Midtown Manhattan is a madhouse this week. Both the opening session of the 62nd UN General Assembly and the Clinton Global Initiative are in town and bring with them both an unprecedented group of world leaders and a complex security situation. As I shuttle back and forth between the two events, I am struck by the competence of the New York Police Department. I can't even imagine the intricacies involved in securing an area this large and vulnerable, but they have every appearance of having it under control. I'm confident at least.

This is an apropos moment to bring up the UN's Capital Master Plan, a plan to renovate the UN Headquarters in New York City, which has not happened since the complex was built in 1950, and bring the building up to current safety and security codes.

The existing conditions of the United Nations headquarters in New York pose serious safety and security problems, and waste a tremendous amount of resources. The headquarters were designed to accommodate 70 Member States. UN membership currently stands at 191 Member States.

The UN building no longer complies with U.S. and New York City fire and safety codes, and a considerable amount of energy is wasted as a result of archaic appliances. Problems include asbestos, electromagnetic fields, an inadequate fire alarm system, the lack of sprinklers in high rise buildings, poor or no fire separation between buildings, the possibility of high pressure steam line explosions, falling ceilings, and leaks.

As a high-profile building located in New York and a gathering point for world leaders, the UN is unfortunately a target for a terrorist attack. And it lacks basic security requirements such as shatterproof glass windows. In the event of an incident, first responders -- like NY's finest -- would be put in an unacceptable amount of danger.

I have heard at least one person on CNN in the last couple of days talking about the cost to the city of maintaining security this week. New York, as the seat of UN headquarters, plays host to the world and receives untold benefits from acting as such. Aside from the political- and prestige-related benefits, this week alone hotels throughout midtown are sold out and restaurants are packed.

The first step of being a good host is ensuring the security of your guests. The NY Police department is doing its part. It's time that the Capital Master Plan move forward.

In 1998-99, a team of architects and engineers thoroughly examined the condition of U.N. Headquarter complex. The study concluded that despite the high quality of the original construction, many building elements have deteriorated due to age, or do not meet current standards of safety and energy efficiency. The study concluded "The current condition of the headquarters' complex is unacceptable for continued use over the long term."

To address this situation, the Secretary-General presented the Capital Master Plan to renovate the UN headquarters in July 2000. Since that time, a commission has been appointed to determine a budget; complete an overall implementation schedule; select contractors through competitive-bidding; consolidate existing space; secure swing space; and design plans for financing the project. The total cost of the Capital Master Plan is $1.2 billion over period of eight years.

Here at the Clinton Global Initiative, Prince Albert II of Monaco and UN Foundation chair Ted Turner announced that they will join forces to mobilize political will in support of a comprehensive agreement to combat catastrophic climate change. According to the release this includes "supporting both the Global Leadership for Climate Action (GLCA)- a partnership of the Club of Madrid and the UN Foundation – and the UN Foundation’s other climate change initiatives."

The announcement was made moments ago preceding an apropos plenary, "Economic Growth in the Face of Resource Scarcity and Climate Change."

Read the full release after the jump:

NEW YORK, New York (Sept. 27, 2007) — The United Nations Foundation announced today that the Foundation Prince Albert II of Monaco will join its efforts to mobilize political will in support of a comprehensive agreement to combat catastrophic climate change. This includes supporting both the Global Leadership for Climate Action (GLCA) – a partnership of the Club of Madrid and the UN Foundation – and the UN Foundation’s other climate change initiatives. The announcement was made by UN Foundation Chairman Ted Turner and Prince Albert II of Monaco at the Clinton Global Initiative.

“Our future, humanity’s future, depends on how quickly and well we change our thinking on climate change,” said Ted Turner, Chairman of the United Nations Foundation and founding member of the GLCA. “The clock is ticking and it is time for governments and leaders in the business and philanthropic community to get to work. His Majesty, in all his different roles, understands that and his efforts to make Monaco a cutting-edge example of dealing with climate change should be a role model for us all. We’re glad to be working with him.”

Recently in Berlin, the GLCA released a set of 11 recommendations for upcoming negotiations, with the aim of reducing global carbon emissions 60% below 1990 levels by 2050 in order to limit global warming to 2-2.5 degrees Celsius. The GLCA recommendations recognize that climate change presents a tremendous opportunity to spur the development of low-cost, low-carbon technologies that will create new jobs and economic growth. The GLCA also proposes mobilizing public and private finances to support adaptation measures, avoided deforestation, and clean energy deployment in developing countries.

“I'm pleased to be part of this important and innovative effort to stop global warming" said Prince Albert II of Monaco, founder and President of the Foundation Prince Albert II of Monaco. "As a Head of State, I will personally devote time and energy to mobilize the resources and political will on a global scale to address the environmental challenges of the planet and act to help ensure the future of mankind. There is too much at stake to not do everything we can. Partnering with the UN Foundation and working with the Global Leadership for Climate Action will allow us to both learn from other leaders and to share Monaco’s experience in advancing innovative approaches to dealing with one of the most pressing global issues.”

