There were about 1,300 articles listed by Google on the UN climate talks in New York. (See previous post under "UN Climate Summit.") Here's the take from the "FT" today – UN chief upbeat after climate forum. Ban Ki-moon said: "Action is possible now and it makes economic sense. The cost of inaction will far outweigh the cost of early action." Here is some good, in-depth coverage from "Environment News Service." Global co-operation vital says Ban in dig at US says the headline at the "Sydney Morning Herald." Here's an op-ed in "The Guardian" from a UN official, Kevin Watkins. He says, among other trenchant things: "If talking could cut greenhouse gas emissions, then this would be a good week for international action on climate change." Watkins discerns an unfortunate lack of purpose, particularly from the U.S.
Next stop, Washington: The U.S. has invited high government officials from the principal GHG-emitting nations to discuss climate change tomorrow and Friday. See the invitation from the White House and this today from the "LA Times" – It's Bush's turn to air greenhouse possibilities. One prominent environmentalist expressed considerable skepticism about the meeting, the "LAT" reported: "Philip E. Clapp, president of the National Environmental Trust, dismissed the Washington conference as "a sidelight, not a process that leads to anything.'"
***************
By the way, if you need a basic course in the lexicon, or a refresher, this item from Reuters via "Canada.com" might be helpful: Climate change debate coins new jargon.