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.

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.

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

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 communiqué 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.”

The Bangladesh delegation to the Copenhagen talks has demanded allocation from the adaptation fund in proportion to the percentage of its population exposed to climate change.

Bangladesh has made significant progress in many sectors including food production and population control over the years but these achievements might be lost due to the impacts of climate change, the speakers told a global audience at a presentation at the Bella Center in Copenhagen.

The country has devised its strategy and action plans to battle climate change and also developed its capability. But it now needs fund to show the world how to deal with climate change through adaptation, the speakers said.

“The climate change adaptation fund has to be created by mandatory contribution of developed countries as over and above their usual overseas development assistance fund,” said state minister Hasan Mahmud, who is now leading the Bangladesh delegation, at a press conference in the afternoon.

“More or less one billion people are affected in the world due to climate change and at least 15 per cent of them live in Bangladesh,” he said.

The state minister for forest and environment said at least 70 per cent of the adaptation fund should go to the Least Developed Countries and the most vulnerable ones among the LDC groups should get priority.

Earlier, the Bangladesh delegation arranged a presentation called ‘Bangladesh: A Victim of Climate Change – Sharing Experiences with the Global Community’ where vulnerability of Bangladeshi people to climate change were presented with scientific data.

Ainun Nishat, member of the delegation, presented the facts on climate change while Mihir Kanti Majumder, secretary to the forest and environment ministry, conducted the session.

“We want to lead the world when it’s a matter of climate change adaptation,” said lawmaker Saber Hossain Chowdhury, chief of the all-party group on climate change.

“We need to show the world that we are not just victims but doing a lot to battle the climate change,” said Raja Debashish Roy, former special assistant to the chief adviser to a caretaker government.

Ainun Nishat said agriculture and eco-system depend on the climatic order in Bangladesh.

He said Bangladesh’s agricultural sector is facing many problems but the country is making preparations to fight climate change.

Bangladesh has already made its national action plan and it will be included soon in the five-year development plan, he said.

When asked how the government will manage the Multi Donor Trust Fund offered to Bangladesh by development partners on bilateral basis to fight climate change, the state minister said it is yet to be in operation.

But when it comes in operation, the government might let World Bank manage the fund for a short term as per a condition set by the development partners, he said.

The UN-sponsored Climate Change Summit in Copenhagen heard voices of concern and complaint on the second day, as delegates of Bangladesh and Nepal said they were disappointed that a draft of potential treaty on climate framed by the BASIC (Brazil, South Africa, India, and China) group does not address the main concerns of the poor and the least developed countries.

Saber Hossain Chowdhury, leader of the Bangladesh parliament delegation to COP15, stressed the “need to talk a lot more on this.”

Another delegation member, Quamrul Islam Chowdhury, said that most of the countries under the G77 group of developing nations oppose the BASIC draft, which only protects the interests of the four nations that drafted it.

At a press conference at the Danish capital Tuesday, Bangladesh’s State Minister of Environment and Forest Hasan Mahmud demanded that at least 15 percent of any climate fund should be allotted to that South Asian country, as it is “the most vulnerable country in the world to climate change.”

He also said Bangladesh would press for a $600 billion annual fund from the developed nations that are mostly responsible for the higher carbon emissions to help poor countries, which suffer the most from the side-effects of climate change.

Qazi Kholiquzzaman Ahmad, a leading economist in the Bangladesh negotiation team, told reporters that “We are not begging any mercy from anyone. Rather we want justice as the worst victim of climate change.”
Bangladesh is one of the poor nations worried that they will not get enough fund to help them adapt to climate change.

Bangladesh Environment Deputy Secretary S.M. Munjurul Hannan Khan says “There is nothing specifically mentioned for addressing adaptation issue.”

Speaking at the opening of the 12-day conference Monday, UN’s top Climate Change official Yvo de Boer specifically outlined the danger faced by Bangladesh and small island countries of being submerged due to rising sea levels.

It is feared that if sea levels rise by one meter, at least 15 per cent of the total population of Bangladesh would be displaced. An even worse situation is awaiting about 20 million people in that country if the glaciers on the Himalayas melt due to global warming.

Bangladesh and Nepal have already warned that the poorest developing countries will block any deal that does not include a long-term fund to help them face the consequences of adopting carbon emission cuts.

Speaking last month at the Copenhagen Commitment Circle, a platform of world leaders formed ahead of the UN conference, Bangladesh Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina urged rich nations to help climate-vulnerable nations in the same way they bailed out economies damaged by the global recession.
De Boer, who is also in charge of the negotiations, reported “encouraging” progress on agreeing on a $10 billion a year emergency fund to help poor countries. The United States, Australia, Japan and the EU have all supported it.

