by Somik Ranjan Roy
The world has increasingly become more concerned about the future of Earth's environment upon which depends the very survivability of humans and other living organisms that thrive on this planet, the only one so far amongst heavenly bodies, known to be inhabited because of the presence of the right environment on earth which is congenial to sustain living beings including humans.
As a good part of the globe is turning to automation and forests are being replaced by towns and cities, our dependability on fossil fuels has taken a quantum leap, which in turn has in the same proportion increased the carbon content in the air.
Since the denudation of forests on a large scale has resulted in non utilization of carbon-di-oxide an essential raw material for photosynthesis, the excess carbon-di-oxide remains in the air which in turn is causing the glass house effect i.e. sun radiation reflected back into the atmosphere by earth cannot escape the earths atmosphere, as a result of which the temperature continues to rise.
Scientists are of the opinion that even after taking all preventive measures the global temperature would soar to 3 degree Celsius.
If steps are not taken immediately for corrective measures, the temperature would rise beyond the prescribed threshold and cause terrible chaos and pathos on earth.
It is with the intention of a coordinated efforts between the members of the united nations, the Copenhagen Meet is being organised so that there is a meaningful efforts to contain the thermal content that envelops the earth.
The effect of Global warming is for all of us to see and experience, as polar caps begins to melt and ocean level is spilling over the coastal regions threatening to flood that is threatening not only human habitats as well as the large stretches of agricultural land, needed to feed the millions.
Here is a report on the 200 pages of draft that's being prepared and would be discussed in details for the first time by 190 countries who are assembling at Bangkok this week ahead of the Copenhagen Summit in December, to find ways and means as well as define roles for each category of nations, to reduce to confusion that's prevailing as well as the dispute between the developed and the developing countries such as China and India, two emerging Asian economic giants.
200 Pages to Save the World?
by David Adam
Draft agreement being discussed ahead of December's crucial Copenhagen summit is long, confusing and contradictory
It is a blueprint to save the world. And yet it is long, confusing and contradictory. Negotiators have released a draft version of a new global agreement on climate change, which is widely billed as the last chance to save the planet from the ravages of global warming.
The draft text consolidates and reorders hundreds of changes demanded by countries to the previous version, which saw it balloon to an unmanageable 300 pages. It has no official status yet, and must be formally approved before negotiators can start to whittle it down. Here, we present key, edited sections from the text and attempt to decipher what the words mean.
The text includes sections on the traditional sticking points that have delayed progress on climate change for a decade or longer.
According to the UN rules, for a new treaty to be agreed, every country must sign up – a challenging requirement. The new treaty is designed to follow the Kyoto protocol, the world's existing treaty to regulate greenhouse gases, the first phase of which expires in 2012.
Because the US did not ratify Kyoto, the climate talks have been forced on to awkward parallel tracks, with one set of negotiations, from which the US is excluded, debating how the treaty could be extended past 2012. This new text comes from the second track, which lays out a plan to include all countries in long-term co-operative action.
Behind the scenes, pessimism about the Copenhagen talks is rising. Despite references in the text to a global goal and collective emission cuts of 25-40% by 2020 for rich countries, many observers believe there is little chance such an approach will succeed.
Stuart Eizenstat, who negotiated Kyoto for the US, said: "Copenhagen is more likely to be a way station to a final agreement, where each country posts the best that it can do... The key thing is let's not go into Copenhagen with all the same kind of guns blazing like we did in Kyoto."
A top European official told the Guardian: "We've moved on from the idea that we can negotiate on targets. That's naive and just not the way the deal will be done. The best we can get is that countries will put in what they want to commit to."
Once all the carbon offsets – buying pollution credits instead of cutting emissions – and "fudges" are taken into account, the outcome is likely to be that emissions in 2020 from rich countries will be broadly similar to those in 1990, he said. "That's really scary stuff."
