Bangladesh, the nation that is in the danger of extinction from global warming and sea-level rising, has put up a new initiative to curb its pollution.

Reuters reports that with this initiative, any citizen will be allowed to file a case against polluters, and the Prime Minister’s press secretary said that offenders can be punished with jail time of up to five years and fine of half million taka (equivalent to $7,000). But because this is mostly directed towards the owners of major industries and businesses, the price that they have to pay may not affect them much.

Called the Environment Court Act 2010, if effective it could not only change practices that lead to climate change in Bangladesh, but may help save the Buriganga river found in the heartland of Dhaka, the capital of Bangladesh. This river has been endangered through pollution as it’s effectively been used as Dhaka’s sewer dump and 80% of the toxic waste poured into it is untreated.

A World Bank report claimed that Bangladesh receives 1.5 million cubic meters of waste water every day from 7,000 industrial units, and 0.5 million cubic meters a day from other sources. Putting controls on this waste may help combat the premature deaths that occur among Bangladeshi children because of pollution.

“The Cabinet gave the final approval to the draft law to help take stringent measures against the polluters of environment. Many persons took lease of vast lands in the name of rubber cultivation, but made cottage for their luxuries. Prime Minister directed concerned authorities to stop such practices,” Abul Kalam Azad, Press Secretary to the Prime Minister told journalists at a press briefing.

The mobile courts throughout the country would be in charge by the hierarchy held in Dhaka, so that anyone who has seen any misuse of land through pollution can report to the government at any time.

• share:
• Bookmark on Delicious
• Digg this post
• Recommend on Facebook
• share via Reddit
• Share with Stumblers
• Tweet about it
• Subscribe to the comments on this post
• Tell a friend

Sources :Bangladesh Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina presented two innovative proposals-setting up Himalayan Council on the model of the Artic Council to help the climate-victim nations in South Asia and an International Adaptation and Research Centre (IARC) in Bangladesh to recommend measures to cope with the impacts of climate change.

She made the proposals while delivering her statement at the opening session of the 16th SAARC summit at the Grand Assembly Hall as the ‘Climate Change’ is the centrepiece of the Thimphu summit capital of the Himalayan kingdom.

The Prime minister said the proposed IARC could facilitate exchange of scientific data, eco-friendly technologies, experience in renewable energy and assist the relevant SAARC Regional Centres to realise their mandates.

It could also help implement the SAARC Convention on Cooperation on Environment to be signed at the summit.

“Global warming and climate change have already impacted our nations with melting of the Himalayan glaciers, rising sea level, erratic precipitation, land degradation, desertification and salinity,”

As Bangladesh is the most vulnerable country to the global warming, adverse geophysical changes with increasing frequency of cyclones and floods have been retarding the economic growth, poverty alleviation efforts, and millennium development goals (DGs).

“To face these challenges, I believe, a holistic approach is imperative at regional and global level’s” she told the summiteers.

Hasina, who played a key role at the Copenhagen climate change summit last November said at global level, COP-15 at Copenhagen had given hope of a comprehensive, long-term programme.

She said there was now need to lock in the key global players in COP-16 at Mexico City later this year for concrete commitments covering greenhouse gas emission cuts, and guaranteeing fund and technology.

The Prime Minister observed that at the regional level, a unified approach was of essence, and called for the SAARC to establish a Himalayan Council on the model of the Artic council for assisting the affected countries in the region.

Hasina told the summitters that to meet the challenges of the climate change, Bangladesh had adopted 134 action plans under the National Adaptation Programme of Action, and the Bangladesh Climate Change Strategy and Action Plan. The authorities have been designated for Clean Development Mechanism.

She said a plan in progress was dredging of rivers to hold more water, restrict flooding and reclaim inundated land, while river banks were being raised with excavated silt to contain rising water, create green belts and provide homesteads for the displaced.

Moreover, 14,000 cyclone shelters had been constructed with more on the way, she added.

To reduce greenhouse gas, the prime minister said a low carbon path to development was being followed by her government.

“Our plans also include creation of a large carbon sink through social forestry and green belts, use of clean coal technology, nuclear power and renewable energy,” she said, “To meet the costs, we’ve set up a Climate Change fund with our own resources,”

She stressed the creation of a regional power grid to utilise the potentials of renewable sources of energy that include hydro-electricity, solar, wind and biofuels.

She said the member countries faced increasing energy needs as the economies were growing.

“Recent trends indicate immediate need for cooperation at bilateral, sub-regional, and regional levels to harness each other’s capacities and resources,” she added.

