Presentationv1

A Layman’s guide… to And lots more….

We are going to talk about:
Global warming
How / Why
Danger?
What are we doing about it:
IPCC
COP’s
Kyoto
Marrakech Accords
Multilateral Carbon Credit Fund
Carbon credit(s)
Mechanism
Pricing
Avenues for Earning
Importance
Financial Impact on Developing Countries
Contd…

What’s happening today
Copenhagen
India perspective
The other view
too little
too late
reality check
What it holds for us
Some trivia
Contd…

www.beckstrom.com

Question
Which planet taught us about global warming?
Ceres
Mercury
Mars
Venus

96.5% CO2

0.038% CO2 0.0005 % ^

CO2 Rising
CO2 levels
1830 0.028 %
0.038%
0.0005 % ^ annual
0.085%
www.beckstrom.com So what???

Green House Effect

Long Term Trend www.beckstrom.com

Temperature Rising

According to the NASA satellite data: - “More than 2 trillion tons of land ice in Greenland, Antarctic and Alaska have melted since 2003″. - “Water melting from Greenland in the past five years would fill about 11 Chesapeake Bays and the Greenland melt seems to be accelerating.”

“ Climate Change 2007”, the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report (AR4), is about to be released, stand by for a tsunami of doom. Source: http://www.anenglishmanscastle.com/archives/004868.html

Other Global Problems
Ozone hole
Acid Rain

Ozone Hole

Ozone Hole
Montreal Protocol

Acid Rain Acid Rain

US Acid Rain Program
The Acid Rain Program is a market-based initiative taken by the United States Environmental Protection Agency in an effort to reduce overall atmospheric levels of sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxides, which cause acid rain
The program is an implementation of emissions trading that primarily targets coal-burning power plants, allowing them to buy and sell emission permits (called "allowances") according to individual needs and costs

Phase I: units cut SO 2 emissions by 50% below 1980 levels by 20 1 0 (10 M tons).
Est. 1990, legally binding in 1995.
Grandfathering (baseline period 85-87) .
Limited auctioning ( 3% of total allowance ) .
Banking allowed. Penalty $2,000/ton.
Phase II units started on 01/01/ 2000.
US Acid Rain Program-Highlights

Highlights ( 2 )
Significant emissions reductions achieved b y 2004 (7 M. tons according to EPA) .
Banking > 7.5 M. tons by 2004 .
Trading > 15 M. tons in 2004 .
Estimated cost-savings (relative to C&C): $1 billion / year.
Reduced human risk of premature mortality :
(EPA reports a 40-to-1 benefit to cost ratio).

Acid Rain - Cap and Trade Further Reductions Cap www.beckstrom.com

Acid Rain Acid Rain Declines Because of Successful SO2 Reductions Market www.beckstrom.com

Greenhouse Gases CH4 CO2 PFCs HFCs SF6 310x 11,000 x 12,000 x 19 x CO2 Equivalent is Gold Standard 22,000 x N20

Global warming
How / Why
Danger?
IPCC
COP’s
Kyoto
Marrakech Accords
Carbon credit(s)
Mechanism
Pricing
Avenues for Earning
Importance

Per Capita Footprints www.beckstrom.com

Where is it Coming From? Prepared by Robert A Rohde Data source: Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center

Let’s Get Personal

Size Your Carbon Footprint CALCULATE YOUR PERSONAL CARBON FOOTPRINT Home sq. feet (00) ____ x .6 = _______ You drive kms (000) ____ x .4 = _______ You fly miles (000) ____ x .3 = _______ Your Total Tons ________ www.beckstrom.com

Question How large is your personal carbon footprint? 1) 15 2) 25 3) 50 4) 100+ tons The danger is real, but WE can control the situation….

Mission Po $$ ible !

The Developments so far 1997: COP-3 -- The Kyoto Protocol Period The paradigm Key outcomes 1: Before 1990 Framing the problem 1979: First World Climate Conference 1988: Toronto Conference; Establishment of IPCC 1989: High level political conferences 1990: Second World Climate Conference; First Assessment Report of IPCC 2: 1991-1996 Leadership articulated 1992: Climate Change Convention 1995: COP-1 -- Berlin Mandate; AIJ 1996: Second Assessment Report of IPCC 3: 1997-2001 Conditional leadership 1997: COP-3 -- The Kyoto Protocol 2000: Third Assessment Report of IPCC 2001: COP-7 -- The Marrakech Accords 2001: US withdraws from Kyoto 4: 2002-2007 Leadership competition … ....: US initiates many agreements 2005: Kyoto enters into force 2007: COP-13-- Bali Roadmap 5: Post 2008 Developing countries taking lead? 2008: Global recession starts 2009: COP-15 -- Copenhagen agreement?

