In mid March 2001, the UN Secretary General Kofi Annan visited Dhaka, the capital of a South Asian country, Bangladesh, known to be one of the worst victims of climate change. In his speech Mr. Annan warned that, the biggest challenge of the new century will be to achieve sustainable development, especially in those developing countries which are dealing with endemic poverty and also threatened by adverse impacts of climate change. “Sustainability is in everybody’s interest” he said. “But it is not enough to say that sustainable development can be achieved; we must make it happen with new technologies, with energetic North-South cooperation, and with smart policies that create incentives and send the right signal to business and industry”.

Mr. Annan mentioned that dealing with poverty itself is a daunting task. “Helping these (poor) men, women and children to lift themselves out of poverty will necessarily require a bigger supply of energy. Our challenge is to do so in a way that does not pollute the environment or contribute to global warming,” he said. “Ultimately, we are talking about a new ethic of global stewardship....... The burden of leadership at this juncture falls on the industrialized countries, and in particular the U.S., the European Union and Japan”. They are responsible for most of the world’s past and present carbon emissions. And they are best placed, both economically and technologically, to move ahead with their own reductions and with assistance for the developing world. To abandon this process now would set back the global climate strategy for many years”.

 | Top of the Page |

Sink hopes sink

John Whitfield

Some environmental policy-makers hope that forests might counter global warming by absorbing much of the extra carbon dioxide that humans are adding to the atmosphere, and that planting forests could substitute for reducing emissions. Two studies of North American pine forests suggest that such hopes are overly optimistic. Loblolly pine trees (Pinus taeda) planted in air containing 0.06 per cent carbon dioxide, as opposed to the current 0.04 per cent, grew faster for only three years, Ram Oren, of Duke University in Durham, North Carolina, and colleagues have found. The trees then reverted to their original growth rate.   The results show that we can't expect forests "to allow us to emit carbon dioxide without a thought", says ecologist Adam Hirsch of Woods Hole Research Center in Massachusetts. Preserving existing forests, or letting them regrow where they have been cleared, may make a greater contribution to soaking up carbon than planting new trees, Hirsch believes.    A shortage of other nutrients, notably nitrogen, limited the pines' response to carbon fertilization. When the researchers added nitrogen to plots, the trees grew faster again. The stimulating effects of extra carbon dioxide were also weaker in dry years.

Ironically, further pollution — the nitrogen in acid rain — may allow trees to take advantage of extra carbon dioxide. But it wouldn't be wise to count on it — the myriad interactions between plants and their environment are poorly understood.

Nevertheless, studies such as this highlight the processes that we need to understand. Says Hirsch: "There's a good chance that we'll be able to make generalizations."

Leaf it out

About half the carbon taken up by trees goes into their leaves. Climatologists are curious about how long this carbon stays there — is leaf litter on the forest floor broken down quickly and the carbon dioxide returned from whence it came, or does the litter linger and become incorporated into the soil?

Again, the news regarding climate change is disappointing. Studying the same trees as Oren's group, Duke University's William Schlesinger and John Lichter, of Bowden College in Brunswick, Maine, have found that in CO₂-rich air the total amount of litter increases. But it is broken down so quickly that, once a leaf falls from the tree, its carbon is back in the atmosphere in little over three years.

The limits to the capacity of coniferous forests as carbon sinks is a "reality check", says Jim Ehleringer, a biologist at the University of Utah in Salt Lake City. Ehleringer, a leader of the Global Change and Terrestrial Ecosystems project of the International Geosphere–Biosphere Program (IGBP), says that large-scale, long-term studies such as these are just what is needed to work out how ecosystems interact with the atmosphere.

Under the influence of other factors, such as nutrient limitation or temperature, environmental change might even switch an ecosystem from a net carbon sink into a carbon source, Ehleringer points out. "Assuming that sinks will be there forever will send us down the wrong policy path," he says.