Hasina said, “This i8ncludes developing a regional power-grid, harnessing renewable energy sources like hydropower, solar, biofuel, wind and reducing dependence on fossil fuel.” The prime minister proposed a regional grid of power as the SAARC members have the potential to produce hundreds of megawatts of hydroelectricity by using mountainous rivers in India, Bhutan and Nepal.

On the impact on the agriculture sector, Hasina said climate change was also responsible for declining agricultural land, thereby threatening food security. “An answer here is high yielding seeds, resistant to pest attacks and climate variations for enhancing productivity.”

She stressed the need for a SAARC Seed Bank with necessary legal framework for quality seed production, harmonised seed testing, certification, seed trade, and exchange of germ-plasm and plant genetic resources. On the economic scenario, she noted that the South Asian economies had shown remarkable resilience in the face of recent global meltdown. Still, they had suffered from economic slow-down, soaring oil and food prices, and climate change.

She mentioned tariff liberalisation under SAFTA, operation of SAARC Development Fund (SDF), and now SAARC Agreement on Trade in Service (SATIS), and other trade facilitation measures over the last 25 years had enabled the SAARC to cross significant milestons. Nevertheless, she deplored that intra-regional trade among the SAARC countries measures up to a low single digit percentage of global trade of the region.

Though sensitive lists of trade items were being reduced, greater efforts were needed to make SAFTA and SATIS meaningful.

She hoped that once the South Asian Regional Standards Organisation (SARSO) was established, it would efficiently work in harmonising the standards to facilitate trade.

On the vital issue of connectivity, she said South Asian countries had displayed increasing focus on regional connectivity, and on a greater sense of regional identity.

“Success here is possible through enhanced people -to-people contact by means of easy communication, and education services,” she said, adding that it is, indeed, high time to agree on equivalence of education standards and mutual recognition of degrees. The prime minister noted that a productive start could be prioritising disciplines that may initially include science and technology, engineering, medical, law, and financial management. Inauguration of the South Asian University could prove to be a successful vehicle in achieving this objective, she said.

The SDF, whose secretariat was inaugurated Wednesday, could play its role in generating funds from within and outside the region for projects on energy production. On SAARC strivings to intensify connectivity to draw member states closer for mutual gains, the prime minister said : “Certain wrong-doers and terrorists are out to undo our good intentions and the growing trust among ourselves.”

Bangladesh, a nation committed to peace and involved in UN peacekeeping efforts, was firmly opposed to terrorism, insurgency, orgainsed crimes and religious extremism.

“We categorically reject claims of those who cloak themselves in the rhetoric of Islam, or any other faith to justify violence. We are also committed against the use of Bangladesh territory for launching terrorism elsewhere.”

SAARC’s success lies in building bridges among the peoples of South Asia, which is possible through close and free interaction of the peoples from all walks of life.

Stressing that tourism could play a catalytic role, she said this would mean free movements and while there was rationale for immigration control, a reasonable balance could be worked out.

The harsh reality facing the people in South Asia, saying; “Let us take a moment to ponder on the plight of our 1.5 billion people and an awesome majority of them live in poverty craving for food and other basic necessities.”

Reminding the South Asian leaders of their responsibility towards peoples of the region, she said: “Is it not fair that we, as their entrusted leaders, consider seriously their dilemma, determinedly rise above all our differences, and plunge with fixated resolve to change their life?”

“I firmly believe we can, and do so we will, with some bold decisions here. I am convinced that this maiden Summit of the kingdom of Bhutan under its Chair, would lead us across the threshold to a new era of peace and prosperity of our peoples.”

Referring to the fresh wind of democracy blowing across the region, Hasina said: “It is heartening to see all eight states of the SAARC gathered here today are democracies represented by elected leaders. This an historic development emanating from our experience that only democracy can achieve aspirations of our peoples.”

She added : “Indeed, our democracies now need to be cherished, protected, and allowed to mature. I believe these sentiments need to be recorded in a SAARC ‘Charter for Democracy’.”

The 16th summit meeting of the South Asian Associatio for Regional Cooperation (SAARC) has ended amid the usual pageantry in the Bhutanese capital, Thimpu. The SAARC was founded in 1985 and, thus, the latest summit also marked the silver jubilee of this organisation. Indeed, SAARC has matured into a regional organisation of some significance and actual attainments over these years. However, like in the just-ended summit at Thimpu, SAARC has remained largely restricted to discussing its great potentialities by its leaders at their annual summits that taking hard steps to achieve the same.

Regional organisations are formed mainly by their member countries to get access to far bigger regional markets.

This, in theory, at least, helps out every member country to mobilise and employ their resources and people to sell in the bigger market. Therefore, opportunities occur for the member countries in varying degrees to improve their external trade and to attract internally greater investments into income generating production activities to feed their external demand Thus, all members of a regional grouping or their economics can expect economic gains from the flourishing of such a grouping.

