United Nations Climate Treaty

Is United Nation serious when it is taking up discussions on climate treaty in Copenhagen in December? I think not so. But it is good that some initiative is being taken. Maybe some 10% of improvements could be seen by this effort of theirs. 

India had not agreed initially to reduce its Green House Gas emissions citing that its per capita emissions are very low compared to developed nations. It argues that this would hurt its economic growth.
 

But now it has come forward to take steps in reducing Carbon Emissions. It’s because China has come forward to reduce its Carbon Emissions. The question now is how serious then India is… in reducing Carbon Emissions. And China! Don’t ever believe them. They will not for sure reduce the emissions but they would perpetuate it and they know that no one can question them. 
 

Recently a bill was passed by the US House of Representatives, which imposes tariffs on products imported from countries that do not undertake emission-cut targets. 

But the developed world is not ready for funding the developing worlds and share its technology with the developing world. Only this can bring any positive results.

For now, a number of obstacles have to be overcome before the crucial climate change negotiations at Copenhagen in December.

The US, under the present Administration, has also made a commitment to cut its greenhouse gas emissions by 80 per cent by 2050 compared with 1990. Maybe this is believable. 

Japan too has committed itself for reduction of emissions by 25 per cent by 2020. 

These developments have put pressure on India and China to fall in line. If China is number one rogue, India cannot be far behind in going back on their promises. 

China has said that it will pursue a national climate change programme. It includes mandatory targets for reducing energy intensity. It has also planning to increase forest coverage and share of renewable energy during the time period of 2005-2010. People only need to dream this. This is just an eye washing the world and they are not going to do anything. China’s one aim is just develop catch market in every country. Supply arms and ammunitions to all parts of the world and make profits. The use of weapons itself is enough for heating up the earth. Has anybody till now come forward to make them accountability for this.
 

India plans to have regular dialogue with China and exchange views on their action plans on climate change. India will never get any feedback from China since China would have never started it as promised!

Indian politicians are shrewd enough; they have come to power by giving false promises to people of their land. In the same token, they can give any promises to the world at large.
 

India has committed itself to a mandatory fuel efficiency cap, which is to begin in 2011. On energy front, it says its renewable sources will account for 20 per cent of India's power usage by 2020. It has also announced an ambitious solar energy plan.

In the absence of any financial and technological assistance, India will never show their efforts at greenhouse emissions reductions to international verification. 

Having said all this, I will be the happiest person if both India and China keep up their promises and do more than that in bringing down their Carbon Emissions. 

Please join our Carbon Advice Group and strengthen our hands in this regards. Let our voice be heard all over the world. 

We are here for making our World a best place to live in.

Click here… to join our Carbon Advice Group.

Read More

Transparency In Carbon Offsets

In the ongoing meeting at Copenhagen Obama Administration has rightly asked for "transparency" of any operational agreement on climate change. 

For an agreement to be operational it needs verification so that everybody knows that they are complying with the agreed reduction of carbon emissions.

There is a deadlock in talks at Copenhagen summit on this question. Indian Prime Minister is yet to arrive.

Obama Administration has been going on in direct direction and with spirit. The reason for transparency is obviously known to all. Every country should not hesitate to make themselves available for inspection. If that happens then some rogue countries will never have an opportunity to cheat the International community. Countries which do not agree for this type of proposal should not only be looked upon cautiously but also its goods and services should be banned from imports. Trading with this country should be totally stopped in any manner. The more you trade goods with these type of countries, the more they go for produce of those goods and services and the more they do pollution to the atmosphere.

Gibbs said that the United States has put an aggressive range on the table for a reduction in carbon dioxide from America's economy. "We have, in conjunction with others, set forward some short-term financing goals that we believe internationally can be met to help some developing countries," he said.

"We've worked with India and China to bring them along in enunciating strong targets for reducing the carbon intensity in their economies," Gibbs said.

