Wrap up This week I wrap up that part of my assessment of the LCDS that focuses on the several misstatements and computational errors found in the draft text and related official documents, especially as they pertain to such basic data as the area under forest and estimated rates of deforestation for Guyana.
Recap In last week’s column I made a digression to deal with a few issues raised by Ambassador Brattskar, head of Norway’s International Climate and Forest Initiative and the lead negotiator for the Norwegian government as they were reported in the Stabroek News, (March 21, 2010).
Digression In this week’s column I shall temporarily digress from my originally intended topic, which was to continue the discussion centred on the fuzziness in the LCDS and other related official documents about the size of the total forest area that is being pledged under the strategy, as well as that found in the publication of recent data on Guyana’s deforestation.
In last week’s column I had expressed my concern over the variations in the stated area of Guyana’s total forest cover that are to be found in the LCDS and associated documents.
With an estimated 4 billion acres of forests worldwide covering 30 per cent of the earth’s land area, the Food and Agricultural Organization (FAO) has reported overall progress in recent years in the utilization of sustainable forest management practices.
In my column last Sunday I indicated that the Food and Agriculture Organisation’s (FAO) recent assessment of the state of the world’s forests had observed that, on balance, progress is being made around the world in giving priority to the sustainable management of forests.
In last week’s column I began by introducing the sixth and final of the basic contradictions, which as I have argued underlie global multilateral negotiations on climate change.
Last week I was careful to point out that any serious assessment of the LCDS and the Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) between the Government of Guyana and the Government of the Kingdom of Norway needs to be situated in the broader context of the global negotiations on climate change.
I trust that readers who have been following my rather extended discussion on lessons to be learnt from the failed Copenhagen Climate Change Conference will agree that a careful assessment of the LCDS and the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between the Government of Guyana and the Government of the Kingdom of Norway must be located in the broader context of global negotiations to complete an agreement on climate change and global warming.
Solution or source of global climate change In this week’s column I shall wrap up the discussion over the past few weeks of the key lessons that should be learnt from the recent Copenhagen climate summit.
Thus far over the past two weeks I have highlighted in these columns what I believe are six very important lessons, which should be learnt from the recent United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change Conference (UNFCCC) held in Copenhagen, Denmark.
Last week I started to identify, in no particular order of importance, those vital lessons that should be learnt from the recent United Nations Framework Conference on Climate Change held in Copenhagen, Denmark, which are needed for a careful evaluation of the LCDS and the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between the Government of Guyana and the Government of the Kingdom of Norway.
As I have pointed out earlier, the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between the Government of Guyana and the Government of the Kingdom of Norway and its associated Joint Concept Note are best evaluated in the context of the outcomes of the recent United Nations Copenhagen Conference on Climate Change and global warming.
As we saw last week the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between the Government of Guyana and the Government of the Kingdom of Norway provides for two sets of conditional payments by Norway.
‘Dirty secrets’ I hope that I have already indicated clearly Norway’s double standards in its climate change and global warming actions.
I hope that by now readers would have realised that Norway can in no way be looked upon as Guyana’s Santa Claus.
For this week’s column, let me begin by re-emphasizing a couple of observations I have made about global inter-governmental negotiations thus far, as I continue to evaluate the low-carbon development strategy and the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU), between the Government of Guyana and the Government of the Kingdom of Norway, as well as its related Joint Concept Note between the two parties to the agreement.
In this column last week I started what I hope will be a fairly full assessment of the Low Carbon Development Strategy (LCDS).
Last week I concluded my rather extended discussion on the current global economic crisis and the lessons to be learnt from this.
Several readers have expressed surprise and disappointment on reading in last Sunday’s column that the G20, which includes so many former champions of poor countries in the global economy are now flagrantly doing what the rich G7 countries had been doing for decades previously.
The ePaper edition, on the Web & in stores for Android, iPhone & iPad.
Included free with your web subscription. Learn more.
