It
locks countries into a cycle of poverty for ever. Obama has eliminated
any difference between him and Bush."
John Sauven, executive
director of Greenpeace UK, said: "The city of Copenhagen is a crime
scene tonight, with the guilty men and women fleeing to the airport. Ed
Miliband [UK climate change secretary] is among the very few that come
out of this summit with any credit." It is now evident that beating
global warming will require a radically different model of politics
than the one on display here in Copenhagen."
Lydia Baker of Save
the Children said world leaders had "effectively signed a death warrant
for many of the world's poorest children. Up to 250,000 children from
poor communities could die before the next major meeting in Mexico at
the end of next year."
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/dec/18/copenhagen-deal
Is the Copenhagen Accord a meaningful agreement?
Paul Woodward, Online Correspondent
- Last Updated: December 20. 2009 2:49PM UAE / December 20. 2009 10:49AM GMT
As
two weeks of contentious negotiations on tackling climate change
concluded with the declaration of the Copenhagen Accord - which the US
President Barack Obama described as a "meaningful" agreement - it was
unclear in what sense the accord actually constituted an agreement.
"The
climate deal reached between US, China and other great powers on Friday
night is so vague, hastily hatched and non-binding President Obama
isn't even sure he'll be required to sign it," Politico reported.
"
'You know, it raises an interesting question as to whether technically
there's actually a signature... It's not a legally binding agreement, I
don't know what the protocols are,' said a bleary-eyed Obama, before
hopping in Air Force One for the trip back to Washington."
As The New York Times noted: "The three-page accord
that Mr Obama negotiated with the leaders of China, India, Brazil and
South Africa and then presented to the conference did not meet even the
modest expectations that leaders set for this meeting, notably by
failing to set a 2010 goal for reaching a binding international treaty
to seal the provisions of the accord.
"Nor does the plan firmly
commit the industrialised nations or the developing nations to firm
targets for midterm or long-term greenhouse gas emissions reductions.
The accord is nonetheless significant in that it codifies the
commitments of individual nations to act on their own to tackle global
warming.
" 'For the first time in history,' Mr Obama said, 'all
major economies have come together to accept their responsibility to
take action to confront the threat of climate change.'
"The
accord provides a system for monitoring and reporting progress toward
those national pollution-reduction goals, a compromise on an issue over
which China bargained hard. It calls for hundreds of billions of
dollars to flow from wealthy nations to those countries most vulnerable
to a changing climate. And it sets a goal of limiting the global
temperature rise to 2C above preindustrial levels by 2050, implying
deep cuts in climate-altering emissions over the next four decades.
"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. The messy compromise mirrored the
chaotic nature of the conference, which virtually all participants said
had been badly organised and run."
The accord that Mr Obama
helped negotiate would have been almost worthless without recognition
by the plenary session of all the delegate nations at the summit. But
as The Guardian
recounted, when the Danish chairman, Lars Løkke Rasmussen, gave
delegates just an hour to consider the accord, he was assailed by a
storm of criticism.
"The Venezuelan representative raised a
bloodied hand to grab his attention. 'Do I have to bleed to grab your
attention,' she fumed. 'International agreements cannot be imposed by a
small exclusive group. You are endorsing a coup d'état against the
United Nations.'
"While the debate raged, China's delegate, Su
Wei, was silent as Latin American nations and small island states lined
up to attack the accord and the way it had been reached.
"
'We're offended by the methodology. This has been done in the dark,'
fumed the Bolivian delegate. 'It does not respect two years of work.'
"Others
resorted to histrionics. The document 'is a solution based on the same
very values, in our opinion, that channelled six million people in
Europe into furnaces,' said Sudan's Lumumba Stanislaus Di-Aping.
"It
was too much for Rasmussen, who looked strained and exhausted after a
week spent vainly trying to bridge the schisms between the parties. He
raised his gavel to close the debate, which would have aborted the
Copenhagen accord and condemned the summit to abject failure.
