Who are the main players in global climate negotiations

Click here for this story in full at philStar.com: http://www.philstar.com/breaking-news/2012/11/25/873333/main-players-global-climate-negotiations

DOHA (Xinhua) - A new round of UN climate change conference slated for Nov. 26-Dec. 7 will be held in Doha, Qatar where negotiators are expected to push ahead what was achieved in Durban last year and work out the details of the second commitment period of the Kyoto protocol.
In climate change talks, parties to the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) mainly group under three contending forces, namely the Umbrella Group, the European Union(EU) and the G77 and China.

UMBRELLA GROUP

The umbrella group mainly consists of the United States, Japan, Canada, Australia, New Zealand and Russia, whose stance regarding climate change is less enthusiastic than most of the developed signatories to the Kyoto Protocol. Particularly, in 2001, the United States withdrew from the Protocol, and in 2011, Canada followed its step.
The Umbrella Group insists that developing countries should undertake quantified emission reduction commitments along with the developed countries, regardless of the fact that rich nations are responsible for 80 percent of the existing greenhouse gas in the atmosphere due to their unsustainable way of industrialization in the past.

EU

The EU is more active in fighting climate change than the Umbrella Group and supports a second commitment period of the Kyoto Protocol being negotiated.
Nevertheless, the EU sees the second commitment period only as a transition phase, following which a new treaty should be implemented in its stead to assign all major economies mandatory emission cut targets.
These economies that the EU has in mind include the United States, who has so far showed no interest in the second commitment period, as well as the emerging economies, mainly include China and India.
Again, the EU is aiming to discard the core principle of the UNFCCC, "common but differentiated responsibilities," and tries to blur the distinction between the duties of developed and developing countries.

G77 AND CHINA

The G77 and China represent the interests of the developing countries in the climate negotiations.
An important player under this bloc is the BASIC nations, which encompass China, India, Brazil and South Africa. The BASIC group often meets to coordinate their positions ahead of major climate talks.
The G77 and China advocate respecting the UNFCCC and the Bali Roadmap, which set a double-track process for climate negotiations and differentiates the duties of the rich and poor countries.
They argue that the developed countries should make greater commitment to cutting carbon emissions, citing their historical discharge, while the developing countries, aided by financial and technical support, should also make efforts to cut their emissions on a voluntary basis.

Click here for this story in full at philStar.com: http://www.philstar.com/breaking-news/2012/11/25/873333/main-players-global-climate-negotiations

UN’s Ban Congratulates Obama, Sees Lasting Partnership With U.S.

Click here for this in full @ Bloomberg Businessweek: http://www.businessweek.com/news/2012-11-07/un-s-ban-congratulates-obama-sees-lasting-partnership-with-u-dot-s-dot

United Nations Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon congratulated President Barack Obama on his re-election and said he looks forward to working with the administration “in the spirit of the enduring partnership” between the U.S. and the UN. 

“Many challenges lie ahead, from ending the bloodshed in Syria, to getting the Middle East peace process back on track, to promoting sustainable development and tackling the challenges posed by climate change,” Ban said in an e-mailed statement today. “All will require strong multilateral cooperation” and the UN counts on the “active engagement” of the U.S. on these and other issues.


Click here for this in full @ Bloomberg Businessweek: http://www.businessweek.com/news/2012-11-07/un-s-ban-congratulates-obama-sees-lasting-partnership-with-u-dot-s-dot

CanadaFreePress: UN is Fleecing US and the EU Carbon Tax

CLICK HERE TO VIEW THIS ON CANADA FREE PRESS

Politicians in America and the current administration are fleecing the American public with their Green Environmentalist Agenda 21 driven by the United Nations and its bureaucrats

- Dr. Ileana Johnson Paugh

The EU charges a carbon emissions fee, an “extra terrestrial tax.” This is viewed by non-European governments as an attack on sovereignty. China’s airlines have refused to comply. “Some non-European airlines may have to choose whether to obey the law of their land or that of Europe.” Companies refusing to comply would be fined and denied the right to land in the 27 countries that are members of EU.

The European Court of Justice has already rejected the legal basis of a challenge raised in London by North American airlines. Carriers have until April 30 to calculate their damaging annual emissions and to buy polluting rights for 2012. Delta Airlines has already added a surcharge to passenger tickets. The scalping of the developing world continues. Each flight will cost us an additional $32 of a round-trip long-distance ticket. The financial gains are substantial for the bureaucrats since 655 million people flew to Europe last year.

