news20100411gdn1

[News] from [guardian.co.uk]

[News > World news > United states]
Appalachians yield a familiar tale of corporate dereliction

A disaster in a coal mine that cost the lives of at least 25 miners has, once again, exposed the manifest shortcomings of the large company that runs it
Paul Harris New York
The Observer, Sunday 11 April 2010
Article history

{{A sign near the entrance to the Upper Big Branch coal mine, a day after an explosion killed 25 miners.}
{Photograph}: SAUL LOEB/AFP/Getty Images}

Some forms of tragedy have their own rituals of grief. None more so poignantly, perhaps, than that of an Appalachian coal mine disaster. It is an area of America much akin to the old valleys of South Wales. It is mountainous, materially poor but rich in local culture, and the coal mines have dominated life there for many decades.

So when news broke last week of a dreadful explosion that killed at least 25 miners and trapped others, the story felt as familiar as it did sad. Families and communities mourned together. Congregations prayed, vigils were held and the dead were buried. Rescuers tried to reach the missing.

An equally familiar piece of this mournful tableaux was the emergence of distressing details surrounding the Massey corporation that owns the mine. It would be nice one day to have the media examine a coal company and find that it operated safely, professionally and ethically in all its dealings. But, as usual, that was not the case. The Upper Big Branch Mine had been either fully or partly closed 61 times in 2009 and 2010, mostly for health and safety violations, according to the local Charleston Gazette newspaper which got hold of Labour Department documents. In fact, more than 1,300 citations had been issued against the mine in the last five years. Indeed, Massey got two citations for safety violations on the very day of the disaster.

That sounds shocking. But no one familiar with the history of coal mining in West Virginia could be surprised. The mining corporations that dominate the state's economy have a huge say in what happens there. Just look at Don Blankenship, Massey's chief executive. He once spent three million dollars to help get a judge elected to a West Virginia court ruling on a Massey-related case. He also told an ABC news reporter: "If you're going to start taking pictures of me you're liable to get shot." He is a famous union-buster and proudly sceptical of environmentalists. He can afford to pretty much do as he pleases. West Virginia, and the rest of Appalachian coal country, is dreadfully poor and has a virtual industrial monoculture. The mines are a rare source of good, well-paid jobs. Few can afford to turn them down or lobby to get them improved. As Lorelei Scarbro, a daughter, granddaughter and wife of coal miners, told CNN: "We are all being used by an outlaw industry and corrupt politicians and we are all driven by fear." Those sentiments are as old as the industry itself. Nor do they appear likely to change, no matter how many disasters lie in the future.


[Business > BP]
Shareholders may fail to drag BP out of tar sands but have won moral victory

Resolution likely to be seen off as City rallies around Hayward
Ruth Sunderland
The Observer, Sunday 11 April 2010
Article history

BP will almost certainly see off a resolution at its annual meeting next week from 140 shareholders asking it to produce a report by next year about its tar sands activities.

City investors have rallied around BP's management, but the level of protest is too significant to ignore. A number of large overseas investors backed the resolution, as did about 5,000 individuals who participated in an internet drive to enfranchise pension fund members organised by lobby group FairPensions and supported by the Observer.

The campaign has succeeded in dragging BP out of its bunker: it has disclosed information about its financial assumptions and about talks with First Nation communities. Shell, which is subject to a similar resolution, has gone further and produced a report a year earlier than asked. That is progress, but not enough for investors to let either off the hook at this stage.

It is disappointing that the City has closed ranks around BP chief executive Tony Hayward. But campaigners have won a moral victory by pushing tar sands on to the investment agenda.


[News > Media > BBC]
Carbon credit documentary should not have been shown, BBC admits

Corporation acts on Observer investigation into secretive trust  linked to socialite Robin Birley that funded film on his carbon credits firm, Envirotrade
Mark Olden and Michael Gillard
The Observer, Sunday 11 April 2010
Article history

{{The BBC has ruled that a sympathetic documentary about the 'philanthropy capitalism' of socialite Robin Birley should not have been shown.}
{Photograph}: Richard Young / Rex Features}

A BBC documentary about socialite Robin Birley and his carbon credits business venture in Africa should never have been broadcast, an internal inquiry by the corporation has found. Millions of viewers were misled because the sympathetic documentary shown on BBC World News failed to declare that it was financed by a secretive trust that was linked to Birley.