The SAARC countries are home to some 23 per cent of the entire global population. Thus, numerically it has the prospect of becoming the biggest common market in the world as the combined growth rate of the populations of SAARC countries is the highest in the world.

One may contend that the modest purchasing power of the poor among the SAARC population restricts its real market size. But in all SAARC countries the sections of the rich, upper middle classes and the lower middle classes are fast rising. They already form a vast market for all kinds of goods and services and their numbers are almost certain to only go on increasing even in the near future despite the hurdles. There is already a very big SAARC market and its size is only likely to expand to an enormous one in the mid-and longer-terms.

But the sad reality at the moment is that SAARC countries are only tinkering at the edges of exploiting this present and potential markets.

Although SAARC was established a quarter of a century ago, intraregional trade or SAARC trade between the member countries themselves, constitutes a small fraction of their total trade. The bulk of their trade is with countries outside the SEAARC. But intra-regional trade even at the present level of various capacities within SAARC, could be several fold larger than what is today. Of course, that requires the SAARC countries to meet the goals of the South Asian Free Trade Area (SAFTA) which they formed in 2006.

But SAFTA has hardly made any substantive progress since its founding. It remains practically stagnant as SAARC countries are yet to take the necessary initiatives to give a spur to it.

With the large lists of sensitive products of every SAARC country which are protected relatively by high tariffs and other disincentives, most members of the South Asian grouping are not actively promoting free trade. It is notable that SAFTA was only peripherally discussed at the recently-concluded Thimpu summit. Hence, the relevance of the new SAARC accord on trade in services to the ground-level realities remains in doubt.

In this context, it is imperative that the SAARC leaders start appreciating the pressing need of doing at the fastest what things need to be done to turn this body dynamic-particularly in the economic sense-and to kick-start the process of collective economic advance of the countries within its fold. If the member-countries of SARC would have taken the right pro-active measures to promote intra-regional trade and trade-related investments, the economic scenario in South Asia could have been much different from what is today.

• share:
• Bookmark on Delicious
• Digg this post
• Recommend on Facebook
• share via Reddit
• Share with Stumblers
• Tweet about it
• Subscribe to the comments on this post
• Tell a friend

sources : Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina on Sunday lamented slow progress in disbursement of the $30 billion pledged by the developed countries for the climate vulnerable nations for the years 2010-2012.

“Unfortunately, the provisions and mechanisms in the existing framework have failed to secure resources required to finance the adaptation actions on the ground,” she said while inaugurating a two-day Asia Regional Conference of Global Climate Change Alliance (GCCA) at Dhaka Sheraton Hotel in the capital.

Developed countries, especially the most advanced ones, should not shy away from their own responsibilities to save the humanity, Hasina said, urging the advanced countries for fast track disbursement of the fund promised in Copenhagen climate summit last year.

Ministers and high officials of Afghanistan, Bhutan, Cambodia, Laos, the Maldives, Myanmar, Nepal and Yemen are attending the conference.

Bangladesh and European Union (EU) are jointly organising the meeting aimed at enhancing understanding among the least developed countries (LDCs) and small island developing states (SIDS) on climate change risks.

“We have to act fast. The atmospheric changes are going on while we are negotiating,” she said, adding the advanced countries must not forget the fact that in the pretext of mitigation actions, adaptation should not be sidelined because “successful adaptation is the key to our survival.”

Urging the small developing countries to forge common position in the next climate summit in Mexico, the Bangladesh premier said, “If we don’t stand unitedly and raise our voice, outcomes might not be favourable for us and we would be the worst victims of climate change.”

Stating that small countries usually accept what the larger developing countries suggest, she said, “That may not be conducive to our national interests. Now time has come to speak up loudly.??

She urged all the LDC and SIDS countries to continue working together to achieve a successful deal in Mexico in November this year

• share:
• Bookmark on Delicious
• Digg this post
• Recommend on Facebook
• share via Reddit
• Share with Stumblers
• Tweet about it
• Subscribe to the comments on this post
• Tell a friend

That?s our motto, and we?re proud of it. Everyone has a responsibility to reduce their individual carbon footprint, and there are lots of ways to do so. We encourage everyone to think about their lifestyle decisions and find opportunities to reduce their climate impact. In an effort to reduce carbon emission, Bangladesh is looking at smokeless brick making technology to replace the over 150-year-old traditional method in the country.

The new technology has been introduced by the UNDP as part of its project ?Improving Kiln Efficiency in the Brick Making Industry?.

The UNDP, which started its pilot project in 2006, will contribute $25 million in the next five years for 15 new projects in the country.

