The NATO conference in Warsaw

Confirmed! NATO And EU Will Meld Into One Super Organization

The NATO summit in Warsaw is historic in bringing the level of cooperation between the alliance and the European Union to a new level.

The Duran,

11 July, 2016

The Warsaw NATO summit brought us many things. From another Obama hotel workout, including some nifty pink headphones, to more Russia is evil fear mongering, as NATO members continued to echo their undying support for a bankrupt, neo-nazi infested Ukraine…that no one really wants to touch.

What the NATO summit did bring the world, more than anything else, was the admission that NATO and the European Union will become one and the same.

OK so it was not exactly stated in such a fashion, but we all got the hint. It was telegraphed to us by Mr. NATO himself, Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg, when he said,

“It is a very successful summit because it is a summit with a lot of substance, and it is historic because it is a summit that takes place at a decisive time for our security…This summit is important because…[it] reflects that we are bringing the NATO-EU cooperation to a new level, and that is important for NATO, it’s important for the European Union and it’s important for all the people living in Europe and North America.”

The two behemoth super structures will begin their honeymoon period focusing on two issues together…cyber threats and EU migration.

The European Union and Nato said in a joint declaration that they will seek to expand their co-operation in responding to cyber threats and organise parallel and co-ordinated exercises starting early next year.

 

Remember that NATO, just a few months back, declared that a cyber attack on one member state would be seen as an attack on the alliance, and warrant a military response. All of this was later followed by a never ending media blitz on how Russian hackers were stealing everything under the sun (and in Hillary’s server basement), up until Guccifer 2.0 debunked the entire charade.

Likewise NATO declared that it is ready to use its military capabilities to help the European Union cope with the migrant influx.

Sputnik News has more on NATO’s migrant helping hand…

The European Union is currently struggling to manage a massive refugee crisis with hundreds of thousands of people leaving conflict-torn countries in the Middle East and North Africa to escape violence and poverty and seek asylum in Europe.

“What can NATO do about migration? Migration is a big challenge for the European Union and the European society. What is NATO as a military alliance has to contribute to that? And I think we have large military capabilities that could be applied alongside mainly the EU, which has the lead here, not supplant the EU, not to take over the job, but simply compliment the EU. And I think on Saturday you will hear some announcements of how NATO can get into that effort alongside the EU as a complimentary force,” Doug E. Lute said at the 2016 NATO Future Leaders Summit in Warsaw.

NATO is set to help remedy a migrant issue that they so handily created in the Middle East and North Africa, with their bombs, away no-fly zones, that removed stable leaders of stable countries, in exchange for chaos and tribal state conflicts.

We are sure that the NATO – EU super state will be a success. How could it not be…with the track record these two organisations have going for them.

Via: http://sputniknews.com/politics/20160707/1042604454/nato-migrants-military.html

Warsaw climat change talks

‘The Polish government has done its best to turn these talks into a showcase for the coal industry’

Warsaw walkout: Big green groups bail on U.N. climate talks

Grist,

21 November, 2013

By Ben Jervey
21 November 2013

WARSAW, Poland (Grist) – For the first time ever, environmental groups have staged a mass walkout of a U.N. climate summit. Citing immense frustration with the lack of productive action in the COP19 climate talks, which have been dogged by a persistent rift between rich and poor countries on the responsibility of paying for climate damages, hundreds of people from dozens of environmental groups and movements from all corners of the Earth have voluntarily withdrawn from the talks. According to a spokesperson for Oxfam, around 800 civil society members (which is the label applied to all advocate and activist types at these meetings) have walked out. In a joint statement, group leaders offered that “the best use of their time” was to now focus “on mobilizing people to push our governments to take leadership for serious climate action.”

Participants in the walkout — which included members and organizers fromOxfam, Greenpeace International, 350.org, WWF International, the International Trade Union Confederation, ActionAid International, Friends of the Earth Europe, and dozens of other groups large and small from around the world — assembled just after lunchtime outside the main food court in the National Stadium that is hosting the meetings. After statements from the heads of a handful of international orgs, including Kumi Naidoo, executive director of Greenpeace International, members of civil society headed for the exits.

“The real hooligans are the CEOs of fossil fuel companies,” Naidoo told the crowd.

In the joint statement, the groups said, “enough is enough,” but insisted that they were not walking away from the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change process entirely, promising to return for COP20 in Lima, Peru, in 2014. [more]

3 Countries That Are Bailing on Climate Action

When Japan dramatically slashed its plans last week for reducing greenhouse gas emissions by 2020, from 25 percent to just 3.8 percent compared to 2005 figures, the international reaction was swift and damning.