The BBC acted in response to an Observer investigation into Birley's "philanthropy capitalism" venture in Mozambique. Taxpayers' money was used to subsidise poor farmers there to protect forests and plant trees that absorb carbon dioxide. Envirotrade, Birley's company, then sells "carbon credits" to celebrities and businesses wanting to offset their emissions. Customers who used Birley's venture to offset emissions included the agency that handles Brad Pitt and George Clooney.

Rockhopper TV, the production company that made the documentary, knew but did not disclose to BBC executives, of links between Envirotrade and the Africa Carbon Livelihood Trust, which funded the making of the documentary. Had it done so, Taking The Credit, the documentary, would never have been shown, the BBC ruled, although it also claimed the programme was balanced.

Birley set up and funded the Mauritius-based trust but would not say who its other donors are or how much Rockhopper was paid to make the programme. Envirotrade saw it as a "marketing" opportunity.

A BBC statement said: "As a consequence of this case, [we] will work closely with Rockhopper to ensure that robust compliance measures are implemented … Until the BBC is fully satisfied that these measures have been put in place, no Rockhopper programmes will be acquired or commissioned."

Rockhopper, which is run by Richard Wilson, a former BBC environment correspondent, and ex-Sky News presenter Anya Sitaram, told the Observer that every indication suggested that the trust was independent.

However, the inquiry found there was a "conflict of interest [that] risked bringing the BBC's editorial reputation into disrepute" because the trust's managing director, Charles Hall, is also chief executive of Envirotrade.

The BBC's own compliance failures have not been made known because the corporation refuses to release its report into the Rockhopper affair, adding to concern that a wider problem exists over commercial sponsorship arrangements on its international channel.

Birley founded Envirotrade in 2002 with a South African, Philip Powell. A year later, the European Commission awarded a €1.5m (£1.3m) grant to Envirotrade and Edinburgh University to pilot a forest project at N'hambita, Mozambique. However, in October 2007, the EC suspended its last €450,000 payment for the project and concluded the following year that unsubstantiated claims were being made about its environmental impact. The suspension was still in force when Rockhopper filmed with Birley in Mozambique last August. By then, a second team of experts working for the EC had just returned from the project. Their report was more positive than the first, but continued to find "major drawbacks" with the implementation of an aspect key to N'hambita's survival – the sale of carbon credits. Viewers of the documentary, which was shown last October, were not told about these criticisms.

Envirotrade says it has sold £1m of carbon credits. However, the EC's criticisms could mean at least £150,000 are unverified and may have to be paid back. Charles Hall, Envirotrade's chief executive, told the Observer: "The business model for Envirotrade frankly remains to be proven. The fact that this can be made into a sustainable business on the basis of selling carbon offsets remains to be seen."

It has also emerged that Envirotrade's London arm is insolvent and owes £800,000 to its parent company in Mauritius.

Hall revealed that the N'hambita project needs an immediate £1m injection from Birley. However, Birley, who says he has already put in more than £1.5m, has given no legal undertaking to provide these extra funds.

Sitaram, executive producer of the documentary, said that had Rockhopper known about the EC's criticisms it would not have touched the project. However, six weeks before broadcast, Fern, a climate campaign group, outlined these criticisms in an email exchange with the programme's researcher.

news20100411gdn2

[News] from [guardian.co.uk]

[Environment > Global climate talks]
Climate aid threat to countries that refuse to back Copenhagen accord

Developing nations claim they are being offered cash to sign up to climate change deal
John Vidal
The Observer, Sunday 11 April 2010
Article history

{{An environmental campaigner stands outside the Bonn hotel where the climate change talks are being held, 9 April 2010.}
{Photograph}: Juergen Schwarz/AFP}

Rich countries have threatened to cut vital aid to the developing nations if they do not back the deal agreed at the UN climate summit in Copenhagen, it has emerged.

The pressure on poor countries to support the US, EU and UK-brokered Copenhagen accord came as 190 countries resumed UN climate talks in Bonn in an atmosphere of mutual suspicion.

"The pressure to back the west has been intense," said a senior African diplomat. "It was done at a very high level and nothing was written down. It was made very clear by the EU, UK, France and the US that if they did not back them then they would suffer."

According to other African climate diplomats, threats to cut aid were accompanied by promises of financial support for countries that complied.

"There was definite strong-arming of countries. A lot were left in no doubt that there would be repercussions if they did not associate themselves with the accord," said Saleemul Huq, of the International Institute for Environment and Development, in London.

