BusinessWorld Online: The Laiban dilemma

BusinessWorld Online: The Laiban dilemma: "The Laiban dam project was conceived in the 1970s as a part of the Industrial Complex Plan in north eastern Luzon. It was deferred, however, as the project met opposition from people.

The project was later restored as a joint-venture of San Miguel Corp. and the Manila Waterworks and Sewerage System (MWSS) to address the estimated 1.6 billion liter per day water shortage in Metro Manila by 2015. In fact, the Laiban Dam is seen as an alternative water source for Metro Manila, especially during times when the Angat Dam in Bulacan becomes an unviable source of water during typhoons.

To augment water supply, the project entails the construction of a dam in Tanay, Rizal utilizing the Kaliwa River Basin, which passes through the slopes of Sierra Madre and into the Pacific shoreline on the side of Quezon.

The dam is expected to yield approximately 1.9 billion liters a day intended to serve an estimated population of about 5.5 million in and around Rizal Province. It is also estimated to generate about 25 megawatts of hydropower. The NEDA-ICC approved cost amounts to P47.93 billion, and the construction is projected to be carried out within 5 years.

The project seems promising on the surface, considering the problem of water adequacy in the Metro amidst the growing demand from its expanding population. There are, however, hurdles that the government is facing in light of this enterprise, among them protests from the public and the church.

A costly enterprise

Appeals were sent to the MWSS by certain groups, saying that the dam “is the most expensive project to be undertaken by the MWSS, in terms of economic cost, size and expanse of the infrastructure, numbers of stakeholders to be affected, environmental effects, human rights, and the challenges to the existing environmental and indigenous laws”.

Apart from the obvious pecuniary costs, the project also appears to put several areas at even greater risk. Pambansang Kilusan ng Samahang Magsasaka (Pakisama) observes that the planned 113-meter high structure poses a threat to three Quezon provinces�”Infanta, Real and Gen. Nakar�”in case it collapses.

In addition, the Freedom from Debt Coalition (FDC) has said that the area of planned reservoir is surrounded by a number of fault lines, five of which have been identified as active, including the Marikina-Infanta fault line.

The project is also said to affect around 27,800 hectares of ancestral and agricultural lands, including some 3,000 hectares of mangrove fish sanctuaries and farm irrigation systems in the towns of Gen. Nakar, Real, and Infanta. Habitats of endemic and endangered species in forested areas are likewise seen to be affected as the project rolls out.

Along with the alleged impact on the environment and the purported violations of laws such as the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) System, the National Integrated Protected Areas System Act (NIPAS), and the Wildlife Resources Conservation and Protection Act (Wildlife Protection Act), as well as the Indigenous People’s Rights Act (IPRA), concerns on the welfare of affected families have also been put forward as one of the project’s biggest challenges.

The dam is expected to displace thousands of families, including the indigenous communities of Dumagats and Remontados. Moreover, an alleged “take-or-pay” provision contained in the contract with the San Miguel Bulk Water Company, Inc. is seen to burden the MWSS with costs should supply exceed actual demand. Advocacy groups fear that these costs may eventually be passed on to households through higher water charges.

Other options

Other options to address the water shortage have been presented amid the intense opposition and challenges.

Local firm Sierra Madre Water Corp. (SMWC) proposes a cheaper and an allegedly more environment friendly source of water. The SMWC promises a supply of 2 billion liters per day and can be operational in 24 months�”which, offhand, trumps Laiban’s capacity of 1.9 billion liters per day and expected five-year roll-out.

The company also stresses that it has smaller environmental footprints, since its dam requires smaller construction with capital costs lower than the Laiban proposal. The SMWC also assures that no more than 100 families will be affected or will need to resettle; the water will also be released towards the Pacific Ocean, so there will be less risk of flooding in the surrounding areas.

Another proposed option is the Wawa Dam in Montalban. Oscar Violago, president of San Lorenzo Ruiz Builders and Developers Group, Inc., the company that owns the rights to the Wawa River Dam project, enumerates a few of the advantages of Wawa Dam over Laiban.