GLCA is co-chaired by Ricardo Lagos, President of the Club of Madrid and UN Special Envoy on Climate Change, and Timothy E. Wirth, President of the United Nations Foundation. Additional information, including a full list of the members of GLCA, can be found at www.globalclimateaction.com.

###
About the United Nations Foundation
The UN Foundation was created in 1998 with entrepreneur and philanthropist Ted Turner’s historic $1 billion gift to support UN causes and activities. The UN Foundation builds and implements public-private partnerships to address the world’s most pressing problems and also works to broaden support for the UN through advocacy and public outreach. The UN Foundation is a public charity. For more information, visit www.unfoundation.org.

About the Foundation Prince Albert II of Monaco
The Foundation Prince Albert II of Monaco was created in June 2006 dedicated to Climate change, Biodiversity and Access to water and desertification. Its work concentrates on three priority zones: the Mediterranean Basin, The Poles and Countries that are most vulnerable to climate change. Its role is to act as an influent body with States, international institutions and opinion leaders to accelerate awareness and decision making in favor of the planet’s resources. For more information, please visit www.fpa2.mc.

Two interesting things that I heard during the CGI plenary on deforestation (see below):

Franz Tattenbach, the Executive Director of FUNDECOR, talked about the progress that has been made in reforesting Costa Rica, which has gone from 26 percent coverage to 50 percent coverage. "How did we do it? We put a price on carbon." FUNDECOR works directly with individuals who own rain forest land to create incentives for not clear cutting their property. They do so by sending foresters and strategists to develop sustainable individualized plans to help the owners selectively harvest their forests and maximize their profits from that harvest.

Stuart E. Eizenstat, President Carter's Chief Domestic Policy Adviser and President Clinton's Deputy Treasury Secretary, speculated on why deforestation measures weren't included in the Kyoto protocol. He gives three reasons:

• "We were so occupied with macro issues," like negotiating with the EU and Japan on what level of reductions below the 1990 level could be afforded and trying to get developing countries on board.
• There are legitimate concerns about the verification of forestation credits. What happens if a forest is planted and then burns down three years later?
• We simply didn’t know then what we know now. We didn’t have the Stern and IPCC reports that tell us that 20 percent of all carbon emissions can be traced back to forestation and land use issues. That is more than all global transportation emissions. It is the cheapest, most reliable way of reducing emissions.

Eizenstat also expressed his surprise at the lack of knowledge on the Hill about the issue. Language addressing deforestation was only a last minute addition to the last energy bill.

Also, he is Pessimistic about the probability of Congress passing a post-Kyoto framework. As a safety measure, he suggests that in the cap-and-trade legislation that he expects to pass before the end of this Congress we should incorporate the ability for American companies to trade credits abroad and for foreign companies to trade in our system.

Jane Goodall ended the session by paraphrasing an "Eskimo" that she had met. He said, "Up in the north we know everyday what you in the south are doing. What will it take to melt the ice in the human heart?"

The closing plenary of the first day of CGI has started (watch live). It will feature a discussion on children in conflict with Angelina Jolie (see below), Nicolas Kristof, Mohammed Atmar, Valentino Deng, and Alvaro Uribe. But first, President Clinton announced some commitments and made a comment about energy efficiency. He said that if the leading emitters of carbon -- including the U.S., China, and India -- were to bring their energy efficiency levels to that of Japan, global greenhouse gas emissions would be reduced by 20 percent. Remarkable. For a summary of what that might look like, check out this report.

The press room here cleared out about 15 minutes ago. Angelina Jolie is in the room next door announcing her new Education Partnership for Children of Conflict, "a historic education partnership to address the needs of children living in conflict, post-conflict refugee, and emergency situations." This alliance has been built out of a long and diverse list of partners including UNICEF, Save the Children, the Sesame Workshop, UNHCR (Angelina's tie-in). They are making the commitment to help 350,000 children go to school and improve the learning environment of another 650,000 -- including 200,000 Iraqi refugees (maybe Angelina advocated for this after her recent trip) and 300,000 children affected by Darfur. As you can see from the photo above, there were many up on the stage, but Angelina got about 80 percent of the questions.

The Clinton Global Initiative's afternoon plenary on "Protecting Tropical Forests" has just begun. I'm in the press room tuning in. This session is being moderated by climate expert Rosina Bierbaum. In her opening remarks, she lays out a pretty persuasive case for why we should be paying more attention to tropical forests, particularly if we are interested in addressing climate change. According to Bierbaum, "forests are the lungs of the world," and their decimation is responsible for 20 percent of carbon emissions. Apparently, if we continue on the same path, over the next hundred years, deforestation would add 80 to 135 million tons of carbon to the atmosphere, the equivalent of one or two decades of fossil fuel burning. It would also decrease the Earth's biodiversity by 20 to 40 percent.

She just passed the mic over to Jane Goodall. I'll keep you posted.

Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon opened his first annual debate of the General Assembly with a call to global leaders to back efforts to bolster the United Nations.

