1.1. Putting a stop to the Arctic Meltdown
26 january 2010, Greenpeace
Should the oil companies be allowed to take advantage of melting ice to drill for more oil in the warming Arctic? Should industrial fishing fleets be allowed to chase the last remnants of fished-out stocks into the areas where ice has previously stopped their ships? We say no: as should anyone who believes you don’t put out a fire with gasoline.
The retreat of polar sea-ice is one of our planet’s emergency warning signals that business as usual is putting us all in hot water. Yet at the Arctic Frontier conference in Tromsø, Norway,governments and corporate interests are considering measures to turn regions of newly ice-free ocean into a bonanza for big business.
It’s not time for a free-for-all. It’s time to protect the Arctic Ocean from additional stress to give the ecosystem, the fish and wildlife it supports and the people and communities who depend on it the best chance of adaptation and survival.
And that’s why today, among the gathered dignataries, industrial representatives, and scientists who are attending the meeting, we are calling for an immediate moratorium on all industrial activities in areas historically covered by sea-ice.
As Mads Christensen, Executive Director of Greenpeace Nordic said in demanding the ban: "We are at a crossroads, the path we take is an intelligence test: do we drill and burn the fossil fuels reserves that are accessible only because climate change is causing the sea ice to melt? Or do we protect the Arctic and give it and the communities living there a chance to adapt to the already serious changes taking place?"
Human Damage
As the Arctic Ocean melts, more areas that were historically blocked by ice are opening every year. Oil companies from around the world are scrambling to obtain permits to drill for oil in the Arctic sea floor. These companies are often coming from Arctic Coastal States like the United States and Norway.
The Arctic region has shown in the past to be extremely vulnerable to oil spills – more than 20 years after the Exxon Valdez oil spill, oil from that disaster can still be found in Prince William Sound.
Knowing this, it seems incredible that permits for oil and gas drilling should even be considered. Yet considered and granted they have been, most recently in the Chuchki Sea, north of the Bering Strait. Damage from a spill would be extremely hard to clean-up, and would threaten the already stressed Arctic fauna and flora.
Ironically, the possibility of drilling for oil would not even exist were it not for climate change and the human addiction to burning fossil fuels. Climate Change is already having clear impacts in the Arctic, in particular on the glaciers in Greenland as well as on the extent of sea-ice.
Greenpeace hosted scientists last summer on board the Arctic Sunrise to study the extent of the damage. The preliminary results of their research will be presented at the Arctic Frontiers conference, in the scientific part of the programme.
Some of the stunning photos made during the trip will also be presented, to remind the delegates of what is at stake. Iea ice underpins the Arctic Ocean ecosystem, it’s hard to imagine the range and severity of impacts that will occur as the ice continues to shrink, thin and disappear year round, but we do know there will be a big impact on ice-dependent species such as polar bears, walrus, ice seals and whales – It is very unlikely that these species could adapt to life on land in the absence of summer sea ice. In turn, the communities which depend on them for subsistence will be severely stressed.

1.2. Ocean Acidification
But retreating ice is not the only threat which the Arctic faces. As carbon dioxide from the burning of oil and gas goes into the atmosphere, concentrations of carbon dioxide in the ocean go up as well, making it more acidic. Carbon dioxide dissolves in cold water faster than it does in warm. But that storage comes with a price. The ocean’s pH value has dropped nearly 30 percent over the past 250 years to levels not seen in 800,000 years. The prediction is that within 50 years at most the acidity of the ocean will reach a point where it will affect the production of shells in plankton, with follow-on impacts that ripple on up the food chain to affect stocks of fish and shellfish, as well as birds and marine mammals.
Adding to the stress of declining sea-ice with new stresses resulting from human industrial activity would be madness. In the absence of a deep understanding of the future of the Arctic ecosystem and the vulnerability of its wildlife, the precautionary principle demands to we keep industrial activities out: the onus is on the oil, fisheries, and minerals industry to prove their activities will be sustainable — not on the environmental community to demonstrate likely harm.
World Park Arctic?
To whom does the Arctic Ocean belong? The countries now claiming the sea-bed as their own were the same who agreed with Greenpeace in the 1990s that Antarctica should be set aside for humanity. Now that they have the opportunity to claim a bit of a shrinking pie, however, all thoughts of doing the right thing or proper stewardship of a fragile ecosystem are being set aside.
Despite the massive pressure of profit, however, Greenpeace believes that it is possible to protect this ocean from further destruction. The marine ecosystem is going to be submitted to incredible pressure once the sea ice melts. It is essential that human activities do not impose further pressure that can be avoided.
Industries and countries eager to move in on the Arctic Ocean may consider it far fetched that they will be thwarted. But we know from experience that when millions of people draw a line in the ice and tell industry to keep their hands off, the impossible can happen. Antarctica is safe from oil exploration today. We need to protect the Arctic for tomorrow.