?The innovative technology that is being used to replace the existing 150-year-old system will simply make the brick making industry so efficient that when this is replicated across Bangladesh we will have huge benefits for both the people and the global environment,? Stefan Priesner, UNDP?s Country Director, said Sunday.

UNDP said that the new system could reduce production costs, improve product quality, lower local pollution and, most importantly, reduce greenhouse gas emissions, Xinhua reported.

According to UNDP, brick making is one of the largest sources of greenhouse gas emissions in Bangladesh which produces around 6.0 million tonnes of carbon dioxide annually.

High carbon emission level is caused by the outdated technology and substandard fuels such as high sulphur coal, tires and wood energy in kilns, it said, adding that in Bangladesh it takes about 23 tonnes of coal to produce 100,000 bricks whereas in other country it takes only 7.8 to 8 tonnes.

?The traditional technologies of manufacturing bricks are heavily polluting the environment and in light of the economic growth in Bangladesh there is a huge pressure to manufacture more and more bricks,? Priesner added.

• share:
• Bookmark on Delicious
• Digg this post
• Recommend on Facebook
• share via Reddit
• Share with Stumblers
• Tweet about it
• Subscribe to the comments on this post
• Tell a friend

Source: For nearly 30 years, India and Bangladesh have argued over control of a tiny rock island in the Bay of Bengal. Now rising sea levels have resolved the dispute for them: the island’s gone.

New Moore Island in the Sunderbans has been completely submerged, said oceanographer Sugata Hazra, a professor at Jadavpur University in Calcutta. Its disappearance has been confirmed by satellite imagery and sea patrols, he said.

“What these two countries could not achieve from years of talking, has been resolved by global warming,” said Hazra.

Scientists at the School of Oceanographic Studies at the university have noted an alarming increase in the rate at which sea levels have risen over the past decade in the Bay of Bengal.

Until 2000, the sea levels rose about 3 millimeters (0.12 inches) a year, but over the last decade they have been rising about 5 millimeters (0.2 inches) annually, he said.

Another nearby island, Lohachara, was submerged in 1996, forcing its inhabitants to move to the mainland, while almost half the land of Ghoramara island was underwater, he said. At least 10 other islands in the area were at risk as well, Hazra said.

“We will have ever larger numbers of people displaced from the Sunderbans as more island areas come under water,” he said.

Bangladesh, a low-lying delta nation of 150 million people, is one of the countries worst-affected by global warming. Officials estimate 18 percent of Bangladesh’s coastal area will be underwater and 20 million people will be displaced if sea levels rise 1 meter (3.3 feet) by 2050 as projected by some climate models.

India and Bangladesh both claimed the empty New Moore Island, which is about 3.5 kilometers (2 miles) long and 3 kilometers (1.5 miles) wide. Bangladesh referred to the island as South Talpatti.

There were no permanent structures on New Moore, but India sent some paramilitary soldiers to its rocky shores in 1981 to hoist its national flag.

• share:
• Bookmark on Delicious
• Digg this post
• Recommend on Facebook
• share via Reddit
• Share with Stumblers
• Tweet about it
• Subscribe to the comments on this post
• Tell a friend

Climate change is a change in the statistical distribution of weather over periods of time that range from decades to millions of years. It can be a change in the average weather or a change in the distribution of weather events around an average (for example, greater or fewer extreme weather events). Climate change may be limited to a specific region, or may occur across the whole Earth. It can be caused by recurring, often cyclical climate patterns .
Dhaka will host a regional climate change conference in May, with assistance from the European Union, state minister for environment Hasan Mahmud said Tuesday.

However, the exact date of the conference has not yet been fixed.

Mahmud said ambassadors of EU countries made the proposal of assistance to Bangladesh during a meeting at the state guest house Meghna.

?The European Union will assist in organising a regional conference in Dhaka as a part of its initiative for countries at high risk due to climate change.?

The EU ambassadors said that a regional conference in Dhaka of the high risk small nations will play an important role for Bangladesh ‘s preparation for the next UN climate change conference, or 16th Conference of Parties (COP 16), to be held at Mexico later this year.

The meeting at Meghna was attended by EU ambassador Stefan Frowein, French, British, German, Dutch, Danish, Italian, Spanish and Norwegian envoys and DFID’s country representative Chris Austin, among others.

• share:
• Bookmark on Delicious
• Digg this post
• Recommend on Facebook
• share via Reddit
• Share with Stumblers
• Tweet about it
• Subscribe to the comments on this post
• Tell a friend

Regarding climate change
Bangladesh has voiced strong opposition to plans by the UK Department for International Development (DFID) to provide close to US$100 million in climate change aid – because of its delivery through the World Bank.