Courtesy: Nature News Service, 24 May 2001 

 | Top of the Page |

Good Practices  

Improved Water Mills In Nepal 

Agro-processing is one of the important activities for the farm communities in Nepal. Manually operating devices like “Dhiki” and “Janto” are the main agro-processing units used by majority of people in rural Nepal. These devices are physically very much pain-staking. Hydro-power, through the use of traditional (Wooden blades/shafts) water mill, has been in use in Nepal for centuries with low power output (less then 0.5 kW) only for grinding purposes. It has been estimated that more than 25,000 units of water mills are traditionally operating in the hilly areas of the country. Due to its low efficiency, rural people, especially women are suffering both physically and mentally while undertaking the agro-processing tasks in such Ghattas. They have to spend hours and hours for the purposes. To take advantage of such a situation, a number of entrepreneurs have been introducing diesel mill in rural areas which have not only displaced many water mills running at the villages, but also helped in draining out much of foreign exchanges in the importation of required machinery parts and diesel for its operation.

GTZ with the cooperation from both Nepalese and foreign innovative initiated the task of traditional water mill improvement activities in Nepal in 1984. It is estimated that its efficiency is around 50 per cent, which is significantly high as compared to the traditional one whose efficiency is estimated to be around 15 per cent only. The improvement work virtually does not disturb the local structure, resources, and environment, and is done by replacing the wooden runner and shaft with metallic ones. Ghatta improvement activity is cost effective. Like traditional Ghatta, improved Ghatta is also very much simple to operate, and can easily be installed and operated by local entrepreneurs by giving simple training to them. It does not have operational and management problems as seen in the case of water turbines.

The center for Rural Technology Nepal (CRTN) with GTZ support and in cooperation with various government and non-government partner organizations has been making effort to improve the traditional water mills for its increased efficiency (around up to 3 kW) since its establishment in 1989. The power thus produced, is used for efficient and diversified agro-processing activities such as grain grinding, paddy hulling, legume splitting, oil expelling etc.

With the efforts of all the stakeholders so far about 850 units of traditional Ghattas have been improved in more than 40 hill districts of Nepal to be used for various rural applications. The improvement work has so far served about 42,500 rural families (about 50 families/Ghatta). These improved Ghattas not only helped the local entrepreneurs to increase their income level, but also provide and diversified agro-processing services to rural people. The services have helped reduce the local drudgery, mainly of the women. The efforts so far made towards Ghatta improvement have resulted in improvement of just 3 per cent of the existing traditional water mills indicating tremendous scope and need for further improvement activities.

Improvement of traditional water mill is the most promising options in remote hill/mountain area to help the local communities residing there. In this context, all concerning agencies (government, non-government, donor etc.) involved in the rural development efforts have to come forward for utilizing the task of improving the traditional water mills by providing both software (mass awareness creation and local capacity development through technology transfer) and hardware (subsidy) support. Presently, except for lip services, no support is provided for Ghatta improvement activities as done for other energy sectors such as biogas, micro-hydro for electrification, etc. Although Ghatta belongs to micro-hydro, the government in line with donors' view are much more inclined towards micro-hydro development only for rural electrification. However, if one seriously thinks for community development, it is really agro-processing that is more needed, has more place and priority than rural electrification in the rural society. Many development experts in Nepal these days have been advocating for all sorts of support towards promotion and dissemination of improved Ghatta in Nepal. So, it is high time for Nepalese government, its planners, and donors to rethink and give more priority and support for Ghatta improvement activities for the shake of rural poor in the country.

“Enhancing Agro-Processing Services In Rural Areas Through Improved Water Mills (Ghattas) In Nepal” is prepared by Mr. Lumin Kumar Shrestha, Director and Ganesh Ram Shrestha, Executive Director, Center for Rural Technology, Nepal. This paper was presented at 'National Conference on Agro-Processing in Nepal'.

Source: Clean Energy Nepal, Vol. 1, 32 July 2001  

 | Top of the Page |

U.S. Has No Kyoto Alternative for Bonn Meeting

Deborah Charles

The United States, which angered Europe with its decision in March to pull out of the Kyoto pact on climate change, will have no alternative strategy to offer at international talks in Bonn, Germany.