1.3. Time for Lukewarm Europe to turn up the heat
27 January 2010, Sandbag
This Sunday, January 31st, represents the official deadline for signatories to the Copenhagen Accord to submit their 2020 emissions targets. While UN officials have taken pains to stress this is a “soft” deadline, it is still an important milestone as countries make their first tentative steps on the global climate policy stage since COP15.
In this context it is paramount that Europe submit an unconditional target of 30% or higher to reinvigorate and normalize ambitious target setting internationally.
The Copenhagen Accord has shifted the emphasis, at least for now, on to unilateral target-setting, with states and regions carefully eyeing the submissions of the others to assess how far they dare go themselves. In light of this, real leadership consists in submitting ambitious domestic targets, which demonstrate a willingness to take significant action in the short to medium term.
At Copenhagen, Europe started to lose its voice – its authority as a leader on climate change waning after too long resting on laurels it earned years ago.
Looking back, the majority of its cuts since 1990 were delivered serendipitously by extraneous policies and events, eased considerably by hot air inherited from EU accession countries and arising from the recession. Looking forward, the distance Europe proposes to travel between now and 2020 looks meagre compared with the steeper emissions trajectories of countries like Japan or the US.
In short, Europe’s “double target” for 2020 of 20%/30% is obsolete. Since 2008 when this was set out, both developed and developing countries have tabled new targets and, more tellingly, the recession has made the 30% cut some £100 billion cheaper to achieve than we’d expected a 20% target to be.
Europe’s murmurings at Copenhagen were drowned out by two competing discourses: on one side were the brash, loud voices of the most powerful – the US and China – prolific emitters reluctant to cede any authority to international institutions; on the other side was the still small voice of conscience represented by those states on the front lines of climate change negotiating their very survival as nations – groups like the Alliance of Small Island States and the Vulnerable 11.
If Europe is to reclaim influence in the UN process, it will derive from being a major economy with moral authority. The lukewarm positioning of recent months will need to be replaced with the kind of domestic targets the vulnerable nations entreat and which the science demands. 20% is not that target. As the single greatest historical emitter, 30% is the bare minimum Europe can reasonably proffer to be in line with IPCC recommendations for developed nations collectively (25-40%).
Dangling the carrot of a “conditional” 30% target has not worked. This is hardly surprising given that 20% is essentially business-as-usual for Europe, and that it was never made precisely clear what conditions would trigger the higher target.
Within Europe, a cluster of progressive countries – amongst them the UK, France, Germany, Belgium and the Netherlands – recognize it is time, both morally and strategically, to shift to 30%. There is push back, though, from countries like Italy and Poland, from the Commission and from industrial groups like the Alliance for Competitive European Industry. We need to drown out these regressive voices with the voice of global civil society.
To this end, Sandbag is calling on individuals and organisations to undersign our open letter to European Council President, Herman van Rompuy, and Spanish Prime Minister, José Luis Zapatero, calling for a minimum, unconditional target of 30% as Europe’s submission to Appendix I of the Accord.
Anticipating Sunday’s deadline, we will be submitting a written copy of the letter later this week with the backing of at least 19 NGOs, and several hundred individuals. But Europe is unlikely to move straight away. That is why we intend to continue to mount pressure over coming months as our supporters grow until Europe takes on the figure it must. We hope you’ll join us.