Mother Jones,

19 November, 2013

Britain called it "deeply disappointing." China's climate negotiator, Su Wei, said, "I have no way of describing my dismay." The Alliance of Small Island Nations, which represents islands most at risk of sea level rise, branded the move "a huge step backwards."

The decision was based on the fact that Japan's 50 nuclear reactors—which had provided about 30 percent of the country's electricity—are currently shuttered for safety checks after the Fukushima disaster in March 2011, despite the government trying to bring some of them back online. That nuclear energy is largely being replaced by fossil fuels.

Japan's announcement has cast a shadow on this week's climate negotiations in Warsaw. Bill Hare, CEO of Climate Analytics and a former lead author for the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, described the mood as "a downward spiral of ambition" which is "undermining confidence in the process and the ability to move forward."

Elliot Diringer, the executive vice president of the DC-based think tank Center for Climate and Energy Solutions, says NGOs and policymakers are feeling frustrated: "There was a great deal of sympathy for Japan in the aftermath of Fukushima," he says. "And that's now converted to disappointment."

But Japan isn't the only industrialized country at Warsaw walking away from previously stated climate goals and attracting criticism for throwing a spanner in the works, an issue also explored here in Grist. Australia and Canada are emerging as strong opponents of more aggressive climate action and are likely to come up short on their commitments to reduce their emissions.

Australian Prime Minister Tony Abbott attends the Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting in Colombo, Sir Lanka. Li Peng/Xinhua/ZUMA

Australia Guts Carbon Policy

Sweeping to power on a carbon tax backlash in September this year, Australia's new prime minister, Tony Abbott, has wasted no time in shifting the country's policy course—and rhetoric—on climate action.

The conservative government is dismantling the country's market-based carbon pricing laws in the parliament as a matter of first priority, and replacing it with its own system, "Direct Action," a $3 billion plan to fund projects that it says will help lower emissions. The problem is not many people believe it will work. Analysis by Climate Action Tracker, which assesses reduction programs around the world, shows that rather than cutting greenhouse gases by the promised 5 percent, the policy will actually increase emissions by 2020 by 12 percent compared to 2000 levels. Independent modeling shows that even if the government stuck to its 5 percent pledge, it couldn't be met without coughing up an additional $3.7 billion.

Australia's new policies are "registering shock," in Warsaw, says Hare, who also helps run Climate Action Tracker. "It's being met with disbelief."

At the Warsaw talks, Australia is contributing "to a sense that there's some unfortunate backsliding among some countries," Direnger says.

Abbott asserted last week that the goal will be met, but he added that no further money would be spent on the program if it wasn't: "We will achieve it with the Direct Action policy as we've announced it and that policy: It's costed, it's funded, and it's capped," he told the Australian Broadcasting Corporation. The Australian Conservation Foundation accused the government of abandoning its promise to scale its original pledge up to 25 percent if there's stronger global climate action, calling Abbott a "deal wrecker." The opposition Labor party said the government was allowing "big polluters open slather in the future."

A flurry of other developments Downunder have helped to cement the new government's stance at home and abroad:

There are plans to kill three key organs of the previous government's climate policy entirely: the independent Climate Commission, the Climate Change Authority, and the Clean Energy Finance Corporation.

The budget for the Australian Renewable Energy Agency will be slashed by $435 million over the next three years

For the first time since the 1997 Kyoto agreement, Australia declined to send its environment minister, Greg Hunt, to this week's international climate talks talks, saying the business of repealing the carbon legislation in the first two weeks of parliament was too important.

Canada Unlikely to Meet Its Own Targets

Australia is among the developed world's worst polluters in terms of of CO2 per capita. But Canada is not far behind its Commonwealth compatriot. Lately, they seem to be enjoying each other's company.

This week, both conservative governments opposed a push at the Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting in Colombo, Sri Lanka, to establish a green capital fund for small island states and poor African countries to address climate change. Canada recently praised Australia's decision to repeal its carbon tax: "The Australian prime minister's decision will be noticed around the world and sends an important message."

Canada's Prime Minister Stephen Harper. James Park/Xinhua/ZUMA

When Canada signed the Copenhagen Accord in 2009, the country committed to reduce its greenhouse gas emissions to 17 percent below 2005 levels by 2020 (bringing it in line with US goals). But last month, the Harper government admitted it's going to blow past that target by a wide margin. Environment Canada, the federal ministry that looks after climate policy, issued a report that said that without new government action, the country's emissions will be 20 percent (or 122 megatons) higher than the country committed to at Copenhagen. This amount is barely below 2005 figures.