The Kyoto Target X -7% = O
Emissions
Time
-7% = -30%

Work in progress…
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)
United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC)
North & South agree to mitigate climate change before “ it is too late”
Agree that they have “ Common but Differentiated responsibilities ”.
Kyoto Protocol which in details describe how the GHGs can be reduced entered into force on 16th February 2005.

IPCC As an intergovernmental body the IPCC is open to all member countries of the World Meteorological Organisation (WMO) and the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP). Its activities are guided by the mandate given to it by its parent organisations WMO and UNEP and governed by principles agreed by the Panel. The work-programme of the IPCC is decided by the Panel in plenary Sessions.

Kyoto Protocol: 4 Main Elements
The Kyoto Protocol and its rulebook, set out in the Marrakech Accords, consist of five main elements:
1. Commitments
A. Specific emissions commitments
B. General commitments
2. Implementation
A. Domestic policies and measures
B. Land use, land-use change & forestry sector
C. Joint implementation
D. Clean development mechanism
E. Emissions trading

3. Compliance
A. Facilitative Branch
B. Enforcement Branch
4. Minimizing impacts on developing countries
A. Adaptation Fund
Kyoto Protocol: 4 Main Elements

Commitments: General
All Parties to the Protocol are subject to a set of general commitments that mirror those of the Framework Convention.
These include:
Taking steps to improve the quality of emissions data.
Promoting environmentally-friendly technology transfer.
Supporting climate change education, training and public awareness.
Cooperating on international climate observation.

Commitments: Specific
At the real heart of the Kyoto Protocol lies its set of legally-binding emissions targets for industrialized countries. These emissions targets amount to a total cut, among all Annex I Parties, of at least 5% from 1990 levels by 2008-2012.

Kyoto Protocol
It relies on market based flexible mechanisms to reduce GHGs emissions to mitigate GW.
Emission trading (trading of allowances between Annex I governments)
Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) (projects in Non-Annex I countries with participation of Annex I countries)
Joint Implementation (JI) (projects between Annex I countries)

Carbon Credits - also Known as…
Emission reduction unit (ERUs),
Certified emission reduction (CERs),
Assigned amount unit (AAUs)
Removal unit (RMUs)
Voluntary emission reduction (VERs)

Generating Carbon Credits GHG emissions Time Project commissioned “ With project” emission level “ Without project” emission level Carbon credits Project based emission reductions need to be calculated and verified 1 reduced Ton of Carbon Dioxide equivalent = 1 Carbon Credit hereafter they can be sold on the open market.

Marrakech Accords (Decision 4/CP.7)
The Marrakech Accords is a set of agreements reached at the Conference of the Parties 7 (COP7) meeting in 2001 on the rules of meeting the targets set out in the Kyoto Protocol.
Decides to adopt the framework for meaningful and effective actions to enhance the implementation of Article 4.5 of the Convention
Decides to establish an expert group on technology transfer

Marrakech Accords
Detailed definitions and rules for each element of the Kyoto Protocol
Agreement on compliance process and penalties, final decision on “binding” nature of compliance delayed until after ratification
Includes use of sinks (forest, cropland, and grazing land management, and revegetation are eligible activities)
No quantitative cap on the use of flexible mechanisms (emissions trading, CDM, joint implementation)

Established by the European Investment Bank (EIB) and the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development (EBRD).
Participants: Six countries and six private companies
Belgium (Flanders), Finland, Ireland, Luxembourg, Spain, Sweden
Abengoa (Spain), ČEZ (Czech Republic), Gas Natural (Spain), Endesa (Spain), PPC (Greece), and Union Fenosa (Spain).
Total of €165-million for 3 zones across Central Europe and Central Asia (€150 mln for projects, €15 mln for Green Investment Schemes)
MCCF helps Participants to meet their mandatory or voluntary greenhouse gas emission reduction targets by purchasing carbon credits (EAUs, CERs, ERUs and AAUs) from projects financed by the EBRD and/or EIB
The negotiation, contracting and monitoring of carbon credit transactions outsourced to private “Carbon Managers”
Multilateral Carbon Credit Fund A joint EBRD-EIB Initiative