The Wawa reservoir is reportedly still full, and millions of water go over the dam and flows to the sea everyday. The dam also covers about 27,700 hectares, or almost the same as Laiban’s, so Wawa’s production capacity can be expected to be at par with Laiban’s.

The Wawa Dam also requires minor renovations�”for one, it already has existing pipelines, so it doesn’t require further tunneling�”and can thus be operational again within eight months. Just as important, it is not expected to affect communities, especially ancestral and agricultural lands.

On the other hand, NGOs contend that instead of building another dam, efficiency and effective forest protection or forest conservation are just as viable solutions. Environmental groups have also emphasized that strengthening the anti-logging campaign and the restoration of existing watersheds like Angat, Ipo, La Mesa and Wawa can enhance water flow.

Furthermore, the reduction of water demand and improvement of the efficiency of water delivery systems (e.g., by minimizing leakages and non-revenue water levels) are “simple and economical options”. In a public report, both Maynilad and Manila Water declared that their losses of 69% and 20%, respectively, were mainly due to leakages.

No easy task

In economic parlance, allocative efficiency is a key consideration in evaluating projects. That is, any decision to allocate resources produces both winners and losers. The benefit principle is an oft-used maxim: a project or a policy increases or maximizes allocative efficiency�”and, therefore, must be pursued�”as long as the benefits exceed the cost.

Securing the country’s water supply is no easy task and rightfully earns its spot among the country’s priorities. The threat of shortage is real and requires speedy interventions from the government. But any proposed solution should be carefully considered and weighed against a viable alternative, if only to ensure that the end-result comes at a minimal cost.

The Institute for Development and Econometric Analysis, Inc. (IDEA) is an economic think-tank based in the University of the Philippines - Diliman. For inquiries on IDEA, please contact Eduard Robleza at edjrobleza@idea.org.ph.

References:
National Economic Development Authority. Advanced Manual on Project Evaluation, Vol.2. 2006
“Bishops join people’s outrage against Laiban Dam,”CBCP News.
Manila Waterworks and Sewerage System
Various articles from GMANews.tv and The Philippine Daily Inquirer."

The Buffett System - The Automatic Way to Invest like Warren Buffett

The Buffett System - The Automatic Way to Invest like Warren Buffett: "'There seems to be some perverse human characteristic that likes to make easy things difficult.' - Warren Buffett"

HOPENHAGEN

HOPENHAGEN:
Bloomberg Specials
Written by Kim Chipman & Todd White / Bloomberg News
Tuesday, 08 December 2009 18:59

Now that US President Barack Obama has given fresh impetus to climate-change negotiations in Copenhagen, corporate leaders supporting an agreement to control greenhouse-gas emissions are pressing anew for action. Two weeks of talks among 192 nations opened on Monday in the Danish capital, and Obama’s decision to show up on the final day helps ensure “an ambitious outcome,” United Nations climate chief Yvo de Boer told reporters in Copenhagen.

The International Energy Agency (IEA), a trade group for the US and 27 more oil-consuming nations, and companies from Allianz SE to Coca-Cola Co. say envoys can agree to halt the growth of emissions within 10 years and keep global temperatures from rising by more than 2 degrees Celsius.

“We need a signal at Copenhagen to cap emissions by 2020 and a 2-degree scenario,” Fatih Birol, chief economist for the agency, said in a phone interview. “All the measures we suggest will bring energy security, because we’ll use less oil” and more clean energy, said Birol, who plans to visit Copenhagen for the second of the two weeks of talks.

World leaders already have said the talks will fail to reach the original goal of completing a treaty, a deadline moved to next year. While Obama and de Boer didn’t specify how much can be achieved in Copenhagen, company executives and lobbyists say they want quantifiable goals that have been sought for years by environmentalists and scientific groups.

Supporters of the temperature and 2020 targets include 850 business leaders who signed this year what’s called the Copenhagen communiqué, a project by the University of Cambridge in the UK. Signatories include General Electric Co. chief executive officer Jeffrey Immelt, Coca-Cola CEO Muhtar Kent, BP Plc. CEO Tony Hayward, HSBC Holdings Plc. chairman Stephen Green, Nestlé SA CEO Paul Bulcke and Nike Inc. CEO Mark Parker.

