Bangladesh To Set Up Nuclear Plant

The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) has provided Bangladesh the assurance to assist in establishing nuclear power station in Rooppur. Recently, IAEA Director General Eukia Amano assured the issue in a meeting with Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina. It is to mention that the proposal of building nuclear power station in Rooppur was approved in the national parliament on 9 December 2010. Meanwhile during Sheikh Hasina's tour to Russia, a mutual agreement was signed between two countries regarding establishment of nuclear power plant in Bangladesh. According to the source, the proposed power station in Rooppur is expected to produce 1,000 MW of power per year at a cost of 100 billion takas (Tk). It is to be mentioned here that the preliminary estimate of establishing nuclear plants in different countries ends up in few times higher than the projected cost. However, a power station producing 250 MW power costs Tk 12 billion. That means, with Tk 100 billion, eight power stations of this sort can be developed where in aggregate 2,000 MW of power can be generated.
Expensive and Risky Venture
In addition, from the estimate that International Energy Agency (IEA) has given on establishment cost of power stations based on coal, gas, and nuclear materials, it can be assumed that the construction cost of nuclear power stations is much higher. As per the estimates provided by IEA, a 250 MW coal based power station costs Tk 17.75 billion. That means, with Tk 100 billion, six power stations of this sort can be developed where in aggregate 1,400 MW of power can be generated. In addition, as per the IEA's estimates, a 250 MW gas based power station costs Tk 10.65 billion.
So, with the said fund, nine power stations generating 250 MW of power can be established. Besides, the establishment cost for solar and wind based power stations are lesser. Moreover, it has been found in different researches that the management cost of nuclear power station is few times higher than that of the power stations based on oil, coal, gas, water, wind, or solar energy. There is no risk of health hazards. Then why is Bangladesh moving toward this expensive and risky venture?
Matter of Honor for Country
The energy adviser to the prime minister, Tawfiq-E-Elahi Chowdhury said that it was a matter of honor for the nation to build a nuclear power station. In the same week, Yafes Osman state minister for science, information and communication technology, said that although Bangladesh is in earthquake risk zone, the nuclear power station in Rooppur will be built with the capability to persist earthquake measuring up to 10 in Richter Scale. He could not inform anything on whether any research has been conducted regarding the issue or on what scientific basis he provided the information. Normally, question has arisen on the suitability of such project costing Tk 100 billion. Extensive debate on nuclear wastages, and financial and health risk was going on prior to the current debate. Debate was going on over different aspects of profit and loss, excessive operating costs, disposal of nuclear wastages, and health risks associated with this nuclear power plant costing four times higher than the other means of power generation. However, the Bangladesh Government is ignoring the opinions of the specialists and the general people; this is a serious risk not only to the current generation but also to the future generation. The critical picture we find from the history and the present phenomenon tends that one such project is sufficient to destroy Bangladesh.
Dr Mahbub Ullah, professor at Development Studies Department in Dhaka University, said that the burning issue was whether it would be appropriate to carry on the agreement with Russia regarding establishment of nuclear power plant. Bangladesh is a very densely populated country. In such a country, if any explosion happens because of human error or natural calamity, it would be impossible to save people from the radiation that will be generated. In one side, many people will die instantly; on the other hand the curse of radiation is to be carried out for generations. Because of this curse, birth of retarded children and the severity of incurable diseases like cancer will grow to such an extent that it will be impossible for Bangladesh to bear. We must have to be careful after the incidents occurred in Japan and Chernobyl.
Fear of Devastation
Another source says that, taking the issues like Uranium mining, building nuclear reactor, cooling the towers, transportation of nuclear wastages under consideration, there is no doubt among the scientists that nuclear power plant endangers the atmosphere, environment and the animals. Nuclear power plants were excluded from Clean Development Mechanism and Joint Implementation mechanism of the Kyoto Protocol in 1997. Through a research in 2004, John William and Phillip Smith have shown that a nuclear power plant emits one third Green House Gas than a modern natural gas-based power station. In addition to few thousand times harmful Chlorofluorocarbon (CFC) is released from the Carbon-Dioxide of nuclear power stations. Alleged for environment pollution, CFC was proscribed internationally in "Montreal Protocol." Although every year the nuclear reactors emit around a trillion Curie (unit of radiation) radio-active isotopes in the atmosphere. Neutral gases such as Krypton, Xenon, and Argon are in the list of those isotopes. These isotopes are dissolvable in the fats and can be transferred into the fatty tissues of the body including the genital organs through inhalation of the people residing in the adjacent areas of a reactor. Moreover, Gamma ray that radiates from the radioactive atoms can create sudden impacts on ovary and the sperm that may cause genetic diseases. There is a hydrogen isotope named Tritium that creates radioactive water after reaction with oxygen. This water may go into the DNA molecules of human body through skins, lungs, and digestive system that may end into disaster.