"Leaders representing developing and developed nations all over the world, coming to Copenhagen, gives an opportunity for some of those issues to be resolved and a breakthrough to happen," he added. When asked about the bottlenecks coming in the way of the success of the climate change summit and the US position on it, Gibbs said: "We have very specific concerns, and I think they're fairly common-sense".

The American people and, quite frankly, anybody in the world could understand, Gibbs said adding "If we are going to enter into an operational agreement, we have to understand and be able to determine whether each of the people involved in that operational agreement is living up to the aspects of that agreement by finding out through transparency whether each of us is keeping up our end of the bargain.

If people are serious about coming to an agreement, then taking up and approving a commonsense measure like transparency is a pretty simple way of moving past what some have said is a big hurdle, he argued. 

President Obama has worked hard to get an agreement and certainly hopes that he would leave Copenhagen having made that progress, he said.

"We saw similar actions taken by the Indians as were taken by the Chinese in the lead up to this -- a target, again, that was unclear whether they would enunciate prior to going to Copenhagen, for a reduction in the carbon intensity of their economy, a specific commitment to attend the conference and to try to seek a solution for those issues," he said.

From all the above it is quite understandable the position U.S. has taken. The future talks in Copenhagen is likely to revolve around this transparency.

We people around the world too need to support this kind of agreements. Countries further to entering into agreements should seriously start implementing new technology in their countries which would pave way of reducing in carbon emission. It is the financial part that countries are viewing to be their stumble block in proceeding on this line.

Apart from governments we too on our part could give a helping hand for establishment of industries which are environmental friendly. 

Carbon Advice Group is one group which has been delivering good service by finding viable environment friendly projects to invest in. You can join this Carbon Advice Group and could make money if you could promote CAG concept. Carbon Advice Group only create or invest in offsets which are independently verified to meet the highest standards. In particular CAG focuses on projects which can meet the demanding rigour of the United Nations Clean Development Mechanism (Certified Emissions Reductions) or an internationally recognised standard such as the Voluntary Carbon Standard (VCS) or the Gold Standard for UN and Verified projects.

Click here to join freely to Carbon Advice Group.

Read More

Stop Supplying And Trading Nuclear Arsenals To Rouge States

Copenhagen is experiencing a very cold weather and why the summit has to be held here is a puzzle. Will the summit discuss about the risk of nuclear-weapon arsenals, which is just as serious as the threat of climate change and is more urgent. Today we could see some countries supplying nuclear weapons arsenals to some rogue states and terrorists. The Prime Minister, Kevin Rudd, is expected to release the International Commission on Nuclear Non-proliferation and Disarmament report with the Prime Minister of Japan, Yukio Hatoyama, in Tokyo this week in an attempt to influence looming international negotiations on the nuclear threat.

The commission is expected to set a goal of cutting the number of warheads to 2000 from 23,000 by the year 2025. And year 2025 is a long period.

The report sets out some practical measures for the coming years with an arms reduction treaty to start with. US President, Barack Obama, and his Russian counterpart, Dmitry Medvedev, may conclude this by the year-end.

The nuclear-weapons states as of now are US, Russia, China, Britain, France, India and Pakistan with countries like North Korea and Iran joining it.

A five-yearly review of the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty is seen as a ''make or break'' negotiation for the future of the non-proliferation regime.

It is an agenda for the political decision-makers with a practical agenda and is not just a wish list.

The report says threats that need to be tackled is to see that nuclear weapons states do not use their arsenals in a conflict. Chances of using it by accident cannot be ruled out too. To stop selling it to new states and take care from terrorists gaining access to nuclear materials.

It sets out goals for the next three to four years, including a successful review of the Non-Proliferation Treaty in which weapons states would give renewed promises to disarm in return for non-weapons states accepting stricter safeguards on civilian nuclear programs.

The short-term agenda as of now are:

Agreements with North Korea and Iran not to apply civilian nuclear programs to weapons.

The US and Russia to enter into a treaty, which now is being negotiated, to cut their arsenals of strategic nuclear weapons and then to start talks on further cuts.

The Obama Administration to declare that the ''sole purpose'' of nuclear weapons in US defence doctrine was to deter other countries from using them.