1.4. EU continues failed Copenhagen climate tactics
28 January 2010, Greenpeace
The EU has again missed a valuable opportunity to regain its international leadership on climate by failing to increase its commitment to cut greenhouse gases, preferring instead to simply re-hash its existing pledges, said Greenpeace. In a letter sent to the UN climate secretariat today, the EU has repeated its existing unconditional 20% emissions cut, and only a conditional 30% cut if other countries make comparable pledges.[1] The non-binding so-called Copenhagen accord calls on governments to put their emissions reduction pledges for 2020 on the table by 31 January.
Reacting to the letter, Greenpeace EU climate policy director Joris den Blanken said: "The EU is starting to sound like a broken record. Its back-seat tactics did not work in Copenhagen and they continue to fail today. The only way the EU can exert any international leverage is if it increases its domestic emissions target to 30%.”
Den Blanken continued: “The EU misleadingly flaunts its 20% emissions target as a climate gold standard, while in fact it’s only half of what is needed. Science requires that we do more, technology shows us that we can do more and economics predicts that we will benefit if we make the effort.”
Greenpeace calls on EU leaders who will meet in Brussels on 11 February and 25-26 March to support an upgrade of Europe’s unconditional emissions reduction commitment to 30%.
The Copenhagen Accord’s stated objective is to "hold the increase in global temperature below 2 degrees Celsius" – widely viewed as a critical upper limit to avoid catastrophic climate change. Current pledges place the world on a path to an increase of average global temperature of over 3 degrees Celsius.
Ensuring that global temperature rise remains under 2 degrees Celsius requires industrialised countries to cut their emissions by 40% below 1990 levels by 2020. In addition, developing nations would need to reduce their projected growth in emissions by 15-30%.

1.5. Copenhagen climate deal gets low-key endorsement
31 January 2010, Reuters
Nations accounting for most of the world’s greenhouse gas emissions have restated their promises to fight climate change, meeting a Sunday deadline in a low-key endorsement of December’s "Copenhagen Accord."
Green Business | COP15
Experts say their promised curbs on greenhouse gas emissions by 2020 are too small so far to meet the accord’s key goal of limiting global warming to less than 2 degrees Celsius (3.6 Fahrenheit) above pre-industrial times.
The U.N. Climate Change Secretariat plans to publish a list of submissions on Monday. That may put pressure on all capitals to keep their promises.
Countries accounting for at least two-thirds of emissions — led by China, the United States and the European Union — have all written in. Smaller emitters, from the Philippines to Mali, have also sent promises or asked to be associated with the deal.
The Secretariat says the January 31 deadline is flexible.
"Most of the industrialized countries’ (promises) are in the ‘inadequate’ category," said Niklas Hoehne, director of energy and climate policy at climate consultancy Ecofys, which assesses how far national commitments will help limit climate change.
"The U.S. is not enough, the European Union is not enough. For the major developed countries it’s still far behind what is expected, except for Japan and Norway," he said.
Some developing nations, such as Brazil or Mexico, were making relatively greater efforts, he said.
The accord’s goal of limiting warming to below 2 C — meant to help limit floods, droughts, wildfires and rising seas — is twinned with promises of $28 billion in aid for developing nations from 2010-12, rising to $100 billion a year from 2020.
Ecofys reckons that the promised curbs will set the world toward a 3.5 degrees Celsius rise in temperatures, not 2.
PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP said that on current projections the world would exceed an estimated "carbon emissions budget" for the first half of this century by 2034, 16 years ahead of schedule.
The European Union plans to cut emissions by 20 percent below 1990 levels by 2020, and 30 percent if others make deep cuts. The United States plans a cut of 17 percent below 2005 levels by 2020, or 4 percent below 1990 levels.
"Carbon prices look set to remain relatively low until economic growth picks up or until a more ambitious target is adopted," Richard Gledhill, a climate expert at PricewaterhouseCoopers, said of the EU goal.
"This will continue to delay major capital investment in low carbon technology," he said in a statement.
The Copenhagen Accord, reached after a summit on December 18 in Denmark, was not adopted as a U.N. plan for shifting from fossil fuels after opposition by a handful of developing nations such as Venezuela and Sudan.
One possible complication is that some countries, including China and India, have written to the United Nations giving 2020 targets but without explicitly backing the Copenhagen Accord. The U.N. has asked all to take sides by January 31.
An Indian document sent to the U.N. Secretariat does not mention the accord, for instance, but says it is giving details of plans to 2020 "in view of the current debate under way in the international climate negotiations."