The United Nations is pushing for a global deal through its International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO). It does not matter that global warming has been debunked, the EU and UN coffers must be replenished by hapless developed world citizens and the wealth must be spread to developing nations in the name of “social justice.”

The media did not report on the temperature rise in the U.S. during the time period when no airplanes flew after the 9/11 attack, proving that pollution from airplanes does not increase temperatures, on the contrary, it provides a level of cooling protection. (Lord Monckton)

Never mind that the United Nations no longer lives up to its charter of world peace and is indoctrinating children and the population into the green sustainability hoax. UN wants more than the $516.3 requested from the United States for its regular budget and more than the $2.182 billion requested for the peacekeeping budget.

In 2009, U.S. contribution to the UN octopus was $6.347 billion. US have provided aid to UN since 1945, currently giving 22 percent of UN’s operating budget and 27 percent of its peacekeeping budget. (OMB)

Aaron Cantor, USAF (retired) perfectly encapsulated the peacekeeping mission of the United Nations “Ready, Aim, Flee.”

The Congressional Research Service revealed that we are giving hundreds of millions of dollars of foreign aid to some of the world’s richest countries while borrowing billions from them. More specifically, we gave $1.4 billion to 16 foreign countries that hold at least $10 billion in Treasury securities. China received $27.2 million, India $126.6 million, Brazil $25 million, and Russia $71.5 million.

Palestinians receive $400.4 million in economic aid, $100 million to support the Palestinian Authority police training, $61.5 million in emergency humanitarian aid after Israel’s “assault on Gaza,” an actual retaliation for all the rockets fired randomly from Gaza into Israel.

Fritz Vahrenhold and his geologist colleague, Sebastian Luning, work for the German utility company RWE. They published a book last month, “Die Kalte Sonne” (“The Cold Sun”) in which they claim that important research about climate change was hidden and “cries of an impending catastrophe are misleading.” “The world is not facing a climate catastrophe.” The authors are dismissing the “CO2 lie” – it is not greenhouse gases that cause problems, it is the sun that determines climate change.

The most relied upon source of information on the topic is the climate report produced by the United Nations, more specifically the Intergovernmental Panel for Climate Change (IPCC). The report, produced by civil servants and not researchers, is full of misinformation and doubts. Yet countries around the world are basing their policies and fundamental changes of their citizens’ lives on a bogus report produced by bureaucrats.

Many climate researchers question the quality of computer models used to forecast climate change. “Knowledge of the effect of particle from industry, heating, and auto emissions as well as from oceans, volcanoes and from the soil is very low, according to the IPCC report. These particles serve as seeds for clouds, and some estimates suggest that an increase in the cloud cover by just one percent could offset a doubling of the CO2 in the air.”

Making matters worse, a trading scheme is now part of European Union laws. The EU is trading on emissions that would limit the release of “harmful greenhouse gases.” Prices for CO2 certificates have dropped constantly to about half, around $10.60 per metric ton, in spite of the closure of eight German nuclear power plants in 2011 and the increase in demand for coal power. The CO2 trading system is not working and is producing nothing but deceptive hot air because politicians decide the amount of CO2 that industries in the EU may emit way into the future.

Why are CO2 certificates so cheap? Other than the obvious that people understand it is a fleecing scheme, Germany for one spends billions on renewable energy. “With CO2 certificates so cheap, generating power from environmentally harmful fuels becomes even more than a good deal - which explains why brown coal consumption increased by nearly 4 percent in 2011, bucking the general trend.” Emissions trading is not stopping climate change, but actually speeding it up. (Alexander Jung)

Politicians in America and the current administration are fleecing the American public with their Green Environmentalist Agenda 21 driven by the United Nations and its bureaucrats. Do we want to become subservient to the laws of the European Union and United Nations or follow the supreme law of the land, the U.S. Constitution?

WEOG denounces UNDP's non-transparent and retaliatory practices after UNDP misled them on when report was to be delivered

The Western European and Others Group (WEOG) is one of several unofficial Regional Groups in the United Nations that act as voting blocs and negotiation forums.

On friday the Bureau of WEOG discussed the preliminary findings of the External Independent Investigative Review Panel (EIIRP) on UNDP's operations in North Korea.