"The
document was saved at the last second by [Britain's secretary of state
for energy and climate change, Ed] Miliband, who had rushed back from
his hotel room to call for an adjournment. During the recess, a group
led by Britain, the US and Australia forced Rasmussen out of the chair
and negotiated a last-minute compromise. The accord was neither
accepted or rejected, it was merely 'noted'. This gave it a semblance
of recognition, but the weak language reflected the unease that has
surrounded its inception."
Andy Atkins,
the executive director of Friends of the Earth, responding to a speech
by Mr Obama said: "The president is right that the endeavours in
Copenhagen will go down in history - but unless we see a massive shift
in the US position, it will be for all the wrong reasons.
"If
the president's idea of action is to cut US emissions by 4 per cent on
1990 levels then we're heading for climate catastrophe. Barack Obama
should have taken the opportunity to up his proposed cuts to at least
40 per cent by 2020 and ditch carbon offsetting.
"Obama has deeply disappointed not just those listening to his speech at the UN talks - he has disappointed the whole world."
Tim Jones,
climate policy officer at the World Development Movement said: "This
summit has been in complete disarray from start to finish, culminating
in a shameful and monumental failure that has condemned millions of
people around the world to untold suffering. The leaders of rich
countries have refused to lead. They have been captured by business
interests at a time when people need leaders to put justice first.
"Rich
countries have failed the poorest people in the world and history will
judge them harshly. They have failed to offer the emissions cuts that
science and justice requires. To say that this 'deal' is in any way
historic or meaningful is to completely misrepresent the fact that this
'deal' is meaningless."
The Guardian
reported: "The blame game over the failure of the Copenhagen climate
talks started last night with countries accusing each other of a
complete lack of willingness to compromise.
"The G77 group of
130 developing nations blamed Obama for 'locking the poor into
permanent poverty by refusing to reduce US emissions further.'
" 'Today's events are the worst development for climate change in history,' said a spokesperson.
"Pablo
Solon, Bolivian ambassador to the UN, blamed the Danish hosts for
convening only a small group of countries to prepare a text to put
before world leaders. 'This is completely unacceptable. How can it be
that 25 to 30 nations cook up an agreement that excludes the majority
of the 190 nations.'"
The New York Times
noted: "Even President Obama, a principal force behind the final deal,
said the accord would take only a modest step toward healing the
Earth's fragile atmosphere.
"Many participants also said that
the chaos and contentiousness of the talks may signal the end of
reliance on a process that for almost two decades had been viewed as
the best approach to tackling global warming: the United Nations
Framework Convention on Climate Change and a series of 15 conventions
following a 1992 climate summit meeting in Rio de Janeiro.
"The
process has become unworkable, many said, because it has proved
virtually impossible to forge consensus among the disparate blocs of
countries fighting over environmental guilt, future costs and who
should referee the results.
" 'The climate treaty process isn't
going to die, but the real work of coordinating international efforts
to reduce emissions will primarily occur elsewhere,' said Michael Levi,
who has been tracking the diplomatic effort for the Council on Foreign
Relations.
"That elsewhere will likely be a much smaller group
of nations, roughly 30 countries responsible for 90 per cent of global
warming emissions."