Objectives of the MCCF
Procure quality, low-cost credits from Countries in Transition (CEE and CIS)
Increase investment flows in low-carbon technologies
Support the development of emission trading
Promote dissemination of best practices through policy dialogue

MCCF Overview
Target €50-150 million
Open to shareholders of EIB/EBRD , and also Private Companies (incl. state-owned and sub-sovereign) (compliance buyers only)
To buy credits under JI, CDM, and ETS ; but can also facilitate AAU sales under Green Investment Schemes ;
From Transition Countries (EBRD’s 27 CoOs)
Preferably from EBRD- or EIB-funded projects
Outsourcing of preparation, negotiation, contracting and monitoring of carbon transactions to 1-3 private, competitively selected “Carbon Credit Managers” (CCMs)
Light MCCF Secretariat as interface with Participants, CCMs and Project Companies, and Governments (policy dialogue), administers project selection & project participation, checks funding is in place, and supervises CCMs
Buyers bear delivery risk and Kyoto risk

Added Value of the MCCF
A multilateral initiative
Political weight and clout
Capacity for engaging Governments (Policy Dialogue)
Risk mitigation through size and diversification
Benefits from EBRD-EIB involvement
Political comfort
Quality of emission reduction projects and size of pipeline
Unique knowledge of, and presence in, the region
Experience from Dutch JI Fund (EBRD)
Experience with managing multi-donor funds (EBRD)
Region has largest potential for low-cost credits
Vast opportunities for JI and CDM projects
Surplus AAUs in Russia, Ukraine, etc

Global warming
How / Why
Danger?
IPCC
COP’s
Kyoto
Marrakech Accords
Carbon credit(s)
Mechanism
Pricing
Avenues for Earning
Importance

Kyoto again
Protocol put a cap on emissions
Developed countries that have exceeded the levels can either cut down emissions, or borrow or buy carbon credits from developing countries.
Such a credit can be sold in the international market.
The trading can take place in open market.

How is CDM relevant for Businesses? By selling the emission reductions from a project to a Annex I party additional cash flows can be realised. Emission cap Actual emissions Buyer Carbon Credits Carbon value ( € ) Annex I party Emission reduction project The CDM project reduces the carbon emissions in the CDM country

Impact on the IRR of The Project IRR Benchmark Project return excluding CDM revenue Project return including CDM revenue CDM cash flow The gap between the project return and the required return on investment threshold The CDM cash flow increases the IRR of the project making it more interesting for investors. (2%-100%, diversification, offshore revenue stream) 12 % 15 % 16 %

Louis Redshaw, founded carbon emissions trading
In 2004, met with five investment bankers to discuss the possibility of trading carbon dioxide as a means to reduce harmful greenhouse gases into the air
Barclays Capital was the only bank interested in his venture
Currently, this market is worth more than $30 billion and is expected to grow to $1 trillion within the next ten years
Investment banks are expanding carbon business rapidly
Hedge funds and private equity funds in the Mayfair district in London, as well as emerging niche investments banks pursuing carbon emissions trading very seriously.
Carbon Emission Trading

The concept of Carbon Credit trading seeks to encourage countries to reduce their GHG emission, as it rewards those countries which meet their targets and provides financial incentives to others to do so
Surplus credits (collected by overshooting the emission reduction target) can be sold in the global market
One credit is equivalent to one tonne of carbon dioxide emission reduced. CC is available for companies engaged in developing renewable energy projects that offset the use of fossil fuels.

Key Price determinants
Risk allocation
Creditworthiness & experience of project sponsor
Viability of underlying project
Contract structure (e.g. upfront payments incur discount, penalties for non-delivery, ability to pay penalties)
ER vintage & seniority
Cost of validation & potential certification
Host country support & willingness to cooperate
Additional environment and social benefits

Current CER pricing

Trading
Investing
Creating Offsets (Certificates)
Profiting from Credits

Carbon Market CDM CERs VERs EUAs CA CCX RGGI .14 BN Clean Development Mechanism GCC, etc. $24 BN $5.2 BN Trading Volumes from World Bank 2007 April report. JI ERUs .03 BN California For Kyoto Capped Countries Only Voluntary EEX EUAs Futures ?

