1.1. US climate strategies appear to be losing steam
22 May 2009, EurActiv
US-led talks on strategies for major nations to fight global warming may stop short of setting firm new targets and dates, such as 2050 goals for greenhouse gas emissions, Washington’s top climate envoy said on 21 May.
Todd Stern said Washington wanted major economies including China, the European Union and Russia to seek more common ground on issues such as green technology, finance and emissions cuts at talks in Paris on May 25-26.
The talks are the second among major nations accounting for about 80% of world greenhouse gas emissions under a plan by US President Barack Obama to contribute to a new UN climate pact due to be agreed in Copenhagen in December.
Stern told Reuters that many nations viewed the meetings as "a place where actual progress may be made on issues that otherwise would hang up the (UN) negotiations".
But Stern, who is US Special Envoy for Climate Change, said the US-run Major Economies Forum (MEF) would not necessarily seek to culminate in July with agreement on firm greenhouse gas targets and dates.
"It may be that we have some numbers […] in July. The honest answer is that I don’t know yet," he said in a telephone interview. A MEF summit is due on the margins of a summit of the Group of Eight industrial nations in Italy in July.
Paris is the second preparatory ministerial meeting after one in Washington in April. A third is due in Mexico in June.
Asked if Washington might try to get MEF nations to agree to harden a "vision" of halving world greenhouse gas emissions by 2050 agreed by a G8 summit in Japan last year, Stern said:
"I don’t think it’s necessarily a question of thinking about this all in terms of whether there will be a 2050 (target) as much as ‘are countries going to move towards agreeing a set of principles of the kind that will advance the ball in Copenhagen?’
Droughts, floods
The UN talks comprise almost 200 nations, aiming for a deal to rein in warming that the U.N. Climate Panel says will cause more droughts, floods, crop failures, spread disease and raise sea levels.
The Paris talks will group Australia, Brazil, Britain, Canada, China, the European Union, France, Germany, India, Indonesia, Italy, Japan, South Korea, Mexico, Russia, South Africa and the United States. Denmark as host of the Copenhagen meeting and the United Nations are also invited.
Obama has promised to cut US emissions to 1990 levels by 2020, a cut of about 14% from 2007
levels. Many developing nations, led by China and India, say the rich should make far deeper cuts.
Stern also said he was not worried that a bill under consideration by the House Energy and Commerce Committee would water down Obama’s goal of auctioning 100% of permits to emit carbon dioxide to industries.
Under the draft sponsored by Representatives Henry Waxman and Edward Markey, about 85% of permits would initially be given away free to industries as part of a system to cap U.S. emissions and allow a carbon trading market.
"I’m actually not worried about that at all," Stern said of the free allowances. "The Waxman bill still has a long road to go. The road ahead will not be easy."
"The issue of having 100% auctions is a great policy idea but we are always in the realm of the art of the possible," he said. "A cap is a cap. If it binds it binds. If some emissions go over some period of time to compensate people or companies who are hard hit I think that’s part of the process."
Speaking at a press conference during the EU-China Summit, which took place on 20 May in Prague, Commission president José Manuel Barroso urged all major economies to disclose their positions on climate change in order to make a deal possible in Copenhagen by the end of the year.
"Building on our Climate Change Partnership, which we agreed in 2005, the EU and China can make a difference on the road to ‘seal the deal’ in Copenhagen by the end of the year," Barroso said. "We are already working together on practical and sustainable solutions to today’s challenges, as reflected in the Statement on Cooperation on Clean Energy that we signed today."
"And multilaterally, we agree on a lot: on the scale of the challenges – most importantly, to cut global greenhouse gas emissions in half by 2050. We agree on the need for action by all countries according to the principle of common but differentiated responsibilities.
Now what is needed is a clear engagement of all major economies to make a deal possible in Copenhagen. For that to happen, each of us must put his positions on the table. The EU has already done it to a large extent.
The USA is moving in the right direction and I want to praise President Obama for the important measures regarding car emissions announced yesterday. I am sure that China will also engage fully and build on progress made recently. We will have the occasion to come back to this in our discussions around the G8 Summit in Italy in July."

