Home | News    Wednesday 9 December 2009

Africans could vanish if Copenhagen fails – AU chief

separation
increase
decrease
separation
separation

By Tesfa-Alem Tekle

December 8, 2009 (ADDIS ABABA) – As a decisive UN climate change conference opens in Copenhagen, Denmark, the African Union chairman Jean Ping, warns that the African population could face an unprecedented disaster, if world leaders now fail to reach on a new and binding deal on climate change.

The Two-week long summit, expected to decide on the future fate of the planet, opened on Monday attracting negotiators from 192 countries.

Mr. Jean Ping made the strong remarks yesterday in Vienna at a UN Industrial Development Organization (UNIDO) annual conference.

‘‘If nothing happens we (Africans) will vanish’’ he told reporters.

The AU leader further said that climate change-triggered natural catastrophes like deadly floods and droughts have become reality in the developing world.

An African negotiating team led by Ethiopian Prime minister, Meles Zenawi is set to voice continent’s common stance at the summit during a climax of the summit.

In October, at a meeting in Addis Ababa, the African negotiating team has warned in strongest terms that it would walk-out of the meeting if world’s industrialized giants refrain to make concrete commitment to tackle climate change or fail to meet Africa’s demands.

The Copenhagen climate summit is considered as the most important summit in the history of UN climate conference.

It is believed that the summit could be the best and only chance for world leaders to save the planet from calamitous global warming threat.

World’s most polluting country, the US and other leaders of the industrialized countries must now act before it is late. They should come to agreement without any hesitation and dispute.

The summit should avoid trading accusations on the degree of country’s past emission records, but to rather act swiftly, as there is no time for blaming one another and if so, they must put in their minds that with no doubt that someone in Africa or other developing country is dying of a climate change-related consequence by the moment they warm up their chairs refraining to make a sound course of action.

Africa says that what’s going on now is an environmental crime being committed against poor countries by the industrialized world.

African leaders argue that the continent has contributed virtually nothing to climate change (3%).But it is the prime continent paying the price.

Africa is now seeking Billions of dollars as compensation to climate change damages, has looking for a major emission cut by rich countries and a continuous support for poverty eradication and sustainable development.

(ST)

Comments on the Sudan Tribune website must abide by the following rules. Contravention of these rules will lead to the user losing their Sudan Tribune account with immediate effect.

- No inciting violence
- No inappropriate or offensive language
- No racism, tribalism or sectarianism
- No inappropriate or derogatory remarks
- No deviation from the topic of the article
- No advertising, spamming or links
- No incomprehensible comments

Due to the unprecedented amount of racist and offensive language on the site, Sudan Tribune tries to vet all comments on the site.

There is now also a limit of 400 words per comment. If you want to express yourself in more detail than this allows, please e-mail your comment as an article to comment@sudantribune.com

Kind regards,

The Sudan Tribune editorial team.
  • 9 December 2009 03:26, by David_N

    The UN One World Government orders towards Anti-Semitism.

    repondre message

    • 9 December 2009 03:44, by SPLA,corrup

      This is what Arabs say, because we are blacks god does not listen to us,how did you know that we are in the first list not you terrorist who wants to Islamize the whole world by terrorising innocent people, instead you are the first to vanish cos you are running from your Sahara desert to our gifted fertile lands in Africa with your (kafir religion)fuck you and fuck your brothers and sisters specially your mum.

      repondre message

    • 9 December 2009 04:11, by Malakal

      That is an absurd claim that "African will vanish if Copenhagen fails". When did the European ever care about Africa; they went their some centuries ago and exploited Africa planning the seeds that have grown at this moment and have become African problems. It so ridiculouse, to even suggest anything like that because the debate of whether the global warming should be consider prominet have not been proven right yet,or atleast look at in similar pattern. I think something of that nature maybe eminent but I do not think Africa will disappears before anybody’s continent in this world.

      repondre message

  • 9 December 2009 03:49, by Jamjamez

    It is true that Africans will vanish if the climate issue is not targetted seriously, but let me tell you the truth africa, No body else where around the world cares about Africans because Africans always cry and wait for help instead of acting by themselves. This has led even the emerging countries thinks of Africans as lesser concern in relation to human value.
    Look at how the other world is acquiring nuclear energy and weapons yet africa is still waiting and killing its citizen with conventional weapons that are not used any more. where will you go if there is a nuclear war today? you talk of climate tragedy, people are switching to nuclear energy, where will africans gets this from or they will wait for help?