Yesterday it emerged that the US is to cut climate aid to Bolivia, Ecuador and other countries who have refused to sign up to the accord. But the outgoing UN climate change chief, Yvo de Boer, said: "Bolivia is losing $2.5m in climate funds. That's about what the presidential palace pays for toilet paper a year. Bullying is not an effective instrument."

Earlier this year, Karl Falkenberg, director-general for environment at the European Commission, signalled that countries that did not fully support the accord might not qualify for future funds. "It is not money for free, we are helping developing countries to make more of an effort than they could do on their own."

Although the accord is not legally binding and was not adopted by the UN, more than 112 countries have so far "associated" with it. They include 14 African countries that depend on aid from the EU, UK and France.

It commits rich countries to holding emissions to a rise of 2C, provides for $30bn (£19.5bn) a year to be found in the short term for developing countries to adapt to climate change, and up to $100bn a year in the long term.

Some signatories will be richly rewarded for backing the weak agreement. Ethiopia expects to earn nearly $1bn from climate change funds. However, 90 poor countries have refused to associate with it, mostly arguing it will not reduce emissions enough to prevent catastrophic climate change.


[Business > Manufacturing sector]
Heavy industry claims carbon emission targets are 'death by a thousand cuts'

> EU aims to cut emissions by a fifth in 2020 against 2005 levels
> Manufacturers warn higher carbon taxes will drive firms abroad
Tim Webb
The Observer, Sunday 11 April 2010
Article history

{{Industrial firms warn that hefty costs of delivering low carbon economy will drive out manufacturing sector from Britain.}
{Photograph} AP}

Both political parties have been falling over themselves to declare their new-found affection for British industry, which had been neglected for years in favour of a now discredited City. Business secretary Lord Mandelson talks of Labour promoting the "low carbon reindustrialisation" of the economy where British manufacturers deliver the new nuclear plants, wind farms and other technologies needed to meet the UK's tough carbon emissions targets. But high carbon emitters like steelmakers and chemical plants are becoming concerned that new environmental taxes could mean that within a decade, there won't be much of Britain's heavy industry left to lead this revolution.

In the next month, the European commission will decide how industry will meet tough new targets for the third phase of the EU emissions trading scheme, which begins in 2012. The scheme sets a cap on companies' emissions by issuing permits to pollute and imposes a penalty if they exceed this. Under the scheme, which runs until 2020, the cap is tightened each year. The EU wants the scheme to achieve its targets of reducing Europe's emissions by a fifth in 2020 compared with 2005 levels. But industry fears the extra costs will put them at a disadvantage against rivals outside the EU.

One large steelmaker in the UK, which spoke on the condition of anonymity, estimates that to maintain current production, it would have to buy millions more permits, at an estimated cost of at least €100m (£88m). The steelmaker warned that moving production overseas would be an inevitable consequence. One executive said: "This is death by a thousand cuts."

The chemical industry in the UK, which employs 180,000 people and represents about 12% of value added in manufacturing, is likely to be similarly affected. More than two-thirds of chemical companies are multinationals with overseas headquarters, making relocation more likely.

The EU trading scheme affects industry equally across Europe. But British companies fear that the UK's more ambitious policies will put them at a disadvantage to competitors. The government has pledged to reduce emissions by at least 34% by 2020 compared with 2005 levels, much higher than the EU's pledge of 20%. Much of the responsibility for meeting these targets falls on energy companies, requiring them to build new nuclear plants and wind farms. The government estimates that electricity bills for business could increase by 70% by 2020, much higher than in the rest of Europe. These higher energy costs would put manufacturers at a significant disadvantage. Moreover, reducing emissions from industry could allow sectors – such as aviation – to pollute more. To have any chance of maintaining existing production without having to pay large penalties, companies would have to invest billions of pounds in new technologies. Ian Rodgers, director of trade body UK Steel, complains that the government is only providing aid for carbon capture (CCS) technology to power plant owners. In Germany, by contrast, the government is providing €30m to steelmaker ArcelorMittal for a CCS project at one of its blast furnaces.

Some executives fear that the department of energy and climate change (DECC) is keen on reducing emissions whatever the economic cost. Jeremy Nicholson, from the Energy Intensive Users Group, said: "Talking to DECC officials about the extent of the recession, the enthusiasm at the reduction of electricity and gas consumption because of the recession was obvious. The plan is supposed to be decarbonising the economy while growing it, not shrinking it."