In 2008, the German Government conducted a research on the children residing in the adjacent areas of 16 of their commercial nuclear power plants. The finding of the research was that the closer you go to the nuclear plant, the higher the risk becomes of children getting attacked in cancer, especially leukemia. The research also shows that the risk of children residing within 5-km circumference of the nuclear power station getting attacked in leukemia is almost double than that of the children living elsewhere. It is found in the research that in the localities adjacent to the nuclear reactor, death rate in breast cancer is 26-28 persons per hundred thousand; whereas the average rate of death in breast cancer is 20-22 persons per hundred thousand. This research has been conducted in the United States that produces the maximum amount of nuclear power in the current age. In the research of Energy Department in the United States, it was found that the death rate in breast cancer has grown 37 percent from 1950-54 to 1985-89 in the areas near to the oldest nuclear plants; whereas throughout America, on an average the same rate increased by only 1 percent.
On 26 April 1986, one of the four reactors exploded in a nuclear power plant in the Chernobyl of Kiev city in former Soviet Union. Radioactive molecules spread out in Soviet Union, Eastern Europe, Scandinavia, and many other regions of Eastern Europe. Chernobyl city is abandoned till now. As per the updated information, the overall loss in the Chernobyl accident crossed $100 billion. It took $4 billion only to close down the power plant.
A nuclear accident occurred in Three Mile Island of Pennsylvania in United States on 28 March of 1979. After that accident, the United States has not built any more nuclear power plants till now. Immediately after the Three Mile Island accident demand was raised to ban nuclear power plant in the Sweden Referendum in 1980. After the Chernobyl incident in 1986, everyone thought that the days of nuclear power plants are over. Germany not only stopped making new nuclear power plants but also closing down the expired plants. Belgium, Taiwan, and Japan are also gradually moving away from nuclear power production. Even the people of France that get 77 percent of their power from nuclear power are immensely pressurizing their government to close down their nuclear power stations.
In May 2000, the Aangra-1 nuclear plant of Brazil emitted thousands of gallons of radioactive saline water since their machines frequently used to get out of order and this news has not been published in Brazil. The company in charge of management of the plant did not inform the government. As a result plenty of people were exposed to health risk.
Germany closed down seven of their nuclear plants after the devastation in Japan. However, some other countries including France and the Philippines closed down few nuclear power plants prior to the incident in Japan.
Importing Nuclear Power Plant
When everyone is closing down nuclear plants one after another, the Bangladesh Government is planning to be "honored" by building nuclear power plant. Bangladesh wants to import nuclear power plant of model VVR-1000 from Russia. Russia will only sell reactor and its raw material Uranium. Even if we disregard the overall risk including health and financial aspects, question remains whether Bangladesh has the capability to install, operate, and maintain the nuclear power plant that it is going to purchase from Russia. The source of fuel for producing nuclear power production is Uranium. It is questionable that why Bangladesh is trying to generate nuclear power without having the capability to process the raw material of Uranium.
The one time investment for installing nuclear power plant is huge. Moreover the estimate in the beginning does not remain fixed. The amount of investment increases as the days go by. Bangladesh will have to avail suppliers' credit for the nuclear power plant. Until today, in all countries, including Bangladesh that initiated projects availing suppliers' credit or credits from different banks and donor agencies, the ruler class was benefited; people have become more indebted.
If we see the example of Brazil, the establishment cost of their first nuclear power plant established in Rio de Janeiro in 1970 was $320 million. In 1983, after the installation of the plant, total expenditure stood $2.10 billion. In 1983, the establishment cost of their second nuclear plant was estimated to be $1.60 billion. After 18 years of the stipulated time, its cost became $10 billion. It took $20 billion to finish only 35 percent of the third nuclear plant. Later on, the Brazilian Government adjourned the project.
Possibility of Mass Destruction
It is not possible for a third world country like Bangladesh to check the probable mass destruction arising out of any accidents in the nuclear power plant. A developed country like Japan even fails to avoid the crisis in the nuclear power stations. The bigger accidents like Chernobyl and Three Mile Island took place in the countries standing in the apex in terms of technological advancement. All these countries developed nuclear power plants based on their own skills. It cannot even be imagined that a sophisticated technology like nuclear power plant will run smoothly in a country like Bangladesh where simple power stations based on water, oil, and gas frequently get out of order and remain unfixed for years.
However, not only the nuclear power stations of Bangladesh, it is also necessary to close down the power stations of India and Pakistan. In India, 4,780 MWs of power is generated in six of their power stations utilizing 20 nuclear reactors. Five more power plants are under construction. There are three nuclear power plants in Pakistan from which 2.4 percent of the total power is produced. The concerned people in India have been protesting for long against their nuclear power plants.