    Let the AU act and stop preaching your weakness! I am sick of this. At this century you should know where the world is heading before it is too late.
    Thanks

    repondre message

    • 9 December 2009 05:13, by Truth_Seeker

      Global Warming Is A Total Scam

      By John Coleman

      it is the greatest scam in history. I am amazed, appalled and highly offended by it. Global Warming; It is a SCAM.

      Some dastardly scientists with environmental and political motives manipulated long term scientific data back in the late 1990’s to create an allusion of rapid global warming. Other scientists of the same environmental wacko type jumped into the circle to support and broaden the “research” to further enhance the totally slanted, bogus global warming claims. Their friends in government steered huge research grants their way to keep the movement going. Soon they claimed to be a consensus.

      Environmental extremist, notable politicians among them then teamed up with movie, media and other liberal, environmentalist journalists to create this wild “scientific” scenario of the civilization threatening environmental consequences from Global Warming unless we adhere to their radical agenda.

      Now their ridicules manipulated science has been accepted as fact and become a cornerstone issue for CNN, CBS, NBC, the Democratic Political Party, the Governor of California, school teachers and, in many cases, well informed but very gullible environmental conscientious citizens. Only one reporter at ABC has been allowed to counter the Global Warming frenzy with one 15 minutes documentary segment.

      I do not oppose environmentalism. I do not oppose the political positions of either party.

      However, Global Warming, i.e. Climate Change, is not about environmentalism or politics. It is not a religion. It is not something you “believe in.” It is science; the science of meteorology. This is my field of life-long expertise. And I am telling you Global Warming is a nonevent, a manufactured crisis and a total scam. I say this knowing you probably won’t believe me, a mere TV weatherman, challenging a Nobel Prize, Academy Award and Emmy Award winning former Vice President of United States. So be it.

      I suspect you might like to say to me, “John, look the research that supports the case for global warming was done by research scientists; people with PH D’s in Meteorology. They are employed by major universities and important research institutions. Their work has been reviewed by other scientists with PH D’s. They have to know a lot more about it than you do. Come on, John, get with it. The experts say our pollution has created an strong and increasing greenhouse effect and a rapid, out of control global warming is underway that will sky rocket temperatures, destroy agriculture, melt the ice caps, flood the coastlines and end life as we know it. How can you dissent from this crisis? You must be a bit nutty.

      Allow me, please, to explain how I think this all came about. Our universities have become somewhat isolated from the rest of us. There is a culture and attitudes and values and pressures on campus that are very different. I know this group well. My father and my older brother were both PHD-University types. I was raised in the university culture. Any person who spends a decade at a university obtaining a PHD in Meteorology and become a research scientist, more likely than not, becomes a part of that single minded culture. They all look askance at the rest of us, certain of their superiority. They respect government and disrespect business, particularly big business. They are environmentalists above all else.

      And, there is something else. These scientists know that if they do research and results are in no way alarming, their research will gather dust on the shelf and their research careers will languish. But if they do research that sounds alarms, they will become well known and respected and receive scholarly awards and, very importantly, more research dollars will come flooding their way.

      So when these researchers did climate change studies in the late 90’s they were eager to produce findings that would be important and be widely noticed and trigger more research funding. It was easy for them to manipulate the data to come up with the results they wanted to make headlines and at the same time drive their environmental agendas. Then their like minded PHD colleagues reviewed their work and hastened to endorse it without question.

      There were a few who didn’t fit the mold. They did ask questions and raised objections. They did research with contradictory results. The environmental elitists berated them brushed their studies aside.

      I have learned since the Ice Age is coming scare in the 1970’s to always be a skeptic about research. In the case of the global warming scam, I didn’t accept media accounts. Instead I read dozens of the scientific papers. I have talked with numerous scientists. I have studied. I have thought about it. I know I am correct when I assure you there is no run away climate change. The impact of humans on climate is not catastrophic. Our planet is not in peril. It is all a scam, the result of bad science.

      I am not alone in this assessment. There are hundreds of other meteorologists, many of them PH D’s, who are as certain as I am that this global warming frenzy is based on bad science and is not valid.