Industry is key to developing new energy efficient technologies to combat climate change, whether they are steelmakers making wind turbines or chemical plants developing greener fuels and materials. If they can't be provided by UK industry, because environmental regulations killed it off, the kit and technologies will have to be imported from overseas, ironically often from less energy efficient manufacturers. Rodgers adds: "The climate change agenda won't affect the amount of steel consumed, but will determine where it's produced."

news20100411bbc

[One-Minute World News] from [BBC NEWS]

[Science & Environment]
Page last updated at 04:54 GMT, Sunday, 11 April 2010 05:54 UK
Cargo ship crew charged over Great Barrier Reef route
{貨物船の船員、グレートバリアリーフ往来で告訴される。｝

{Bulk carriers regularly take short cuts through the Reef}
｛船員、定期的にリーフを経路し、時間を短縮。｝

Three people have been charged with steering a cargo ship through a protected part of the Great Barrier Reef off the coast of Australia.
｛船員三人、オーストラリア沖合の保護区域グレートバリアリーフで貨物船を操縦したとして告訴される。｝

The men, from Vietnam and South Korea, will appear in an Australian court on Monday, accused of taking their coal carrier on an unauthorised route.

The route crossed one of the world's most valuable marine wildlife reserves.

In a separate incident last week, a Chinese vessel ran aground on the reef and began leaking oil.

The Great Barrier Reef is the world's largest reef system and extends for more than 2,500km.

Celebrated as the world's largest living organism, it is feared to be under threat from climate change.

'Rat-runs'

The Australian Federal Police executed a search of the bulk carrier MV Mimosa following a tip-off from the maritime authorities that the ship had entered a restricted area of the reef.

Navigational equipment and charts were seized in the raid and three men, a 63-year-old South Korean man and two Vietnamese sailors aged 26 and 32, were charged.

It is alleged that the vessel was not registered with the Reef Vessel Tracking System and failed to respond to attempts by the authorities to establish contact. If found guilty, the men could face a maximum fine of more than A$200,000 (US$205,000).

The ship allegedly entered the prohibited area a day after a Chinese-owned coal carrier ran aground in another part of the reef, threatening an environmental catastrophe.

Salvage teams are still working to pump oil from the ship, which had strayed off course and rammed into a sandbank at full speed.

It has since emerged that bulk carriers regularly take short cuts through the world heritage-listed marine park - reef "rat-runs" that cut down on voyage times and therefore save money.

The Australian government has vowed to tighten up its maritime laws in response.


[Science & Environment]
Page last updated at 13:54 GMT, Sunday, 11 April 2010 14:54 UK
By Richard Black
Environment correspondent, BBC News website, Copenhagen
'Slim' prospects for climate deal this year
｛今年度の気候変動取引、見込み薄。｝

{Developing nations are set to be hardest hit by rising temperatures}
｛発展途上国、温度上昇で最悪の事態になる模様。｝

Prospects of finalising a new binding agreement on climate change by the end of the year are "slim", according to UN climate convention chief Yvo de Boer.
｛今年末までに、気候変動に関する新しい拘束力のある協定がまとまる可能性、低い：デボァ国連気候協定事務局長。｝

He said the process used to draw up the Copenhagen Accord, the document produced at the end of December's UN climate summit, had worsened distrust.

About 110 countries have endorsed the accord, with others rejecting it.

Mr de Boer was speaking at a three-day meeting here aimed at agreeing steps towards this year's summit in Mexico.

The place of the Copenhagen Accord has been one of the controversial issues, with developed nations such as the US and Australia praising it as useful and something that should be incorporated into any new global agreement.

But developing countries regard it as far too weak, and object to the "undemocratic" nature of the process that saw it drawn up and announced by a small group of nations on the last day of the mammoth Copenhagen summit.

"It has heightened the feeling of distrust within the process," Mr de Boer told BBC News.

"But what Copenhagen also demonstrated is that if a process or procedure is followed that a group of countries does not like, then they have the ability and the power to resist the outcome of such a process."

Two-step process

Clearly, the accord is being resisted by a large group of developing countries.

According to Bolivia's representative Pablo Solon, the carbon constraints are so weak that "we're going to have one half of humanity living in a very difficult situation - without water in some places, in others living underwater.

"Can you imagine - to present this as a solution?"