Government officials and industry experts said the United States had not yet decided on a policy or a strategy to replace the 1997 agreement on reducing greenhouse gases — a pact signed by Washington but rejected by President Bush as “fatally flawed”. When he explained his reasons for pulling out of the accord, which had not been ratified by the U.S. Senate and therefore was not binding, Bush said his administration was committed to developing an effective, science-based response to the issue of global warming. He also said he would boost U.S. spending on research and development to fight global warming, and work to find an international solution to the problem. In a statement Mr. Bush said the administration will invest tens of millions of dollars in studies to see how best to tackle the problem. But so far, no alternative to Kyoto has been agreed upon. “We don't have one,” said a U.S. official when asked what alternative the U.S. delegation would present at the Bonn meeting which is organized to try to salvage the Kyoto pact.

He said the U.S. delegation, led by Undersecretary of State Paula Dobriansky, would participate in the Bonn talks on issues related to the U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change. “That's different from the (Kyoto) protocol,” he said. “We’d also like to hear what everyone else's ideas are.” As a signatory to the U.N. climate change convention, the United States -- the world's biggest emitter of greenhouse gases -- has a right to attend the talks on KP, even though it has rejected the pact agreed to in 1997.

The U.N. convention set a non-binding and unrealized goal of stabilizing emissions at 1990 levels by 2000. The Kyoto protocol is the follow-up to that and commits developed countries to reduce the amount of greenhouse gases emitted by 5.2 percent of 1990 levels by 2012.  The Bonn talks are aimed at defining how the deal will work in practice.

Bush contended that the Kyoto accord would damage the U.S. economy and was unfair because it did not set targets for cuts of greenhouse gas emissions for developing countries like China and India – two potentially large emitters.  White House officials would not give details on the types of alternatives to Kyoto being considered. Other U.S. officials involved in the talks said they had yet to receive concrete guidance from the White House on an alternative strategy.

WHAT POLICY?

Industry analysts said the six-month-old administration, which still has not been able to fill staff offices that deal with environmental issues, is weighing a number of options.  “To my knowledge they don't yet have a policy,” said David Victor, senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations. “They are looking at everything under the sun — mainly at options that don't involve Kyoto ... but even some kind of amendment or adjustment to Kyoto is being considered. There's a pretty wide range of views in the administration.”

Despite intense lobbying, most nations involved in the process agree the United States is not likely to back down. The question is whether it will end up killing the pact.  The European Union's top environment official, Margot Wallstrom, said she feared Washington was pressuring allies to also reject the Kyoto deal.

EU leaders want countries like Japan, Australia and Canada, who had previously negotiated climate change measures alongside the United States, to join the EU in pushing ahead with the Kyoto deal despite the U.S. withdrawal.  For the accord to become legally binding, it must be ratified by 55 signatories representing at least 55 percent of developed countries' emissions. With the United States, which accounts for 36 percent of developed countries' emissions, pulling out, the other nations are vital to the pact's survival. Canada and Australia have indicated they may not go ahead if the United States stayed out, while Japan — the second largest emitter — has been seesawing. Without giving a clear indication of its intentions, Tokyo is making a last-ditch effort to persuade the United States to return to the deal. Washington has vowed not to obstruct talks in Bonn. But environmentalists and some analysts are skeptical. “We fully expect that they are going to be meddling,” said Jon Coifman of the Natural Resources Defense Council's Climate Center. “The question is the degree.”

Source : Reuters  

 | Top of the Page |

Please, Stay with the Climate Change Convention  

Jyoti K Parikh  

US President George Bush stunned the world when he rejected the Kyoto Protocol (KP), that addresses the issue of reducing the greenhouse gases (GHG) that cause climate change popularly known as global warming. The surprise is not about the KP but about one of the Bush’s conditions that developing countries such as India should also join the effort to reduce emissions. This violates the basic premise of the previously ratified convention called “framework convention on climate change”, (FCCC), at Rio in 1992.  FCCC expected the US along with other developed countries to take lead in reducing while the developing countries were not required to reduce immediately. 

What is at stake here and how should India formulate its response?  At stake is India’s development and her energy policy because the use of fossil fuels such as coal, oil and gas that emit GHG have to be curtailed. Coal is our major energy resource, but it is the most GHG intensive. We need more energy for development because a large number of persons still do not have access to electricity or even cooking fuels such as kerosene and LPG.