It's this trajectory that, in part, led the Climate Action Network Europe and Germanwatch to list Canada as the worst performing country among all industrialized nations in their annual performance index—unchanged from last year's ranking: "Canada still shows no intention of moving forward with climate policy and therefore remains the worst performer," the report states. (In December 2011, Canada was the first country to formally withdraw from the Kyoto Protocol).

Reading the tea leaves doesn't inspire much optimism: All of this is happening against the background of expanding tar sands development. The report from Environment Canada predicts that without a change in policy, CO2-equivalent emissions from oil sands are projected to increase by nearly 200 percent by 2020 over 2005 levels. And on tar sands, the Harper government shows no sign shifting policy direction.

The combined effect has an "ultimately corrosive effect on the ability to secure a strong international agreement if the major players aren't playing," Hare says.

Climate Injustice

Nothing about this in NZ media. I can just wait for Tim Grosser to come back and accuse poor nations of torpedoing agreement. Australia has been accused of not taking the talks seriously

Poor countries walk out of 

UN climate talks as 

compensation row rumbles 

on

Bloc of 132 countries exit Warsaw conference after rich nations refuse to discuss climate change recompense until after 2015

the Guardian,

20 November, 2013

Representatives of most of the world's poor countries have walked out of increasingly fractious climate negotiations after the EU, Australia, the US and other developed countries insisted that the question of who should pay compensation for extreme climate events be discussed only after 2015.

The orchestrated move by the G77 and China bloc of 132 countries came during talks about "loss and damage" – how countries should respond to climate impacts that are difficult or impossible to adapt to, such as typhoon Haiyan.

Saleemul Huq, the scientist whose work on loss and damage helped put the issue of recompense on the conference agenda, said: "Discussions were going well in a spirit of co-operation, but at the end of the session on loss and damage Australia put everything agreed into brackets, so the whole debate went to waste."

Australia was accused of not taking the negotiations seriously. "They wore T-shirts and gorged on snacks throughout the negotiation. That gives some indication of the manner they are behaving in," said a spokeswoman for Climate Action Network.

After a three hour delay in the negotiatons,while countries debated what to do in private, talks resumed. "[The walkout] helped to clear the air. They know we are serious," said one lead negotiator, who denied developing countries were "grandstanding."

Developing countries have demanded that a new UN institution be set up to oversee compensation but rich countries have been dismissive, blocking calls for a full debate in the climate talks.

"The EU understands that the issue is incredibly important for developing countries. But they should be careful about … creating a new institution. This is not [what] this process needs," said Connie Hedegaard, EU climate commissioner.

She ruled out their most important demand, insisting: "We cannot have a system where we have automatic compensation when severe events happen around the world. That is not feasible."

The G77 and China group, which is due to give a press conference on Wednesday to explain the walkout, has made progress on loss and damage, which it says is a "red line" issue. It claims to be unified with similar blocs including the Least Developed Countries, Alliance of Small Island States and the Africa Group of negotiators.

Hedegaard poured cold water on last week's related proposal by Brazil, that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change be asked to find a way to quantify each country's historical emissions of greenhouse gases in order to help countries establish the level of future emission cuts.

Debate on the issue has been rejected by rich countries, which fear it could lead to unacceptable costs.

Hedegaard conceded that rich countries had a special responsibility to cut emissions. "The whole financing discussion reflects that the developed world knows it has special responsibility. Most of what has been emitted has been done by us," she said.

Harjeet Singh, ActionAid Internatonal's spokesman on disaster risk, said: "The US, EU, Australia and Norway remain blind to the climate reality that's hitting us all, and poor people and countries much harder. They continue to derail negotiations in Warsaw that can create a new system to deal with new types of loss and damage such as sea-level rise, loss of territory, biodiversity and other non-economic losses more systematically."

Australian ambassador Justin Lee, who is heading Australia's delegation following its decision not to send a minister to the talks, rejected criticism the country had been obstructive during negotiations, in particular related to possible financial commitments.

"Australia is engaging in negotiations constructively," Lee said. "Australia wants progress on negotiation of an agreement that sets up effective global action based on broad participation. Major economies and Australia's key trading partners will need to participate and Australia will move in step with them, protecting our competitiveness."

As Poor Countries Walk Out of Climate Talks, Venezuela Calls on Industrial Nations to Take Action

A group of 133 developing nations have walked out of a key part of the climate talks in Warsaw, Poland, amidst a conflict over how countries who have historically emitted the most greenhouse gases should be held financially responsible for some of the damage caused by extreme weather in nations with low carbon emissions. 

The United States, Australia, Canada and other industrialized countries are pushing for the issue — known as loss and damage — to be put off until after the 2015 climate talks in Paris. 