2.1. Zapatero announces EU electric car plan
20 January 2010, Euobserver
Spanish Prime Minister Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero has provided further details of his vision for the EU’s 2020 economic strategy, including measures to promote electric car production in Europe.
Speaking before the European Parliament on Wednesday (20 January), the Socialist leader, whose country currently holds the EU’s six-month rotating presidency, said the 27-member union would embark on a major new project to promote electric-car production.
"The other day I met together with a group of companies, some of the most important in Europe, and it was felt it was fundamental that there should be co-operation and integration of efforts in developing the electric vehicle," he told MEPs.
"If our markets don’t have a regulatory framework to provide financial support, and if we don’t have common standards on the technologies, then it will be difficult for Europe to take a leading role," he added.
EU industry ministers are set to launch the plan at a meeting on the 8 February in the Spanish seaside town of San Sebastian.
Greater energy self-sufficiency will also be key to sustainable European growth, said the Spanish leader whose country was one of the worst hit by the recent recession.
"In the last ten years … our energy consumption has gone up by nine percent," he told euro deputies. "We need to reduce our dependence. If we don’t reduce it we won’t be able to have any economic growth."
At present roughly 58 percent of the gas used by European homes and industry comes from outside the EU, with last January’s dispute between Russia and the Ukraine and the subsequent European energy crisis highlighting the bloc’s vulnerability.
EU leaders have scheduled for a brainstorming session next month to debate priorities for the EU’s new economic blueprint. The Spanish leader also cited the need to strengthen Europe’s information society sector and redouble efforts to step up research and education.

2.2. Oil demand has peaked in developed world: IEA
28 January 2010, Reuters
Oil use in rich industrialized countries will never return to 2006 and 2007 levels because of more fuel efficiency and the use of alternatives, the chief economist of the International Energy Agency said on Thursday.
The bold prediction, while made previously by some analysts, is significant because the IEA advises 28 countries on energy policy and its oil demand forecasts are closely watched by traders and policymakers.
"When we look at the OECD countries — the U.S., Europe and Japan — I think the level of demand that we have seen in 2006 and 2007, we will never see again," Fatih Birol told Reuters in a telephone interview.
"There may be some zig zags up and down but as a trend I think it will be a downward trend in terms of oil consumption."
Flat or declining OECD demand may ease any strain on oil prices caused by ever-growing consumption in emerging economies. The Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) countries will account for 53 percent of world demand in 2010, according to the IEA. In its January 15 monthly Oil Market Report, the IEA forecast OECD demand would average 45.48 million barrels per day (bpd) in 2010, unchanged from 2009. World demand is forecast at 86.33 million bpd, up from 84.89 million in 2009.
Birol said the economic crisis had played a role in curbing OECD demand but the main reasons were more efficient cars and the increasing use of electricity and gas instead of oil in areas outside transport.
"It did play a role. The recession had a one-off effect," said Birol, who spoke to Reuters from the sidelines of the Davos conference of business leaders. "But the main factors are structural."
BP Plc Chief Executive Tony Hayward, also in Davos, said on Thursday demand for gasoline would not return to the rate of three years ago in established markets.
"None of us will sell more gasoline than we sold in 2007," he said, referring to developed markets. "That’s, however, being offset by very strong … markets of the East and particularly China."
In China, 13 million cars were sold last year, he said.
Interest in peak demand has grown following the surge in oil prices to a record high near $150 a barrel in 2008, a decline in world demand because of the economic crisis and efforts to combat climate change.
Reuters reported a year ago, citing analysts including the former chief economist at BP Plc, that oil demand may never return to growth in the United States, Europe and parts of Asia.
While non-OECD demand is expected to keep world oil use on a growing trend, some believe global consumption could reach a high point in the next decades as a result of policies to tackle climate change.
Saudi Arabia , which as the world’s largest oil exporter has a lot to lose from a decline in oil demand, is worried about future consumption, its lead climate negotiator told Reuters earlier this month.
Muhammed al-Sabban, head of the Saudi delegation to UN talks on climate change, said the possibility that oil demand might peak this decade was a "serious problem" for Saudi Arabia.
Birol did not give any timeframe for any peak global oil demand, but said a move toward more efficient vehicles in developing markets could dampen the expected emerging country growth.
"If there is a transformation in the transport sector, it may also slow down the growth substantially."
"Advanced-car technologies … are very strong pushed in many countries."