In the background of intense global interest heightened by the sense that this is an opportunity for the world to deal decisively with the causes and effects of climate change, delegates from 192 countries have gathered in the Danish capital.

Several grueling rounds of talks by delegates will culminate when around 100 leaders join them on December 18, supposedly to sign a new pact to tackle greenhouse gas emissions after the Kyoto Protocol’s requirements expire in two years.
Determining how much affluent countries including EU members, Japan, the U.S. and Australia should reduce emissions is a point of hot contention. Other potential roadblocks include limits on discharges by emerging economies such as China and India and climate aid for the poorest countries.

China Monday called anew developed nations to provide funding to help poorer countries fight climate change.

Considering the  effect of Global warming .Bangladesh is entitled to ask for at least 15 percent of any climate adaptation fund that may be pledged by developed countries at climate talks in Copenhagen, the state minister for the environment said on Tuesday.

“We are the most vulnerable country to climate change and the world has already recognized that we need assistance for adaptation,” Hasan Mahmud Khondoker told a news conference.

He said at least 20 million Bangladeshis, of a total population about 150 million, would be displaced if sea levels rose by one meter. Many more would be affected if glaciers on the Himalayas melted due to global warming.

“The population of our one coastal district is bigger than the entire population of all island countries and in that consideration at least 15 percent of any climate fund should come to us.”

Bangladesh has said that during the Copenhagen meeting it would demand that the 29 developed countries mostly responsible for greenhouse gas emissions contribute 1.5 per cent of their GDP to a climate adaptation fund.

Officials say this could generate up to $600 billion to adapt to changes. Another key demand of Bangladesh at the conference would be easy transfer of technology from the developed countries to those most vulnerable.

“We are not begging any mercy from anyone. Rather we want justice as the worst victim of climate change,” said Qazi Kholiquzzaman Ahmad, a leading economist, who is also part of Bangladesh negotiation team.

………………..Refference

The Society for Bangladesh Climate Justice (SBCJ) is organizing a seminar on climate change impacts on Bangladesh due to global warming. As the world leaders meet in Copenhagen next week, this seminar is to elucidate global warming, its effects on the low lying countries such as Bangladesh and to urge that the Copenhagen meeting reaches a binding agreement on the reduction of emissions and develops an effective mechanism as to how is the help needed by the developing countries to engage in reducing their emissions and adapting to the impacts of climate change going to be financed. The seminar will be held at the Liu Institute of Global Issues, UBC Campus, on December 9th, 2009 from 3:00 PM to 7:30 PM. Speakers at the seminar include James Mattison, Former Assistant Deputy Minister of BC Ministry of Environment; Professor John Richards (SFU); Professors Milind Kandlikar, William Rees and Roger Beckie (UBC); Rebeca Mallett (CIDA); Vic Galay (Northwest Hydraulic Consultants); Tony Sperling (Sperling Hansen Associates) and Professor Harun Rashid (University of Wisconsin-La Crosse). SBCJ is a non-profit advocacy group formed by the Bangladeshi community living in the Greater Vancouver region of BC. Bangladesh is one of the low-lying countries in the world those are most vulnerable to climate change impacts. Climate change is the greatest environmental, social and economic threats of our time. The frequency of natural calamities like cyclone, floods, and tidal surges has increased manifold in various parts of the world. People in the South, particularly those in Bangladesh, Maldives and other coastal/low-lying island countries are on the brink of disasters. Sea level rise will inundate and displace millions of people in the future. Nearly 30 million people will be displaced in Bangladesh alone by 2030. Bangladeshi Canadians are greatly concerned about the environmental disasters and climate change-driven devastation in Bagladesh from global warming. As they are concerned, the map of Bangladesh may change in this generation due to rising sea level unless a global movement for climate justice is initiated and this issue is raised as a challenge for the global community. SBCJ feels that their effort will make a difference provided all work together and, more importantly, everyone wishes to make the difference.

As the world’s attention turns to the UN Climate Change Summit in Copenhagen, people living in some of the world’s most vulnerable and exposed areas — such as Bangladesh — continue to struggle with the everyday effects of unpredictable weather scientists say is brought about by global warming.

(www.thedailystar.net)CLIMATE is not only statistical information, rather a fundamental element of human security and common resource for humanity. Climate change is already happening and represents one of the greatest environmental, social and economic challenges for the future.

The world has warmed by an average of 0.76° Celsius since pre-industrial times, and the temperature rise is accelerating. Without action to limit man-made emissions of greenhouse gases, the global average temperature is likely to increase further by 2° to 5°C this century.