The FCCC was a compromise. We did not insist on the historical responsibility of the developed countries as there were no commitment for the developing countries to reduce immediately. We would not have made those compromises, had we known that the game will be turned around later. Can one selectively renegotiate one aspect of the treaty at a time when the  emissions of the developed countries have not yet reduced? If the FCCC is to be renegotiated, India could raise three principles: historical responsibility, equity and accountability.  Let me elaborate.

Since 1950, the USA has emitted more than 60 billion tons of carbon against India’s 5 billion tons despite its large population. The principles of “historical responsibility” for cumulative emissions and polluters pay were repeatedly raised by some of us who were present in the early nineties during the meetings of intergovernmental negotiation committee (INC) in New York. However, it was later watered down into a vague principle of “differentiated responsibility” which means that the developed countries agreed to do more and to lead the effort for emission reduction.  The developing countries were persuaded to accept that “bygones are bygones”. The next issue is equity.

Our annual emissions per person is 0.25 tons against 5.6 tons³ in the United States. This past and present inequity will continue for some time. Some of the future scenarios also show that this inequity persists as far as the rich countries with about 15 per cent population of the world account for more cumulated emissions than Asia accounting for  50 per cent of  the world population. That is, the global GHG levels will rise largely due to the additional emissions by the developed countries, even if they reduce emissions from their current levels.

Moving onto the principle of accountability, the cost of US reneging the KP and FCCC treaties are enormous for us. To begin with, the longer they take to negotiate, more greenhouse gases (GHG) are pumped in the atmosphere by the developed countries doubly hurting the developing countries as follows: First, it makes us vulnerable to various impacts of climate change such as higher temperature, sea level rise and more frequent extreme events. Second, if the environmental capacity of earth is limited to absorb say about 4 billion tons, then the greater their emissions; less is left for our development. Unfortunately, this is a zero sum game. In less than a decade from 1990 onwards, the USA has emitted what India will need for more than half a century even assuming 5% emission growth that will be needed for development. Thus, the delay in negotiations permits the developed countries to free ride. It hurts us. To discourage free riding during the negotiation period and beyond, we suggest that countries be accountable for their own emissions from a specific year, say from 2000. That is, whatever decisions are arrived at, will be applicable retroactively from say 2000. Basically, the clock starts ticking and all emissions are cumulated for each country even during negotiations. This way, negotiations will conclude faster and policy actions to reduce emissions will begin soon. Countries taking actions in advance get their rewards and procrastinating countries will have to do more later.

Economies of India and other developing country may be highly vulnerable to climate change. India’s food production would be adversely affected. A sea level rise of 1 meter is estimated to displace 7 million people. Increase in the incidence of extreme events,  sets back a generation of progress because people lose their livelihood and their possessions. The impact of climate change could hinder development and delay progress in eradicating poverty, potentially aggravating social and environmental conditions in these countries.

Far from being inactive, India has made significant progress in limiting the GHG emissions.  Certain policies and reforms are introduced to improve energy and economic efficiency. India’s energy intensity  has come down in industry and transport sectors. It is one of the very few countries with a full fledged ministry of non-conventional energy. Some measures taken to reduce air pollution, also reduce GHG emissions. Deforestation is arrested and the vast potential of afforestation on wasteland is increasingly utilized.  India has taken measures for price reforms and removal of energy subsidies. Most importantly, there is a consensus at all levels of policy makers and people about these measures.  This is not what one can say about the USA where a large number of people do not wish to have gasoline taxed or control the use of gas guzzlers.

If pushed to the wall, developing countries would have no choice but to go on the offensive.  They could also go back to talk about historical responsibilities, equity and accountability.  Compensation payments to the victims of the extreme events, funds for insurance premium, compensation for burden imposed for adaptation, and adjustments can be also discussed.