Executives from many of these companies are joining the 15,000 delegates who will come to the city’s Bella convention center for talks through December 18.

White House press secretary Robert Gibbs announced last week that Obama will show up for the conclusion of the talks, when most of the 100 or so heads of government will arrive and help guide final decisions. Earlier Obama had planned to stop by on December 9. “There is progress toward a meaningful Copenhagen accord,” Gibbs said.

Obama found after speaking with UK Prime Minister Gordon Brown and other leaders that there’s an “emerging consensus” to provide $10 billion a year by 2012 to help poor countries deal with global warming.

“The United States will pay its fair share of that amount and other countries will make substantial commitments as well,” Gibbs said in the statement. The administration also believes longer-term financing should be considered in Denmark, he said.

Negotiators in the Danish capital must provide companies with the certainty they need to make annual investments that may rise to trillions of dollars, said John Hawksworth, chief of macroeconomics at PricewaterhouseCoopers in London. Businesses need to know the scale of planned carbon cuts in order to gauge how expensive tradable carbon allowances will become, he said.

“The fundamental thing is to come up with a deal on the intermediate targets for 2020,” Hawksworth said in a telephone interview. “Once you’ve got the price on carbon, that sends the signal that businesses need in order to make the long-term investments in low carbon technologies and processes.”

Allianz, Europe’s largest insurer, supports the 2-degree limit as well as financing for developing countries to adapt to climate change, said Nick Tewes, a spokesman. By limiting the risks associated with climate change, the insurer will also minimize its potential claims, he said.

Those on the other side of the issue also will be in Copenhagen, including representatives of the Washington-based US Chamber of Commerce, the biggest US business-lobbying organization. The group has questioned mandatory emissions cuts as part of an international accord and is calling for an emphasis on clean-energy technology.

The Chamber is fighting against US legislation, which passed the House and is stalled in the Senate, to require a cut in greenhouse-gas pollution. It would cap emissions and set up a market to trade pollution allowances.

The US Environmental Protection Agency issued a rule on Monday giving it the power to regulate carbon-dioxide pollution.

The Paris-based IEA estimates that efforts to keep warming to less than 2 degrees since industrialization will add $10.5 trillion to the investment needed by 2030 to upgrade power stations, pipelines and refineries. The IEA also backs keeping the concentration of heat-trapping carbon dioxide to 450 parts per million, compared with about 385 now.

Amsterdam-based Greenpeace has called for an increase of no more than 2 degrees for at least seven years, said Kaisa Kosonen, a climate adviser for the environmental group. Greenpeace calls for global emissions to peak by 2015, five years earlier than the corporations.

Enel SpA, Italy’s largest utility, wants competitors around the world to accept CO2 regulations similar to those the Rome-based company already faces in the European Union.

“In order to get these targets, for 2 degrees of 450 parts per million, and emissions cuts, you need private investors like us,” said Simone Mori, head of regulation and environment at Enel, who may travel to Copenhagen.

The two-degree target has been a goal for the 27-nation European Union since 1996. In July, major greenhouse-gas polluters including the US, China, India and Japan signed up to the target, which has also been discussed in the UN negotiations as a possible long-term “shared vision.”

The move marked the first time developing nations had set such a target to fight climate change.

The talk of momentum doesn’t sway one of the US Congress’s biggest climate-change skeptics, Republican Senator James Inhofe of Oklahoma, who also will come to Copenhagen. He says the meeting is doomed, even with Obama’s entourage attending on the last day.

“No amount of lofty rhetoric or promises of future commitments can save it,” Inhofe said in a statement. That’s in part because legislation pending in the Senate to cap emissions “is dying on the vine.”
IN PHOTO -- Vestas wind turbines operate near their factory in Lem, Denmark. Vestas Wind Systems A/S, the world’s biggest maker of wind turbines, said it plans to almost double its capacity to produce wind-power equipment in India as the government offers new incentives for renewable energy. Chris Ratcliffe/Bloomberg"

Copenhagen's Real Challenge: Technology to Meet the Targets

Copenhagen's Real Challenge: Technology to Meet the Targets

By BRYAN WALSH Wednesday, Dec. 09, 2009

Over the next two weeks, the intense negotiations at the U.N. summit on climate change in Copenhagen will focus on numbers: emissions cuts (in percentages), money for climate adaptation (in dollars), atmospheric carbon concentrations (in parts per million) and global temperature targets (in degrees). Already, grinding diplomacy and criticism have overshadowed the good feelings and pageantry of the opening day of the summit, with a leaked negotiation draft revealing the deep divisions that still exist between rich and poor countries on climate. (See the top 10 green ideas of 2009.)