"Our changing world needs a stronger UN...My vision is an administration focused on results - efficient, directed, pragmatic and accountable, an administration representing excellence, integrity and pride in serving the global good."

More

...at the opening of the 62nd General Assembly today:

With the commitment and courage of this chamber, we can build

a world where people are free to speak, assemble, and worship as they wish

a world where children in every nation grow up healthy, get a decent education, and look to the future with hope,

a world where opportunity crosses every border.

America will lead toward this vision where all are created equal, and free to pursue their dreams. This is the founding conviction of my country. It is the promise that established this body. And with our determination, it can be the future of our world. Thank you, and may God bless you all.

(Full text of the President's speech). More analysis to come.

The 62nd UN General Assembly opens today at 9am ET with remarks by Secretary-General Ban, the GA President Dr. Srgjan Kerim, the President of Brazil, and, at approximately 9:45am ET, President Bush. I'm still in New York at the UN following our hosting bloggers at the High-Level Event on Climate Change yesterday. The energy level (and security level) in Turtle Bay is high. Watch live and stay tuned on UN Dispatch for analysis. The opening session (and the statements of world leaders) will continue through today and tomorrow.

So 80 heads of state, plus international celebrities like Al Gore and Arnold Schwarzenegger all came to the United Nations today. Great! What did they accomplish? Well, if you are looking for a single document committing UN member states to combat climate change, you are looking in the wrong place. Rather, the significance of today's meetings needs to be understood in the longer term.

In 2015, Kyoto will expire. As the thinking goes, it will take two years to negotiate a successor to Kyoto, then another four years for member states to actually ratify the treaty.

In December, the process of negotiating a successor to Kyoto will kick off with a meeting in Bali. This meeting will be largely technical in nature, i.e. what sort of carbon emissions targets should be achieved and how to set up a global carbon credit market. The purpose of today's meetings was not to talk about those technical issues, but to inject some desperately needed political will into the Bali meeting so that when negotiators descend on Indonesia in three months they will be empowered to push for robust climate change policies.

The elephant in the room, of course, is that for the Bali negotiations to be successful, the Kyoto non-signatories (namely the United States, China and India) need to be on board. And herein is the reason why the UN appropriate venue to hold these talks: In a body composed of 192 member states, it is very difficult--practically speaking--for a tiny group of nations to hold out against the will of the rest.

It is a basic negotiating tenet here at the UN that countries try to avoid being "isolated." (And conversely, that negotiating blocks strive to isolate hold-outs as a way of winning concessions.) That's why Security Council vetoes are so rare. It is also why so many UN issues (like the budget) are resolved by consensus, not majority vote. No country feels comfortable being a "spoiler" by positioning itself against the will of an overwhelming majority of UN member states. The decision to use the UN to host climate change discussions, therefore, is born out of a basic pragmatism. In smaller venues, like the G-8, it is simply harded to use "isolation" as an instrament of diplomatic pressure.

Al Gore may have just burnt his bridges with Hollywood. The former Vice President receieved a nice ovation for urging us to turn our attention away from Anna Nicole Smith, OJ Simpson and Paris Hilton, and instead focus on the important climate change meeting in Bali in December.

French President Nicolas Sarkozy is now speaking. If my translation is correct ( and fair warning: my French is far from flawless) he seems to have affirmed French support for "25 by 25"--that's a pledge to make 25% of his country's energy supply come from renewable sources by 2025.

By Olav Kjorven, Assistant Administrator and Director, Bureau of Development Policy, UNDP, and member of the UN Secretary General's climate team

Today at the United Nations, the world is coming together, at the request of Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon, to address a truly global challenge. Climate change is the kind of issue that the UN was created to deal with.

Today, we'll address the climate challenge with words. Of course, it's going to take much, much more than that to ensure a sustainable future for our kids, their kids, and beyond, but if today’s discussions inject energy, purpose, and will into the global response to climate change, as the Secretary-General and indeed, we all hope they will, then they will have served a valuable purpose.

The threat of climate change is an unprecedented challenge for
humanity: We have never faced a global, self-made calamity such as
this before. Increasingly this is understood by policy makers around
the world, and despite inertia, distractions, and the complexity of the
issue, Monday is their chance to rise to the occasion and demonstrate
their sincere readiness to deal with this challenge. I really think
that we will see a new climate for serious, results-oriented
negotiations after today.

UNDP's raison d'etre is human development: Helping developing nations
and communities build the skills and knowledge to function better, and
enjoy economic and social advance. The gravity of the climate threat
means we and our partners have to approach development differently.
Climate change can no longer be seen as one of many environmental
problems: It affects all aspects of human development, from
agricultural sustainability to public health. It is indeed a challenge
at the center of what public policy is ultimately about: securing safe
and secure living conditions and economic opportunities for all
people. If we at UNDP do not take climate change seriously, we do not
take development seriously.