{{It is a very involved process - it is not a sprint, it is a decathlon}
Vijai Sharma, India delegate}

Many of the countries that have endorsed the accord have added the caveat that they see it only as a step towards a global, binding treaty, and that they want the treaty agreed at this year's summit, in Mexico's Cancun resort in November and December.

The chances of that happening, said Mr de Boer, were "very slim".

"I think that developing countries will want to see what the nature of an agreement is going to be before they will be willing to turn it into a legally-binding treaty, so that basically means a two-step process," he said.

"We first need to get the architecture agreed, and I think that can happen in Cancun; and then once if that architecture is sufficiently interesting to parties, there could be a decision in Cancun to turn it into a new treaty text, and that would have to be finalised later."

Running story

Developing countries have been asking for a intensive sequence of meetings during this year in order to allow enough time to reach the treaty stage.

{Campaigners are calling for a binding agreement on emissions}

India's delegate Vijai Sharma said that progress was being made on that, and on the process for developing a new agreement.

"It is a very involved process - it is not a sprint, it is a decathlon," he told BBC News.

"As to the character of the agreement - there are different opinions on that, but everyone wants a good outcome."

However, Mr de Boer flagged up one potential stumbling block - the US demand for "symmetry".

In order to placate concerns about losing competitiveness, the US is for example demanding that China and other developing countries should be subject to the same regime on veryfying emissions curbs as the industrialised world.

"What the US has also indicated is that it would want to be treated on a par with major develoing countries, and that I think is going to be very difficult," said Mr de Boer.

After the busiest and most fraught period of climate negotiations since their inception two decades ago, Mr de Boer steps down later this year.

His successor is expected to be named soon - possibly later this month - with a number of former ministers in the frame.

news20100411reut1

[Top News] from [REUTERS]

[Environment News]
[Green Business]
SYDNEY
Sat Apr 10, 2010 8:53pm EDT
Australia charges crew with taking ship via reef
｛豪、サンゴ礁に船舶を乗り入れたとして船員を告訴。｝

(Reuters) - Three foreign men have been charged with steering a cargo ship through a restricted part of Australia's Great Barrier Reef, police said on Sunday, days after another bulk carrier ran aground in the same marine park.
｛豪警察によると、日曜日、同じ海洋公園に別の貨物船が乗り入れたことから、規制海域オーストラリアグレートバリアリーフに侵入し、貨物船を操作したとして三人の船員告訴した。｝

The men allegedly took Panama-registered bulk carrier MV Mimosa through the reef marine park on April 4 using an unauthorized shipping route, the Australian Federal Police (AFP) said in a statement.

Last Sunday the China-registered Shen Neng 1 foundered on the reef while traveling outside approved shipping lanes, threatening the delicate environment of the World Heritage-listed marine park.

After entering the reef, the Mimosa allegedly headed for Abbot Point Coal Terminal, near the town of Bowen in Queensland state, police said in a statement. The three men were arrested in Bowen on Saturday and are due to appear in court on Monday in the northeastern city of Townsville.

The three, a 63-year-old South Korean and two Vietnamese aged 26 and 32, have been charged with offences under the 1975 Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Act and face fines of up to A$220,000 ($205,000), police said.

Police did not name the ship's owners.

Australia has vowed a major overhaul of shipping regulations in order to protect the reef following the Shen Neng 1 incident.

(Reporting by Chris McCall; Editing by Louise Ireland)


[Environment News]
[Green Business | COP15]
Yereth Rosen
ANCHORAGE, Alaska
Sat Apr 10, 2010 2:55pm EDT
Shell gets key Alaska permit for Beaufort drilling
｛シェル社、ボーフォートでの掘削に重要なアラスカの許可を得る。｝

(Reuters) - Royal Dutch Shell Plc has been granted a long-awaited federal air-quality permit the oil company needs to conduct exploratory drilling this year in Alaska's Beaufort Sea, government officials said late on Friday.
｛政府筋によると、金曜日遅く、ローヤルダッチシェル社はアラスカボーフォート海で今年度の調査掘削に必要な政府大気汚染法による許可をようやく得た。｝

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency issued the permit to Shell to cover air pollutants emitted from the drill ship and fleet of support vessels that the company plans to mobilize to drill two exploratory wells on leases 16 to 22 miles offshore from Alaska's northern coast.