But there is one number that may not get discussed much at Copenhagen, even though it is as important as all the others: $10.5 trillion. That is the additional investment needed between now and 2030 to set the world on the path to low-carbon development, according to the International Energy Agency — a number that is far above the pittance the world currently spends on clean-energy research and development. As Jesse Jenkins and Devon Swezey of the think tank Breakthrough Institute wrote on Dec. 7, "Without measurable progress that dramatically increases global investments in clean energy, we can forget stabilizing global temperatures or atmospheric carbon dioxide at any level."

In other words, while global politics may shape how quickly and appropriately we structure our response to climate change, the actual work of reducing carbon emissions will ultimately be a technological problem. Beyond the policy wars in the halls of U.N. summits and on Capitol Hill, the battle against climate change requires better and cheaper forms of alternative energy, which will need to be deployed fast. Unfortunately, they don't exist. "Stabilizing the climate is a huge technological challenge, and the solution of ready-to-deploy, scalable low-carbon technologies is far from being a reality," wrote University of Montreal economists Christopher Green and Isabel Galiana in a commentary in the Dec. 3 issue of Nature. (See the top 10 scientific discoveries of 2009.)

Green and Galiana calculate just how far we are today from the reality of a truly low-carbon world. They estimate that, for instance, to keep global temperatures from rising more than 2°C higher than preindustrial levels — a projected upper limit of temperature rise before climate change could turn catastrophic — global carbon emissions would have to be reduced at least 80% by the end of the century. Assuming that global economic growth remains at a healthy 2.2%, which is necessary if developing countries are to continue to grow and pull their people out of poverty, the energy intensity of the global economy would need to be reduced to one-third its 2000 level, while total consumption of carbon-free energy would have to be three times greater than the total amount of energy consumed in 2000.

Trying to predict energy-use patterns nearly 100 years into the future is difficult, to say the least, but even if these numbers are off, Green and Galiana's research shows just how immense a challenge it will be to replace our fossil-fueled energy system with one that is free of carbon, especially while the global economy and population are growing. Legislating carbon reductions through a cap — which is ultimately the aim of both the U.N. negotiations and U.S. action on Capitol Hill — is important because it would give security to the business world and begin to price out cheap fossil fuels.

Ultimately, however, we will need better renewable-energy technologies — and that will require increased spending on innovation, in the U.S. and elsewhere. "Energy technology research and development will be essential to decarbonize the global economy," write Green and Galiana.

The authors argue that the best way to raise funds for energy R&D is to levy a small carbon tax — perhaps $5 per ton — that could produce as much as $150 billion annually for energy research around the globe. That would pay for several Manhattan Projects a year. Green and Galiana recommend steadily raising the tax to keep the funding going. To prevent that money from being abused by special political interests (the ongoing flow of funds to corn ethanol in the U.S. shows what happens when energy policy is infected by politics), they argue that allocation of the funds should be left to experts like the Gates Foundation.

Is this the global solution? Certainly it's part of it. Far too little is spent on energy R&D in the U.S., and the percentage of what is spent there has dropped in recent decades, even as concerns over global warming have intensified. President Obama's Department of Energy has done an admirable job of shifting direction, funding more innovation at the university level and focusing on helping new energy start-ups cross the "valley of death" to profitability. Energy R&D leads to new industries and, of course, new jobs. "Because our economic future depends on our leadership in the industries of the future, we are investing in basic applied research," said Obama in a speech on employment on Tuesday, Dec. 8. "We know the nation that leads in clean energy will be the nation that leads the world."

