Copenhagen Summit – Only The Beginning

Copenhagen Summit Roundup – Part 1

Published Date: Dec 22, 2009

Dubbed the largest environmental meeting in the world, the United Nations Climate Summit that took place in Copenhagen, Denmark, from December 7 thru December 18, 2009.  With almost 200 (192, to be specific) nations from around the globe gathering to discuss possible solutions to the state of our environment, the summit has been getting intense attention since its opening ceremonies, and will surely be examined as the years go by.

The main issues that the climate summit tackled were related specifically to reduce carbon emissions, believed by the vast majority of environmental scientists to be a major contributor to negative changes that we’re seeing in today’s climate, due to human-kinds activity and use (and/or abuse) of natural resources.

The challenge is finding consensus between the 192 countries related not only to the definition of the issue at hand, but the possible solutions, and (more complex) each nations’ role in the solution.  Finally, the summit had to agree on the verbiage of the agreement – this is where much of the debate occurs as all of the countries involved in the summit had to come to a mutual understanding, and stated in a way where they could all agree.

Key challenges also included core issues; carbon emissions, of course, being the main core issue.  Other core topics included the developing worlds’ use of carbon emitting resources, how might a global industrial system operate when considering a reduction of carbon emissions, and deforestation, especially in the rain forest regions of South and Central America.

Trying to agree on any one of these points would be difficult, so you can imagine how heated some of the debate might have gotten when factoring all of these highly complex topics.  Most of the critical debate came from the hardship of finding common ground between developing countries (China, for example) who have quickly growing economies, and are, as a consequence, emitting extremely high levels of carbon-based particles into the environment.  At the same time, there are so-called developed countries (the United States of America), for example, who argue that developing countries must curb their carbon emissions, while (at the same time) some developed countries (and the United States is an example of this) emit high carbon emissions per capita.  Therefore, must of the discussion resembles a finger-pointing type of scenario. 

Ultimately, the summit did result in a lengthy written agreement – critics state that the accord does not go far enough.  Basically, the agreement was to work toward reducing carbon emissions allowing each country to set their own so-called ‘green-house gas’ reduction goals for 2020.  In addition to the goal to reduce emissions, other parts of the agreement state, essentially, that an emissions verification (for accountability purposes) system will be setup, and that deforestation (the stripping of trees in fragile ecosystems like the rain forests in Central and South America) will also be reduced.

Although some may be disappointed by the, let’s be honest, highly limited reach of the summit agreement, the good news might be that the problem of global climate change was recognized as scientifically valid, and deemed an extremely important priority for public health.  In addition, another positive outcome was that all countries agreed that global warming should be limited to 2 (celcius).  Additional talks and actions will follow, and this summit was really only the beginning of a world-wide look at this global issue.

To streamline and minimize blog maintenance, I will be discontinuing maintaining the Thegreenlivingblog.com website (however, I will still hold the domain). I will gradually move all articles from this site to A Dawn Journal. This article originally published on the above website on Dec 22, 2009.

Copenhagen Negotiations Creating a Stir

Negotiation Focus on U.S. Possible

First Published Date: Nov 19, 2009

Obama trumps the pack as the House passes the Cap and Tap Bill, leading into the Copenhagen Negotiations. Under heavy fire from the U.S. citizens as they stand divided against or with the new bill is still an enormous volleying game. President Obama took this Bill as a proof positive to lead the Negotiations that the U.S is serious about stopping their damaging greenhouse emissions by capping the amount certain companies and industries can produce in a given period. In the future years, this cap will lower on a basic percentage until they are safely under the damage control level of concern.

By bringing this Bill into the negotiations, Obama hopes this will ensure U.S. dedication and aid in developing countries to make the decisions to join in the efforts as well. Does Obama plan to back the heavy requests by the developing countries or add this Bill as the top offer and non-negotiable? That is where the negotiations could hamstring. It is perceived that the Bill will represent the top offer to appease these developing countries, in reference to ask what they have done on their own to help the present circumstance clouding our future progress as a unified global economy.