2.3. Approval sought for new Slovenian reactor
29 January 2010, WNN
An application towards a second reactor at Slovenia’s Krsko nuclear power plant has submitted to the country’s ministry of economy by GEN Energija.
GEN Energija said that the application was supported by technical studies and analysis that show that the construction of new reactors is justified from energy, economic and environmental perspectives. The plant, it said, would provide a sufficient, reliable and safe supply of electricity at competitive and long-term predictable prices and with virtually no greenhouse gas emissions.
In Slovenia, government permission must be obtained for any power facility with a generating capacity of more than 1 MWe before siting procedures can begin. In an application, the minister of economy must be provided with information on the type and size of the proposed plant, conditions for the supply of energy from the plant, as well as plans for its decommissioning at the end of its operating life. In its application, GEN Energija formally verified that the project to construct a second reactor at Krsko is in line with Slovenia’s energy policy.
Plans call for a new reactor of some 1000 MWe capacity to be built at Krsko. A parliamentary decision on the new unit is expected later this year. If approved, serious and detailed planning could begin with the aim of completing the unit between 2020 and 2025, at a cost estimated by GEN Energija of up to €5 billion ($7 billion).
A 696 MWe Westinghouse reactor is currently in operation at Krsko, which is jointly owned by Croatia. Construction started in 1975 and it was connected to the grid in 1981, entering commercial operation in 1983. Its operational life was designed to be 40 years, but a 20-year extension is being sought.
The plant’s operating company Nuklearna Elektrarna Krsko (NEK) is co-owned by GEN Energija, a subsidiary of state-owned Elektro-Slovenija (ELES), and the Croatian state-owned company Hrvatska Elektroprivreda (HEP). The Krsko plant currently provides more than one-quarter of Slovenia’s and roughly one-fifth of Croatia’s electricity.
The new unit at Krsko would be entirely owned by Slovenia. Croatia is considering building a new 1000 MWe nuclear plant of its own, in Eastern Slavonia, near the Serbian border.

2.4. Europe launches nuclear academy
29 January 2010, WNN
The European Nuclear Energy Leadership Academy (Enela) has been launched. The academy aims to attract university graduates to the nuclear energy sector and to train future leaders in this field.
The founding treaty establishing the academy has been signed by six nuclear energy-related companies: Areva, Axpo, EnBW, EOn Kernkraft, Urenco and Vattenfall. The partners also held their first shareholders meeting at the same time as signing the treaty, which covers the essential strategic, legal and financial aspects of the academy.
Enela was initiated by the industrial stakeholders in the European Nuclear Energy Forum (Enef), set up by the European Commission in 2007 as a platform for a broad stakeholder discussion on opportunities, risks and transparency issues of nuclear energy.
In a joint statement, the founding partners said: "In the wake of Europe’s nuclear energy renaissance, the purpose of the academy is to train young graduates and high potential employees with different backgrounds to become leaders or to prepare them to take broader responsibilities in European nuclear energy corporations and institutions."
Enela will be located in Germany at the Garching campus of the Technical University Munich. Jean-Claude Gauthier, senior vice president of Areva NP is designated to be the first director of Enela. The academy’s program – which will begin in 2011 – will offer both a comprehensive nuclear energy management program and a leadership cycle based on a theoretical and practical approach focusing on specific European requirements and specifications, with regards to economics, politics, technology, legislation, safety standards and certifications. The academy will also serve as a think-tank, bringing together members of the international nuclear community, comprising employers, prospective employees, as well as political and social opinion leaders.
"This is a very important and unique signal," said Stephan Döhler, executive vice president of Axpo. "The academy addresses the strong need for joining our efforts in attracting and training on an international level the best heads for the European nuclear energy community." Walter Hohlefelder of EOn Kernkraft added: "Today marks the birth of what could become in the future the one European institution in the field of nuclear energy management and leadership training. Enela welcomes further organizations and institutions to support or join the initiative."
EU energy commissioner Andris Piebalgs welcomed Enela’s establishment, saying: "The nuclear sector faces a serious challenge: it needs to keep and develop knowledge on nuclear at an appropriate level. This is a matter of concern not only to the industry, but also for researchers, regulators and the health sector." He added, "Enela, by focussing on leadership skills, can help to close the gap in existing training programs."