And climate change should be broadly recognized as a moral issue.
Those least responsible for climate change are feeling its most
painful and immediate effects, and are least equipped to deal with it.
No matter what we do to limit emissions in coming decades -- and we must
significantly reduce emissions if we are to have any hope of coping
with climate change, of course -- the poorest and most vulnerable nations
are going to see disastrous impacts. Helping these communities adapt
to climate change will be a tremendously important part of our
response.

We also need to ensure that all countries that ask for it get help in
making climate risk management an integral part of their strategies
for development. This is about much more than making infrastructure
more robust, or about being prepared for the next natural disaster. It
is about coming to terms with fundamental shifts in terms of where
crops can grow, where fish stocks will be found, how much water will
flow in rivers, where pests and disease will strike. Species and
ecosystems will be on the move, with all sorts of complex societal and
economic consequences. Poor communities will be particularly
affected, and governments will have to be able to come up with
workable solutions. We in the UN need to be able to provide assistance
in this regard.

Let me briefly turn my attention to one very important region for some
specifics in terms of response. Africa can contribute very little to
reducing emissions; African countries don't emit very much at all. But
African countries can contribute to taking carbon out of the
atmosphere. Through its forests and soils, and the conservation and
rehabilitation of them, Africa can help the climate and adapt to
climate change. These things can also help reduce poverty and foster
human development. We have to make carbon finance flow to Africa's
forests and soils. That would be doing development differently.

I, for one, am really optimistic that today is going to become the
first chapter in a success story. A substantial portion of the world's
leaders are here, ready to begin work toward reaching a global deal on
emissions by 2009. Climate change is getting record prominence in the
media and in the public consciousness. Everyday citizens know about
climate issues -- and care about climate issues -- like never before. And
they're expecting their leaders, with the UN, to act -- to turn today's
words into a thoughtful, cooperative and effective response to this
most serious of global problems.

As promised, UN Dispatch is coming to you live from the UN. The place is buzzing as heads of state and foreign ministers are starting to gather for the High Level Meeting on Climate Change. The head of one state, Governor Schwarzenegger of California, is poised to speak at General Assembly in a few moments.

Today's meeting was convened by Secretary General Ban Ki moon, who is making climate change a signature issue of his. In that, he and Governor Schwarzenegger have something in common. In June, Ban traveled to the San Francisco area where he met Schwarzenegger for a tour of Silicon Valley businesses that are on the cutting edge of the green technology revolution. (Fun fact: Ban also stopped by the home of a ninety year old woman who hosted him when he participated in a foreign exchange student in 1967).

Check back to UN Dispatch for frequent updates throughout the day.

UN Dispatch will be on scene at the United Nations next Monday to cover the much anticipated High Level Meeting on Climate Change in which foreign ministers and heads of state will converge on First Avenue to discuss climate change issues. UN Dispatch, in partnership with the United Nations Foundation, is hosting a number of bloggers on site. This is the first-ever event designed solely for bloggers, enabling us to report on the United Nations. We are very excited.

The climate change meeting kicks off an action packed week at the United Nations. On Tuesday and Wednesday, the 62nd General Assembly officially opens for business, meaning every head of state is invited to address the UN. This always makes for some interesting moments. Be sure to check our "Live From the UN" mini-site next week for frequent updates.

By James K. Boyce, Director of the Political Economy Research Institute's program on Development, Peacebuilding, and the Environment and Professor, Department of Economics, University of Massachusetts

To combat global warming we must confront two tragedies of open access.

The first used to be called the "tragedy of the commons," a misnomer since societies often devise rules to manage common property sustainably. The problem is that when there is open access to a scarce resource, individuals have no incentive to conserve it and instead will overexploit it, even to the point of collapse. In this case the scarce resource is the limited capacity of the Earth's biosphere to absorb and recycle our emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases.

The second tragedy of open access is less widely recognized but no less real. Although in theory open-access resources are equally available to all, in practice some people are, in George Orwell's haunting phrase, "more equal than others." Open access often generates short-run benefits for those who least need them and long-run costs for those who can least afford them. Global warming is a good example. Rich countries burn more fossil fuels than do poor countries, generating more carbon dioxide emissions. And within any given country, richer people benefit most from the fossil-fueled economy by virtue of the facts that they consume more goods and services.

Meanwhile it is poor countries and poor people who stand to bear the greatest costs of global warming. They are less able to invest air conditioners, sea walls, or other adaptations. They live closer to the edge: the rich can weather a 20 percent decline in their real incomes, for example, with relative ease, but for the poor the same decline may be the margin between life and death. And the places that climate models show will be hit hardest by global warming -- including drought-prone regions of sub-Saharan Africa and coastal south and southeast Asia -- are home to some of the world's poorest people.

Crafting climate solutions requires us to address both tragedies. At the international level, the key to a comprehensive agreement to reduce emissions is the principle that every person in the world has an equal right to the planet's limited carbon-storage capacity. In exempting the developing countries from emission targets, the Kyoto Protocol implicitly embraced this principle. But by basing targets for industrialized countries on past emissions, Kyoto ignored it and instead rewarded countries for their past pollution. To devise an accord that is acceptable to all nations, it will be necessary to build it around the principle of equal entitlements.