Meanwhile, the battle over carbon caps will continue in Copenhagen and in Washington, and it will be very contentious. Indeed, on the third day of negotiations in Copenhagen, a new rift opened between the most-threatened developing nations, which are pushing for tough emissions caps, and larger developing nations, whose main concern is the economic impact of caps. In this context, perhaps the biggest advantage to a more technology-focused climate policy could be in global public opinion. Carbon caps are politically controversial because they implicitly acknowledge that the world has limits and that countries will have to fight for their individual shares. But technology offers the promise that with the right breakthroughs, we can keep growing. "Investing in R&D to make clean energy cheap is the most popular energy proposal there is," says Michael Shellenberger of the Breakthrough Institute. That may be a global deal everyone can embrace.

Read more: http://www.time.com/time/specials/packages/article/0,28804,1929071_1929070_1946649,00.html#ixzz0bbzaOgRR

Copenhagen Topic: Technology to Reduce Carbon Emissions - COP15: Climate-Change Conference - TIME

Copenhagen Topic: Technology to Reduce Carbon Emissions - COP15: Climate-Change Conference - TIME:

"Over the next two weeks, the intense negotiations at the U.N. summit on climate change in Copenhagen will focus on numbers: emissions cuts (in percentages), money for climate adaptation (in dollars), atmospheric carbon concentrations (in parts per million) and global temperature targets (in degrees). Already, grinding diplomacy and criticism have overshadowed the good feelings and pageantry of the opening day of the summit, with a leaked negotiation draft revealing the deep divisions that still exist between rich and poor countries on climate. (See the top 10 green ideas of 2009.)

But there is one number that may not get discussed much at Copenhagen, even though it is as important as all the others: $10.5 trillion. That is the additional investment needed between now and 2030 to set the world on the path to low-carbon development, according to the International Energy Agency — a number that is far above the pittance the world currently spends on clean-energy research and development. As Jesse Jenkins and Devon Swezey of the think tank Breakthrough Institute wrote on Dec. 7, 'Without measurable progress that dramatically increases global investments in clean energy, we can forget stabilizing global temperatures or atmospheric carbon dioxide at any level.'

In other words, while global politics may shape how quickly and appropriately we structure our response to climate change, the actual work of reducing carbon emissions will ultimately be a technological problem. Beyond the policy wars in the halls of U.N. summits and on Capitol Hill, the battle against climate change requires better and cheaper forms of alternative energy, which will need to be deployed fast. Unfortunately, they don't exist. 'Stabilizing the climate is a huge technological challenge, and the solution of ready-to-deploy, scalable low-carbon technologies is far from being a reality,' wrote University of Montreal economists Christopher Green and Isabel Galiana in a commentary in the Dec. 3 issue of Nature. (See the top 10 scientific discoveries of 2009.)

Green and Galiana calculate just how far we are today from the reality of a truly low-carbon world. They estimate that, for instance, to keep global temperatures from rising more than 2°C higher than preindustrial levels — a projected upper limit of temperature rise before climate change could turn catastrophic — global carbon emissions would have to be reduced at least 80% by the end of the century. Assuming that global economic growth remains at a healthy 2.2%, which is necessary if developing countries are to continue to grow and pull their people out of poverty, the energy intensity of the global economy would need to be reduced to one-third its 2000 level, while total consumption of carbon-free energy would have to be three times greater than the total amount of energy consumed in 2000.

Trying to predict energy-use patterns nearly 100 years into the future is difficult, to say the least, but even if these numbers are off, Green and Galiana's research shows just how immense a challenge it will be to replace our fossil-fueled energy system with one that is free of carbon, especially while the global economy and population are growing. Legislating carbon reductions through a cap — which is ultimately the aim of both the U.N. negotiations and U.S. action on Capitol Hill — is important because it would give security to the business world and begin to price out cheap fossil fuels.

Ultimately, however, we will need better renewable-energy technologies — and that will require increased spending on innovation, in the U.S. and elsewhere. 'Energy technology research and development will be essential to decarbonize the global economy,' write Green and Galiana.