The Beaufort Sea permit -- which Shell has been seeking for nearly four years -- was granted a week after the EPA issued a similar permit for the company's planned drilling operations this year in the Chukchi Sea off Alaska's northwestern cost.

The permit requires Shell to use technological advances, ultra-low-sulfur diesel fuel and to commit to other protective measures, EPA officials said in a statement.

"This permit ensures that exploration and drilling will occur in a way that protects air quality," Rick Albright, director of the air, waste and toxics issues for EPA's Seattle regional office, said in a statement.

The Beaufort permit is an important milestone, a Shell spokesman in Anchorage said, after the company spent $84 million on its Beaufort Sea leases and intends to drill prospects there called Sivulliq and Torpedo that are known to contain hydrocarbons.

"The issuance of our final Beaufort Sea air permit means we can continue to advance our exploration program with the ultimate goal of drilling in the Chukchi and Beaufort Seas in 2010," Shell spokesman Curtis Smith said.

The permit is subject to a public-review period and could be appealed by critics.

Shell is seeking to use a single drill ship and a fleet of icebreakers, oil-spill-response ships and other support vessels to explore the Chukchi and Beaufort prospects. Drilling is planned for the summer and fall, times when sea ice is absent. The company plans to drill up to three wells about 75 miles offshore in the Chukchi, where it spent $2.1 billion in 2008 to acquire leases, and two wells in the Beaufort.

Environmentalists and the native Inupiat Eskimo people of the region expressed concerns, as the permit was being drafted by the EPA, about carbon-dioxide emissions into a region already strongly affected by climate change, and the potential impact of pollutants on people who hunt and fish in the region for traditional foods.

Other permits are required before Shell is authorized to drill at either site, but those permits are considered smaller in scope than the air-quality permits.

(Editing by Bill Rigby and Eric Walsh)


[Green Business > COP15]
Alister Doyle and Gerard Wynn
BONN, Germany
Sat Apr 10, 2010 2:13pm EDT
U.S., Denmark cut climate aid after summit: Bolivia

(Reuters) - Bolivia accused the United States and Denmark on Saturday of cutting aid to the South American country as punishment for its fierce opposition to the Copenhagen Accord for fighting global warming.

Bolivia, Cuba, Nicaragua and Sudan were among the strongest opponents at the summit in Denmark of the Copenhagen Accord, now backed by about 120 nations.

They said its goal of limiting any rise in average global temperatures to less than 2 Celsius (3.6 F) over pre-industrial age levels would cause catastrophe for millions.

"Some concrete projects have been canceled," Bolivia's chief delegate Pablo Solon told reporters during April 9-11 talks among 175 nations in Bonn seeking ways to get U.N. climate negotiations back on track after the fractious December summit.

"We have received a cut of aid ... That is the case of Denmark and that is the case of the United States," he said. "We think they are very unfair, we think this is a way of punishing."

He said that canceled U.S. projects in Bolivia, whose leftist government is often at odds with the United States, totaled about $3-3.5 million. He did not have a number for the alleged cut in Danish aid.

U.S. Climate Envoy Todd Stern was quoted by the Washington Post on Friday as saying that the United States would give priority to countries backing the Accord. It had denied $3 million to Bolivia and $3.5 million to Ecuador.

Denmark has not linked aid to acceptance of the Copenhagen Accord. But a draft Danish government aid plan presented on March 19 foresees a general shift in development aid to help the poorest nations in Africa.

The three-page Accord holds out the goal of $10 billion a year in climate aid for developing nations from 2010-12, rising to $100 billion from 2020 to help cope with droughts, floods, mudslides and rising sea levels.

The text makes no mention of aiding only signatories among developing nations.

A Sudanese delegate said his nation had not felt any impact on aid but predicted pressure on many developing nations to sign up to the accord. "We will see in the next few months a checkbook diplomacy," Lumumba Di-Aping told Reuters.

Lumumba angered many in the final night at Copenhagen by making a veiled allusion to the deaths of millions of Jews in the Holocaust in a warning that millions of Africans faced "incineration" from climate change.

He did not express regret but conceded that "there is no comparison" between Hitler's policies and climate change. But he said "inaction is not morally defensible."

Two more climate meetings are set this year, in June and December. Negotiators would decide on Sunday how many extra meetings were needed, with at least two more sessions expected.

Delegates also would decide whether to give the chair of a key negotiating group the mandate to draft by mid-May a new text on climate action, and if so what past deals to base it on.