Does this mean that the majority of people in the industrialized countries must suffer a cut in their standard of living to safeguard the global environment? Not if the same egalitarian principle is applied within countries, too. The creation of national "sky trusts," which receive revenue from the sale of carbon permits to the firms that bring fossil fuels into the economy, and then recycle the money equally to every woman, man, and child, will protect the real incomes of lower-income and middle-income households. The cost of carbon permits ultimately will be passed to consumers, so all households pay more for goods and services, with the amount depending on how much they consume. Upper-income households, who generally consume the most, will pay the most. Since all receive the same sky-trust dividend, households who consume less than the average will come out ahead financially. Because incomes and consumption are skewed toward the rich in every country, this revenue recycling would protect the real incomes of the middle class as well as raising the incomes of the poor.

Well-designed policies can combine environmental protection with income protection for the majority of the world's people. This combination is not only ethically desirable, but also politically necessary to win support for effective policies to fight global warming.

To mark the International Day of Peace, some 100 Afghan children flew kites decorated with doves and olive branches in Kabul.

Today’s event, on Nader Khan hill, was one of many around the country in the final days of a two-month campaign launched by the UN Assistance Mission in Afghanistan (UNAMA), the UN Children's Fund (UNICEF) and the global campaign group Peace One Day. Kite flying was banned under the brutal Taliban regime which was ousted in 2001.

More

By Representative Tom Udall (D-NM)

As Congress takes its initial steps to address the global warming crisis, I am learning a lesson that is as true in public policy as it is in sky diving: the first step is always the hardest.

Thanks to the work of activists from Al Gore to the Union of Concerned Scientists, people from all walks of life finally have begun to pay attention to global warming. Large majorities in countries around the world now acknowledge that global warming constitutes a serious and immediate threat to the world’s ecology and economy. Yet strong Congressional action to address the problem often has seemed a distant hope.

The world wants action, but we have little experience with the kind and magnitude of action that the problem demands. To effectively address global warming, we must rethink our whole approach to the politics and economics of energy. We must reshape our energy markets to internalize an externality of global proportions. America did it with the Apollo program, and we must do it again. However, it will require renewed trust between citizens and government, and between nations.

Unfortunately, that trust has not yet been built. In the U.S. Congress, regulating carbon dioxide and other emissions presents a monumental challenge because of the far-reaching implications for our nation's economy. The science underpinning the need for emissions reductions is indisputable, but the American people must see that a plan for tackling global warming can be good for business and workers. On the international level, no country wants to accept curbs on emissions until they know that other countries will also do their part. The United States, which produces 36 percent of the world's carbon emissions, must play a leadership role on this issue, but we cannot succeed alone. Through our example and our diplomacy, we must build a global consensus that every country will do what it takes to protect our planet. We are all in this together, and the solution requires a global effort.

Speaker Nancy Pelosi has tasked the 110th Congress with crafting legislation to combat global warming. The House took a first step this past August when my Renewable Electricity Standard amendment to the energy bill comfortably passed the House. My amendment requires America's investor-owned electricity supplying utilities to provide 15 percent of their electricity from renewable energy sources and energy efficiency measures by 2020. Studies have shown that an RES will reduce global warming emissions at a rate equivalent to taking 71 million cars off the road. A more comprehensive global warming bill is needed, however. I believe it must set achievable emissions reductions goals without harming the U.S. economy. I introduced such a bill during the 109th Congress and will be doing so again soon. These measures are modest because they set achievable goals and protect our workers and our economy. But they are revolutionary because they set a precedent for concerted action against climate change.

Through pragmatic measures like these, Americans will learn that environmental sustainability can produce jobs, encourage investment and boost the economy. Leaders around the world will learn that America will be part of the solution to global climate change, not part of the problem. With policies like these, we will finally take that crucial first step towards a sustainable future.

The world premiere of Trade, a movie highlighting the horrors of human trafficking, will be held at the United Nations Headquarters in New York.

Tonight's premiere of Trade is being co-hosted by the UN Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC), film distribution company Roadside Attractions and international human rights organization Equality Now.

The movie is based on "The Girls Next Door," a 2004 New York Times Magazine article by Peter Landesman, and features Academy Award-winning actor Kevin Kline.

More

By Steen Riisgaard, CEO of Novozymes A/S

Deadly tornados, hurricanes, extreme and unexpected weather, melting glaciers -- climate change is here. Regardless of the argument of who is to blame for it, global warming has sunk its warm claws into our planet, becoming the greatest global challenge of the 21st century.

Countering this challenge requires each one of us to do our share -- use fluorescent light bulbs, choose renewable energy, use energy-saving appliances, drive less, drive fuel-efficient cars, use environmentally-friendly fuel.

In the large schema, many measures are being taken and are in the planning to fight global warming. Biofuel has emerged as one of the top warriors in this battle. Experts foresee that biofuels could achieve a 25% share of the liquid fuels market in the future.