Annual UN Climate Change: India Feels Heat

Two-week international climate conference with participants from more than 190 nations plus the European Union (EU) has already begun in Durban, South Africa on November 28. The conference is seeking ways to curb ever-rising emissions of climate-changing pollution, which scientists said last week have reached record levels of concentration in the atmosphere.
Addressing the conference, South African President Jacob Zuma said that global warming already is causing suffering and conflict in Africa, from drought in Sudan and Somalia to flooding in South African, urging delegates at an international climate conference to look beyond national interests for solutions. He added that for most people in the developing countries and Africa, climate change is a matter of life and death.
Talks Failed
Talks at the climate change conference have predictably bogged down over funding and over the insistence of the first world countries that emerging economies like India and China also commit to legally binding and higher reduction of carbon emission.
Nations like Japan, Canada, Russia and New Zealand have decided to back out of the Kyoto Protocol, the only legally binding treaty that requires 37 developed countries to reduce amount of CO2 they released. The European Union has made it clear that it would agree to more carbon reduction only if emerging economies like China and India also undertake some form of binding cuts to bring down their gases that trap heat and make the climate warm.
Government delegates from 194 countries have gathered in Durban to agree to the next steps to combat climate change. The talks have been bogged down by disagreements on the kind of actions that need to be taken by developed and developing nations.
Another area of disagreement is on the design of a Green Climate Fund, which will provide $100 billion a year from 2020 to developing countries to combat climate change. The report of the UN committee on how to set into motion such a fund is now being debated at the talks. The South American nations of Colombia, Venezuela, Nicaragua (representing the ALBA nations) as well as Saudi Arabia and the U.S have objected to its contents.
There is, however, an overall urgency for the Fund to be adopted at Durban so that money begins to flow. Tomasz Chruszczow, the Polish envoy whose country is currently presiding over the EU, told reporters that the report was a “good compromise.” “In its current form it would attract significant funding,” he said. “We believe it would be counterproductive to undertake technical decisions on the instrument.”
The Africa Group also supported India, which “is doing its fair share in the context of its own challenges,” said Nafo, the spokesperson of the Africa Group to The Tribune. The diplomat from Mali further noted that China was taking the lead in investing in renewable energies that do not pollute the environment.
As large developing economies release more CO2 in the atmosphere because of rapid economic growth in the past decades, it has also led to divisions within the bloc of G77 + China. Both have argued that their overriding priority remains poverty eradication.
Emission Reduction Obligations
Even before the annual UN climate change negotiations are formally kicked off in Durban, India was warding off pressure to commit to legally binding CO2 emission cuts. Developed countries are threatening to abandon the 1997 Kyoto Protocol, which imposes emission reduction obligations on 37 industrialized countries, if all major emitters don’t do more to curb their greenhouse gases.
The Indian delegation here has reiterated its stand that it was indeed absurd to expect India and other developing nations to undertake reductions on the lines of developed nations. The developing countries, says the Indian delegation, have the overriding priority of eradicating poverty and sustain development. Indian negotiators added that they have already taken on voluntary commitments to reduce emission by 20 per cent by 2020.
The Indian delegation cited the Stockholm Environment Institute’s Report, released in 2011, which said that pledges to reduce carbon emissions from developing countries are more than the targets set by the developed countries. The study, commissioned by Oxfam, estimates that over 60 per cent of emission cuts by 2020 are likely to be made by the developing countries. The emission reductions of China, India, South Africa and Brazil - the BASIC countries - could actually be more than the combined efforts of the seven most developed countries or zones, namely the US, the European Union, Japan, Canada, Australia, New Zealand and Russia.
Already there are concerns that talks over the next two weeks will fail. The 2010 talks in Cancun skirted around the issue with Japan and Canada asserting their opposition to the 1997 Kyoto treaty. The US had also backed out of the agreement in 2001, claiming that it was unfair. Developing countries, including India, want these talks to result in developed countries renewing their pledges, since the first phase of the treaty expires at the end of 2012.
But the European Union, Japan, Canada and Russia are not willing to be part of a treaty that neither includes the US nor emerging economies like China and India. But with mounting Republican opposition, the Obama administration cannot act decisively until the 2012 presidential elections.
Some countries have also hinted that another treaty could take as much as 10 years to work out. In Durban, the US has already made it clear that it would not agree to any legal instrument that did not put obligations on all major emitters.
The efforts to continue the North-South differentiation under the Kyoto Protocol is led by India, China, Brazil and South Africa (BASIC) countries. “The Kyoto Protocol is the cornerstone of the climate regime,” a Chinese spokesperson told delegates. “We call upon the developed countries to rise up to their historical responsibility and take the lead up by undertaking ambitious and robust commitments consistent with science.”
China is now the largest producer of carbon emissions followed by the US. Indian delegates maintained that the BASIC statement by China at the start of the conference testified to the group’s solidarity. The bloc of developing countries, however, is more fragmented due to the immediate danger faced by small island nations, which are most vulnerable to rising sea levels. The International Energy Agency report, released this month, said the world had five years before the consequences of climate change will become irreversible. The goal is to stop the Earth’s temperature from increasing more than 2 degree Celsius from pre-industrial levels. Despite the deadlock over the Kyoto Protocol, delegates from 194 countries will attempt to find solutions on issues like adaptation, finance and technology sharing.
On a positive note, however, the Indian delegation was pleased that it garnered some support for its three-point agenda - equitable access to sustainable development, unilateral trade measures (in response to the European Union aviation tax), and intellectual property rights - two of which were left out of previous Cancun agreements. India’s lead negotiator Jayant Mauskar said: “We are not talking about the Himalayas, Mumbai or the Ganges. These three issues are important for all developing countries.”
Saving Financial Costs
The UN's top climate scientist says global warming will lead to human dangers and soaring financial costs and that containing carbon emissions will have a host of benefits.
Addressing the conference, Rajendra Pachauri, head of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), said that heat waves experienced once every few decades will happen every other year by mid-century.
Coastal areas and islands are threatened with inundation by global warming, rain-reliant agriculture in Africa will shrink by half and many species will disappear.
Pachauri said: "Many impacts can be avoided, reduced or delayed by reducing emissions. The costs of action would be offset by improved health, greater energy security and more secure food supplies.”
Weather Data Released
On the sidelines of the UN-sponsored climate change talks, the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) stated that the global average temperature in 2011 was down from the record high in 2010 because of it being a La Nina year, but it was still higher than previous La Nina years.
The latest weather data highlight the conundrum of the negotiations as governments spar on whether developed or emerging countries should bear the brunt of emission reductions. Few attendees expect a breakthrough on the talks, which come amid growing warnings about the likelihood and severity of global warming.The UN weather group stated 2011, still with one month left, was the 10th warmest year on record. While the temperature was down from 2010, the WMO said it was higher than previous La Nina years. La Nina typically has a cooling influence on temperatures.