?We are strongly against the World Bank?s involvement in handling the climate fund. DFID should give the money straight to the Bangladesh government rather than giving it to the World Bank to disburse it,? Food and Disaster Management Minister Abdur Razzaque told IRIN on 16 February.

?It should be a country-led programme rather than a World Bank-led one,? he said, adding that there were expectations the Bank would attach ?unacceptable strings and conditions to its programme?.

His comments come one day after 21 civil society organizations, including campaigners from the European Action Group on Climate Change Bangladesh, the World Development Movement (WDM) and the Jubilee Debt Campaign, protested against the UK decision outside the DFID office in Dhaka.

They insisted that DFID withdraw all conditions on the $94 million grant being offered to Bangladesh to cope with the impact of climate change.?

DFID should give the money straight to the Bangladesh government rather than giving it to the World Bank to disburse it.

But

the British High Commission in Dhaka said how the funds were given out was not an issue.

?The issue of involvement of the World Bank in disbursing the money is a minor issue as the government of Bangladesh shall have full control of the fund,? Nazneen Ferdousi, senior press officer for the British High Commission in Dhaka, told IRIN.

The World Bank, as a development partner, would only provide administrative support in handling the funds, she said.?

?We don?t see any problem in it,? she said.

When contacted, World Bank officials referred IRIN to DFID.

Within the next 50 years, over 20 million people could be displaced and become ?climate change refugees?, if sea and salinity levels rise in Bangladesh, according to the government?s 2009 Bangladesh Climate Change Strategy and Action Plan.

Speaking at the opening of a two-day Bangladesh development meeting on 15 February, Bangladesh Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina called on donor countries to speed up delivery of promised funds to help mitigate the effects of climate change.

World leaders pledged?$30 billion from 2010 to 2012?at the December climate change summit in Copenhagen to help least developed countries (LDCs) most vulnerable to climate change, particularly low-lying coastal countries like Bangladesh. There is a complex range of climate change adaptation funding mechanisms, reviewed by IRIN here:?http://www.irinnews.org/Report.aspx?ReportId=88070.

Bangladesh says it is entitled to ask for at least 15 percent of the climate adaptation fund pledged in Copenhagen.

Donors in attendance in Dhaka included the USA, European Union, the World Bank and the Asian Development Bank. The meeting is to review Bangladesh’s development programmes, including plans to reduce poverty, and help donors select areas of cooperation.

• share:
• Bookmark on Delicious
• Digg this post
• Recommend on Facebook
• share via Reddit
• Share with Stumblers
• Tweet about it
• Subscribe to the comments on this post
• Tell a friend

Last few days i am really confused about the fact of Global warmingthat is it human-caused or otherwise ? where Climate experts say at least 20 million of Bangladesh’s more than 150 million people will be displaced, and one-fifth of the country’s 140,800 sq. km (55,000 sqm) land surface will be inundated if sea levels rise by one meter by 2050.I find and get the best logical solution through the colum by By Tyler Hamilton
Energy and Technology Columnist .

From an instructor at Seneca College. He was gleeful, commenting on all the negative publicity recently directed at the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

“How will the Star explain to her devoted believer’s (sic) why Al Gore and David Suzuki are being led away in handcuffs?” he wrote. “ClimateGate, ThermometerGate, GlacierGate, AmazonGate… Button up Mr. Clean ? it’s real (sic) cold out there this winter.”

These taunting, often hateful emails arrive all the time from folks who don’t believe climate change (human-caused or otherwise) is happening, and who believe their case is strengthened every time some libertarian pundit adds to their arsenal of doubt.

They mock the green economy and green energy. On climate action, they worship the status quo. Lately, they smell blood.

Sarah Palin is writing off climate science as “a bunch of snake oil.” Fox News host Glenn Beck said last week that IPCC scientists have so dishonoured themselves they should perform hara-kiri ? that is, commit mass suicide by plunging a sword into their bellies.

In Canada, the Financial Post’s resident libertarian Terence Corcoran wrote a column in late January with a headline that shouted “Climate agency going up in flames,” while The Globe and Mail’s Margaret Wente wrote early in February that “the science scandals just keep on coming” and that the entire climate-change movement has been discredited. Columnist Rex Murphy, who has fittingly moved on to the National Post, is pretty much saying the same thing, only with bigger words.

Wishful thinking doesn’t make it so.

Interestingly, Corcoran and Wente supported their arguments by mentioning how University of Victoria climate scientist Andrew Weaver is, in Wente’s words, among the many climate scientists who “sense a sinking ship” and are “bailing out.” Corcoran wrote that Weaver is “heading for the exits” and this is “firm evidence that the IPCC is in trouble.”

Here’s what Weaver had to say when asked by the Star about the recent coverage. “It would be nice if they actually called me,” he said.