A United Nations-sponsored conference between Israel and Arab states to discuss prerequisites for talks on a nuclear-free zone in the Middle East.

Ratification of the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban treaty and a resumption of stalled negotiations for a treaty to stop production of fissile materials that can be used in nuclear weapons.

To conclude on this whether the states which presently are trading their arms, weapons and ammunitions with rogue countries and with may be secretly with terrorists organizations will ever stop trading. The answer could be a big `No’ so it becomes essential that countries like US and Russia should prevail upon them with a warning to fall into their line.

We common people should know the dangerous that these nuclear weapons arsenals would create when it is used. We have a duty to prevail upon our government to reduce the allocation of funds on the production of these weapons and allot the funds to various other welfare measures.

The use of these weapons by the rogue countries and terrorists is also one of the causes for global warming. They leave out heavy carbon footprints. These rogue countries should be prevailed upon to pay huge amount to offset their carbon footprints to United Nations or some organizations, which in turn could invest that in some viable environment friendly projects.

We too in our daily life are leaving carbon footprints by using our car, refrigerators, air-conditioners and washing machines and we too can offset carbon emission by purchasing carbon credits.

Buying Carbon Credits could be done through Carbon Advice Groups. If not now you could later decide about it. You can for the time being just register and be a proud member of Carbon Advice Group and promote it in your own way. You will also be able to earn through this group.

Click here to join…Carbon Advice Group.

Read More

Short Of Expectations

A last minute deal on 20^th Dec 2009 at the Copenhagen Summit fell short of any expectation to reduce global warming.

It was believed that a planet-saving treaty  among the leaders into strong commitments to shrink their carbon footprints would come out but a three-page political accord with key numbers are yet to be filled in.

The Nobel-winning UN science panel had warned that if average temperatures increases by more than 2.0 degrees Celsius it could lead to severe climate change.

Studies are going on which  suggests that  the planet could hot up by around 6.0 C  and that sea levels may rise to more than 3.25 feet by 2100.   This can only be overcome if we slash CO2 concentrations in the Earth's atmosphere.

This would then result in millions of people migrating to safer places where the climate is not harsh.

Countries at Copenhagen are not having faith on one another and are waiting to see what other countries have to say about the steps they are taking.  If other countries are not coming forward for any reduction in their carbon footprints then every other country feels that they too will have freedom to emit Green House Gases.  There is diverging interests among nations with regard to carbon emission cuts.

Mitigation targets have not been finalized yet and this is a problem that they are facing.
The accord has also failed to set a target for 'peak year' for global CO2 emissions, ideally around 2015.

It is hoped that there is some willingness to take action, so that we might limit the rise to 3.0 C - 4.0 C, and avoid the unknown territory that lies beyond.

People are very much worried that an understanding has not been reached among the countries. 

It is now left with the public to mitigate their emission levels in their households and while travelling. 

On the unavoidable circumstances when without any other option you become responsible for carbon emissions then you can compensate it by buying carbon credits from a reputed carbon trading company.  One such company is Carbon Advice Group where you can freely become member and you have the options to earn money too.

Click here to join Carbon Advice Group.

Read More

I Will Reduce Carbon Emission First

What is India’s position before going to Copenhagen Summit?

India stands at number four greenhouse gas emitter in the world.

Stepping down from its hard-line stand India has said that it would slow down the growth of its carbon dioxide emissions in the coming ten years and after.  It has agreed to scale down the amount of carbon dioxide emitted by up to 25 per cent from 2005 to 2020.  It was not ready legally to be binding on this but only voluntarily. 

That means it has the liberty to do whatever it likes and may even not keep its promises.

However, India's intensity of carbon dioxide or CO2 use is among the lowest in the world which is equal to that of Europe in 2007, in contrast  China's is among the highest and may sometime in future equal to the world’s combined carbon emission.  China’s prime goal, the positive goal is to become the leader in economic front and number of industries.  Number one in foreign trades and super o super one in carbon emission levels.  Not just number one but greater than it.  Funnily, China has been the top receiver of tradable credits, thanks to the Kyoto provisions, getting as much as 59 per cent.  Therefore, China dreads the end of Kyoto Protocol.