Separately, Mexico offered a flexible plan for U.N. talks in 2010 ahead of the next annual meeting in Cancun, Mexico from November 29 to December 10, seeking to avoid disputes in Copenhagen which failed to agree a treaty.

"We don't want the same group of countries meeting again and again," Mexico's chief climate negotiator Fernando Tudela said.

"Depending on the subject matter, the parties that would participate would be different," he told reporters. "It means a kind of gymnastics of informal consultations."

(Editing by Michael Roddy)

news20100411reut2

[Top News] from [REUTERS]

[Green Business > China]
Gerard Wynn and Alister Doyle - Analysis
BONN, Germany
Sat Apr 10, 2010 4:37pm EDT
Giving up climate treaty may unblock U.N. deal

(Reuters) - The prospect of a global climate treaty is fading as the world's top two carbon emitters, China and the United States, avoid legally binding action. Experts say a shift to a less ambitious goal might help.

Less focus on a new treaty might resolve a tangle of disputes over the legal framework and drive concrete action, for example to preserve rainforests or to help developing nations cope with droughts, heatwaves, floods or rising seas.

U.N. climate talks to try to agree a tougher, wider successor to the present Kyoto Protocol entered their third year at an April 9-11 meeting in Bonn, Germany, the first since a fractious summit in Copenhagen in December.

Copenhagen was billed as the world's best chance to agree a new treaty. Failure to achieve a treaty or the smaller goal of binding carbon cuts for rich nations has sapped momentum and is forcing a search for less ambitious solutions.

"We can't afford only to keep coming back year after year, we have to explore other options," said Annie Petsonk, international counsel at the U.S.-based Environmental Defense Fund, adding that a treaty was still possible.

Annual U.N. climate meetings have failed to achieve any major breakthrough since signing the Kyoto Protocol in 1997. The present round of that pact expires in 2012.

Experts note a less formal deal, outside a legal framework, may now emerge, building on the actions of individual nations.

More than 100 countries have backed a non-binding Copenhagen Accord to mobilize $30 billion in climate aid from 2010-2012 to help poor nations face the impacts of climate change, underscoring what could be agreed outside a legal framework.

"It used to be said that countries would only act if there was a treaty, but that's not the case," said Jake Schmidt, international climate policy director at Natural Resources Defense Council.

"A lot is happening even though we don't have an international agreement," he said, referring to the accord.

MEXICO

Mexico, which will host the next annual talks after Copenhagen in Cancun in late 2010, said that demands for a legally binding treaty should not get in the way of progress at that meeting.

"We do not want to get ensnared in the legal stuff so that we will be prevented from moving. What we want is to achieve a sensible global mobilization," Mexico's chief delegate Fernando Tudela said.

"If a legally binding treaty is possible and helps, we are all for it. But it's not a pre-condition for moving in the right direction." One senior developing country delegate accepted privately that the U.N. process may never agree a legal pact.

The difficulty of agreeing a binding treaty centers on the United States and China, who "remain in a dance about this issue," said Jennifer Morgan, from the World Resources Institute.

"There's not a legal treaty until you break this Gordian knot of the U.S. and China in particular having very different views of what it means to be legally binding," said Alden Meyer, of the Union of Concerned Scientists.

U.S. legislation to cut emissions is stalled in the U.S. Senate. And the United States will balk at binding targets unless China makes its own actions accountable in some international way.

Another roadblock to any treaty is a requirement for unanimity in U.N. talks -- absent in Copenhagen and which remained elusive in Bonn, as developing nations notably Cuba, Bolivia and Venezuela rejected any attempt to build agreement in smaller groups.

One of the reasons why a treaty has been the goal, especially of developing countries, was because it allows for sanctions on rich countries which miss their targets. Enforcing a non-binding deal is far more difficult.

Petsonk advocated an approach where rich nations tied developing countries and each other to certain minimum action before benefiting from a $125 billion carbon market.

That would draw upon a voluntary World Trade Organization model which has widened free trade by offering the benefits of WTO membership.

The biggest buyer of carbon offsets, the European Union, has already laid plans to limit its financing of carbon-cutting projects in emerging economies which do not bolster climate action. The United States, Japan and Australia plan cap and trade schemes which would scale up that carbon finance carrot.

Without such an approach the only crutch to a non-binding deal may be international criticism. "Naming and shaming may be what we end up with," Meyer said.

(Editing by Alison Williams)