E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSS
Laurent Gillieron / EPA
A worker makes the last preparations Monday before the opening of the 43rd Annual Meeting of the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, where Ban Ki-moon, other world leaders and business people will meet.
UNITED NATIONS — U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon says his top hopes for 2013 are to reach a new agreement on climate change and to urgently end the increasingly deadly and divisive war in Syria.
The U.N. chief told The Associated Press that he's also hoping for progress in getting the global economy humming again, restarting Israeli-Palestinian peace negotiations, promoting political solutions in Mali, Congo and the Central African Republic, and providing energy, food and water to all people.
Ban laid out this ambitious wish list in an interview before heading to the World Economic Forum in Davos this week, saying he plans to take "the uncommon opportunity" of being with some 2,500 government, business and civil society leaders in the Swiss ski resort to exchange frank views on these issues.
"The world is now experiencing unprecedented challenges," Ban said.
"Climate change is fast happening — much, much faster than one would have expected," he said. "Climate and ecosystems are under growing strain."
Ban spoke before President Barack Obama, in his inaugural address Monday, put a similar emphasis on tackling climate change in his second term.
'Mobilize the political will'
Two-decade-old U.N. climate talks have so-far failed in their goal of reducing the carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gas emissions that a vast majority of scientists says are warming the planet.
In December, a U.N. climate conference in Doha, Qatar, agreed to extend the Kyoto Protocol, a treaty that limits the greenhouse gas output of some rich countries, and affirmed a previous decision to adopt a new global climate pact by 2015.
"I will do my best to mobilize the political will and resources so that the member states can agree to a new legally binding global agreement on climate change," Ban said.
Ban urged progress in getting nations and people to use the world's limited resources without waste and in ways to ensure their replacement, so that all people will have enough to eat and drink and there will be electricity for their homes — and have energy to spare to promote economic growth.
"We have to have sustainable development," he said. "That's our number one priority together with climate change."
Momentum for fighting climate change has stalled amid recessions, financial meltdown and government debt crises of the past five years.
"At the same time, we need to see some economic dynamism," Ban said. "The world is still suffering, struggling to overcome its economic crisis."
The forum at Davos, opening Wednesday, focuses this year on how to ensure a more sturdy economic recovery that can withstand the kind of shocks the past few years have wrought.
Among the world leaders he may rub elbows with at Davos are Microsoft founder Bill Gates, International Monetary Fund Managing Director Christine Lagarde and German Chancellor Angela Merkel.
The secretary-general expressed hope that the major powers will be able to revitalize growth, which will help developing countries meet the U.N. Millennium Development Goals to combat poverty by the target date of 2015.
The goals include cutting extreme poverty by half, ensuring a primary school education for every child, reducing maternal and infant mortality, and halting and reversing the HIV/AIDS pandemic.
On the political front, Ban said he is deeply concerned about the deteriorating situation in Syria where the conflict will soon be entering its third year.
"I believe that world leaders must address this issue with a top priority and a sense of urgency. We cannot go on like this," he said. "More than 60,000 people have been killed, and if the situation continues like this way, we will have to see more and more death, more and more people who are fleeing Syria."
The secretary-general said he is also mobilizing U.N. envoys and others to try to make progress on the Mideast peace process; in Mali, where a French-led military operation is fighting Islamist extremists; the deteriorating political situation in Congo where M23 rebels have gained ground; and in the Central African Republic where rebels recently signed a peace agreement with the president.
Related content:
Climate talks end with deal that's 'not where we wanted to be'
Kremlin begins evacuation of Russians from Syria
Insurgents abandon towns in central Mali as French troops advance
Leave a Comment:
Personally, I believe we need a new global warming protocol which rates all products and services worldwide for their potential impact on the environment, both in production and in use (in some areas both of these ratings would be minimal if they are already using green energy). This protocol would also require this information to be clearly visible for the all consumers worldwide to see. Then consumers worldwide would decide for themselves in their purchasing habits which products and services they want to support and use, based upon the green rating of all products and services. I believe this is the best way to compel nations to change, but if other measures need to be added over time, then that is perfectly fine. - Rick Carter
To responsible concern and good sense? Yes! - RC
Rick....
Please tell me, exactly how much control over your life, and the lives of your family you're willing to accept.
I gather you don't grasp the concept of personal responsibility or self determination.
Don't you understand that this approach is all about giving control to the consumers? This means you and me. This has nothing at all to do about government or U.N. control. The only control governments or the U.N. would have is making sure that all products were properly rated. - RC
Rick_Carter--in most areas of the world, there IS no choice on what to buy because of its 'green' status.
and THOSE are the countries that are MOST over-populated.
Do you REALLY think that countries that can't even convince people to stop having WAAAY too many children will be able to convince them to read LABELS? MUCH less to pay more for something that stuffy do-gooders push?
I don't think so.