http://www.thenational.ae/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20091220/GLOBALBRIEFING/912209991/1009?template=globalbriefing
Thirteen-day talkathon delivers 'horrible agreement'DAWN.com - - 43 minutes ago 'Copenhagen was supposed to deliver a binding treaty, not hollow promises': Pakistani negotiator. Above: Workers remove an exhibit at ... Climate summit most chaotic show on earth - MilibandBBC News - 49 minutes ago The UK's climate change secretary has said the UN Copenhagen summit was the "most chaotic show on earth" and arguments "strangled" negotiations. ... Miliband blames China over dealThe Press Association - 1 hour ago Climate Change Secretary Ed Miliband acknowledged that the results of the Copenhagen conference were "disappointing" but insisted that important progress ... China says communication with other developing countries at Copenhagen summit ...Xinhua - - 1 hour ago BEIJING, Dec. 20 (Xinhua) -- Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesman Qin Gang said here Sunday that China's communication with other developing countries at the ... China: Climate talks yielded 'positive' resultsThe Associated Press - - 1 hour ago BEIJING — China, the world's largest emitter of greenhouse gases, lauded Sunday the outcome of a historic UN climate conference that ended with a nonbinding ... One cheer for CopenhagenSydney Morning Herald - 1 hour ago NOWHERE near good enough, but much better than nothing. That is the kindest, and fairest, verdict that can be passed on the Copenhagen climate-change summit ... The day the Earth stood stillSydney Morning Herald - - 1 hour ago IN a faltering step that nearly all concede is too little to avert a climate crisis, the majority of world leaders will adopt the first international ... Clearly the accord is not enough, but at least it's a startSydney Morning Herald - - 1 hour ago THE Copenhagen Accord, already derided as a betrayal of the world's most vulnerable people, still signals a new dawn in the world's approach to climate ... Match words with deeds, and time is ticking: scientistsSydney Morning Herald - - 1 hour ago DESPITE the best efforts of climate change campaigners to distribute ticking alarm clocks to delegates at Copenhagen, and the enormous stopwatch carried ... New approach on global warming needed nowThe Australian - 1 hour ago THE Copenhagen climate change conference generated much heat and little light on ways the world can unite to reduce carbon emissions. ... |
|
Final reckoning: What the leaders must do to thrash out a deal in Copenhagen Dec 16, 2009 - guardian.co.uk |
Images
Rudd :Copenhagen Accord- A Real ChallengePR-inside.com (press release) - 7 hours ago Foundations now laid in the Copenhagen climate change Accord. We need national & global action for our kids. Kevin Rudd Prime Minister of Australia tweeted ... Bright REDD Spot in Otherwise Dismal Copenhagen AccordEcosystem Marketplace - - 15 hours ago 19 December 2009 | COPENHAGEN | That's the good news on REDD from the otherwise disappointing Copenhagen Accord, which was recognized in the wee hours of ... REDD Forestry Deal Close, But May Not Have Money to Pay for It SolveClimate (blog) The US will meet the climate challenge Stabroek News Forest plan gets the ax at UN climate talks Washington Post Copenhagen failures strike at heart of UN systemChannel News Asia - 10 hours ago In Copenhagen last week, there were moments when that crash finally - horribly - appeared to have happened. The United Nations had billed December 18 2009 ... GLOBAL: Goodbye Copenhagen, hello Mexico? Reuters AlertNet Copenhagen Accord useful in taking climate talks forward: PM LeeChannel News Asia - - Dec 19, 2009 COPENHAGEN: Singapore's Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong said on Saturday that he is ... SUMMIT IS A GREENWASHMirror.co.uk - - 8 hours ago The 1 1th-hour Copenhagen Accord was pieced together by US President Barack Obama, who called it "meaningful". But it has been roundly condemned by ... Germany's Merkel Defends Climate AccordABC News - 4 hours ago 18, 2009. (AP Photo/Heribert Proepper) German Chancellor Angela Merkel is defending the much-criticized outcome of the Copenhagen climate summit as a first ... Sudan climate negotiator 'Holocaust' remarks prompt angry responseSudan Tribune - 9 hours ago UN climate talks ended with a bare-minimum agreement on Saturday when delegates “noted” an accord struck by the United States, China and other emerging ... UN climate change conference issues Copenhagen AccordCCTV - - 14 hours ago People walk past a globe at the venue of the United Nations Climate Change Conference in Copenhagen, capital of Denmark, December 19, 2009. ... |
Email this story
1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | Next |
First Posted: 12-18-09 10:02 PM | Updated: 12-19-09 02:07 AM