Two types of trading
Exchange traded (allowances)
Exchange Buyer Seller $ $ Allowance Allowance Buyer Seller $ Carbon Offset Over the Counter (OTC) www.beckstrom.com

OTC Project Development
Developer
Buyer Seller $ Carbon Offset Over the Counter (OTC) Example $ and Offsets UNFCC Project Approvals Advisor

Approved UNFCC Methods
Wind farms
Landfill Methane
Farm methane
Sewage plants
Cogeneration
Solar
Fertilizer plants - N2O
For a full list see unfccc.int
www.beckstrom.com

Leading CDM Projects

CDM by Countries

Foreign companies which cannot fulfill the protocol norms can buy the surplus credits form companies in other countries through trading
Stage is set for Credit Emission Reduction (CER) trade to flourish
India is considered as the largest beneficiary of carbon trading, claiming about 31% of the total world carbon trade through the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM), which is expected to earn in at least $5-10 billion over a period of time.

Carbon Finance is the term used for carbon credits to help finance GHG reduction projects
There are two categories of countries involved in carbon credit trading and finance:
Developing countries which do not have to meet any targets for GHG reduction. However, they may develop such projects because they can sell the ensuing credits to countries that do have Kyoto targets
Industrialized countries which include OECD countries (the richest nations of the world) and countries in transition from centrally planned to open market economies.
Carbon Finance

Transfer of specifically climate friendly technology to the developing countries, including emerging economies has become one of the hot topics in recent years
Governments and multilateral institutions have taken up a variety of measures in promoting and financing trade and investments in this field.
The Kyoto Protocol has given a special boost to the market forces in two ways
investments in more environmentally friendly energy production
investments in clean production technologies and energy efficiency
The developing countries are among the main beneficiaries
Impact on Developing Countries

Technology transfer to developing countries can relate to several different activities, which are targets for financial transactions
purchase and trade of carbon credits through the CDM and JI processes
Export of technologies, equipment and services on purely commercial basis
transfer of intellectual property rights through licensing and related commercial means
utilisation of multilateral and bilateral promotional and financing schemes tailored for this purpose
physical or financial investment in clean energy production and clean technology companies in the developing countries
provision of advisory services through various technical assistance programmes.
Transaction summary

A number of financing instruments are available for the following
Carbon offset
cleaner energy production
wider use of renewable energies
use of climate cleaner production processes
end user energy efficiency
Project Financing

Multilateral development financing institutions such as the World Bank Group and Regional Development Banks have been supporting and financing clean technology development in various ways
The members of World Bank Group (WBG) have been actively developing financing solutions for clean technology
Financing Institutions

http://globalwarmingism.blogspot.com/2007_06_01_archive.html

Problem: leadership? US EU S Leadership paradigm N S Conditional leadership Leadership sans US EU S CEITS US JSCaNZ US Leadership competition Development N S Pollution

In emission levels between average Northern and average Southern country especially in the past
The bulk of the impacts until 2020-2050 are caused by past emissions of the developed world;
If emission levels are to be kept within safe levels – the world budget for the 21 st century is over by 2032.
Impacts more severe in the South – both location wise; and because vulnerability is the greatest.
Classical North-South issue

Copenhagen
India perspective
The other view
too little
too late
reality check
Some trivia

Copenhagen (COP 15): The process
Process flowing from the Climate Convention
Includes US
Excludes all the agreements made at Kyoto
Process flowing from the Kyoto Protocol
Excludes US
Follows up on the Kyoto agreements
Process flowing from the Danish intervention
Ignores the integrity of the negotiating process
Tries to bypass and shortcut
Focuses on US interests
New ABASIC (Africa, Brazil, South Africa, India, China) proposal in the wings

Copenhagen: The substance
Long term target
Targets for developed countries
NAMAs: Nationally appropriate mitigation actions
REDD: Reducing emissions from deforestation and land degradation
Financial mechanism

Long-term target
Objective promoted by scientists/ NGOs
- 80 % below 1990 levels by 2050
350 ppm CO2 eq.
Peaking by 2015
UN secretariat hopes for:
50% below 1990 levels by 2050
Peaking global emissions by 2025