1.2. World Bank sees key role for offsets in post-Kyoto deal
22 May 2009, EurActiv
Emissions offsets will play an important role in any future global climate deal, but it will be necessary to scale up the climate efforts and move from projects to programmes, Joëlle Chassard, who manages the World Bank’s carbon finance unit, told EurActiv in an interview.
"We expect that international offsets will continue to be part of the future landscape, mainly as a way to encourage and provide financial incentives to developing countries to undertake climate change mitigation immediately," Chassard said.
In the World Bank’s view, the enormous development needs of poor countries would justify continuing to provide them with initial financing under the Kyoto Protocol’s clean development (CDM) or Joint Implementation (JI) mechanisms, she explained.
International offsets have been criticised on the grounds that they hinder emissions cuts in industrialised countries, by allowing them to invest in projects that reduce emissions in developing countries instead of financing more expensive emission reduction at home.
Chassard argued that international offsets lower global mitigation costs, allowing the international community to adopt more ambitious reduction targets.
"We have the evidence that Europe and Japan are doing a lot domestically, but they are also relying partly on international offsets to meet their overall reduction targets. I don’t see that as a problem," she concluded.
In its proposals for a global climate deal, the European Commission wants entire industrial sectors in advanced developing countries like China to first meet certain efficiency or emissions standards before earning CDM credits.
Chassard said the World Bank supports this idea, and said it is already working on what it sees as a real evolution: to move from projects to programmes, and eventually to comprehensive and strategic national mitigation plans.
"With the challenge we are facing, […] we now think that we need to find ways to scale up these mitigation efforts and the use of market mechanisms to achieve large-scale mitigation and emissions reductions," she argued.
On the EU’s desire to create an OECD-wide carbon market, Chassard said she expected this to happen only gradually. "But yes, we think that is the way to go," she stated, adding that the experience of carbon markets so far had been positive.
Chassard agreed, however, with many developing countries that the market cannot deliver all the necessary financing. "What the market has facilitated in our view is leverage of significant amounts of private-sector financing to support investment in climate change mitigation. It’s one instrument, but cannot be the only one," she said.
Chassard pointed out that the regular lending operations of the World Bank are already providing financing for developing countries. The bank is increasing its focus on climate change mitigation and adaptation activities, she added.
Asked which financial instruments she would like to see included in the Copenhagen climate deal, Chassard stressed the importance of creating a framework to encourage pure investment financing from both the public and private sectors, to meet the objectives of the climate change convention.
"We haven’t found the magic instrument," she said. "We believe very strongly in making the best use of the ability to package different financing instruments to actually deliver large-scale programmes for climate change mitigation and also adaptation," she concluded.