He said his comments from an earlier CanWest News Service story have been cherry picked and twisted. “It’s all utterly ridiculous. The way it’s being spun is that there’s this sinking ship and the rats are trying to leave.”

But the true sinking ship is the Earth’s climate system, he said. “It’s as if the Titanic is going down and we’re all arguing about the colour of the deck chairs. Surely there was an error in the IPCC report. It’s wrong, and it shouldn’t have been there. But this is being used as an attempt by those who are desperately trying to undermine the IPCC.”

First, it helps to understand what the IPCC really is. It is a global scientific body established by the United Nations in 1988 to report on the state of the Earth’s climate. The IPCC doesn’t do its own research. Rather, it gets more than 2,000 top climate scientists to review the latest peer-reviewed literature. It then gets a few hundred of them to write up its reports.

Those who participate in the IPCC, like Weaver, are scientists who volunteer a huge amount of their time They’re not the greatest communicators or managers. This contrasts with the industry-backed lobbyists and spin doctors who are paid big bucks to scrutinize, bully and discredit these scientists.

Take the controversy some call GlacierGate, which relates to information on Himalayan glacier melt buried in a 3,000-page IPCC report from 2007. The report said there was a very high chance the glaciers would completely melt by 2035. The statement, based on a WWF-International report from 2005, was indeed rubbish.

As a result, we certainly should be combing the rest of the report for similar footnoting errors. The recent obsession with this single error, however, ignores peer-reviewed evidence that the glaciers are, in fact, still melting. We just don’t know exactly how fast.

And let us not forget the Arctic, Antarctica, Greenland and even the Alberta glaciers. David Barber, a University of Manitoba professor and an expert on Arctic sea ice, recently reported that the Arctic ice is melting “faster than our most pessimistic projections.”

Weaver points out that the 2007 IPCC report was, in fact, conservative with its conclusions. At the time it didn’t have access to more accurate satellite data from NASA’s Gravity Recovery and Climate Experiment (GRACE) mission.

The new GRACE data, said Weaver, “has revealed that Greenland has been melting rather dramatically. Also, not only is Antarctica melting, but West Antarctica is melting quite rapidly.”

The GRACE data and the Marshall and Barber studies are some of the more recent developments. They reinforce hundreds, even thousands of climate-change studies from the past two decades that form pieces of this complex puzzle. But there are enough pieces in place that we’re starting to see an image, and it doesn’t look good.

Is this alarmism? Sure it is, and so it should be. Do climate-change scientists sometimes get worried and show it? Sure they do. Do we really expect them to go about their scientific duties with Mr. Spock-like precision that’s void of emotion and human imperfection?

This is where the so-called ClimateGate scandal comes into play. Remember those emails that were illegally hacked from the computer servers at the University of East Anglia, home to the U.K.’s Climatic Research Unit? The comments revealed an attempt by a small group of scientists to withhold some information from climate skeptics and allegedly deceive the public by massaging data.

But on closer reading, even the Guardian newspaper, one of the IPCC’s biggest critics, admits the accusations are mostly baseless. “Almost all the media and political discussion about the hacked climate emails has been based on brief sound bites publicized by professional skeptics and their blogs,” wrote Guardian environmental writer Fred Pearce. “In many cases, these have been taken out of context and twisted to mean something they were never intended to.”

Now the skeptics are touting AmazonGate, which relates to an IPCC finding that small reductions in rainfall in the Amazon could devastate up to 40 per cent of the Brazilian rainforest. It was based on a WWF-International report. But was it wrong?

The report’s co-author, Andrew Rowell, is fighting back. In a letter to the Sunday Times, which first broke the story, Rowell said he was never called and the reporter failed to do proper research.

According to Rowell, the reporter “ignored evidence that the figure had been backed up by peer-reviewed research both before and after our publication.” One of the world’s top Amazon scientists, Daniel Nepstad, confirmed last week that Rowell’s report and the IPCC’s conclusion were correct.

Yet, the misinformation campaign continues. The skeptics say we’re cooling, pointing rather U.S.-centrically to the snowfall that has pummeled cities such as Washington, D.C. and ignoring record warming elsewhere ? like in Vancouver, where snow is being flown in by helicopter so that the Olympic Games ski events can be held.

By the way, snowfall is evidence of precipitation, not cooling, and climate science is about extremes ? record snowfall and rainfall in one part of the planet, record drought in another. Same with temperature, where you’ll see record highs in one place and record lows in another.

It’s the rising frequency of records and higher global temperature averages we should be worried about. And that’s what we’re seeing. “In the Arctic, there have been parts that are 10 to 20 degrees C warmer this year,” said Weaver. “These are stunning temperatures.”