BASIC Environment Ministers’ Conference

Environment ministers of India, China, Brazil and South Africa (BASIC) group of developing countries met in Durban (South Africa) on 1 November. They sought to bridge their differences and strike a common position ahead of this month’s climate change conference in Durban. The conference has drawn attention amid reports of differences within the influential block of emerging countries.
BASIC environment ministers called on the West to ensure the extension of the Kyoto Protocol as well as step up financial and technological assistance to developing countries.
Joint Statement
In their joint statement, they said “the bloc should achieve a comprehensive, fair and balanced outcome” and “clearly establish the second commitment period under the Kyoto Protocol,” which the statement described as “the cornerstone of the climate regime” and “the essential priority” for the summit’s success.
South Africa has been seen as coming under particular pressure to strike a balance between the BASIC group’s position and the West under its additional responsibility as host of the summit and acting president of the Conference of Parties.
Quantified Emissions Reduction Objectives
However, South Africa’s lead climate negotiator, Alf Wills, sought to draw a line over reports that his country was moving away from the essential BASIC position that developing countries, unlike developed Annex-1 countries, would not accept legally binding emission reduction commitments.
Wills said: “There has always been this misunderstanding that South Africa is advocating that developing countries take on these quantified emissions reduction objectives. That is untrue. We have always held the position that we will meet our legal obligation to take mitigation actions consistent with our respective common but differentiated responsibilities and our respective capabilities.”
He added: “South Africa shared the view of the BASIC group that “the current Kyoto Protocol system, which elaborates those specific legal obligations that developed countries have in a multilateral rules-based system…provides the benchmark and cornerstone for any future climate change regime or system.”
Pressure From West
Although South Africa did not appear to voice any disagreement with the BASIC position during meetings, officials expressed the concern that once negotiations started in earnest in Durban, the country might face particular pressure as the host nation to dilute its stance. There is a fear that there will be attempts by the West to divide the BASIC group.
BASIC nations – and China in particular – have come under increasing pressure from the West to agree to a road map on undertaking legally binding emission reduction targets. The European Union (EU) has said it preferred “a single global and comprehensive legally binding instrument,” although it was open, in the interim, to a second commitment period under the Kyoto Protocol on the condition that large emitters agree on a road map.
BASIC environment ministers also identified financing as “one of the pressing priorities” at the Durban conference, calling on developed countries to fulfill their commitment of providing US$ 30 billion as fast-start funding.
As far as India is concerned, Minister of Environment and Forests Jayanthi Natarajan said that New Delhi was “completely committed to the stand of BASIC countries.”
Debt Crisis and Recession
The West had to come through with funding regardless of the current financial turmoil sweeping across Europe. It is painfully conscious of its problems.
BASIC environment ministers also urged developed countries to honor a commitment to provide $100 billion per year by 2020, officials accepted that was increasingly unlikely following the debt crisis and the recession, and emerging countries would perhaps have to settle for “millions and not billions.”
Xie Zhenhua, China’s top climate official, did not rule out the possibility of bridging differences with the West despite EU insistence on developing countries taking on greater commitments.
In a multilateral mechanism, a solution is something that everyone can accept even if no one is satisfied. For this, each individual must make a compromise, but the basis of the compromise is to stick to commitments and conventions agreed to in Copenhagen and Cancun.

Rise of China Triggers External Response Syndrome

In the recent period, international commentaries that discuss the shift in China's foreign policy have increased. These international commentaries opine that with the increased influence of China in the international arena, the attitude of China toward the outside world has also become tough, arrogant, and is gradually giving up its traditional strategy of 'keeping low profile to conserve power.'

The forming of such opinions by international commentaries about China in recent months is based primarily on China's tough stance that was different from the past as reflected in Chinese leaders' handling of the Copenhagen Climate Change Conference, President Obama's meeting with the Dalai Lama, Washington's arms sales to Taiwan, Chinese currency Renminbi (RMB) exchange rate issue and a series of other incidents such as the withdrawal of Google Search Engine portal from China.