1.3. House panel approves climate change bill
21 May 2009, Reuters
President Barack Obama’s fight against global warming got a huge boost on Thursday when a key congressional panel embraced his plan to create a new, market-driven system for reducing greenhouse gas emissions.
The House of Representatives Energy and Commerce Committee, with a mostly partisan vote of 33-25, embraced Obama’s "cap and trade" climate change initiative — one of the president’s top legislative priorities this year along with healthcare reform.
Representative Henry Waxman, the committee’s chairman, said the bill advanced because it had "substantial support from industry, labor and environmental groups from across the country."
Among the major U.S. companies that have endorsed a cap and trade program are Alcoa, DuPont, Caterpillar Inc and a coalition of electric power companies.
With the panel’s vote, the measure moved closer to a vote in the full House, which could occur by August after other committees review and possibly refine the legislation.
Democratic supporters say they want enactment of a bill this year but the outlook in the Senate was unclear.
The White House is hoping that at least significant progress will aid efforts culminating in December in Copenhagen for a new international pact on cutting industrial emissions linked to climate change problems.
"President Obama has made it clear that he wants to go to Copenhagen as the leader and not the laggard, which we have been over the last eight years," said Representative Edward Markey, a Democrat who wrote the bill with Waxman. He was taking a swipe at former President George W. Bush, who refused to sign onto the existing Kyoto Protocol on reducing carbon emissions, saying it would be too harmful to the U.S. economy.
In a statement after the vote on the legislation, Obama said: "We are now one step closer to delivering on the promise of a new clean energy economy that will make America less dependent on foreign oil, crack down on polluters, and create millions of new jobs all across America."
The roughly 1,000-page bill aims to cut U.S. greenhouse gases that contribute to global warming by 17 percent below 2005 levels by the year 2020 and 83 percent by 2050.
The legislation also requires utilities to generate 15 percent of their electricity supplies by 2020 from renewable energy sources, such as wind and solar power.
The heart of the legislation is a "cap-and-trade" system that would gradually reduce the amount of greenhouse gases from utilities, oil refineries, steelmakers and other companies by requiring them to have permits to spew their emissions.
Supporters of the bill want to use market forces to push companies to reduce their emissions. Companies that pollute above their limit would have to buy permits from less polluting companies, encouraging firms to quickly cut their emissions so they can make a profit from selling the permits that initially will mostly be issued by the government for free.
Republicans argue such a plan would further slow an ailing U.S. economy, raise energy prices for consumers and speed the exodus of manufacturers using large amounts of energy to lower-cost countries such as China and India.
Representative Joe Barton, the senior Republican on the House Energy and Commerce Committee, challenged the central notion that humans contribute to global warming and climate change and he noted the past several years of lower average temperatures.
Some environmentalists complained that the Waxman-Markey bill had become too soft on carbon reductions and alternative energy requirements. At the same time many of the groups applauded what could be the toughest bill politically doable.
Frances Beinecke, president of the Natural Resources Defense Council, said the bill would create "millions of good-paying American jobs" and was "an historic step to unleash clean energy and rein in global warming pollution."
House Republican leader John Boehner has predicted an opposite outcome and said this "national energy tax would have a particularly devastating impact on rural communities across the nation" where fuels make up a large part of agricultural and commuting costs.
During four days of committee debate, Republicans on the committee failed to win new breaks for the nuclear power industry and to kill the cap and trade program.
But they won new breaks for the agriculture, ethanol and oil industry by including government-backed loans to help finance the building of pipelines that carry renewable energy such as ethanol.

1.4. Business leaders meet on climate change
24 May 2009, AFP
Business leaders, academics and politicians are set to meet in the Danish capital Copenhagen Sunday to explore how industry can help fight against global warming.
UN Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon, European Commission president Jose Manuel Barroso and former US vice-president turned climate campaigner Al Gore will be among the delegates attending the World Business Summit on Climate Change.
Gore is scheduled to deliver the keynote speech at the conference at 1200 GMT.
Executives from some of the world’s leading companies such Intel Corporation, BP and Siemens will discuss ways companies can help reduce greenhouse gases without hampering economic growth. The meeting also aims to encourage businesses to invest in green technology and promote more efficient use of energy resources.
Think tank Mandag Morgen, which is organising the conference, wants to raise awareness of environmental issues before the Danish capital hosts the UN’s Climate Change Conference later this year.
The UN hopes to approve a new global warming treaty for the period after 2012, when the Kyoto Protocol’s obligations to cut carbon emissions expire.
The European Union has already said it will slash emissions by 20 percent by 2020 and raise the target to 30 percent if others set similarly ambitious targets.
Former US president George W. Bush refused to sign up to the Kyoto treaty over fears it would harm his country’s economy.
But his successor, President Barack Obama, is taking a tougher stance on the environment.
Lawmakers in the US Congress opened the debate last week on a "clean energy" bill that aims to reduce greenhouse gas emissions 17 percent from 2005 levels by 2020 and create "green" jobs.