The biofuel industry today is based on first generation starch and sugar conversion -- it is an environmentally friendly renewable energy source that is one of a few technologies available for limiting the negative impacts of road transport. Second generation biofuels will be made from what is deemed as waste matter, including corn stover, bagasse, and other agricultural and industrial by-products, but also energy crops like switchgrass, which binds more carbon and requires less fertilizer than traditional crops. The technology is still new and it will take about three to five years to make it commercially viable.

Biofuel reduces carbon dioxide emissions (second generation biofuel will reduce this by nearly 90%); creates jobs and stimulates development in rural areas and developing countries; helps alleviate poverty by improving economies; and, last but not the least, gives developing countries access to energy, a prerequisite for economic development.

However, the production of biofuel can do more harm than good if pursued irresponsibly. Some unfortunate impacts are difficult or impossible to entirely mitigate, and we may have to accept them as necessary costs in order to reap greater benefits. Most of these issues can be effectively tackled if developing countries as well as developed countries continue to actively promote the production of biofuel in environmentally and socially sustainable ways.

The international community must come together to exploit the benefits of biofuel and minimize any unfortunate impacts.

The biofuel industry can and will develop the technology to make commercial ethanol from cellulosic feedstock, which will increase benefits and mitigate costs. Politicians around the world must ensure that standards for sustainable biofuel production, including sustainable agricultural practices, are developed. A trustworthy global certification scheme for biofuels should be created and implemented as soon as possible. In addition, the academic community must supplement the industry in the quest to create innovative and sustainable solutions to counter global warming.

The end is not exactly near -- but time is definitely up. We need to band together as a world community and save the planet; make sure we don't melt glaciers while we tank up our cars.

Emmanuel Jal thinks he's 27 years old. Like all of the "Lost Boys of Sudan" Emmanuel says his birthday is New Years day -- and guesses the year was 1980.

Emmanuel's confusion should not come as a surprise. When he only was eight years old, Emmanuel left his hometown in Southern Sudan to join an Ethiopian-sponsored militia that was fighting against the Sudanese government. For the next four years Emmanuel fought as a child soldier in South Sudan's devastating civil war, which lasted two decades and claimed more than 2 million lives. Then, at the age of twelve Emmanuel was rescued by Emma McCune, the late human rights activist who is the subject of the book Emma's War (which is being turned into a film.)

Like his late rescuer, Emmanuel is also the subject of a forthcoming film. When I met him in a lunch organized by the documentary's production team, it was apparent that he is still haunted by memories of life as a child soldier. When he wakes up each morning, he instinctively checks himself for bullet wounds. In one recurring nightmare, he is surrounded by enemy soldiers, but his gun won't fire. "When I don't talk about it for a few weeks, the nightmares stop," says Emmanuel.

But Emmanuel does more than just talk about his experience as a child soldier -- he raps about it. Emmanuel Jal is one of the rising stars of the world music scene. Check out his YouTube page and you will see why. His unique brand of hip-hop layered with African beats is taking the world music scene by storm. His song "Child Soldier" was featured on the soundtrack to Blood Diamond. USA Today calls him "Africa's hottest rap star."

Emmanuel is playing a concert tomorrow night in Washington, DC at Night Club Ibiza. Proceeds will benefit a foundation he has established to build poly-technical schools in Southern Sudan, which under the UN's watch (which includes 10,000 peacekeepers) is slowly recovering from civil war. Those in the DC area should stop by, listen, and learn. You won't be disappointed. You can buy tickets (only $15) by following this link.

More than 300 women lined up to see doctors on the opening weekend of a UNHCR-funded center for refugee women in Kuala Lumpur.

Volunteers turning up at dawn on Sunday to run the half-day clinic – organized by the UN refugee agency with funding from the private Obstetrical and Gynaecological Society of Malaysia (OGSM) and the IS Puvan OBGYN Foundation – were amazed to see dozens of women waiting for the medics.

One volunteer said, "We were taken aback. We'd never seen this before at any of our other clinics. It was only 6.00am and at least 50 refugee women were already there."

30 percent of the 37,000 UNHCR-registered refugees in and asylum seekers Kuala Lumpur are women.

More

Mitt Romney writes to Secretary General Ban ki Moon to demand the UN block Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmidinejad from speaking before the General Assembly next week. "The only way he should be greeted in the United States," writes Romney, "is with an indictment under the Genocide Convention." Romney continues:

"A failure by the United Nations to take a strong stand against Iran's President Ahmadinejad would be especially disturbing given the United Nations' record of failure to prevent genocide in other circumstances and the failure of the United Nations Human Rights Council to confront the Iranian regime and others among the world's worst human rights abusers. Failure to act would mean that the United States must reconsider its level of support and funding for the United Nations as we look to rebuild and revitalize effective international partnerships to meet 21st century threats." (emp added)

Romney, it would seem, is prepared to condition American support for the United Nations on the whether or not the UN takes a "strong stand" against Iran. This apparently includes preventing the Iranian president from addressing the General Assembly (as all heads of state do) and serving Ahmidinejad with indictment for committing genocide.