But why should we believe NASA, the World Meteorological Organization and the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, which have all declared the 2000s as the hottest decade ever?

For the pundits, it’s far more interesting ? and easier ? to dwell on the colour of the deck chairs. This, and not the science, is the great global warming hoax.

• share:
• Bookmark on Delicious
• Digg this post
• Recommend on Facebook
• share via Reddit
• Share with Stumblers
• Tweet about it
• Subscribe to the comments on this post
• Tell a friend

As the science scandals keep coming, the air has gone out of the climate-change movement
Margaret Wente Source

.In 2007, the most comprehensive report to date on global warming, issued by the respected United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, made a shocking claim: The Himalayan glaciers could melt away as soon as 2035.

These glaciers provide the headwaters for Asia’s nine largest rivers and lifelines for the more than one billion people who live downstream. Melting ice and snow would create mass flooding, followed by mass drought. The glacier story was reported around the world. Last December, a spokesman for the World Wildlife Fund, an environmental pressure group, warned, ?The deal reached at Copenhagen will have huge ramifications for the lives of hundreds of millions of people who are already highly vulnerable due to widespread poverty.? To dramatize their country’s plight, Nepal’s top politicians strapped on oxygen tanks and held a cabinet meeting on Mount Everest.

But the claim was rubbish, and the world’s top glaciologists knew it. It was based not on rigorously peer-reviewed science but on an anecdotal report by the WWF itself. When its background came to light on the eve of Copenhagen, Rajendra Pachauri, the head of the IPCC, shrugged it off. But now, even leading scientists and environmental groups admit the IPCC is facing a crisis of credibility that makes the Climategate affair look like small change.

?The global warming movement as we have known it is dead,? the brilliant analyst Walter Russell Mead says in his blog on The American Interest. It was done in by a combination of bad science and bad politics.

The impetus for the Copenhagen conference was that the science makes it imperative for us to act. But even if that were true ? and even if we knew what to do ? a global deal was never in the cards. As Mr. Mead writes, ?The global warming movement proposed a complex set of international agreements involving vast transfers of funds, intrusive regulations in national economies, and substantial changes to the domestic political economies of most countries on the planet.? Copenhagen was never going to produce a breakthrough. It was a dead end.

And now, the science scandals just keep on coming. First there was the vast cache of e-mails leaked from the University of East Anglia, home of a crucial research unit responsible for collecting temperature data. Although not fatal to the science, they revealed a snakepit of scheming to keep contradictory research from being published, make imperfect data look better, and withhold information from unfriendly third parties. If science is supposed to be open and transparent, these guys acted as if they had a lot to hide.

Despite widespread efforts to play down the Climategate e-mails, they were very damaging. An investigation by the British newspaper The Gu

• share:
• Bookmark on Delicious
• Digg this post
• Recommend on Facebook
• share via Reddit
• Share with Stumblers
• Tweet about it
• Subscribe to the comments on this post
• Tell a friend

Having expectation up to a high abmibition deal from Copenhagen summit some are frusteted but hopefuls says Something is better than Nothing
A US-led initiative called the Copenhagen Accord has formed the centre-piece of a deal at UN climate talks in Copenhagen, despite some countries’ opposition.

Below is an explanation of the main points in the agreement.

LEGAL STATUS
The Accord, reached between the US, China, India, Brazil and South Africa, contains no reference to a legally binding agreement, as some developing countries and climate activists wanted.

Neither is there a deadline for transforming it into a binding deal, though UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon said it needed to be turned into a legally binding treaty next year.

The accord was merely “recognised” by the 193 nations at the Copenhagen summit, rather than approved, which would have required unanimous support. It is not clear whether it is a formal UN deal.

TEMPERATURE RISE
The text recognises the need to limit global temperatures rising no more than 2C (3.6F) above pre-industrial levels.

The language in the text shows that 2C is not a formal target, just that the group “recognises the scientific view that” the temperature increase should be held below this figure.

However, the accord does not identify a year by which carbon emissions should peak, a position resisted by some richer developing nations.

Countries are asked to spell out by 1 February next year their pledges for curbing carbon emissions by 2020. The deal does not spell out penalties for any country that fails to meet its promise.

FINANCIAL AID
The deal promises to deliver $30bn (?18.5bn) of aid for developing nations over the next three years. It outlines a goal of providing $100bn a year by 2020 to help poor countries cope with the impacts of climate change.

The accord says the rich countries will jointly mobilise the $100bn, drawing on a variety of sources: “public and private, bilateral and multilateral, including alternative sources of finance.”

A green climate fund will also be established under the deal. It will support projects in developing countries related to mitigation, adaptation, “capacity building” and technology transfer.