      I am incensed by the incredible media glamour, the politically correct silliness and rude dismal of counter arguments by the high priest of Global Warming.
      In time, a decade or two, the outrageous scam will be obvious. As the temperature rises, polar ice cap melting, coastal flooding and super storm pattern all fail to occur as predicted everyone will come to realize we have been duped.

      The sky is not falling. And, natural cycles and drifts in climate are as much if not more responsible for any climate changes underway.

      I strongly believe that the next twenty years are equally as likely to see a cooling trend as they are to see a warming trend.

      repondre message

      • 9 December 2009 05:29, by Truth_Seeker

        Developing countries react furiously to leaked draft agreement that would hand more power to rich nations, sideline the UN’s negotiating role and abandon the Kyoto protocol

        By John Vidal

        The UN Copenhagen climate talks are in disarray today after developing countries reacted furiously to leaked documents that show world leaders will next week be asked to sign an agreement that hands more power to rich countries and sidelines the UN’s role in all future climate change negotiations.

        The document is also being interpreted by developing countries as setting unequal limits on per capita carbon emissions for developed and developing countries in 2050; meaning that people in rich countries would be permitted to emit nearly twice as much under the proposals.

        The so-called Danish text, a secret draft agreement worked on by a group of individuals known as “the circle of commitment” – but understood to include the UK, US and Denmark – has only been shown to a handful of countries since it was finalised this week.

        The agreement, leaked to the Guardian, is a departure from the Kyoto protocol’s principle that rich nations, which have emitted the bulk of the CO2, should take on firm and binding commitments to reduce greenhouse gases, while poorer nations were not compelled to act. The draft hands effective control of climate change finance to the World Bank; would abandon the Kyoto protocol – the only legally binding treaty that the world has on emissions reductions; and would make any money to help poor countries adapt to climate change dependent on them taking a range of actions.

        The document was described last night by one senior diplomat as “a very dangerous document for developing countries. It is a fundamental reworking of the UN balance of obligations. It is to be superimposed without discussion on the talks.”

        A confidential analysis of the text by developing countries also seen by the Guardian shows deep unease over details of the text. In particular, it is understood to:
        Force developing countries to agree to specific emission cuts and measures that were not part of the original UN agreement;

        • Divide poor countries further by creating a new category of developing countries called “the most vulnerable”;

        • Weaken the UN’s role in handling climate finance;

        • Not allow poor countries to emit more than 1.44 tonnes of carbon per person by 2050, while allowing rich countries to emit 2.67 tonnes.
        Developing countries that have seen the text are understood to be furious that it is being promoted by rich countries without their knowledge and without discussion in the negotiations.

        “It is being done in secret. Clearly the intention is to get [Barack] Obama and the leaders of other rich countries to muscle it through when they arrive next week. It effectively is the end of the UN process,” said one diplomat, who asked to remain nameless.

        Antonio Hill, climate policy adviser for Oxfam International, said: “This is only a draft but it highlights the risk that when the big countries come together, the small ones get hurting. On every count the emission cuts need to be scaled up. It allows too many loopholes and does not suggest anything like the 40% cuts that science is saying is needed.”

        Hill continued: “It proposes a green fund to be run by a board but the big risk is that it will run by the World Bank and the Global Environment Facility [a partnership of 10 agencies including the World Bank and the UN Environment Programme] and not the UN. That would be a step backwards, and it tries to put constraints on developing countries when none were negotiated in earlier UN climate talks.”

        repondre message

        • 9 December 2009 05:37, by Truth_Seeker

          Carbon Dioxide (CO2) is Not Pollution

          Now that climategate has exposed global warming to be the greatest scientific and political fraud in history, the new demon is carbon dioxide .............exhale (whoops, I just polluted!)

          repondre message

          • 9 December 2009 07:49, by Truth_Seeker

            The “Scientific” Fraud of Climate Doomsday Mongering

            By David Theroux

            With the Climategate revelations, momentum is definitely building against the credibility of the climate doomsday mongering, but will it be enough to derail the juggernaut for global warming statism? As the Wall Street Journal has noted in its November 27th editorial, “Rigging a Climate ‘Consensus’”:

            The furor over these documents is not about tone, colloquialisms or whether climatologists are nice people. The real issue is what the messages say about the way the much-ballyhooed scientific consensus on global warming was arrived at, and how a single view of warming and its causes is being enforced. The impression left … is that the climate-tracking game has been rigged from the start.