Not to get overly technical, but the only country in the world that can block the Iranian president from addressing the General Assembly is the United States, which could deny Ahmidinejad and his entourage a visa to enter the United States. Romney's letter might better be addressed to the State Department's Bureau of Consular Affairs.

Second, the United Nations does not have the power of an international prosecutor and cannot serve heads of states with indictments willy-nilly. However, one body that could issue an indictment against Ahmidenijad, if it was so inclined, is the United States District Attorney for the Southern District of New York. Of course, then we're faced with the serious question of whether or not indicting someone for genocide who has not committed genocide waters down the definition of genocide, therefore making it harder to confront genocide when genocide actually happens.

There is a larger point that is also worth mentioning. Tying UN "progress" on a single issue to American support for the UN as a whole is a common rhetorical tactic by people who seek to gain politically from attacking the UN. But these kinds of propositions, if taken to their logical conclusion, would have dire real world consequences.

For example, should the US stop funding the UN because the UN doesn't "get tough" on Iran in a way that satisfies Romney, we could reasonably expect UN peacekeeping operations around the world to run out of money. Some immediate consequences of that might include a Haitian refugee crisis and the resumption of war in Southern Lebanon / Northern Israel. Should US funds to the UN dry up, we might also see the World Health Organization fail in its on-going efforts to contain the Asian Bird Flu.

The point is, there are many different ways the United Nations enhances American security, directly and indirectly. It is simply dangerous to propose that America suspend its contributions to the UN over a disagreement on any single issue.

The United Nations World Health Organization (WHO) reports that the number of people struck by a cholera outbreak in Northern Iraq has doubled to 16,000 people.

"The good news was that, although the disease has spread, the number of deaths has remained the same," spokesperson Fadela Chaib told a news briefing in Geneva.

More

The Secretary General writes an op-ed about the complexities facing a peace settlement in Darfur.

I have just returned from a week in Darfur and the surrounding region. I went to listen to the candid views of its people -- Sudanese officials, villagers displaced by fighting, humanitarian aid workers, the leaders of neighboring countries. I came away with a clear understanding. There can be no single solution to this crisis. Darfur is a case study in complexity. If peace is to come, it must take into account all the elements that gave rise to the conflict.

For peace in Darfur to take hold a perfect storm of sorts needs to manifest. Financial and diplomatic support must to flow from donor countries; Libya and Chad need to be fully committed to supporting the peace; the government of Sudan needs to become convinced that it has more to gain from peace than continued war; rebel groups need to be convinced that the government of Sudan is approaching the peace talks in good faith; and all the while, the international community cannot afford to ignore the tenuous peace holding in southern Sudan.

The conflict in Darfur is so seemingly intractible because absent anyone of these elements, a peace process risks failure.

The General Assembly has adopted a declaration outlining the rights of the world's 370 million indigenous people and outlawing discrimination against them.

[T]he Declaration sets out the individual and collective rights of indigenous peoples, as well as their rights to culture, identity, language, employment, health, education and other issues.

More

Both the New York Times and the Washington Post reported good news today on worldwide child mortality rates. As shown in the Times chart after the jump, the number of deaths of young children around the world has been cut in half since 1960, when these statistics were first recorded. This fact is even more impressive considering: 1) world population has doubled since 1960, and 2) these stats are based on 2005 household surveys and do not adequately account for the recent uptick in funds from sources like the Global Fund, the Gates Foundation, and the Administration's AIDS and malaria programs.

UNICEF gives four reasons for the dramatic decrease (according to the Times).

1. "Measles deaths have dropped 60 percent since 1999, thanks to vaccination drives" like those sponsored by the Measles Initiative.
2. "More babies are sleeping under mosquito nets" because of campaigns like Nothing But Nets.
3. "More women are breast-feeding rather than mixing formula or cereal with dirty water."
4. "More are getting Vitamin A drops"

Both articles gloss over the vital role that UNICEF has played in the decrease, but one doesn't have to look far for evidence. Through the Measles Initiative, UNICEF and its partners have vaccinated more than 375,000 children since 2001 and have been the driving force behind the 60 percent decrease in measles deaths worldwide. UNICEF in particular provides a unique framework for procurement and for dealing with the complex logistics of delivering those vaccines where they are needed most. Through the same framework, UNICEF delivers Vitamin A, the deficiency of which is a widespread cause of malnutrition and death. UNICEF also bought nearly 25 million anti-malaria bed nets in 2006, making them one of the largest buyers in the world. They provide the same kind of logistical support that they do for the Measles Initiative to the Nothing But Nets campaign.

A second underdeveloped theme in both articles is that the solutions that are working are surprisingly low-tech and inexpensive. It costs only $10 to purchase and deliver a long-lasting, anti-malarial bed net, which can protect an entire family, and to educate that family on its use. Measles vaccines are less than $1 a pop. Vitamin A supplements are pennies apiece. Breast feeding is free. As global challenges (and the solutions) become increasingly complex, it's comforting to know that there are some clear and guaranteed ways to make a difference globally.