EMISSIONS TRANSPARENCY
The pledges of rich countries will come under “rigorous, robust and transparent” scrutiny under the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC).

In the accord, developing countries will submit national reports on their emissions pledges under a method “that will ensure that national sovereignty is respected.”

Pledges on climate mitigation measures seeking international support will be recorded in a registry.

REVIEW OF PROGRESS
The implementation of the Copenhagen Accord will be reviewed by 2015. This will take place about a year-and-a-half after the next scientific assessment of the global climate by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

However, if, in 2015, delegates wanted to adopt a new, lower target on global average temperature, such as 1.5C rather than 2C, it would be too late.

The UN climate conference in Copenhagen today approved a deal to tackle global warming proposed by world leaders, after an accord Barack Obama brokered with China, India, Brazil and South Africa.
But the UN Secretary General today admitted the non-binding agreement at the conclusion of the conference was not “everything everyone had hoped for”, as he confirmed a deal had finally been done.
Delegates have agreed to “take note” of the American-led Copenhagen Accord, despite criticism that there are no long-term targets to cut emissions and it is not a legally-binding treaty.
Obama had brokered the agreement with China, India, Brazil and South Africa to tackle global warming, which included a reference to keeping the global temperature rise to just 2C – but the plan does not specify greenhouse gas cuts needed to achieve the 2C goal.
Prime minister Gordon Brown said the Accord was a “necessary first step” but those in opposition to it described it as “weak” and “meaningless” .
The document setting out the deal will specify a list of countries which agreed with it, as some of the 192 nations which have taken part in the talks are understood not to have accepted it.
In stormy overnight talks Sudan, Nicaragua, Cuba, Venezuela and Bolivia all denounced the plan after about 120 world leaders left following a summit yesterday.
Sudan?s delegate, Lumumba Di-Aping, said the accord would condemn Africa to many deaths from global warming and compared it with the Holocaust.
But this morning UN Secretary General Ban Ki Moon said: “We have a deal” and described the agreement as an “important beginning” in the fight against climate change. It will allow a provision for $30 billion of climate aid for poorer countries over the next three years to become operational. There will also be a further $100 billion a year from 2020.
Mr Ban said: “The Copenhagen Accord may not be everything everyone had hoped for, but this decision…is an important beginning.?
Under the accord, countries will be able to set out their pledges for the action they plan to take to tackle climate change, in an appendix to the document, and will provide information to other nations on their progress.
UK Climate Change Secretary Ed Miliband, who spent the night in talks after Gordon Brown had left the conference, said the failure to secure a stronger agreement showed the difficulty world leaders faced in tackling climate change.
?I think we would have wanted a more comprehensive agreement, a legally binding one,” he said.
“I think it is good that we have made a start in terms of emissions cuts people are going to do and, crucially, in terms of finance, but that does rely on getting the agreement.
?I wanted a stronger agreement. Today?s events show the difficulty we face. We are dealing with incredibly complex issues and trying to get 192 countries signed up is not an easy task.?
Further talks are expected at conferences in Germany and Mexico next year and Mr Obama admitted there was “much further to go”.
After leaving the conference, Gordon Brown said he viewed the agreement as a preliminary move: ?This is the first step we are taking towards a green and low carbon future for the world, steps we are taking together. First steps are difficult, but they are also necessary.?
Jose Manuel Barroso, President of the European Commission, echoed Mr Brown’s comments adding: ?This accord is better than no accord. This is a positive step but it?s clearly below our ambitions.
The agreement, which follows two weeks of high-level debate, has been roundly criticised by environment campaigners and charities.
Jonathon Porritt, the former chairman of the Government?s Sustainable Development Commission, told BBC Radio 4′s Today programme: ?To call it ?a start? is trying to put a very brave face on things.
?What we have actually seen over the last two weeks is raw industrial power at its worst, both on the part of China and the US and other countries. They have not given an inch in terms of understanding the needs of some of the poorer countries.?
Friends of the Earth executive director Andy Atkins said: ?A 2C rise in temperature would still mean the deaths of millions of people and the complete destruction of at least four low-lying island states and asking countries to list their national actions on climate change is absolutely no substitute for a legally binding international agreement.?
Greenpeace campaigner Joss Garman added: “This latest draft is so weak as to be meaningless. It?s more like a G8 communiqu? than the legally binding agreement we need.
“It doesn?t even include a timeline to give it legal standing or an explicit temperature target. It?s hard to imagine our leaders will try to present this document to the world and keep a straight face.”

• share:
• Bookmark on Delicious
• Digg this post
• Recommend on Facebook
• share via Reddit
• Share with Stumblers
• Tweet about it
• Subscribe to the comments on this post
• Tell a friend