And lets be clear here--I'm a 'sorta green' purchaser--I try to buy recycled paper products but am NOT willing, for instance, to do so if it means sacrificing MY comfort (I won't buy, for instance, generic Kleenex or TP--there ARE limits!). And while I have a high energy efficiency home, with 'green appliances' I STILL use Flourescent light bulbs because I get HOT more than I get cold, and incandescent AND Halogen light bulbs HEAT UP THE ROOM. Similarly, I buy soda pop in the CAN, NOT because I can recycle those easier than I can plastic bottles, (which I DO) but because the bottles typically are more expensive, and due to them being higher volume, I cannot drink the whole bottle before it goes FLAT.
I bought a Honda Fit several years ago, and love the mileage it gets, but I ALSO drove it to Houston in 2011, because I WANTED to, not because it was an essential visit.
And I STILL love long showers. So I take them.
I think you will find that only the most radical of Americans are much different from me--we will make SOME small sacrifices, but NOT the huge ones. And frankly, until I see ALL countries making the same sacrifices, that is all I'm willinng to do. Especially when those sacrifices cost BIG BUCKS.
PS-- a couple of years ago, CA was buiding an average of one new school 'per day', and the NEED for so many (over 300 per year) new schools was LARGELY driven by the children of illegal aliens in CA, and we ALL know that construction itself is VERY environmentally unfriendly (all that diesel fuel, cutting down of trees, mining metals for wiring and structure beams, and just the sheer DUST) so where is the indignation over THAT?
The anti reason nut jobs are out in force. Waxing philosophically against the evil scientists warning us of pending problem: global warming. This is the same tactice and same morons whom railed against efforts to save the ozone layer in the 80's. Scientists warned us to take action before sun exposure becomes too dangerous to venture outside without protection. NOW skin cancer rates have skyrocketed and the seasonal weather report includes warning to "cover up exposed areas before going outside in the sun and wear a hat." Former Reagan Dept of Interior Director, William Holdel, was villified in 83 for telling reporters in the future people will become accustomed to wearing hats and long sleave shirts before venturing into the summer sun. Now, it's a normal part of our weather forecast. Global warming effects will be 1000x worse. Thank you conservative america for taking us all down the drain to sate the greed of your money changers buyer seller usurer overlords. Thanks.
Mongo--nice try, but for millenia, people have worn hats and long sleeves to protect themselves from the sun, or just stayed out of it in the heat of the day (there IS a reason why, for instance, people who live in tropical climates have ALWAYS taken mid-day 'siestas'.) It is only since the 20th century that it was viewed to be HEALTHY to be deeply tanned, to the point where fairer skinned people courted that, and I for one, in my 60s now, SHUNNED the sun as much as possible not JUST because of one painful sunburn as a child, but because I saw my already olive skinned mom WORK at being deeply tanned as a young woman, and then look like an ELEPHANT skin-wise by the time she was 50.
As for skin cancers? IF stopping the use of of flourocarbons helped that, great. But SO did sunscreen.
and PERSONALLY I think SMOKING is a much bigger threat to the health of mankind, and I NEVER see anyone wanting to ban THAT because there is too much money in it. And no one ever got skin cancer from someone ELSE spending too much time in the sun.
Me, I get ASTHMA attacks when exposed to cigarette/cigar/pipe smoke.
Good News:
Climate change was exaggerated because I can't find one single IPCC warning of "crisis" that says it "WILL" happen, only might and could and potentially! Help my house is on fire maybe?
Deny that!
So how close to the point of no return from complete unstoppable warming will the saints in the world of science take us before they say it actually WILL happen; not just might happen?
We need certainty for the ultimate crisis.
B.S! Complete and utter BS!
Then how does he account for the fact that there has been NO WARMING for 16 years! That doesn't sound like its happening faster than anyone expected, its not happening.
Because that is simply wrong. The upward trend is obvious. Sure, on any long term trend with a lot of variation, you can always pick out a little section, that wouldn't show statistical signifance by itself - in fact in the temperature graph you can find such a run every 30 years or so. But all that means is that there is a lot of variation and CO2 is not the only factor that affects climate.
Here's the problem. It is simple and it will never be addressed seriously enough to be solved. TOO MANY PEOPLE. Religion, politics, and ingrained beliefs will put a stop to any serious discussion. Child birth is a miracle. No it's not. Look at all the kids with no parents, no home, not enough food, homeless, in foster care, uneducated. Children are wonderful. Not the ones with guns who kill people. There are more and more and more people every year. The same amount of water as 2,000 years ago. The same amount of air as 2,0000 years ago. The same amount of land as 2,000 years ago. We will never solve any of these problmes until we rethink that having kids is everyone's right (no, it's not). China uses forced abortion (wrong). The Catholic Church still fights birth control (wrong). No one cares about all the kids who will never have a childhood or a chance or a life, but it's OK to keep having them.