"When you see developed countries being so bold to tell you that they are not even considering reducing their emissions, that they are not even considering paying for the costs that those inactions have on the life of others, that is really rude and hard to handle it politically," says Claudia Salerno, the lead climate negotiator for Venezuela, which is a member of the G77+China group that walked out. 

"We are heading to a point in which countries are not ready to take responsibility for their acts, and in this case, even more pathetic, they are not wanting to be." 

Salerno became famous at the 2009 U.N. climate summit in Copenhagen when she banged her hand against the table in an attempt to be heard, hitting it so vigorously that it began to bleed. 

Her country is set to host a ministerial meeting next year ahead of the 2014 U.N. climate summit in Peru, where it will welcome the input of civil society.

Climate change negotiations

Climate change pledges: rich nations face fury over moves to renege

Typhoon Haiyan raises fear over global warming threat as Philippines leads attack on eve of key talks

the Guardian,

16 November, 2013

Developing nations have launched an impassioned attack on the failure of the world's richest countries to live up to their climate change pledges in the wake of the disaster in the Philippines.

With more than 3,600 people now believed to have been killed by Typhoon Haiyan, moves by several major economies to backtrack on commitments over carbon emissions have put the world's poorest and most wealthy states on a collision course, on the eve of crucial high-level talks at a summit of world powers.

Yeb Sano, the Philippines' lead negotiator at the UN climate change summit being held this weekend in Warsaw, spoke of a major breakdown in relations overshadowing the crucial talks, which are due to pave the way for a 2015 deal to bring down global emissions.

The diplomat, on the sixth day of a hunger strike in solidarity for those affected by Haiyan, including his own family, told the Observer: "We are very concerned. Public announcements from some countries about lowering targets are not conducive to building trust. We must acknowledge the new climate reality and put forward a new system to help us manage the risks and deal with the losses to which we cannot adjust."

Munjurul Hannan Khan, representing the world's 47 least affluent countries, said: "They are behaving irrationally and unacceptably. The way they are talking to the most vulnerable countries is not acceptable. Today the poor are suffering from climate change. But tomorrow the rich countries will be. It starts with us but it goes to them."

Recent decisions by the governments of Australia, Japan and Canada to downgrade their efforts over climate change have caused panic among those states most affected by global warming, who fear others will follow as they rearrange their priorities during the downturn.

In the last few days, Japan has announced it will backtrack on its pledge to reduce its emission cuts from 25% to 3.8% by 2020 on the basis that it had to close its nuclear reactors after the 2011 earthquake and tsunami.

Australia, which is not sending a minister to this weekend's talks, signalled it may weaken its targets and is repealing domestic carbon laws following the election of a conservative government.

Canada has pulled out of the Kyoto accord, which committed major industrial economies to reducing their annual CO2 emissions to below 1990 levels.

China's lead negotiator at the Warsaw talks, Su Wei, said: "I do not have any words to describe my dismay at Japan's decision." He criticised Europe for showing a lack of ambition to cut emissions further, adding: "They talk about ratcheting up ambition, but rather they would have to ratchet up to ambition from zero ambition."

When the highest-level talks start at the summit on Monday, due to be attended by representatives from 195 countries, including energy secretary Ed Davey, the developing world will seek confirmation from states such as Britain that they will not follow the path of Japan and others. David Cameron's comments this weekend in which he backed carbon emission cuts and suggested that there was growing evidence of a link between manmade climate change and disasters such as Typhoon Haiyan, will inevitably be used to pressure others to offer similar assurances.

The developing world also wants the rich western nations to commit to establishing a compensation scheme for future extreme weather events, as the impact of global warming is increasingly felt. And they want firm signals that rich countries intend to find at least $100bn a year by 2020 to help them to adapt their countries to severe climate extremes.

China and 132 nations that are part of the G77 block of developing countries have expressed dismay that rich countries had refused to discuss a proposal for scientists to calculate emissions since the start of the Industrial Revolution.

Ambassador Jose Antonio Marcondes de Carvalho of Brazil, who initially proposed the talks, said: "We were shocked, very much surprised by their rejection and dismissal. It is puzzling. We need to understand why they have rejected it.

"Developing countries are doing vastly more to reduce their emissions than Annexe 1 [rich] countries."

Members of the Disaster Emergencies Committee, which co-ordinates British aid efforts, also warned leaders that the disaster offers a glimpse of the future if urgent action is not taken.

Aid agencies including Christian Aid, Cafod, Care International, Oxfam and Tearfund said ministers meeting in the Polish capital must act urgently because climate change is likely to make such extreme weather events more common in the future, putting millions more lives at risk.