Targets for developed countries
EU: - 20% in 2020
Norway: - 40% in 2020
Japan: - 25% in 2020
US: - 4% in 2020 (-17% in 2020/2005)
Pledges amount to 8-12% below 1990 levels

Impact of loopholes on 1990 Annex 1 emissions in 2020 Source: ECO, 10 Dec Inclusion of loopholes means 4% reduction from 1990 levels

NAMAs for developing countries
Brazil: 38-42% reduction in 2020
India: 25% energy efficiency target in 2020
Indonesia: 26% energy efficiency target in 2020
South Korea: 21-30%
China: 40-45% energy efficiency target
First time willingness to take on commitments
Not absolute, but relative;
Governance system weak – so implementation questionable!
Risk of double counting

REDD
Forestry – about 20% of GHGs
How to reduce deforestation
Faith in market mechanisms!!
Goal for discussion:
Half deforestation rate by 2020
Halt forest loss by 2030
Resources needed – 35 billion $ annually

Financial mechanisms
Evolution of language – from compensation to subsidy
Assistance for adaptation (seen as local issue!!!)
Assistance for mitigation
Shift from climate assistance to mainstreaming climate change into development cooperation!

India’s Position
Emission Reduction obligations only for developed countries, based on 1990 baseline
Concept of “Measurable, Reportable and Verifiable” (MRV) Mitigation actions under the Bali Action Plan:
Developed countries to Implement MRV Mitigation actions
Developing countries to undertake ‘nationally appropriate mitigation actions’ (NAMA) in context of sustainable development “supported and enabled by technology, financing and capacity building
MRV for developing countries under Bali Action Plan applies only in the context of tech and financial support.
Financial Architecture & Framework for Technology Action Plan

US accounts for 30% of global emissions, while India makes for three per cent - India can transfer part of its allowed emissions to developed countries
In India so far, 242 projects have been identified for generating CERs while a total of 318 projects have received clearance by the Ministry of Forestry and Environment
For the Indian carbon market — this has the potential to supply 30-50% of the projected global market of 700 million CERs by 2012
India is being heralded as the next carbon credit destination of the world
Indian Scenario

India & G‐77
Increased international finance and investment should be equitable and sustainable;
Governance mechanisms should be transparent and efficient;
India has also projected funding needs: USD 200‐210 Bn by 2030 additional investment + requirements for incremental investment for adaptation (UNFCCC estimate: 0.3‐0.5% of global GDP; Lord Stern: 2% of global GDP)
Not to be treated as ‘Aid’; It should be a Legal Obligation & not a Repayable ‘Loan’
What further aspects need to be addressed:
Objective mechanisms and criteria to determine eligibility for and quantum of financial assistance

Main Points of Contention
India
ER Targets not possible: Common but Differentiated Responsibility
No Deviation from IPCC Baseline of 1990
Emphasis on new financial architecture
MRV for LCG to be linked to MRV for financial contributions & tech transfer
EU & US
ER Targets for Dg countries (US more insistent than EU)
Differences between EU & US: Baseline of 1990 or 2005
EU emphasis: Commitment to Low Carbon Growth by Dg countries
Robust & Verifiable Strategies for accessing int’l support
Identification of support reqd.
Int’l Registry for Actions for monitoring LCG

Domestic Challenges & Opportunities
Carbon Financing‐ Challenges
To be made a viable source of funding at the project construction/ development stage; not just an ‘additional’ source of revenue
Clarity required on receiving ‘advances’ against ERs
Regulatory framework required for financial viability of carbon neutral projects

Incentives for Investment in Low Carbon Growth
Current legal Framework‐ lopsided and often favours ‘high‐carbon’ growth patterns;
No adequate support for low‐carbon initiatives;
E.g.s:
High subsidies for Chemical Fertilizers; not for Organic Composting
Mining‐ Compensatory Afforestation reqd. only when mining on forest land; not otherwise;
No sufficient incentives for Common Effluent Treatment Plants.
Jatropa plantations: Caught in legal ambiguity of ‘ no foreign investment in plantations’

Common but Differentiated Responsibility at Int’l Level
Same principle at national level as well to bridge the ‘rich‐poor’ divide & ensure fulfillment of development needs
Recent study: Significant carbon footprint of a relatively small wealthy class (1% of the population)
is camouflaged by the 823 million poor population of the country, who keep the overall per capita emissions below 2 tonnes of CO2 per year.
PM has recently addressed issue of ‘lifestyle changes’ at the national level

WORLD’S LARGEST SOLAR STEAM COOKING SYSTEM AT TALETI, NEAR MOUNT ABU, RAJASTHAN

Copenhagen
India perspective
The other view
too little
too late
reality check
Some trivia

The Emission tracking goal.
Confusion helps inaction. Carbon tracking took 15 years to monetize. Emission tracking will take 15 years or more .
Needless and acrimonious debate amongst nations resulted in a dozen COP Conferences during the past decade that achieved little in terms of stated objective.