            Because of these revelations, the now scandal-ridden Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia has suddenly reversed their long-standing stonewalling and refusal to comply with requests via the U.K.’s Freedom of Information Act and now will release their “full data.” Meanwhile, in a new report in the Times of London, we now find that, “Scientists at the University of East Anglia (UEA) have admitted throwing away much of the raw temperature data on which their predictions of global warming are based.” In addition, the New Zealand government’s National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research has similarly been “cooking the books.”

            But perhaps of even greater importance is whether these revelations will finally bring to light the need for a serious re-assessment of the actual operations of academia and scientific enterprise. For far too long, “science” has been shrouded in a cloak of unquestionable authority as the final arbiter of all knowledge. Such a status has resulted in the creation of enormous, government-funded institutions to examine seemingly every aspect of human existence, with climate science receiving a whopping $7 billion annually from the U.S. government alone (more than is spent on cancer and AIDS research). The conclusions from such endeavors have been viewed by many as utterly sacrosanct, around which public policy and the law itself should allegedly be based.

            In the process, this dogmatic commitment to “science” and a government-science complex as the source of all higher truth has produced a narrow-minded worship of scientific materialism, the reductionist fallacy of “scientism.” Almost daily for example, media reports claim that “in the name of science” yet another enduring human characteristic has now been “explained” away—from free will to love, from moral conscience to reason, from education to the arts, from commerce to law—in purely deterministic terms, with government power the requisite means to address social problems by redesigning and controlling mankind.

            And the mania regarding “global warming” is exhibit A, in which the alleged “peer-reviewed” findings of a “consensus” of scientists claims to have found the “fact” that human emissions of CO2 are creating an ecological holocaust, and only draconian controls on all areas of human life will avert this calamity. In the process, ethics, economic principles, contrary evidence, and common sense are all swept aside in a mad rush for climate statism.

            But with the revelations from Climategate, many people are now beginning to see a grand scam, in which data is deliberately distorted; peer review is gamed by manipulating and stacking the process; critics are smeared, black-balled, and de-funded; opposing papers are kept from publication; and a cabal of politically-connected scientists are working in concert with certain journalists, politicians, bureaucrats, and interest groups to deceive the public and opinion leaders in order to ram through a politically-correct agenda. Of course, we have seen such campaigns many times before, all claiming to be based on expert findings in the natural and social “sciences,” including eugenics, zero population growth, the New Deal, ozone depletion, electro-magnetism and cancer and so forth.

            The reality that has been missed here is that science is merely a technique or procedure for examining the material world, and the validity of such a technique rests upon a prior philosophical (metaphysical) logic of ideas, that is all necessarily non-material. Moreover, while science can tell us what is materially, it cannot tell us what ought our choices to be with such conditions. Hence, science, while being an irreplaceable contributing method of inquiry, is contingent and cannot itself be the final authority on truth. By missing this point and succumbing to the worship of scientism, much of academia and the scientific world has too often corrupted and politicized the enterprise of science, producing its exact opposite.

            More than six decades ago, C.S. Lewis prophetically warned us of this very same corruption of science and morality in his brilliant novel, That Hideous Strength, in which a group of university scientists conspires to take over society by manipulating information and people in order to impose the horror of a scientistic, totalitarian state, all to “save” nature and create a new “mankind.” Lewis simultaneously examined these central issues in his classic book on epistemology and ethics, The Abolition of Man.

            repondre message

  • 9 December 2009 10:11, by Time1

    Jean ping has gone abit over board, how can African vanish? The thing with this climate change conference, it needs honesty and confidence building between developed and developing countries, but if developed countries try and sign a deal which favor progress in rich countries meanwhile undermining the development in developing countries then this will end up to be one of the most unjust and dishonest agree to be signed since the formation of the UN. Africans need to read the text and exam ine it before rushing to sign it, there are reports of Demark not being honest with developing countries and not telling them about the real content of the climate change report only at the last minutes, developing countries should campaign for an equal oppoortunity and developed nationas should work to be honest and accept reasonable cuts.

    Why? because if this agreement is signed and made binding without proper examination, it will enforce by international law the slow advancment in African industralization, it is block industrilization to a limited extend, so people have to be careful before rushing to sign papaers that they are not sure about. African countries need to be warned early.