If, the USA prefers to renegotiate, then it would have to be the entire deal. One cannot pick up new issues from the negotiated position of the FCCC. Much can be done in a cooperative spirit without renegotiations where technology transfer and financial assistance can bring energy efficiency and GHG reduction.  Hopefully reason will prevail.

 | Top of the Page |

G-77 Chair criticized 

U.S. unilateralism

With the climate change negotiations to resume in Bonn, Germany, the Chairman of the Group of 77 (G-77) emphasized the readiness of the developing world to engage in real, substantive negotiations with all other partners. Ambassador Bagher Asadi of Islamic Republic of Iran, Chairman of the Group, reiterated that the developing countries go to Bonn well prepared to engage in a two-week long intensive parley expected to finish the work left unfinished in the Hague last November.

The G-77 Chairman considered a recent two-day informal consultations in the Hague under Minister Jan Pronk of the Netherlands as a very useful exercise, serving to further elucidate and clarify the respective positions of all the negotiating partners, including the developing countries, on Minister Pronk’s updated text. Despite what appears to be quite rather wide divergences between the developing and the developed world on the implementation of various provisions of the Protocol, Ambassador Asadi expressed a realistic, objective optimism that despite the current state of uncertainty and confusion requisite political will and a sense of urgency and needed flexibility could make the Bonn meeting a success.

Reflecting on the recent US policy on taking distance from the Kyoto Protocol, the Chairman of the G-77 reiterated the Group’s already stated position on the validity of the Protocol as an international legal instrument and also that unilateral withdrawal from multilateral processes was simply unacceptable. He emphasized that the United States, the biggest emitter of Greenhouse Gases (GHGs), should act responsibly towards its international and multilateral commitments. Chiding American policy pronouncements in this regard over the past few months, ambassador Asadi expressed concern as to the negative repercussions of such unilateral approaches for other multilateral processes. He found it rather ironic that the new Republican Administration’s policy towards the 1997 Protocol is tantamount to the rejection of some of the mechanisms and provisions inspired and promoted by American negotiators in the process. He called on the world public opinion, including the American’s, to keep their pressure on the Administration not to shrink fulfilling its responsibility with regard to global environmental deterioration.

The G-77 Chairman also emphasized that their readiness for substantive negotiations with the developed partners depended on genuine, substantial progress on the Group’s areas of priority, particularly financial mechanisms, technology transfer, adaptation, capacity-building and Articles 4.8, 4.9 and 3.14, short of which no progress should be envisaged.

Source : G-77 Press Release

 | Top of the Page |

EC President Warns

Weather can’t wait for US

In Washington the US administration has now confirmed to European Union representatives that America has indeed changed its mind about the Kyoto global warming agreement.

The EU delegation made clear that Europe remains committed to making Kyoto work and that efforts will continue, if necessary without the United States. We cannot afford to let the new American position cause stalemate, because in the climate change talks there has always been one partner with whom we cannot negotiate – the climate itself.

The overwhelming weight of scientific opinion agrees that global warming is a major problem. The Inter-governmental Panel on Climate Change recently concluded that the impact is likely to be greater than previously feared. Some uncertainties remain about exactly how the process is working, but we have more than enough evidence to convince us to act swiftly.

The industrialized nations have a clear responsibility to lead the way in reducing greenhouse gases. The richest fifth of the world’s population is responsible for nearly 60 percent of carbon dioxide emissions.

The population of the United States, although making up barely 5 percent of humanity, accounts for a quarter of all carbon dioxide emission.

Poorest countries, already hardest hit by the effects of climate change, will be most vulnerable to further changes. More rain will fall in areas already prone to flooding, less rain in areas already hit by drought. Food and water supplies are at risk. A 50-centimeter (20-inch) rise in sea levels would hit millions of people in low-lying coastal areas, mainly in poor countries.

The climate is already changing, and action is needed now to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. The longer we wait, the harder and more expensive it will be. Words about sustainable development empty unless we are also willing to take on our responsibilities, without delay.

The Bush administration reassured the visiting EU delegation that it acknowledges the problem and the need to find a solution. That is heartening. But many Americans are as concerned as the people in Europe that the new government appears to be backing away from the only practical measure we have to tackle climate change, and therefore from its international duty. There can be no real leadership without responsibility.

Some claim the Kyoto Protocol is too expensive for US industry to implement. But the protocol provides flexibility that the United States can use to reduce the costs. If the Bush administration finds the US targets too ambitious, that is not an argument for discarding the whole agreement.