2.1. EU defends cap-and-trade scheme as 2008 data unveiled
18 May 2009, EurActiv
Factories covered by the EU’s emissions trading scheme (EU ETS) saw their emissions drop by 3.06% last year, according to the European Commission, which sees the data as evidence that the system is working despite the ongoing economic recession.
The emissions amounted to the equivalent of 2.118 billion tonnes of CO2, with Germany, the UK and Italy topping the list of the most polluting countries, according to final data published on Friday (15 May).
These were also the countries that faced the biggest shortages of emissions allowances, forcing industries there to go out shopping for more rights to pollute (EurActiv 06/05/09).
Last year saw the launch the second phase of the EU ETS, during which the number of EU allowances (EUAs) will be cut by 6.5%. The Commission stated that in light of the new data, the ETS had now finally started to fulfil its purpose of bringing down emissions of global warming gases.
A successful second trading phase of the ETS is crucial for December’s international negotiations aiming at hammering out a post-Kyoto climate deal.
"The 3% reduction was partly due to businesses taking measures to cut their emissions in response to the strong carbon price that prevailed until the economic downturn started. It confirms that the EU has a well-functioning trading system, with a robust cap, a clear price signal and a liquid market, which is helping us to cut emissions cost-effectively," said EU Environment Commissioner Stavros Dimas.
As roughly half of the EU 27 ended up having to buy ETS credits last year, the Commission argued that the emission reductions were partially a result of installations investing in reduction activities. However, the onset of the recession has had a major impact on the ETS sectors, leading to lower emissions due to declining orders.
The downturn sent the robust carbon prices of last year plummeting in early 2009 as installations sold their surplus credits to raise capital (EurActiv 09/02/09). But they have since recovered amid a more optimistic economic outlook (EurActiv 15/05/09).
Barbara Helfferich, the European Commission’s environment spokeswoman, said it was not possible to know exactly what proportion of the 3% cut was due to the ETS.
Nevertheless, she downplayed the impact of the economic crisis on the 2008 data. "Those figures were accumulated before the economic downturn when the price was rather high," she told journalists on Friday.
Offsets small
The emissions data also showed that companies did not make much use of the option to offset a part of their emissions via the international mechanisms set out in the Kyoto Protocol. Indeed, using credits from the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) or the Joint Implementation (JI) mechanism became an alternative to cutting emissions domestically or buying EUAs for the first time last year.
The figures reveal, however, that EU installations decided to use only around 6% of the 1.4 billion credits available for the 2008-2012 trading period on international offsets in 2008. 41% of the CDM credits were generated by projects in China and almost a third in India.
Free allowances dominate
Overall, European power and industrial installations received 92% of their allowances for free last year. International offsets made up 3.9%, meaning only 4.1% of the allowances were either bought at auction or taken from 2009 allowances.
The Commission commended EU industries for their high level of compliance with the rules. It noted that less than 1% of mainly small companies participating in the ETS had failed to match their emissions with the required amount of allowances.
The EU has put its political weight behind the goal of creating an OECD-wide carbon market by 2015. As countries such as the US, Canada and Australia are engaged in debates over domestic emissions trading schemes, Commissioner Dimas said the emissions reductions in the EU industrial sector last year should "encourage other countries in their efforts to set up comparable domestic cap-and-trade systems".