3.1. U.S. pledges 17 percent emissions reduction by 2020
29 January 2010, The Washington Post
The United States pledged Thursday to cut its greenhouse gas emissions by 17 percent by 2020 from 2005 levels under an international climate agreement, though it made its commitment contingent on passing legislation at home.
The Obama administration submitted its much-anticipated reduction target to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change Secretariat under the Copenhagen Accord, a non-binding deal brokered by the United States last month at the U.N.-sponsored climate talks. Under the deal President Obama helped secure in Copenhagen, major emitters of greenhouse gases are expected to "inscribe" their reduction targets by Jan. 31.
The commitment states that the United States will cut its emissions "in the range of 17 percent, in conformity with anticipated U.S. energy and climate legislation, recognizing that the final target will be reported to the Secretariat in light of enacted legislation." It remains unclear if Congress will pass a comprehensive climate bill this year.
Ned Helme, president of the D.C.-based Center for Clean Air Policy, said as the deadline approaches, it is becoming clear that the world’s biggest carbon emitters are going to follow through on voluntary pledges they made in the run-up to last month’s talks.
"Now the smoke has cleared, people are now taking the Copenhagen Accord more seriously," Helme said. "You’re going to see all the major players sign up."
Several key developing nations, such as China and India, have not yet indicated what they will commit to under the agreement.
Todd Stern, the U.S. special envoy on climate change, said in a statement Thursday the administration expects "that all major economies will honor their agreement in Copenhagen to submit their mitigation targets or actions as provided in the Accord."
On the same day the United States made its pledge public, the low-lying Marshall Islands announced it would reduce emissions 40 percent by 2020 under the accord. "If one of the smallest and most vulnerable island states can take action, the largest countries have no excuse not to follow our example," said Marshall Islands Foreign Minister John Silk.

3.2. Oslo reiterates pledge of at least 30 pct CO2 cut
28 January 2010, Reuters
Norway reaffirmed on Thursday a unilateral pledge to cut its greenhouse gas emissions by at least 30 percent by 2020 as part of international efforts to combat global warming.
Green Business | COP15
Environment Minister Erik Solheim also restated a policy announced in October that Oslo was willing to deepen the cuts to 40 percent below 1990 levels if other nations showed more ambition as part of an international agreement.
"For now we will report in the 30 to 40 percent range," he told a news conference, referring to a letter to be sent to the U.N. Climate Change Secretariat before a January 31 deadline.
Even a pledge to cut by 30 percent would be among the most ambitious of any developed nation. Norway, which has a $450 billion fund built up from oil revenues, can afford to buy carbon emissions quotas to supplement cuts in domestic emissions.
Last month’s Copenhagen Accord set a January 31 deadline for countries to say if they want to be associated with a deal, worked out by nations including the United States and China, and to outline their greenhouse gas curbs to 2020.
"We have to ensure that everything promised in Copenhagen is carried out," Solheim said. The accord set a goal of limiting warming to below 2 degrees Celsius (3.6 Fahrenheit) and a target for aid to developing nations of $100 billion a year from 2020.
Other nations have also stuck to existing carbon promises without raising their ambitions since Copenhagen.


4.1. Regional Nuclear Campaigner
The fact that the promotion of nuclear energy as alternative to fossil fuel plants is already finding expression in the national Power Development Plans of countries in the region (Thailand/Indonesia/Philippines) requires that we add capacity to the existing GPSEA C&E team to help neutralize the resurgence of nuclear power proposals in the region. Winning the anti-nuclear battle in SEA is a crucial part of the globally agreed strategy to prevent the expansion of dirty and dangerous nuclear energy which undermines real solutions to climate change.
Inspired by the vision to be the leading and most compelling environmental organization in Southeast Asia, we are looking for passionate, creative, and dynamic team players who want to make a difference to help in the implementation of Greenpeace’s ongoing campaigns. .
Greenpeace Southeast Asia is currently looking for:
Regional Nuclear Campaigner
(Contract Position – 1 year)
The Climate and Energy Campaigner (Nuclear Campaigner) will play a key role in GPSEA’s Climate and Energy campaign primarily focusing on Nuclear energy issues and taking on the objective of stopping the resurgence of nuclear power proposals in the region, assisting the campaign in Thailand, Philippines and Indonesia where nuclear energy development is gaining serious consideration by government agencies.
The campaigner will serve as GPSEA’s key representative on Nuclear energy issues in Southeast Asia based out of Indonesia, Philippines or Thailand and work towards the goals of GPSEA’s Climate and Energy campaign within the framework of the agreed international program.
Bangkok , Thailand
Deadline for applications: February 25, 2010
More at:


5.1. UNFCCC events in 2010
See more at:


Disclaimer: We do not guarantee for the accuracy, reliability or content of information. For help or questions, contact: [email protected]. style="border: 0 !important; background: transparent;"/>