Ann M. Veneman, the executive director of UNICEF, penned a column for The Modesto Bee recently about the dangers of female genital mutilation (FGM).

This summer, two young girls died in Egypt — one age 13, the other just 12 — as a result of female genital cutting. Globally, thousands more girls are presumed to have died in silence over the years from a practice that has no basis in any religion and is not condoned by any government. About 3 million girls are cut each year, and an estimated 130 million women have undergone the procedure.

Read the whole article here.

By Ruth Greenspan Bell

The urgent need to act on climate change is sadly counterbalanced by the paucity of viable ideas for controlling further carbon emissions. Even those firmly convinced that prompt action is required appear mesmerized by the tantalizing hope that the problem can be efficiently controlled –- and developing nations induced to participate -- by harnessing market forces.

The Kyoto Protocol's Flexible Mechanisms enshrine several forms of emissions trading -- among participating industrialized countries, project-by-project between "donor" and "host" countries, and between the developed and the developing world (the Clean Development Mechanism) on the assumption that reductions are cheaper in the developing world -- to achieve "mandatory" but unenforceable greenhouse gas reduction commitments by developed countries.

But many have questioned the integrity of CDM results. Recently documented cases show that investors reap enormous profits -- up to 100 times the actual cost of cleanup -- to eliminate greenhouse gas emissions in China and India rather than revise practices at home. The deals are Kyoto-authorized, but don't address deeper structural change. The incinerated waste gas, HFC-23 (also an ozone layer depleter), is produced during the production of the refrigerant HFC-22. Clearly, eliminating HFC-23 has greenhouse benefits but at a large and unnecessary cost.

More damning, the profits are not invested in long-run antidotes to climate change by either western investors or the home-country beneficiaries. Instead, the proceeds frequently expand existing factories and build new ones that produce the same offending gas to feed growing demand for air conditioning.

A close examination of offsets -- a growing business selling carbon reduction credits to guilty westerners engaged in carbon-rich activities such as flying and driving fuel-inefficient cars -- intensifies concerns whether anything real is to be gained by outsourcing responsibility. The Times of London spotlighted "the moral predicament of offsetting," detailing close-to cynical efforts claiming climate benefits adequate to balance western lifestyles that actually pass the responsibility for emissions reductions to the poorest people on earth. Climate Care (a prominent seller) provides "treadle pumps" (people push pedals) to poor rural families to get water without using diesel fuel. Whatever the benefits to the families, if a peasant treads two hours a day, it will take at least three years to offset the CO2 from a one way London to India flight, an advertised use of a purchased offset.

Clearly, new approaches are needed and deployable once the United States has shown its own good faith by enacting and implementing serious legislation.

With colleagues at two major universities, I am developing a ground-up enterprise to formulate new climate policy options for the next U.S. administration. Rather than assume that incentives and policy instruments function identically in all cultures, we draw instead on specialists with deep knowledge of the traditions, cultures, beliefs, practices and institutions that condition collective decisions and actions in the key developing world countries.

The result should offer a different kind of vocabulary to engage Indian and Chinese polluters and countries like Indonesia and Brazil that contribute through deforestation, one that tailors appeals to national and local interests, country by country, and harnesses existing cultural values and institutions to rise to the climate challenge.

We envision customized approaches to bring key developing nations to participate meaningfully in climate change mitigation and options for effective implementation of climate goals within each of these nations. This offers an improved chance for the international community to come together around more realistic approaches to the daunting challenge of climate change.

The Associated Press has an excellent run down of the central challenge facing a political settlement to the Darfur conflict. Many rebel groups are simply refusing to join new UN / AU sponsored peace talks -- and not without reason. Last week, for example, a UN mediator met with the leader one of the main rebel holdouts to persuade him to join the peace talks. Then, two days later, the Sudanese air force bombed his town (violating a ban on offensive military over-flights over Darfur.)

This is the kind of vicious circle that is preventing rebel buy-in for the peace-talks: rebels are refusing to join in peace talks because, not without reason, they believe Khartoum will just violate the agreement anyway. Still, rebel buy-in is essential to any political settlement--and peacekeepers can't really deploy until there is at least some semblance of a peace process underway.

The one positive development in recent weeks is that Libya--which is known to have close ties with some of the rebel groups--is finally beginning to play a constructive role in the conflict. The peace conference scheduled for late October will be held in Tripoli and overseen by Libyan President Muammar Ghaddafi. Libya's newfound cooperation is no accident--the country is trying to pull itself out of international isolation. And sensing the opportunity to make headway on Darfur, Secretary General Ban spent a day in Tripoli last week, meeting with the Libyan leader for hours of one-on-one talks.

Special Representative Tom Koenigs, top United Nations envoy in Afghanistan, has called for a total cessation of violence in the country on September 21--the International Day of Peace.

"In Afghanistan, we all know about conflict and insecurity," Koenigs said. "But what we have seen in these past weeks is that Afghanistan wants peace."

More

In the week