However, through this series of recent events, what the writer of this article observed is that China has neither changed its foreign policy nor has China suddenly become tougher in the international arena than in the past. Such perception is formed when the West becomes worry and concern about the speedy emergence of China and with that concern; the West has developed a sense of loss.

Stand Toward International Community
Let us first take a look at China's reaction at the UN Climate Change Conference held in Copenhagen. At the UN Copenhagen Conference, China only insisted on adhering to the 'Kyoto Protocol' and ascertained the Bali roadmap fundamental principles. China did not come out with any new request. On the contrary, it was the United States and European countries that sought to deny the existing global warming negotiation framework and tried to start the negotiation all over again. Therefore, at that Copenhagen Conference, instead of saying China has taken a tough attitude, it is better to say the western countries have kept changing their minds.

As for the so-called incident whereby Chinese Prime Minister Wen Jiabao did not attend the small scale multilateral summit as invited and thus reflected the arrogance of the Chinese leader, such accusation was indeed baseless. For what has transpired on this incident, Prime Minister Wen Jiabao has already given a good explanation at the press conference held during the 'two sessions.'

On US President Barack Obama's meeting with the Dalai Lama, although the Chinese Government did come out with strong words and statement in protest of the US President's meeting with the Dalai Lama, such statement was only limited to diplomatic protest. China in fact did not take any concrete action toward such protest. In the past, when the previous US presidents met with the Dalai Lama, China had always staged strong words to protest such US action. As such, judging China's traditional stand on the Dalai Lama issue, although President Obama has met with the Dalai Lama, China's position on this has been the same in the past. China did not sudden change its attitude over this issue.

Enacting Taiwan Relations Act
Now let us look at the US arms sales to Taiwan. Some US scholars opine that in the past the United States has also sold arms to Taiwan, but the Chinese Government's reaction toward it has not been as strong as the current one. However, they claimed that for this round of arms sale to Taiwan, the protest from Beijing was extraordinary strong. However such claim cannot stand the test of time. Ever since the United States enacted the 'Taiwan Relations Act' with Taiwan, the United States has engaged in arms sales to Taiwan for more than 50 times. But unlike the recent one, all the past arms sales to Taiwan only involved tens of millions of US dollars or hundreds of millions of US dollars. In other words, the amounts of arms sales to Taiwan were relatively small in the past.

Even with such a small amount of arms sale to Taiwan then, the Sino-US ties in the past 30 years have gone through many rounds of confrontation over the arms sale to Taiwan issue. In 2001, the US arms sale to Taiwan and the fleet conflicts between China and the United States along the South China Sea have added together and resulted in massive and strong anti-US protests by the people in China. As such as compared with the Obama administration's approval of arms sales to Taiwan, the protest coming from Beijing cannot be considered as too harsh and tough. Moreover, President Obama's announcement on arms sales to Taiwan was as high as $60 billion dollars. For such a large amount of arms sales to Taiwan, China's reaction and the people's response to it has not been particularly strong as compared with in the past.

Google Controversy
Another issue that has led the West to support the 'China becoming tougher and more arrogance' theory is based on China's reaction to the Google search engine portal. Some US media commentaries opined that China did not make any compromise with Google and that China has taken a tough attitude in handling the Google case. But in fact, the network filtering policy was not made by China when the Google controversial emerged recently. Several years ago when Google decided to enter the Chinese market, Google has already accepted such network filtering request from China. The initiator of the Google controversy was not China but Google. Therefore, if people interpreted that the Google case as China trying to impose stringent and tougher controls of network filtering on Google alone, such presumption is difficult to convince people.

Now let us look at China's currency RMB exchange rate issue. Some US media believed that in the past when the United States bought up China's RMB exchange rate issue, China would make concessions and compromises; but this time, China has stood firm on the currency issue. As a matter of fact, each year the US Congress would raise the RMB exchange rate issue however, it the past the annual US Treasury report released in April had never regarded China as 'currency manipulator.' This year, speculation that the US Treasury report would put China as currency manipulator was stirred very hot; and for the first time the US Treasury has delayed releasing such report but it did not refuse the request of US Congress in wanting to list China as 'currency manipulator.' Therefore, on the Chinese RMB exchange rate issue, it was the United States especially the US Government that has taken the hard-line attitude and not China.

Comprehensive Response to Rise of China
As explained above, it is difficult for us to observe that China has become tough. We also cannot observe that China's foreign policy has gone through major adjustment. Nevertheless, why has the international community, particularly the western nations think that China is becoming more rude and arrogant? I am afraid this is due to the fact that the rapid rise of China has triggered such external comprehensive response syndrome.

Since the outburst of global financial crisis, the emergence of China has become even more obvious। While China's speedy economic recovery was obvious, the western economy on the other hand, has become stagnant. As a kind of psychological sense of loss, the West has shifted blame to others. Even China has not changed its foreign policy; the economic rise of China will inevitably continue to become the target of western anger. To describe this phenomenon figuratively, it is as what the Chinese proverb says: 'when the tree becomes big, it will attract wind.'