The authors argue that the best way to raise funds for energy R&D is to levy a small carbon tax — perhaps $5 per ton — that could produce as much as $150 billion annually for energy research around the globe. That would pay for several Manhattan Projects a year. Green and Galiana recommend steadily raising the tax to keep the funding going. To prevent that money from being abused by special political interests (the ongoing flow of funds to corn ethanol in the U.S. shows what happens when energy policy is infected by politics), they argue that allocation of the funds should be left to experts like the Gates Foundation.

Is this the global solution? Certainly it's part of it. Far too little is spent on energy R&D in the U.S., and the percentage of what is spent there has dropped in recent decades, even as concerns over global warming have intensified. President Obama's Department of Energy has done an admirable job of shifting direction, funding more innovation at the university level and focusing on helping new energy start-ups cross the 'valley of death' to profitability. Energy R&D leads to new industries and, of course, new jobs. 'Because our economic future depends on our leadership in the industries of the future, we are investing in basic applied research,' said Obama in a speech on employment on Tuesday, Dec. 8. 'We know the nation that leads in clean energy will be the nation that leads the world.'

Meanwhile, the battle over carbon caps will continue in Copenhagen and in Washington, and it will be very contentious. Indeed, on the third day of negotiations in Copenhagen, a new rift opened between the most-threatened developing nations, which are pushing for tough emissions caps, and larger developing nations, whose main concern is the economic impact of caps. In this context, perhaps the biggest advantage to a more technology-focused climate policy could be in global public opinion. Carbon caps are politically controversial because they implicitly acknowledge that the world has limits and that countries will have to fight for their individual shares. But technology offers the promise that with the right breakthroughs, we can keep growing. 'Investing in R&D to make clean energy cheap is the most popular energy proposal there is,' says Michael Shellenberger of the Breakthrough Institute. That may be a global deal everyone can embrace."

Do Rich Nations Owe Poor Ones a Climate Debt? -- TIME MAGAZINE

Do Rich Nations Owe Poor Ones a Climate Debt?

By BRYAN WALSH Thursday, Dec. 10, 2009

In two decades of climate change negotiations, a deep divide has remained between wealthy nations and developing ones, each side insisting the other move first to lower carbon emissions and curb the effects of global warming.

But this year there was an uncommon optimism, in the days preceding the U.N. climate change summit in Copenhagen, that the rift could someday be bridged. President Barack Obama's delegation announced it would bring reliable carbon emissions targets to the negotiating table — an about-face from past U.S. climate envoys, who have always played the spoiler role at the annual summit — opening the door for major developing nations, such as China and India, to bring their own pledges to Copenhagen as well. (See TIME's special report about the Copenhagen Climate-Change Conference.)

But if the deadlock between developed and developing nations appeared to have been loosening, it could not have helped when Todd Stern, the top U.S. climate negotiator, categorically dismissed the idea that wealthy countries like the U.S. should owe the developing world a debt for the years of unfettered carbon emissions that are now contributing to climate change. "I actually completely reject the notion of a debt or reparations or anything of the like," Stern said in Copenhagen on Wednesday.

Still, Stern agreed that the U.S. and other developed nations would cut emissions and give aid to developing countries that need it. The details are yet to be determined: right now, delegates at the Copenhagen summit are busy passing around draft texts and proposals, preparing for the arrival next week of environment ministers and heads of state, who will wrap up the talks. The negotiators' focus is on actions — reducing emissions, ramping up clean energy, furnishing aid for adaptation — that are politically and economically viable. (See pictures of the world's most polluted places.)

Read more: http://www.time.com/time/specials/packages/article/0,28804,1929071_1929070,00.html#ixzz0bby8NHTg

Do Rich Nations Owe Poor Ones a Climate Debt? - COP15: Climate-Change Conference - TIME

Do Rich Nations Owe Poor Ones a Climate Debt? - COP15: Climate-Change Conference - TIME:

"In two decades of climate change negotiations, a deep divide has remained between wealthy nations and developing ones, each side insisting the other move first to lower carbon emissions and curb the effects of global warming.