Bill--just as a note, and since my son has LIVED in China for going on five years, the RICH can pay a penalty and have 2 kids, and the whole 'one child' situation doesn't much apply in farming communities out in the boonies, either, altho poor nutrition/childhood illnesses/poverty somewhat limits the impact of that somewhat, as does the Chinese people's understanding that when you can't afford to feed a litter of children, MAYBE you shouldn't have so many.
Anyone rememeber not to long ago the very prominante scientist that were caught red handed sending emails about how they need to stick together and keep lying to the world about thier findings because they did not support the claims they had been making all along?? I do. Yea, things are changing climate wise. If it is caused by humans and what we are doing, these guys set thier cause back decades by lying to push thier private agendas.
Yeah, I remember Chuck, and now it is all forgotten in the MSM. Just like it never happened!
Remember also that Al Gore JUST became as rich as Mitt Romney!
Only Romney never sold a media conglomerate to AL Jazeera.
And that ALSO got only brief attention on MSM.
There was no fraud.
Record Antarctic sea ice extent in 2012. Fewest July tornadoes for the US ever in 2012. US tornado numbers for the year well below average. Current new record being set for the longest length of time since a major (cat 3 or higher) hurricane has hit the US (old record goes back to around 1900). Global tropical cyclone numbers trending downward for the last 30 years. Number of violent tornadoes trending downward since 1974. Greenland gaining ice. Antarctica gaining ice. NASA states that wind and current are the two major factors on how much Arctic sea ice forms. NASA also states that it was a strong Arctic storm in August that broke up the ice and resulted in the low ice for September. Himalaya glaciers growing. New NOAA weather station system, CONUS shows that current weather station system is corrupted and inaccurate. CONUS records temperatures 2 degrees lower than the "record hot summer of 2012". Which puts summer 2012 1.9 degrees COOLER than the record hot summer set in the 1930s.
Only 2% of the Earth (United States with its inaccurate corrupted stations) showed that 2012 was the hottest ever. The rest of the globe has been showing cooling. Sea level rate of rise has slowed in recent years. Temperature anomaly in 2012 the same as it was 16 years ago, global warming has stopped and not continued to climb.
Post tropical cyclone Sandy was never bigger than a Cat 1 and was no longer a hurricane when it hit the US. Yet in 1954 three Cat 3 hurricanes hit the east coast. In 1821 New York was hit by a hurricane that was much stronger than Sandy.
If reduced strength and numbers of tornadoes and hurricanes are signs of climate change then it sounds pretty good to me.
Developed countries have benefited from cheap reliable abundant energy. Lot's of food, clean water, proper sewage, modern medical care, protection from cold and heat have all raised the quality of life, quality of health and increased lifespan.
Yet alarmists want to stop undeveloped countries from having these same benefits of cheap reliable abundant energy.
CO2 enables plants to grow stronger and faster. Plants are also more drought tolerant and more water efficient with more CO2.
Warming has not increased for the past 16 years yet CO2 levels have continued to climb. The IPCC and other alarmist groups and persons are on record stating that it would take a lack of warming of 15 years to disprove the CO2 global warming theory. It has now been 16 years.
The Maldives claim that CO2 will cause sea level rise and destroy their island nation. Yet the Maldives are currently building new airports and new resorts to bring even more tourists to the Maldives. If CO2 is a problem why is the Maldives taking steps that will increase the production of CO2?
Nuclear winter will be much sooner.
Climate change procedures sounds like bend over Americans, so I think they can stick Cap & Trade and Agenda21 up their collective butts. Oh ,and the dirty little secret is that modern farming is responsible for CO2 increases.
We're already beyond fixing climate change scientists have told us, so any action is closing the barn door after the horse got out. Moreover, China already moved into the number one spot on emissions and they're growing so rapidly that nothing anyone else can do will compensate. Moreover, the types of emissions (largely from coal) are more damaging that those that have been coming from other countries. If you want to do something stop buying anything made in China, but you won't do that will you?
@ledbysheep
I currently employ a number of "off-grid" methods to power my home. I use hydroelectric, generated from the stream that runs through my property. I use solar on the roof, and harness wind in the back.
But my home was not built "off-grid", nor would I either want it that way nor choose to disconnect - because I sell my excess production BACK to the electric company, and rather than a bill each month, I receive a check, usually between $120-$150 for the excess power I've generated.
As far as UN Agenda 21... if they really have a problem with me, they can take it up with me - assuming they can get close enough. I have no qualms putting a bullet through any trespasser - UN, US, NATO - you name it.
Move the UN to Paris or some other @!$%#hole and keep them from humping Americas leg. Sheeesh.
We keep the UN here because we know how many member countries send their spies to the UN, and it's a great way to make sure to feed them BS.
Why do you think North Korea can't launch a rocket up their own @sses?
Let us appeal to common sense, the least common of all senses, to help us to hold warming to two degrees by the end of the century and avoid the worst scenarios.