Global Financial Crisis
In fact, in the process of China's emergence, the West has always maintained suspicious, jealous or even a resistant attitude. As such, during different period of time, all sorts of theory on the so-called the collapse of China, the threat of China, the stakeholder responsibility of china has come to the surface.

After the global financial crisis, China has shown stronger signs of recovery. Some people in the West have again come out with worry and concern about what direction a rising China will go. Moreover the international community has also become even more concerned about how the emergent China will play its influential role in the international arena. Therefore, regardless of what China does and what China says, the international community would like to put China's words and deeds under spotlight to magnify them and to come out with their own interpretation.

The influence of a strong China and the influence of a weak China in the international arena are of course different. As such the attention and the impact caused by the words and acts of a strong China are different from a weak China. This is like what will happen to our daily life as a human being. When a celebrity's words and deeds will attract attention and result in wanton speculation, but an ordinary people's words and deeds are rarely of any concern to anybody.

Toward International Spotlight
Therefore, to the emerging China that is moving toward the international spotlight and international platform gradually, when the same words and deeds China in the past might not stir strong reaction from the international community, but the similar words and deeds carried out by China this year might suddenly lead to media speculation. This is an inevitable response syndrome that can happen to China during the rise of China. This can further explain the reason why when the Chinese feel that their own words and actions have not changed, but the West feel that China is getting tougher and become more arrogant.

Nevertheless, this is the 'growing pain' of most major powers when they began to emerge in the international arena. To the speedy emerging China, this growing trouble has resulted in China has to deal with the increasingly complex range of domestic issues, and that at the same time, in the international arena, China will always have to be concerned about the reaction and feelings of the international community toward its words and deeds of China now. From analytical perspective, if China can keep adjusting its conduct and behavior during its speedily emerging process, China can make the international community feels that there is indeed no change in China's foreign policy.

The United States: World's Biggest Polluter

The global conference on environment was recently held in Copenhagen, the capital city of Denmark. The conference discussed the issue of reducing the release of carbon dioxide and other such toxic gases that destroy the global environment. Today the world is confronting the major issue of environment. Some of the countries of the world have been blamed that they are producing a lot of material releasing carbon dioxide for their industrial development that is affecting the green house gases. This is causing an increase in global temperature. More than 1,500 envoys of the 192 countries participated in this conference. The importance of this issue could be judged from the fact that more than 100 head of states attended this conference. Similarly, more than 100,000 protesters were protesting against these hypocritical policies of the developed countries on streets. However, an important factor was not mentioned over there in the conference. How is it possible that the element responsible for spreading the environmental pollution could not be mentioned in the conference? This agency is playing havoc with the global environment by producing most of the carbon dioxide and other such toxic gases. This agency is US Defense Ministry or Pentagon. Pentagon is a geometrical shape having five sides. To the readers' interest, I must tell that as the US Defense Ministry building is of Pentagon shape, therefore, this building and the US Defense Ministry is called Pentagon.

Largest Oil Consumer
Pentagon is the world's largest oil consumer, its relevant materials and energy user in the world. Despite this fact, it is quite strange that the role of this agency has been shelved under the carpet in almost all global conferences on environment. The release of green house gases during war activities of Pentagon in Iraq and Afghanistan, its secret actions in Pakistan, the equipment used on its more than 1,000 bases spread all over the world, its 6,000 installations in the US, all NATO's operations, its huge aircraft carriers, jet fighters, tests and sales of weapons, sale of weapons and training of troops have never been attributed to the US Government. It has been proved through bulletin of 17 February 2007 that Pentagon is the largest oil consumer in the world. This bulletin contains the details of the jet fighters, ships, vehicles, and installations of Pentagon where oil is used. At that time, the US Navy had around 285 war and supporting ships and 4,000 jet fighters. The US military had approximately 28,000 armored vehicles and approximately 140,000 HMWV. More than 4,000 choppers, several hundreds of other planes, a fleet of 187,497 vehicles, nuclear submarines, huge ships, and aircraft carriers where jet fighters land and take off and they release radio active material in the atmosphere all the time. Moreover, thousands of other army vehicles also use oil. According to the CIA World Fact Book of 2006, there are 210 countries in the world and there are only 35 countries are using more oil than Pentagon. According to an officially released data, the US military uses approximately 321,000 barrels oil in a day and the quantity of that oil has not been counted, which is used by the Army-affiliated contractors or private agencies working on lease. The preparation of deadly weapons, bombs, grenades and missiles and unlimited energy used during their tests and other resources are besides this huge consumption. According to the report of Steve Kretzmann, director of the Oil Change International, approximately141 (MMTCO2e) was released in the air during Iraq war from March 2003 to December 2007.