As it can be read in this email, members raised deep concern over the potential spin from UNDP of the report, prior to allow "their capitals" to read and comment on it. Their demand to UNDP not to release and put an embargo on the report, was meet with the usual UNDP disrespect towards anyone.
-------
WEOG BUREAU EMAIL:

• Subject: Information regarding the external review on the DPRK

Dear colleagues,

While I wait for the secretariat to provide me the draft summary of yesterday's Bureau meeting, I would like to share the following information regarding the release of the external review on the DPRK:

UNDP informed us that the report is now expected for Monday morning, at which time it will be shared with the Administrator and the Members of the Board. In the afternoon the Administrator is planning to brief the press. I had previously asked that an embargo be placed on the report to allow the capitals to read it prior to hearing about it from the press, but UNDP thinks that it would leak and therefore prefers to be pro-active in informing the press.

In regard to the question of facilitators for the decisions in the upcoming Board session, the other groups have not yet proposed any facilitators. I will push for the WEOG facilitators, at least, to be confirmed at our next Bureau meeting which is scheduled immediately after the pre-session informal consultation on 2 June.

With kind regards and best wishes for the weekend,

---------

WEOG members are: Andorra, Australia, Austria, Belgium, Canada, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Iceland, Ireland, Israel (New York activities only), Italy, Liechtenstein, Luxembourg, Malta, Monaco, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Portugal, San Marino, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Turkey, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. US is also member of WEOG.

From Cyprus, Benon Sevan Weighs In

By Claudia Rosett

Yes, you read that right. None other than former UN Oil-for-Food chief Benon Sevan is at least virtually back in action, piping up online even though he’s still living as a fugitive from U.S. law, on Cyprus. Writing in the Yerevan-based Armenian AZG Daily, Sevan (an Armenian Cypriot) has tossed his hat back into the public ring — scolding UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon for ending the tenure on Cyprus of UN Special Representative Michael Moller. Here’s a link to Sevan’s article, and just in case that vanishes from the web, here’s a saved copy.

You remember Benon Sevan. A longtime UN staffer, he was hand-picked by Kofi Annan in 1997 to head the UN Oil-for-Food program, which he did until it ended in 2003. Before the conclusion of the ensuing UN investigation, while Annan’s office was assuring the press that Sevan was cooperating, he quietly slipped out of New York and returned to his native Cyprus, beyond reach of U.S. extradition. In January, 2007, Sevan was indicted in the Southern District of New York on charges of bribery and conspiracy to defraud the UN Oil-for-Food program, with U.S. federal prosecutors alleging Sevan had received about $160,000 in illicit commissions on UN-overseen Iraqi oil deals channeled via a Panamanian company of an alleged co-conspirator based in Switzerland (who happened to be an in-law of former UN Secretary-General Boutros Boutros-Ghali). From Cyprus, Sevan has denied any wrong-doing. I last saw him when I paid a surprise call on him in Nicosia, Cyprus, in 2006 — which I wrote up for the Wall Street Journal. Sevan insisted, “I am not running away.” But he doesn’t seem to have done much traveling off Cyprus either.

Why would Sevan now choose to weigh in on the departure from Cyprus of Kofi Annan-appointee and UN special rep, Michael Moller? Maybe, as Sevan insisted when I spoke with him two years ago on Cyprus, he just has the best interests of the UN at heart. But there has been a certain amount of scuttlebut over the past few years from sources afraid to be named — but enough separate sources by now so that I credit this as broadly accurate — that Moller and Sevan, old buddies from Sevan’s UN days, have spent a certain amount of time together — dining out at the Nicosia Hilton, and generally keeping in touch. Is it possible there’s been a certain amount of UN hand-holding that Sevan might now miss?

For now, I’ll leave it with a few more questions: Does Ban Ki-Moon think it’s a good idea for UN staff to go on rubbing elbows with Benon Sevan on Cyprus? If Benon Sevan is so eager to be heard, why not come back to New York, and face the charges? And why have both Kofi Annan and Ban Ki-Moon appeared so profoundly indifferent to whether he does or not?

P.S. - While we’re on the subject, when might the UN deign to tell us whether Sevan’s costs of moving back to Cyprus in 2005 — airfare and household freight — were paid, during the UN investigations, out of the UN budget?