2.2. China Looks for Big Cuts in Emissions
22 May 2009, The Wall Street Journal
China, in a new document outlining its stance ahead of December climate talks in Copenhagen, says it wants developed nations to cut their greenhouse-gas emissions by at least 40% by 2020 from 1990 levels. But that is a far more aggressive cut than the level proposed in the U.S.’s Waxman-Markey bill. Europe, in turn, has pledged to cut emissions by at least 20% by 2020 from 1990 levels, and by 30% if other advanced economies follow suit.
The divergent views come as negotiations begin in earnest for a successor to the Kyoto Protocol, which expires at the end of 2012. China’s 40% target represents the high end of cuts in emissions mentioned in the 2007 Bali road map, which stopped short of endorsing a specific target.
China is also asking rich countries to donate at least 0.5% to 1% of annual gross domestic product to help poorer countries cope with climate change and greenhouse-gas emissions, it said in the document, which was posted on the Web site of the National Development and Reform Commission, its economic policy-making body.
China has resisted any mandatory quotas on carbon emissions. The country is widely considered to have surpassed the U.S. as the world’s top polluter.
But the Obama administration’s push to adopt limits on carbon emissions is also isolating China, which has argued that the U.S. should take steps before poorer nations do.
India has also refused to accept any carbon caps, arguing like China that they would limit economic growth and unfairly penalize late-developing nations. Europe and the U.S. generated the bulk of the carbon gas already in the atmosphere, they argue, and should bear a greater burden of the cost to fix it.


3.1. Kazakhstan Continues Technical Feasibility Study To Host Nuclear Fuel Bank
18 May 2009, CBR
Kazakhstan is continuing study of the plan to host the international nuclear fuel bank in its territory, Kazakh Atomic Energy Committee Chairman Timur Zhantikin said. The country is reviewing the technical details to host the international nuclear fuel bank and discussing the fuel bank’s location. Once the technical feasibility study of the plan is proved, Kazakhstan will offer to host the international nuclear fuel bank to the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA).
Zhantikin has underlined at the same time that ensuring the ecological and environmental security of Kazakhstan will be the main concern in formulating the program for constructing the international fuel bank.
Kazakhstan President Nursultan Nazarbayev said if the international community needs to establish a bank for the nuclear fuel, Kazakhstan could consider hosting such a depository.
Previously, Kazakhstan had approached the US on hosting the international nuclear fuel bank in its territory, so that nations that renounce nuclear weapons could purchase fissile fuels for peaceful use of nuclear energy.

3.2. Ethanol formula, climate bill collide in House
19 May 2009, Reuters
Democratic leaders in the U.S. House of Representatives must change existing biofuel rules if they want to pass a bill to regulate greenhouse gas emissions, the House Agriculture Committee chairman said on Tuesday.
Rep. Collin Peterson, chairman of the panel, along with nearly four dozen other farm-state lawmakers, has sponsored a bill to amend the 2007 Energy law so indirect land use change will not factor into calculating greenhouse gas emissions from production of advanced biofuels.
For instance, the 2007 law penalizes makers of advanced biofuels such as biodiesel and cellulosic ethanol if farmers clear forest or grasslands for food crops to replace the crops devoted to biofuels.
Peterson and the bill’s cosponsors say this unfairly makes it hard for ethanol and biodiesel makers to qualify as advanced biofuels under a federal mandate. Their bill also would make more land eligible to produce biomass for advanced biofuels.
"These are things we need fixed before we vote on climate change," said Peterson during a telephone interview.
He said the issue of biofuels intermeshed with the climate change bill being drafted by the Energy and Commerce Committee, to control greenhouse gases. As an example, he said lawmakers who want to change the ethanol formula also oppose suggestions to allow greenhouse gas offsets overseas.
"What it comes down to is, if they want the (climate change) bill passed, I think they better deal with us," said Peterson, referring to House Democratic leaders and Rep. Henry Waxman, chairman of the Energy and Commerce Committee.
Frank Lucas of Oklahoma, Republican leader on the House Agriculture Committee, said the biofuels bill was a way to draw attention to the need to change the formula and to emphasize the potential of renewable energy in rural America.
The 2007 energy law directs the Environmental Protection Agency to consider indirect land use change within the United States and in other countries when gauging if biofuels reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
Critics say there are no reliable ways to tell how much land is brought into crop production to make up for fields being used for biofuels. It is particularly difficult, they say, to prove the linkage in nations that are hundreds or thousands of miles away.