China, which is a leading exporter of solar-power and wind-power equipment, expects more demands and getting more funds and technology transfers from developed nations.

China’s emission cuts, which it promises to be of 40 to 45 percent, would compensate in its 7% growth estimates and finally end up emitting more of carbon dioxide in the year 2020 from the 2005 level.

If China’s economy grows at 10 per cent per annum, then the emissions will increase by 150 per cent over 2005 levels

India and U.S.

The current Indian per capita emission is 1.1 tonne. For the US, this figure is more than 20 tonnes.  U.S. has much to do who earlier was not a signatory to Kyoto Protocol.   

The United States had rejected the 1997 Kyoto Protocol, with the then US President George W Bush arguing that the 5 per cent reductions required by Kyoto would 'wreck the American economy'.  Hmmm… more concerned with economy then the health of its people and the people of the world.

Russia

Russia is not much interested in climate change talks.  Its focus now is on investments and it wants its industries to be more energy efficient.

However, the diplomats like other countries have said that the country is willing to reduce emissions between 20 per cent and 25 per cent from 1990 levels.

Prime Minister Vladimir Putin says Russia will join a post-Kyoto agreement only if other countries sign up for it and if Russian forests' contribution to reducing global carbon dioxide is taken into account.  So, it depends on other countries efforts and interests on these climate changes.

So almost every country are demanding, “You reduce first then ask me.” 

However, Copenhagen summit has given a glimmer of hope when President Barack Obama's stated that his country intended to achieve an 80 per cent reduction of greenhouse gas emissions by 2050.  Wow, some people have even named the event the 'Hopenhagen' Summit.   Obama knows until 2050 no one can question him or his country and he can do whatever he wants.

The US wants other countries, mainly China and India to commit on when their greenhouse-gas emissions will peak. 

The country also seeks for reporting, monitoring and verification of emissions and reductions.

It seems a good idea, but there will be no takers and could lead to walkouts.

The laughing thing is… The Centre for Science and Environment said that for the US, the emission cap translates into a mere 3 per cent reduction below the 1990 levels while the actual demands made to developed countries to cut their emissions are 40 per cent below 1990 levels.

Besides, the US targets remain domestic and are not covered by a multilateral legally binding agreement.

Brazil

Brazil has envisaged running its automobiles on biofuels and it is keen to cut greenhouse gas emissions by reducing deforestation in the Amazon rain forest.  It intends to reduce the emission by 39 per cent with this condition if it receives enough funds.

It is better said then none for Brazil which already has to deal with lawlessness in the poverty-stricken Amazon.

The EU aims to cut CO2 emissions 20 per cent by 2020 from 1990 levels. It is also willing to raise that target to 30 per cent if other countries agree to do their part.

Smoke rises from a chimney of a garbage processing plant at Daddumajra village near Chandigarh.

Poland

Poland can sell credits worth billions of Euros since it has reduced CO2 emissions by 30 per cent over the past 20 years.

As the EU's eastern members' energy sectors rely heavily on coal, they are likely to pay more.

Africa

African countries are demanding compensation from the developed countries. They believe that greenhouse-gas emissions of these developed countries have resulted in record droughts in East Africa as well as flooding in other regions.

They simply demand that to adapt to climate change they be paid billions of dollars.

Oil-producing nations, such as Nigeria, fear that they could lose revenues from expected declines in oil consumption and hence seek compensation.

Indonesia

Indonesia is a heavy carbon dioxide emitter.  It seeks technology and funds to preserve its forests. It has agreed to reduce 26 per cent by 2020.  It opposes monitoring and wants funds to raise its target to 41 per cent.

Ecuador

Ecuador, which is participating at the Copenhagen Summit, has put this distinctive proposal: it asks rich countries to pay $3.5 billion to keep 850 million barrels of its crude in the ground. The oil they say is located in a natural reserve of the Amazonian forest.  Immediately an Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries team has visited the reserve and this is going to be debated much in this ongoing summit.