The many debates regarding the Bill will filter into the negotiations and will plausibly be the turning key in these talks. There are several flaws rumored to be found in the Bill and these flaws will be the main propaganda used against the U.S. As one of the leading polluters in the world, it is believed that the U.S is simply not doing enough. The Bill, it seems, keeps companies with revenue to by the rights to produce green house pollutants, and if they exceed their limit, they buy more. This can create extreme energy costs for consumers and further kill the economy as well as let the powerhouse industries keep polluting while they overshadow and buy out smaller companies by purchasing their energy pollutant tickets.

The upside is that if the government can legitimately mandate this program it could be successful. However, the faith and trust in the U.S. from other countries will prove as to if this Bill is the answer. The percentage of those aware of the Bill believe it is an underhand ploy to maintain confidence that the U.S. is serious in expunging green house emissions but at a profit. If everything leading to the negotiations remains focused on big business, and monetary gains or losses the focus is going in the wrong direction.

It is also assumed that Negotiations will focus strongly on the fact that we as a global environment need to change our energy resources dramatically, which can also boost the economy of several countries and create a magnitude of employment opportunities. Developing countries will still need aid from the U.S., China, and Russia as well as other powerhouse countries to comply with these demands, the same demands they faced at Kyoto. The same demands that have never been negotiated will hang heavy as talks begin.

Will there be a concern that we as a global community need to aid our fellow brothers and sisters, at every cost to ensure our children will have a future? Who will be the first to point fingers? What arguments will ensue and what type of damage control tactics are in place. There are so many variables it is unclear as to whether everyone is ready to reach a negotiable resolve. As the populations around the world watch their governments prepare there is a since of apprehension, and uncertainty. One can only hope as a populous the best concerns for health and the well-being of people and planet will be addressed, as wealth and competitive gains are not mandating the outcomes. It is important to remain on an economic incline, but the costs to humankind must be highly regarded and evaluated safely.

Let us hope for once that our governments are working in our best interests.

To streamline and minimize blog maintenance, I will be discontinuing maintaining the Thegreenlivingblog.com website (however, I will still hold the domain). I will gradually move all articles from this site to A Dawn Journal. This article originally published on the above website on Nov 19, 2009

The Great Pyramids of Giza | Egypt Travel Blog: Day 2 (Part 19) 01D19

Egyptian Tent Lunch | Eating Experience Like Never Before

Egypt Travel Blog: 10 DAYS Egypt Explorer - Felucca Cruise & Red Sea

Lunch was not included with our tour on Day 2. We were given an option to go to an Egyptian-style tent outdoor restaurant. Those who don’t want to eat can still join and just sit or have tea.

I decided to have lunch because of the unique experience. We drove a while and the tent restaurant was in the middle of nowhere. The area was big and there were chairs and tables separated into sections to accommodate various tour groups.

The tents were not really closed tents. They were protecting us from the desert sun, but all sides were open so I could still have the views of outside.

Our group all sat together. Most of us ordered lunch. I ordered chicken kebab with rice. They grilled the kebab on the table in front of us. I also had Egyptian tea, which I started liking by then.

There were several smaller portion items that came without meals. I didn’t know the names of many of them, but they were all delicious. Lunch costed 200 LE (Egyptian Pound), which was around $16 CAD. I found it a bit expensive compared to the other Egyptian meal I bought outdoors.

The overall experience, sitting in an open space and eating together, was unimaginable. The food tasted very good, but spicy with lots of oil and salt. Still, it felt like food from heaven as we were hungry and thirsty from the activities and desert sun.

From here we would go back to the hotel and get some rest. A very long 16-hour bus journey to Aswan awaited us.