Some say that the Kyoto Protocol is not fair because it excludes developing countries. But surely those in the industrialized world, who have contributed most to causing this problem, should be first to contribute to its solution. Is there any fairness in the fact that US emissions are 10 times more per person than those in the developing world? The message that the United States will not make an effort unless others much less able to do so make an effort as well, is shocking to European ears.

Of course, fighting the greenhouse effect requires the involvement of all nations. Nobody denies that developing countries commitments need to be addressed. It is a question of timing. The Kyoto Protocol is a first step toward solving this issue. Walking away from it now would hardly help us move forward.

Is the Kyoto Protocol our only option? I believe it is the best we have, and we are committed to seeing it in force by 2002.

The protocol was the fruit of several years intensive international negotiations. It is a compromise that balances different circumstances and concerns in different regions of the globe an achievement that should not be discarded lightly. Having come this far, tearing up the agreement and starting again would be a tragic mistake.

If elements in the accord prevent the United States from ratifying it, lets talk about those, rather than ditching a vital accord that is still supported by most other countries.

Having visited Washington, the EU delegation were expected to travel over the coming weeks to Russia, Japan and China other major producers of greenhouse gases – and to Iran, leader of the large delegation of developing countries in the climate negotiations.

The message they carried was this: We in the EU do not see a solution to the climate problem outside the Kyoto Protocol, and the European Union remains committed to it, with or without the United States. [More]

Courtesy: Global viewpoint, 2000.    

 | Top of the Page |

  Much Depend on Australia

In Bonn, Germany, Australia may find that it is a key player in international negotiations to decide the fate of the Kyoto agreement on global warming. The growing importance of Australia's role has emerged as Japan has signalled that it may not ratify the agreement without the United States. The Bush Administration unilaterally pulled out of the agreement in March, dealing a severe blow to the global push to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

The US, with just 4 per cent of the earth's population, produces a quarter of the world's greenhouse gases. Japan has said that no progress on limiting climate change is possible without the cooperation of the US, a view also expressed by the Howard Government. However, if Japan does not ratify, the future of the agreement may depend on Australia's cooperation.

There is general agreement in the scientific community that Australia will prove to be particularly vulnerable to the effects of global warming. The United Nations has warned that Australia will be the worst affected of the developed nations because its already variable climate will become more extreme as the planet becomes hotter. This alone should be enough to persuade the government to ratify Kyoto, but there are other reasons why Australia should back the protocol.

In 1997, Australia secured a generous deal in Kyoto, which allowed our greenhouse gas emissions to be held at 8 per cent over 1990 levels, even though other developed countries were required to lower their emissions to 5.2 per cent below 1990 levels by 2008 to 2012. Australia was granted this concession because it was accepted that its economy was particularly dependent on fossil fuels. Under Kyoto too, Australia can include land-clearing emissions in its greenhouse calculations, which means that it is likely that Australia will meet the target, despite other greenhouse emissions rising by 17.4 per cent. The leeway Australia was granted in Kyoto means that, for reasons of self-interest, the country has much to gain by ratifying the protocol. However, there are compelling ethical reasons why the liberal terms of the Kyoto deal mean Australia has an extra responsibility to act as an accountable global citizen now.

By ratifying, Australia gives a clear signal that it appreciates the unprecedented size and nature of the threat posed by climate change and that it is willing to do what is required to curb that threat. Never before have the nations of the world faced a challenge of this kind. Leadership is required to meet the conditions of the protocol, as is the courage not to be swayed by economic arguments, compelling as they may be in the short term, that Australia cannot afford the cost of compliance. The future of the protocol itself may depend on it.

Government is Under Pressure

The Australian government is under internal pressure, mostly from its media and civil society, to ratify the Kyoto Protocol and has asked the opposition to state its opinion on the issue. The government is also under external pressure from European nations to ratify the protocol designed to curb the GHG emissions responsible for global warming. Environment Minister Robert Hill was expected to travel to London for this week's world climate change talks in Bonn but is doubtful the protocol will be ratified at the meeting.