Finally, the summit gives everyone the opportunity to know what is going on in other countries, though there is no monitoring nor does it have any confirmation.

We people have very much responsibility to see that in whichever country we live we ask the Government to device ways and means for reducing carbon emissions.   Let, `you do first’ may not be the slogan.  But, let `I do first’ be the slogan to cut carbon emissions.

Join Carbon Advice Group who are doing yeoman service in the trading of Carbon Credits.  You can try it out and make some decent profit in this upcoming and growing field.  

Click here to join Carbon Advice Group.

Read More

Hacking Of Email

Someone in Turkey is said to have hacked a server used by the Climatic Research Unit. He was according to source got into 1,000 e-mails and 3,000 other documents a total of 160 MB of data. The University of East Anglia stated that the server could not be easily accessed.

How then the files were hacked? Was someone inside had a hand in it. Was the data purposefully manipulated to give wrong data contradictory to the findings of Al Gore’s data?

The other doubts going round is this emails are very old dated.

Schmidt noticed the hack a minute after it had occurred. He informed this to the University.

Then comes the interesting part...these emails were then uploaded to a server on 19 November 2009. It then spread across the Internet.

What was stolen?

As said earlier some 1,000 e-mails, 3,000 documents, as well as commented Fortran source code, pertaining to climate change research covering a period from 1996 until 2009 were stolen.

The e-mails consisted of discussions of how to combat the arguments of climate change skeptics. How to combat queries from journalists, drafts of scientific papers, and discussions that some pundits and commentators believe advocate keeping scientists who have contrary views out of peer-review literature, and destroying various files in order to prevent data being revealed under the Freedom of Information Act.

What Climatologists have to say?

Climatologists

The CRU's researchers said in a statement that the e-mails had been taken out of context and merely reflected an honest exchange of ideas. Phil Jones, Director of the Climatic Research Unit, called the charges that the e-mails involve any "untoward" activity "ludicrous." Michael Mann, director of Pennsylvania State University's Earth System Science Center who is among those implicated in the controversy, said that skeptics were "taking these words totally out of context to make something trivial appear nefarious", and called the entire incident a careful, "high-level, orchestrated smear campaign to distract the public about the nature of the climate change problem." Kevin E. Trenberth of the National Center for Atmospheric Research said that he was appalled at the release of the e-mails but thought that it might backfire against climate sceptics, as the messages would show "the integrity of scientists." He has also said that the theft may be aimed at undermining talks at the December 2009 Copenhagen global climate summit.

According to the University of East Anglia, the documents and e-mails had been selected deliberately to undermine the strong consensus that human activity is affecting the world's climate in ways that are potentially dangerous. The university said in a statement: "The selective publication of some stolen e-mails and other papers taken out of context is mischievous and cannot be considered a genuine attempt to engage with this issue in a responsible way".

What the Media has to say?

The science journal Nature discussed the affair in an editorial in its December 3 issue, remarking that "a fair reading of the e-mails reveals nothing to support the denialists' conspiracy theories", and that "If there are benefits to the e-mail theft, one is to highlight yet again the harassment that denialists inflict on some climate-change researchers, often in the form of endless, time-consuming demands for information under the US and UK Freedom of Information Acts. Governments and institutions need to provide tangible assistance for researchers facing such a burden."

George Monbiot, an environmentalist who writes for The Guardian, has asked, "Do these revelations justify the sceptics' claims that this is 'the final nail in the coffin' of global warming theory?" and concluded, "Not at all. They damage the credibility of three or four scientists." He described the incident as a "major blow" and that the "emails extracted by a hacker from the climatic research unit at the University of East Anglia could scarcely be more damaging". He was also concerned by what he saw as attempts to conceal and even destroy information that was subject to a freedom of information request, and efforts to prevent the publication of work by climate sceptics, or to keep it out of an IPCC report.

What we have to say?