But this year there was an uncommon optimism, in the days preceding the U.N. climate change summit in Copenhagen, that the rift could someday be bridged. President Barack Obama's delegation announced it would bring reliable carbon emissions targets to the negotiating table — an about-face from past U.S. climate envoys, who have always played the spoiler role at the annual summit — opening the door for major developing nations, such as China and India, to bring their own pledges to Copenhagen as well. (See TIME's special report about the Copenhagen Climate-Change Conference.)

But if the deadlock between developed and developing nations appeared to have been loosening, it could not have helped when Todd Stern, the top U.S. climate negotiator, categorically dismissed the idea that wealthy countries like the U.S. should owe the developing world a debt for the years of unfettered carbon emissions that are now contributing to climate change. 'I actually completely reject the notion of a debt or reparations or anything of the like,' Stern said in Copenhagen on Wednesday.

Still, Stern agreed that the U.S. and other developed nations would cut emissions and give aid to developing countries that need it. The details are yet to be determined: right now, delegates at the Copenhagen summit are busy passing around draft texts and proposals, preparing for the arrival next week of environment ministers and heads of state, who will wrap up the talks. The negotiators' focus is on actions — reducing emissions, ramping up clean energy, furnishing aid for adaptation — that are politically and economically viable. (See pictures of the world's most polluted places.)"

Do Rich Nations Owe Poor Ones a Climate Debt? - COP15: Climate-Change Conference - TIME

Do Rich Nations Owe Poor Ones a Climate Debt? - COP15: Climate-Change Conference - TIME:

"In two decades of climate change negotiations, a deep divide has remained between wealthy nations and developing ones, each side insisting the other move first to lower carbon emissions and curb the effects of global warming.

But this year there was an uncommon optimism, in the days preceding the U.N. climate change summit in Copenhagen, that the rift could someday be bridged. President Barack Obama's delegation announced it would bring reliable carbon emissions targets to the negotiating table — an about-face from past U.S. climate envoys, who have always played the spoiler role at the annual summit — opening the door for major developing nations, such as China and India, to bring their own pledges to Copenhagen as well. (See TIME's special report about the Copenhagen Climate-Change Conference.)

But if the deadlock between developed and developing nations appeared to have been loosening, it could not have helped when Todd Stern, the top U.S. climate negotiator, categorically dismissed the idea that wealthy countries like the U.S. should owe the developing world a debt for the years of unfettered carbon emissions that are now contributing to climate change. 'I actually completely reject the notion of a debt or reparations or anything of the like,' Stern said in Copenhagen on Wednesday.

Still, Stern agreed that the U.S. and other developed nations would cut emissions and give aid to developing countries that need it. The details are yet to be determined: right now, delegates at the Copenhagen summit are busy passing around draft texts and proposals, preparing for the arrival next week of environment ministers and heads of state, who will wrap up the talks. The negotiators' focus is on actions — reducing emissions, ramping up clean energy, furnishing aid for adaptation — that are politically and economically viable. (See pictures of the world's most polluted places.)

But the question of exactly what the rich nations of the world owe the poor ones is still up in the air. According to many environmental activists and representatives of the most vulnerable nations in the world, climate change should be viewed first and foremost as an ethical challenge, rather than an economic or political one. Industrialized nations have flourished in part because they were able to burn fossil fuel indiscriminately for decades, and the impact of those emissions is only now being recognized as climate change. As poor countries see it, rich nations got rich at their expense: as the planet continues to warm, it will heighten water scarcity, intensify flooding and droughts, and worsen some infectious disease — all of which will first hit developing countries that have not yet had the chance to burn fossil fuels in large quantities. 'We are living on the front lines of climate change,' said Dessima Williams, the head of the Alliance of Small Island States, a coalition of 43 island nations.

Poor nations around the world have struggled with natural disasters and disease for years, of course, and developed countries have always felt an obligation to help; hence, global programs like the U.N. Millennium Development Goals, which aim to reduce poverty, disease and mortality, and empower developing countries. But from an ethical perspective, climate change is different because it has a clear cause: man, or more specifically, Western man. The ability to track carbon emissions means that we can calculate how much responsibility each country — and practically each person — bears for a warmer world. And because carbon dioxide stays in the atmosphere for centuries, we can even calculate the historic responsibility that nations bear for global warming."