Environment groups have for months demanded the government distance itself from the US position and ratify the protocol. The federal cabinet agreed to support emission reduction targets contained in the protocol but maintained its support for the US position, which demands the involvement of developing nations in any binding targets.

An Australia Institute report, commissioned by the Australian Conservation Foundation (ACF) and released earlier this month, showed Australia could have the casting vote. Opposition Leader Kim Beazley refused to confirm whether he would ratify the protocol but said Labor party wanted the government to negotiate a proper outcome. "We believe that we must negotiate a proper outcome on this, that we've got to stay in the ring, that we've got to sit down with the other countries and be prepared to come to a decent conclusion," Beazley told ABC radio.

As part of the 1997 protocol, Australia agreed to limit its emissions to 8 percent above 1990 levels by 2010. The targets are not binding until the protocol is ratified. Senator Hill and Industry Minister Nick Minchin questioned Labor party's approach to curbing global warming, saying it appeared not to have a position. "Australia will be a constructive participant in the Bonn climate change meetings, we want the world to develop an effective global response to greenhouse without shutting the door on the United States, the world's largest emitter," Hill said in a statement.

Senator Minchin said Labor party was taking a reckless approach to the protocol. "Does Labor party have a secret policy position on the Kyoto Protocol or will we continue to see a string of promises designed to appease whichever particular lobby group is withholding its [election ticket] preferences?" he said.

Courtesy:  

The Age, http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/2001/07/09/FFX8D08PVOC.html  

Asian Times: http://atimes.com/japan-econ/CG12Dh02.html  

| Top of the Page |

Publications

Asia Looking Ahead : Initial Stages of National Communication Reporting

Authors : K. Ramakrishna, B. Bamberger and L. Jacobsen (Eds.)  

Publisher : The Woods Hole Research Center 

Publication date : Cop 6, November 2000

This anthology contains reports from eight developing countries of Asia on their preparation for National Communications Reporting to the UNFCCC. It is interesting to note that, although these countries are not obligated to reduce GHG emissions under the UNFCCC, they have taken voluntary steps towards reducing GHG emissions at home and also promoting sustainable development. Many projects are under consideration that include energy efficiency improvement, cleaner energy development, renewables, demand said management.

Confronting Climate Change : Economic Priorities and Climate Protection in Developing Countries.

Author : B. Biagini (Ed.)

Publisher : National Environment Trust

Publication date : Cop 6, November 2000 

The book is a review of domestic actions considered in a number of developing countries in Asia, Africa, Latin and Central America, Southeast Asia and the Pacific towards reducing GHG emissions.  It contains 14 country reports which are prepared by independent experts from research institutes, academia and non-governmental organizations representing those regions. It shows how energy efficiency may reduce GHG emissions, whole contributing to economic growth of countries.

World Energy Assessment: Energy and the Challenge of Sustainability

Published by: United Nation Development Programme (UNDP), United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs (UNDESA) and World Energy Council (WEC)

Publication date: 2000 

This book is the output of a global effort towards analyzing the social, economic, environmental, and security issues linked to energy supply and use, and assessing options for sustainability in each area. This report offers detailed assessment of energy use, development, and management which is expected to provide input to the CSD-9 process, the Rio Plus Ten meeting in 2002, and beyond.

Editorial Board : Dr Saleemul Huq(BCAS), Dr A Atiq Rahman(BCAS), N.Haque (CANSA), M.Alam (BCAS), Ahsan Ahmed(BUP), F.H. Abed (BRAC), K.F. Ahmed (Proshika MUK), Ashok (DA, India), R.K. Pachauri (TERI, India), Anil Agarwal (CSE, India), Jyoti K. Parihk (IGIDR,India), Amulya Reddy (India), Asif Karim (Pakistan), Ravi Algama (Sri Lanka), Kanak Dixit (Himal, Nepal), Dipak Gyawali (Nepal), Amod Pokhrel (Nepal), Abdullahi Majeed (Maldives), Kunzang Yonten (Bhutan).

Produced by : Bangladesh Centre for Advanced Studies (BCAS).
Web Master : Md Shah Nawaz
E-Mail : bcasweb@dhkonline.com

| Home || Top of the Page |