Major Difficulties
Approximately 60 percent of the total gases released by all countries is released in areas where war is underway. Release of toxic gases is prohibited in war-torn areas under the US law. Therefore, scientists have to face several difficulties, while gathering this data. Bryan Farrell is considered an expert environmentalist and he has written in his book The Green Zone-The Environmental Cost of Militarism that "the great attacks on the environment of the each is launched by an agency, which is the US military". It is strange that the activities of the US Defense Ministry Pentagon have got exception in the global environmental conferences. It is also really a strange tale.
The global conference on environment held in Japanese city of Kyoto in 1997. The US Government imposed this condition, while signing the agreement that the US military action in the world, participation of the US military in UN missions, and US-NATO joint military actions would not be discussed in the global environmental conferences. Under the force of circumstances, the participants of the conference accepted this condition, so that the United State could sign this agreement. However, the United States adopted its deceptive posture, and when the entire world acknowledged its condition, it refused to sign the agreement. In this way, the United States deceptively removed its military actions from the agenda of any global conference in the world. This great concession has provided freehand to the United States in that it could play havoc with the environment of the world through its military action as much as it desires.

Impact of Toxic Gases and Materials
In addition to carbon dioxide, the US military is adding up several other toxic gases and materials in the soil and water. The US military is also using weapons that have been manufactured with less powerful uranium. These weapons were used on wholesale basis in the Middle East, Balkan, and some areas of the Central Asia. That spread thousands of pounds used material and radioactive particles in the areas. The US Government is also selling explosive mines and cluster bombs on wholesale basis. These bombs causing damages to farmers and common citizens after they are sprayed in the fields in Africa, Asia, and Latin America. Thousands of people have been maimed due to this. Israel showered more than 100,000 US supplied cluster bombs on Lebanon in 2006.
Toxic and chemical material was spread on a vast area in Vietnam because of the US invasion. Because of that invasion, still the level of dioxin toxic gas is 300-400 above dangerous level. This is causing birth-disabilities to the newborn babies and diseases like cancer. The Iraqi land was the most fertile land in the Middle East since 5,000 years.

Environmental Pollution
However, the twice US invasion has devastated its fertility. Iraq used to supply food to other countries and now it imports more than 80 percent from aboard. We have not mentioned the nuclear bombs dropped by the United States on Nagasaki and Hiroshima. No agreement can decrease the environmental pollution, in which the US military actions are not included. The world should include the US military actions in its agenda.

Growing Global Warming and Expectations From Obama

A report released by the Australian Parliament two days ago warned that global warming, which has resulted in a rise in sea levels and frequent heavy rains would threaten homes along its thousands of kilometers of its coastline. Among them, the greatest threat is Queensland because 250,000 houses there may be covered with water. This is followed by New South Wales, with 200,000 houses along its coastline under threat. At present, coastal floods and coastal erosion in New South Wales have already resulted in the state suffering from great economic losses every year.
Impact of Climate Change
As compared with Australia, the threat posed by rising sea level in other smaller islands or island states are even more serious; and some islands may even face the fate of being drowned by the sea eventually. The United Nations Special Committee on Climate Change predicts that before the year 2100, global sea level could rise by 80 cm.
To this end, the Maldivian Government recently held an "underwater cabinet meeting" in order to bring attention to all countries of the world the importance to treat the impact of climate change seriously. Action taken by the Maldives is sufficient enough to show that island states are particularly worried about the issue relating to rising sea level.
Of course, the impact of global warming will affect beyond the islands and island states. Global warming will cause imbalance in global ecological environment leading to the environment of the Earth that the mankind depends on heavily be destroyed eventually. Scientists predict that, if the world nations do not immediately reduce substantial amount of carbon dioxide and other industrial waste gas emissions by 2060, average global temperatures will rise by 4 to 6 degrees. This is an extremely grim and terrible picture to think about.
Ozone Layer in Atmosphere
Carbon dioxide can destroy the ozone layer in the atmosphere and allow direct sunlight to shine on the Earth's surface. At the same time, the destruction of ozone layer will also prevent the heat on the Earth to reflect back to the atmosphere resulting in the greenhouse global warming effect.
Because of the understanding of this phenomenon and the cause of it, scientists and governments across the world have long reached a consensus. As such they want to put the focus to resolve global warming on the reduction of carbon dioxide emissions.
Kyoto Protocol
In 1992, the Framework Convention on Climate Change was signed at the United Nations Summit, held in Rio de Janeiro. This Framework pointed out that the international community has "common yet different" responsibility toward global climate impact. In other words, this Framework stipulated that developed and developing countries will have to bear their respective responsibility to stop the process of global warming. This principle was incorporated in the "Kyoto Protocol" signed by respective countries in 1997. The Kyoto Protocol makes it a requirement for developed countries to reduce the amount of carbon dioxide emission level by 2012, but for developing countries the Protocol does not define clear requirement. In 2001, the US Administration announced its withdrawal from the treaty, resulting in other countries not willing to comply with the requirement of the Kyoto Protocol.
UN Climate Change Conference
This brings to the importance of the United Nations Climate Change Conference to be held in Copenhagen at the end of the year. At this UN Copenhagen Conference to discuss climate change, countries of the world will again make another effort to curb the speed of global warming. More than 190 head of states will attend this conference. The decision for countries of the world to achieve a legally binding treaty at this round of the UN conference will have direct impact on whether world community can really take practical action to slow down the global warming trend as early as possible. In this based on current situation, respective countries of the world have made some encouraging progress.
First, there is this responsibility sharing issue. Since the Rio Summit, held in 1992, China, India, and other countries as well the EU nations had already carried out long period of debate on this issue. But, by now, there is not much difference on this responsibility share issue among these countries. At the UN Climate Change Summit, held in September, Chinese President Hu Jintao has made impressive commitments. China's commitments include substantial reduction of China's industrial waste emissions before 2020. At an academic meeting held in Copenhagen in early October, the Indian minister for the environment has also in principle, made a commitment to reduce energy consumption.
Second, the EU has the intention to, according to the need of developing countries; provide developing countries with an environmental protection fund. China and India have proposed for developed countries to set aside 1 percent of their GDP to help poor countries improve their environmental management. But there is no positive response toward such a proposal coming from developed countries. But more recently, the EU has demonstrated a positive attitude toward such a proposal. Although the amount of environmental funds provided by developed countries might not meet the need of developing nations that need help to improve their countries' environmental condition, if there is any forthcoming action toward such a proposal, it should nevertheless be a welcome gesture.
Despite the fact that there are some positive developments to enable the Copenhagen Summit to attain a certain degree of optimism, but the key to success of this UN conference lies in the United States. Since the change of the national leadership in the United States, the Obama administration has already abandoned the former Bush government's negative stance on the climate change issue. The Osama administration has also submitted to the Congress a climate change policy bill.
However, as the Obama administration's health reform program is a priority issue to the Americans, this climate bill has also been stuck in the Senate. If within the next few weeks, this US climate bill cannot be passed, President Obama will travel to Copenhagen empty-handed. In the end, the Copenhagen Conference aimed to discuss global climate change might also end up not having any concrete results achieved.
Demand of Situation
At present, the United Nations and all world governments are making a final effort to make this Copenhagen Conference that they have spent long period to prepare can come out with some consensus as anticipated. Recently, the head of states between China and the United States have again expressed their respective political will toward environmental effort through telephones.
More recently, China and India have also signed some environmental cooperation agreement. All these developments show that major powers have taken a more positive attitude to deal with the global warming issue. This is a very important and indispensable ingredient for the prevention of global warming to take effect. But time is indeed running out as the date for the UN Climate Change Conference to be held in Copenhagen is approaching. If actions taken by relevant key world players remain less forthcoming than we expect, it will still be a big question mark to gauge if the coming UN Climate Change Conference can reach the desired consensus.