Where do Cap & Trade funds go to
No provision in Carbon auctions or Kyoto pact stipulates that Carbon funds shall be essentially used for funding clean energy.
Clean development is not mandatory.
Kyoto’s main international offsets scheme, the Clean Development Mechanism http://tinyurl.com/59at69

Critiques & Concerns (1)
Some emission reductions under the CDM are false or exaggerated
In 2007 the CDM was accused of paying €4.6 billion for projects that would have cost only €100 million if funded by development agencies
Where as the project developers feel they did not get a fair price

Critiques & Concerns (2)
The first commitment period of the Kyoto Protocol excluded forest conservation/avoided deforestation
- carbon emissions from deforestation represent 18-25% of all emissions, and will account for more carbon emissions in the next five years than all emissions from all aircraft since the Wright Brothers until at least 2025.

Carbon Capping did not work
Only $ 366 million raised in U.S. and similar small sums in Europe in country wise carbon auctions in 2008.
Mega market pipe dream busted as real numbers appear. http://tinyurl.com/luzxss

Why CDM is a market failure? (1)
Too sophisticated/complex a market
Too expensive to enter
The future beyond 2012 is yet uncertain
Does not survive the Cost Benefit analysis
Huge Markets like agriculture untouched
Forestry projects are too complex
The project developer doesn’t get a fair price
The ultimate buyer doesn’t get a fair price

Why CDM is a market failure? (2)
Profits go in the pocket of middlemen
CDM popular only in developing countries not in Lower developed countries
Technology transfer which CDM promises already exist with South in some cases
Little initiative by government entities to take up CDM projects
Proving additionality is very difficult in most of the cases
Carbon exchanges have played limited role till yet

The case against carbon trading
The largest resource grab in history
Will strengthen existing inequalities
Many of the sources of carbon credits are scams
Tree planting is not a solution
Encourages companies to profit from efficiencies that would have been introduced anyway
"Hot air" trading is an accounting fraud
Huge incentives for cheating
The vendor gets the cash without having to change anything and the buyer gets cheap credits.

Carbon trading cannot work
The carbon market cannot be monitored or controlled
no global institution or accounting system that can manage the complexity of this market.
The legal framework will never be strong enough
Countries that want to use carbon credits to subsidise their emissions are already arguing for penalties so weak that they will not discourage cheating.
Co2 is not SO2 or CFC
these programme were small, easy to monitor (one pollutant from one industrial process), and within a strong legal framework.
Carbon credits from different sources are not equivalent
Add to this the complexity of trading in different greenhouse gases. Each source requires different monitoring rules, different criteria and different agencies.
http://risingtide.org.uk/resources/factsheets/carbontrading

Some more concerns:
A tsunami is rolling across the climate science establishment since the e-mails were leaked from the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia. What climate warming skeptics have been saying for years is now being examined seriously for the first time and the results are making headlines in major newspapers. Professor Phil Jones, head of CRU, has now stated the warming from 1975-1998 is no different than that of 1860-1880 and 1910-1940. That there has been no statistically significant warming since 1995 and the Medieval Warm Period could indeed have been global. They are comments for which he would have been labeled a “denier” or “flat earther” a scant three months ago.
Read More at http://www.delcotimes.com/articles/2010/03/07/opinion/doc4b93166a65b71184122352.txt

Some more concerns:

We believe, in dealing with global warming, we should at least adopt an approach based on the precautionary principle.

Copenhagen
India perspective
The other view
too little
too late
reality check
Some trivia

act now.

before it’s too late…. Source–The Economist, reprinted from Joe Romm (http:// www.climateprogress.org ) 23-11-2009

Presentationv1

by Abhishek Mago on Mar 07, 2010

Accessibility

Categories

Upload Details

Usage Rights

Statistics

Presentationv1 — Presentation Transcript