Google takes real-time advantage

Google takes real-time advantage

By Richard Waters in San Francisco

Published: December 8 2009 02:06 | Last updated: December 8 2009 02:06

Google has again pulled ahead of Microsoft’s Bing in the race to draw instant Twitter updates and other “real-time” information from the web, as the rival tech giants intensified their efforts to gain the upper hand in some of the hottest new areas of internet search.

Google also outlined on Monday a number of ambitious new search applications for mobile phones, bringing advanced image- and voice-recognition technology to bear in the most promising new part of the search business.

The announcements follow last week’s attempt by Microsoft to grab attention for Bing by showing off a range of its own recent innovations.

Microsoft also scored a rare publicity victory over Google in search technology two months ago when it became the first to reach a deal with Twitter and Facebook to receive a “feed” of real-time tweets and updates from the services.

But in response on Monday, Google went one step further with a demonstration of a service that draws real-time information directly into its regular search results pages.

The freshest tweets and other pieces of information on any online search topic scroll past in real-time, without any need to refresh the page.

Amit Singhal, who as a Google “fellow” holds one of the company’s top engineering positions, said the service crawls more than 1bn web pages and makes fresh information available through the search engine within seconds of it being posted.

The service draws from news and blog sources, as well as Twitter, Facebook, MySpace and a number of other sources, and will be extended from the US to other countries early next year, Mr Singhal added.

While Twitter’s soaring popularity this year has made the real-time web one of the hottest issues in Silicon Valley, Google put much of its emphasis on Monday on mobile search, where it is relying on big investments in a number of advanced technologies to gain an edge.

One trial service, known as Google Goggles, uses image-recognition software to identify a picture taken on a mobile phone, then returns information about the object through a search.

The technology is theoretically powerful enough for the service to recognise individual faces, but Google has decided for privacy reasons not to make that capability available, said Vic Gundotra, the company’s vice-president of engineering.

Google also showed off a service that uses voice-recognition software to identify words spoken into a mobile phone, then plays back a translation of the words in a different language within seconds.

Copyright The Financial Times Limited 2009.

FT.com / Technology - Google takes real-time advantage

FT.com / Technology - Google takes real-time advantage: "By Richard Waters in San Francisco

Published: December 8 2009 02:06 | Last updated: December 8 2009 02:06

Google has again pulled ahead of Microsoft’s Bing in the race to draw instant Twitter updates and other “real-time” information from the web, as the rival tech giants intensified their efforts to gain the upper hand in some of the hottest new areas of internet search.

Google also outlined on Monday a number of ambitious new search applications for mobile phones, bringing advanced image- and voice-recognition technology to bear in the most promising new part of the search business.

The announcements follow last week’s attempt by Microsoft to grab attention for Bing by showing off a range of its own recent innovations.

Microsoft also scored a rare publicity victory over Google in search technology two months ago when it became the first to reach a deal with Twitter and Facebook to receive a “feed” of real-time tweets and updates from the services.

But in response on Monday, Google went one step further with a demonstration of a service that draws real-time information directly into its regular search results pages.

The freshest tweets and other pieces of information on any online search topic scroll past in real-time, without any need to refresh the page.

Amit Singhal, who as a Google “fellow” holds one of the company’s top engineering positions, said the service crawls more than 1bn web pages and makes fresh information available through the search engine within seconds of it being posted.

The service draws from news and blog sources, as well as Twitter, Facebook, MySpace and a number of other sources, and will be extended from the US to other countries early next year, Mr Singhal added.

While Twitter’s soaring popularity this year has made the real-time web one of the hottest issues in Silicon Valley, Google put much of its emphasis on Monday on mobile search, where it is relying on big investments in a number of advanced technologies to gain an edge.

One trial service, known as Google Goggles, uses image-recognition software to identify a picture taken on a mobile phone, then returns information about the object through a search.

The technology is theoretically powerful enough for the service to recognise individual faces, but Google has decided for privacy reasons not to make that capability available, said Vic Gundotra, the company’s vice-president of engineering.

Google also showed off a service that uses voice-recognition software to identify words spoken into a mobile phone, then plays back a translation of the words in a different language within seconds.

Copyright The Financial Times Limited 2009."