Climate change presents significant threats to achieving all of the Millennium Development Goals, particularly those related to eliminating poverty and hunger and promoting environmental sustainability. It may undermine human security by reducing access to, and the quality of, natural resources that are important to sustain livelihoods. It will have a massive impact on food production and may jeopardise food security in many regions. Climate change-related risks may force people into trade-offs that limit their freedom and minimise choice.

The United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) has defined climate change as a change of climate that is attributed directly or indirectly to human activity that alters the composition of the global atmosphere, in addition to natural climate variability observed over comparable time periods. The goal of the UNFCCC is stabilisation of greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere to a level that would prevent dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system.

By ratifying the convention, parties agree to develop national programs to slow climate change. All countries have a general commitment to address climate change, adapt to its effects, and report on the actions they are taking to implement the UNFCCC. Bangladesh signed the Convention on June 9, 1992, ratified it on April 15, 1994, and ratified the Kyoto Protocol on October 22 2001.

The UNFCCC conference in Copenhagen is a great opportunity to press for an effective global deal to curb global warming. The developed countries must cut in their carbon emissions by at least 80 percent from 1990 levels by 2050, which will be crucial in keeping global warming to 2oC or less.

International agreements made between governments of different countries are critical in addressing the global impacts of climate change. It is the moral and ethical responsibility of developed countries to take the lead in ensuring that the level of increase in global temperature is maintained below 2°C over pre-industrial levels.

In this 15th conference (COP 15), governments needs to agree on a program to radically slash global greenhouse gas emissions after the current commitment phase of the Kyoto Protocol ends in 2012. They also need to agree to a much bigger package of resources to help poor countries adapt to the unavoidable climate change. The urgency of tackling climate change justifies an acceleration of people’s engagement in 2009.

The Countdown to Copenhagen campaign is an APRODEV initiative to ensure that world leaders deliver a fair and effective deal for the poor at the 15th Conference of the Parties (COP15) signatory to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. APRODEV is an association of the 17 major development and humanitarian aid organisations in Europe, including Church of Sweden, Diakonia, Norwegian Church Aid, Dan Church Aid, Finn Church Aid, ICCO, EED, Brot für die Welt, Bread for All, and Christian Aid.

Coastal Development Partnership (CDP), a human rights focused not-for-profit, and public interest serving research and advocacy organisation, is one of the key facilitators of the Countdown to Copenhagen campaign in Bangladesh. CDP is a partner organisation in the APRODEV/ UNFCCC delegation team.

The Countdown to Copenhagen Bangladesh Campaign has linked 54 NGOs into one platform to connect more than 100,000 climate vulnerable people to get their solidarity for a People’s Memorandum. CDP, along with 54 NGOs, is voluntarily conducting the Bangladesh campaign in 57 upzillas of 35 districts. The geographical coverage of the campaign has already shaped it as national climate justice campaign.

The Countdown to Copenhagen Bangladesh Campaign recognises the grassroots NGOs/CBOs as important facilitators for promoting climate change awareness among the communities as well as building local adaptive capacity for managing climate risks. The Bangladesh campaign has prepared a People’s Memorandum that calls on rich countries, who are most responsible for climate change and have the greatest capacity to act, to sign obligations that commit them to:

-Achieve at least a 40 percent cut in domestic carbon emissions (from 1990 levels) by 2020;

-Provide an additional $150 billion for ensuring that developing countries have all the support and resources necessary to reduce their emissions, develop cleanly and adapt to climate change;

-Support developing countries emissions reductions and low-carbon development pathways through substantial financing and technology transfer;

-Strengthen international activities through a Global Adaptation Action Framework under the UNFCCC to support vulnerable developing countries to adapt to climate change and build resilience to the unavoidable impacts of climate change.

All Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) impact assessments recognise Bangladesh as one of the most vulnerable countries in the world to the negative impacts of climate change. The geographic location and geo-morphological conditions of Bangladesh make it especially vulnerable to climate change impacts, particularly to sea-level rise. The United National Development Programme (UNDP) has identified Bangladesh to be the most vulnerable country in the world to tropical cyclones and the sixth most vulnerable country to floods.

The Bangladesh campaign is counting on the urgency and commitment from developed countries to keep adaptation as a top-level priority in international negotiations for a post 2012 deal. The Countdown to Copenhagen Bangladesh campaign demands that any solutions to climate change must protect the most vulnerable, compensate displaced people, guarantee individual and collective rights, and respect people’s right to participate in decisions that impact on their lives.

Some other facts .In Bangladesh, climate change refugees flee to cities