Copenhagen Summit – The Blame Game

Copenhagen Summit Roundup – Part 4

First Published Date: Jan 1, 2010

Early into the United Nations Copenhagen Summit, fears were in place that the conference would not be able to come up with a unified agreement as originally hoped.  All around the world, leading climatologists (and even some politicians chimed in) led the discussion that this particular climate summit was our ‘last chance’ to turn things around; that is, our final opportunity for the world community to form real agreements that would reverse, and ultimately eliminate the public health and environmental threat caused by harmful carbon emissions.

Some blame China for what is seen as the failure of the summit.  Despite the fact that an accord was adopted, China is seen as a villain for causing so much distress because of their refusal (until, some say, forced by the hand of the United States, and more specifically President Barack Obama) to submit to a transparent process for monitoring progress toward emissions reductions.  Some blamed the United States for, as usual as these critics charge, pushing smaller, less affluent countries around.  Still others blame ‘smaller’ players like Saudi Arabia, Venezuela and Nicaragua for threatening to veto the accord, in part out of protest for the forced hand of big, rich players like the United States.  However, a new, more nefarious ‘enemy’ to the accords has recently been identified, and it might surprise some to know that that ‘villain’ is Denmark, herself. 

Did the host country ruin the Copenhagen Summit?  Critics charge that the host government, who convened a unilateral meeting of 26 hand-picked (by Denmark’s Prime Minister,  Lars Lokke Rasmussen) that would threaten the strength of a document drafted multilaterally by all of the attending nations.  In fact, other world leaders ‘warned’ Rasmussen to not convene such a unilaterally motivated meeting of the minds, as it would undermine any document or accord that would be presented as a result of pain inducing discussions involving more than 190 countries throughout the two week summit, and, actually for the last four years of climate change discussions between the participating countries. 

Despite the warnings and admonishments from other participating government, the Danish government did indeed produce and present a document that seemed to explicitly conflict, at times, with the multilateral and democratically negotiated accord where 193 countries had collectively been involved in coming to an agreement on the many-faceted climate deal. 

Especially since these unsanctioned meeting occurred during the last days of the Copenhagen Summit, the move by Denmark is seen as a way for the host country to bring attention to itself as a solution finder, and more for public image and relations than trying to contribute to a true and lasting accord.

What the long-term effects of Denmark’s move will be are up in the air.  As the host country, their move has been seen as some as a showcasing of the host country’s government.  Still others fear that this move will cause irreparable harm to the ongoing discussions that will continue for the next few years, as the world (it is hoped) community comes to some sort of agreement on how to reduce harmful carbon emissions.

To streamline and minimize blog maintenance, I will be discontinuing maintaining the Thegreenlivingblog.com website (however, I will still hold the domain). I will gradually move all articles from this site to A Dawn Journal. This article originally published on the above website on Jan 1, 2010.

Canada Starts New Prepaid Credit Card Rules

New Prepaid Credit Card Rules

First Published Date: May 24, 2014

As prepaid credit cards’ popularity jumped, so did the various fees associated with them. Once credit card companies saw these credit cards were in high demand, they did not waste a moment coming up with innovative ideas to attach various bizarre fees that can be charged when you buy and use prepaid credit cards. Such fees include maintenance fees, activation fees, ATM fees, and possibly more.

As consumer complaints start piling up, the federal government had no option but to start restricting some of these fees. These new rules have come into effect starting in May. Let’s look at some of these rules.

– A ban on maintenance fees for at least one year once you start using it.

– No more expiration date.

– All the required info related to the fees and using cards will have to be clearly visible and simple enough so consumers can see, read, and understand them before buying.

– The Financial Consumer Agency of Canada (FCAC) will monitor and enforce these rules.

– All federally regulated institutions will fall under these rules.

Prepaid cards are similar to credit cards, except that you will have to pre-load funds before you start transactions like credit cards such as making purchases and buying online. Although prepaid cards are a relatively new concept, their popularity recently skyrocketed. According to an estimate, the prepaid card industry is worth $850 million.

These new rules imposed by the federal government are definitely steps in the right direction to protect consumers. However, these could have been done some time ago and there was no need to wait for consumer complaints to start piling up.