Developed Nations Ignores Threat of Climate Change

The much-publicized international conference organized in New Delhi recently on climate change ended without any concrete conclusion. Developed countries are not ready to give green technology to developing countries at cheap rates. It was expected that an agreement on it would be reached during the Delhi conference, but they have only disappointed us.

Rapidly Emitting Comparatively Gases
It is clear that there is no change in the attitude of developed countries. Even after struggling hard at Kyoto, Bali, and the UN, they are ignoring the imminent threat of climate change.

The figures released by UN show that developed countries are rapidly emitting comparatively more gases, whereas the rate of gas emission by developing countries is much lower in comparison to them.

Prohibitory Laws
The developed countries expect developing countries, which are facing the serious problem of poverty, to cut down their emission to the expected level, but they themselves are not ready to do it. In addition to that, they are also trying to exert pressure on weaker countries by passing prohibitory laws.

In this situation, developing countries cannot be tied down in any legal limit at the cost of their development. They would decide about cutting down emission on their own, looking at their needs. In this context, developing countries have seen a new ray of hope by the agreement between India and China, recently.

Fighting Climate Change

UN General Secretary Ban Ki-moon called a meeting of 100 heads of States and governments to prepare the ground for the conference on climate changes to be held in Copenhagen in December 2009. India's advice to the United States at the meeting to abandon its luxurious lifestyle and exercise restraint to save the world deserves wide acclaim.

India's Advice
Needless to say that such advice have hardly any effect on the United States or other rich countries. Satisfied with their own prosperity, these are countries that ought to take the climate change issue seriously. They must examine how ruthlessly they have exploited resources, and spoilt the climate and the world, and how they can now make amends.

Rajendra Pachauri, chairman of the inter-government panel on climate changes and Nobel laureate has also emphasized the need for the United States to change its lifestyle to fight climate changes. The United States accounts for 20 percent of the total greenhouse gas emission in the world. It consumes 12 percent of the world's bio-fuel. In this situation, it is only fair to expect the United States to come up with some strong measures.

Maintaining Fuel Capacity Standards
As far as India is concerned, it is accountable only for 5 percent of the total greenhouse gas emission. It has already started taking unilateral measures, without being asked, to overcome climate changes by 2020.

These include maintaining essential fuel capacity standards, taking initiative for durable energy, refined coal techniques, and for reduction of methane emission by dairy farms. At the same time, it cannot compromise with the country's development at any cost either.

Kyoto Protocol on Climate
As a matter of fact, the term of the "Kyoto Protocol" on climate will be over in 2012. The purpose of the Copenhagen summit is to reach an understanding that will take the place of the Kyoto Protocol on greenhouse emission.

Since signs of a change in climate because of global warming are quite clear, it behooves all major countries to regard the world as a joint heritage and protect it. They should stop its temperature from rising any further.