3.3. Cash-for-clunkers program crashes up against the environment
17 May 2009, LA Times
The automakers are filling up again at the Capitol Hill bailout pump. The latest idea is "cash for clunkers."
Interested in junking your old gas-guzzling Hummer — or maybe Lincoln Town Car or Chevy Blazer — for a new vehicle?
If the gas mileage of any 2009 model passenger car you buy is just 4 miles per gallon better than the one you are now driving, you could pick up $3,500 from taxpayers as part of the deal.
And if your new vehicle produces more significant improvements in fuel economy over your old vehicle’s — 5 miles per gallon more for trucks and 10 miles per gallon more for cars — you could get $4,500.
This auto bailout legislation, now being considered as part of the energy bill making its way to the House floor, would provide subsidies from the U.S. Treasury to encourage potential car and truck buyers to ditch their current wheels and drive home new ones.
The auto companies have made terrible mistakes — hundreds of thousands of them in any color you want. They are sitting on dealers’ lots across the country. "Cash for clunkers" is Detroit’s proposal to move them onto the streets. And it comes with a "good for the environment" gloss.
Beware. It’s another Detroit bait and switch.
The proposal, which has not undergone the scrutiny of public hearings, offers various incentives for sending your old vehicle to the crusher and buying a new one, based on the category of vehicle and in some cases its age. That sounds green — getting old cars or low-miles-per-gallon cars off the road in favor of newer, more efficient ones — but in most cases, the improvements called for are just slightly better. The mileage threshold for the new vehicle can even be less than the CAFE (for Corporate Average Fuel Economy) standards set by the U.S. Department of Transportation.
At its worst, the bill would in effect allow a guzzler-for-guzzler swap: Scrap a pre-2002 "work truck" weighing more than 8,500 pounds (and some of the most gigantic Dodge Rams or Ford Super Duty pickups fit that description) for a new 8,500-pound behemoth, and a $3,500 subsidy is yours. And there are no mileage questions asked — it’s presumed the newer models will have better mileage and qualify, even if it’s as little as a 1-mile-per-gallon difference.
The cost of all this to the federal Treasury? As much as $4 billion. For the additional red ink the bill would produce in the federal budget, shouldn’t it contain something really green?
The White House has blessed the bill. It is emerging in coming days from the House Committee on Energy and Commerce, chaired by Rep. Henry A. Waxman (D-Beverly Hills).
The auto industry’s most powerful advocate in Congress, Rep. John D. Dingell (D-Mich.), has argued that the legislation would "result in hundreds of thousands of new vehicles being purchased across the country."
Never mind that these cars are already built and would eventually be sold, without federal incentives. The only question is: for how much?
Germany has tried a similar program. The Abwrackprämie, or "wreck rebate," began in January at a cost of 1.5 billion euros — about $2 billion. Car companies have come to rely on it and have successfully demanded its extension. The sticker price has reached 5 billion euros, with no end in sight.
Jos Dings, director of the European Federation for Transport and Environment, an environmental advocacy group in Brussels, calls it a "methadone program for addicted automakers."
Still, replacing a 9-year-old car with a new one in Potsdam is more likely to yield an environmental benefit than a similar switch in Pomona. U.S. fuel economy rates — and emissions — have remained essentially unchanged since 1989. In contrast, the gas mileage of some European cars has gone up, so emissions have gone down. For instance, a 2009 subcompact Ford Ka, typical of the cars available, emits 28% less carbon dioxide — the key culprit in climate change — than the 2000 model, according to the website
Nonetheless, a think tank study suggests, the effect of the program on car sales in Germany is limited. About 75% of the money is being used to sell cars that would have been sold without the subsidy, according to the Halle Institute for Economic Research.
Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) has proposed an alternative to the House measure. It would provide an incentive for the purchase of new or used vehicles and demand a significant improvement in fuel economy. Its vouchers would help pay for a car or truck carrying a fuel economy rating at least 25% better than the government target for the same class of vehicles. And the vehicle being turned in would have to have had a fuel economy rating of less than 15 miles per gallon when it was new.
But the auto industry has put the focus on the House bill, which it hopes will clear America’s most unwanted vehicles from dealer lots.
The competing pieces of legislation are on a collision course at one of the busiest Washington intersections this spring. That is where the need to stimulate the economy — in this case, by boosting auto sales — meets the need to fight global warming.
If automakers are going to get another bailout at our expense, the least we can demand is that we get something for our money. That should be cleaner, more efficient cars that cut global warming gases, wean the nation from its oil addiction and save money at the pump.