    I think every country should be given some weeks to a month to go for consultation, read and properly examine this papers then come back for final decisions.

    repondre message

    • 9 December 2009 10:21, by Time1

      Africans have to be careful before they sign their death certificates. Nationas need to understand what this climate change issue is all about first, what cause it and how it happens, and is there scientific evidence? if so who are the countries most responsible, and should every country pay for the fault of the main polluters?, and what is the basis of the new climate change agreement, what are the requirments and how will it work?, how will it affect development and will it improve the climate from what situation it is in today?

      African countries have to examine this questions and answer them before rushing to blindly sign agreements, otherwise they will be signing their own death certificates.

      repondre message

      • 9 December 2009 14:22, by Truth_Seeker

        Jean Ping is an idiot!

        British influential Lord Christopher Monckton said in a June 2 interview with 21st Century Science & Technology (far below report) that the cabal’s intentions in promoting the global warming fraud, was never about the climate but was always about setting up world government.

        Lord Monckton also reiterated his view that the motive for promotion of the triple frauds of,

        • global warming

        • biofuels

        • the DDT scare,
        ...is the genocidal reduction of the world population, especially in Third World nations.

        Lord Monckton has special authority in stating this.

        His grandfather played a key role in arranging the 1936 abdication of that chief symbol of Britain’s Nazi-loving aristocracy, King Edward VIII, as part of the effort by anti-fascists to crush the Hitler project in Britain.

        Monckton said that the global warming cabal will use the Copenhagen Climate Summit, scheduled for December 2009, to turn the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change into an enforcement body for world government.
        “They are not frankly particularly worried about whether they get a deal on who should cut global emissions by how much,” Monckton said. “It is not, and never was, about that.”

        Monckton also restated his view that the global warming scare is the third genocide being committed against the world’s population. He said people are already dying, all over the world, of starvation caused by the biofuels scam, which came out the global warming scare.

        The other two genocides that Monckton speaks about are:

        1. The banning of DDT which has so far caused the deaths of 40 million, and has left millions more, mostly children, still infected with 21st CENTURY SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY malaria

        2. The failure to properly respond to the AIDS pandemic, by use of well-established public health measures, including universal testing, and isolation and treatment of the carriers.

        This intentional genocidal policy has led to 25 million deaths worldwide, and at least 40 million inflected. Monckton’s horrifying estimate of the number of persons infected with the HIV virus is only a published estimate by the World Health Organization.

        repondre message

        • 9 December 2009 17:43, by wani sebit

          the so-called africa leaders must ask for the revising of the nile agreement of 1929 not just talk of working out.

          repondre message

Comment on this article



The following ads are provided by Google. SudanTribune has no authority on it.


s
Sudan Tribune

Promote your Page too

Latest Comments & Analysis


Peacekeeping faces challenges: here’s how we can meet them 2018-09-23 11:47:05 By Jean-Pierre Lacroix* United Nations peacekeeping remains one of the most effective tools to respond to today’s challenges of global peace and security. Every day, women and men who serve under (...)

Pragmatic patriarchy of Sudan over South Sudan 2018-09-22 09:28:17 James Okuk, PhD “We honour the human capacity to manage our collective lives with peace and even, at times, dignity” – Barbour & Wright The political process of Sudan and South Sudan has (...)

Salient features of South Sudan latest peace deal 2018-09-21 05:36:06 By Roger Alfred Yoron Modi Last week, the government of South Sudan under President Salva Kiir, various armed and unarmed opposition groups and other parties, including the SPLM/A-IO led by Dr (...)


MORE






Latest Press Releases


Unity State community in Kenya supports Khartoum peace agreement 2018-08-17 08:33:21 PRESS STATMENT 14th Aug, 2018 Re: We shall Rally behind Khartoum Peace Agreement The Unity State Community Association in Kenya was established in 2010 to organize and mobilize the people of (...)

The Suspension of Hurriyat Online Newspaper 2018-04-29 07:04:37 Sudan Democracy First Group 28 April 2018 The Sudanese civil and political circles and those concerned with Sudan were shocked by the news that the management of Hurriyat online newspaper has (...)

Petition on the Deteriorating Human Rights and Humanitarian Situation in Sudan 2018-04-22 10:01:20 UN Secretary-General, New York African Union Commission, Addis Ababa UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, Geneva Petition on the Deteriorating Human Rights and Humanitarian Situation in Sudan (...)


MORE

Copyright © 2003-2018 SudanTribune - All rights reserved.