It is very simple, just see around and feel how the things are going on. Go back to some 30 years back, ask your grandfather what was the life of them some 30 or even 60 years back. They have lots to say! They would say those were the days we had everything with us. There was no shortage of food. They were able to breathe clean air. Now you can know why this climate changes.

Having said that we should join hands and collectively do whatever we can to bring down the anthropogenic (man-made) CO2 additions.

Read More

Biofuels And Food Scarcity

Biofuels – Bio fuels is a liquid derived from plant materials.  The use of Bio-fuels is gaining importance and its demand is growing because of oil price spikes and the need for increased energy security.

The sugar parts of plant materials are fermented and alcohol is extracted from it, which is known as Bioethanol.  It was mostly derived from sugar and starch crops, but with the advancement of technology, for production of ethanol, cellulosic biomass, such as trees and grasses, are now used as feedstocks.  In its pure form, ethanol can be used as a fuel for vehicles, but it is usually used as a gasoline additive to increase octane and improve vehicle emissions.  Brazil and USA are the two countries, which widely use Ethanol fuel.   Almost all gas stations in Brazil sell it and all gas contains 25% of bioethanol.

From animal fats or recycled greases and vegetable oils Biodiesel are produced.   Biodiesel production is the act of producing the Biofuels, biodiesel, through either transesterification or alcoholysis. The process involves reacting vegetable oils or animal fats.   Like Bioethanol, Biodiesel also can be used as a fuel for vehicles in its pure form.  However, Biodiesel is usually used as a diesel additive to reduce carbon monoxide, and hydrocarbons from diesel-powered vehicles.  Biodiesel is produced from oils or fats using transesterification and is the most common biofuel in Europe.

So that’s said environmentalists have warned the revolution of Biofuel by developed countries.  They warn that this will lead to food crisis for the world's poor, speed up global warming and lead to the loss of vital habitat worldwide.  

Public have now become aware of this and the campaigners of climate change need to protest the ecological cost of producing billions of liters of petrol and diesel from plant sources.   It is going to use up plants, sugar, starch crops, tress, grasses, vegetable oils and animal fats to produce these Biofuel.

There is no guarantee that this new technology will reduce carbon emissions.

A study contained by Royal Society For the Protection of Birds (RSPB) criticized the introduction of the Renewable Transport Fuel Obligation (RTFO), which requires oil companies to ensure all petrol and diesel to contain a minimum level of biofuel, as 'over-hasty and utter folly'. 

The chief executive of RSPB has said that there was already widespread evidence that biofuel production was destroying vast areas of unspoilt habitat and has made at least one species extinct.

The World Bank and the UN had also expressed concern about the impact of Biofuels on world food prices, sparking riots from Haiti to the Philippines.

The urgent attention is now drawn to people all over the world especially poor countries to resist as much as possible the production of biofuel.    The more the production of biofuel the less will be the foodstock for people’s consumption.  This in turn will create more demand for foodstock due to its non availability and increase in its prices.  The lack of purchasing power by poor people means they will be unable to spend money on food items and will finally lead to their dying of starvation. 

Rich people and nations have to share their funds by giving it for investments in viable environmental FRIENDLY projects.   One such company is Carbon Advice Group which takes money from the rich and invests in environmental friendly projects.

The Carbon Advice Group provides individuals, organisations and businesses a much-needed ability to accurately measure the size of their carbon footprint, deliver methods to reduce it as much as possible and then provide a simple, reliable, high quality mechanism to offset the carbon footprint that was left.

You can start selling high quality carbon credits from your own website, right here, right now. It takes just two minutes to sign up and become part of the world's largest carbon trading network. Demonstrate your environmental credentials to your customers, suppliers, shareholders and employees and make money while you help save the planet.

To find out how you can create your own carbon trading website, just click below and Join the Group.  If you'd like to calculate your own carbon footprint and find out how to offset it, just hit the green button, or choose any of the calculators on the right of the website that you find below.

Clear here to join Carbon Advice Group FREE.

Read More