4.1. LCA negotiating text for Bonn


5.1. Anti Nuclear European Forum (ANEF)
on 17th of June in Linz,Austria
In the autumn of 2007 the European Nuclear Energy Forum (ENEF) was established. Within ENEF it was aimed that all aspects of this controversial form of energy should be discussed. Both, Czech Republic and Slovakia showed intensive efforts for the organization of ENEF. Semi-annual meetings take place in Prague and Bratislava alternately. The next ENEF meeting will be held in Prague on 28th – 29th of May 2009. This is already going to be the fourth meeting. Unfortunately, ENEF failed to fulfill ENEF´s official objectives and is used one-sided as a propaganda instrument for the promotion of nuclear power instead. The Prime Ministers Topolanek and Robert Fico used the opening of the forum several times for unqualified unilateral cheering speeches on nuclear energy, while the discussion of the negative aspects of nuclear energy use has been largely ignored, which resulted in increasing dissatisfaction of the critical participants.
A balanced discussion within the next ENEF meeting on 28th- 29th of May seems impossible and therefore we decided – after intensive discussions with Austrian and international NGOs –to organize a counter event – the European Anti-Nuclear Forum (ANEF) -, under which at least some of the negative aspects of nuclear energy will be discussed on an international level. At the same time ANEF aims to send a strong signal across Europe that the EU-funded renaissance of nuclear energy is not an appropriate instrument to fight climate change. The event is organized by the office of the Anti-nuclear Representative of Upper Austria – Radko Pavlovec-in cooperation with the NGO’s Antiatom Szene and Antiatom-Komitee. Your participation is very important because it needs a strong signal against the nuclear renaissance.
The organizers would like to warmly invite you to participate in ANEF. PARTICIPATE! Your participation is important!
Please register by sending an email to
to: [email protected]> [email protected] and to the office of the Antinuclear Representative of Upper Austria >>>

5.2. Take part! Be a participant on the tour!
We are expecting a total of 25 primarily young participants (around the age of 20-30) from the countries of the tour (Slovenia, Italy, Austria, Slovakia, Hungary). But applications from other countries might be considered as well. Application process is open and continuous till all places are filled.
Expected skills
* good biking,
* open-minded,
* good English,
* communicative,
* interested in the topics: environment protection, sustainability, active citizenship,
* tolerant,
* team-player
Entire tour
Date: 19.06.2009 Koper (Slovenia) – 20.07.2009 Pécs (Hungary)
Total distance (approx.): 740 km
Average distance of a day: 50 km
Days spent with pedalling: 17 days
All the costs are covered by the project for those, who take part on the whole tour, except the travelling costs (to Koper – starting point – and from Pecs – destination)
More at:

5.3. The Bonn Climate Change Talks – June 2009
1 – 12 June 2009
Bonn, Germany
The thirtieth sessions of the UNFCCC Convention subsidiary bodies – SBSTA and SBI, sixth session of the AWG-LCA and the eighth session of the AWG-KP will take place from Monday 1 June till Friday 12 June 2009 in Maritim, Bonn.
Agendas and more information on the meetings:


Disclaimer: We do not guarantee for the accuracy, reliability or content of information. For help or questions, contact: [email protected].