Mike Pandey - The Wild Life Film Maker

 MIKE PANDEY Filmmaker and Conservationist

   Mike Pandey Website

Palm oil both a leading threat to orangutans and a key source of jobs in Sumatra

Of the world's two species of orangutan, a great ape that shares 96 percent of man's genetic makeup, the Sumatran orangutan is considerably more endangered than its cousin in Borneo. Today there are believed to be fewer than 7,000 Sumatran orangutans in the wild, a consequence of the wildlife trade, hunting, and accelerating destruction of their native forest habitat by loggers, small-scale farmers, and agribusiness.

Gunung Leuser National Park in North Sumatra is one of the last strongholds for the species, serving as a refuge among paper pulp concessions and rubber and oil palm plantations. While orangutans are relatively well protected in areas around tourist centers, they are affected by poorly regulated interactions with tourists, which have increased the risk of disease and resulted in high mortality rates among infants near tourist centers like Bukit Lawang. Further, orangutans that range outside the park or live in remote areas or on its margins face conflicts with developers, including loggers, who may or may not know about the existence of the park, and plantation workers, who may kill any orangutans they encounter in the fields. 

Working to improve the fate of orangutans that find their way into plantations and unprotected community areas is the Orangutan Information Centre (OIC), a local NGO that collaborates with the Sumatran Orangutan Society (SOS). Founded by Panut Hadisiswoyo, OIC runs outreach and education programs to help local people better co-exist with orangutans and the park. Its "OrangUvan," a bus equipped with a library and a mobile cinema, regularly visits villages to make children and adults aware of conservation efforts and the importance of protecting forests. OIC also operates tree nurseries and replanting programs to help restore livelihoods where unsustainable logging and environmental degradation have pushed villagers to illegally cut timber from the national park. Further, OIC is preparing the next generation of conservationists and ecotourism guides, running how-to workshops on surveying forest conditions and orangutan density, boat handling, nature photography, composting and organic farming, and responsible nature guiding (that doesn't harm orangutans or the environment). In conjunction with the Orang Utan Republik Foundation, OIC runs a scholarship program for Indonesian University students that aims to help enable them become key members of the conservation movement in Sumatra and inspire others to care for nature and their environment. 

OIC is also working to engage the palm oil industry, a challenge since oil palm expansion is both a leading driver of deforestation and an important source of jobs in the region. While many large palm oil companies are eager to shed the perception that they are a threat to orangutans, plantation developers continue to drive destruction of important orangutan habitat, especially in unprotected areas. Deforestation, as well as drainage of carbon-dense peatlands, is also a huge source of greenhouse gas emissions, undermining claims that palm oil is necessarily a "green" source of fuel and vegetable oil. Indeed, palm oil produced on newly deforested lands is actually the opposite—a larger source of carbon dioxide than conventional fossil fuels. But demonizing all palm oil is neither productive nor fair. Oil palm is the world’s highest yielding oilseed, generating substantially more vegetable oil per unit of land than soy, rapeseed/canola, or corn. Further, the crop has become an important source of income in much of rural Sumatra, while serving as an inexpensive foodstuff for local people and the world. 

a) Protected and unprotected forests in 1990 for the main island of Sumatra and the smaller island of Siberut, including adjacent unprotected land lying within 10 km of protected area (PA) boundaries and the wider unprotected landscape, and showing the spatial distribution of the 1264 sample cells (25 km2). (b) Remaining forests in 2000, deforestation and logging trails occurring during the period 1990–2000 (UTM projection, WGS84). Protected areas (PAs) protecting mangroves or created after 2000 are not shown. MAPS available at sumatranforest.org

Is there a way to balance palm oil production and environmental aims? Some environment groups are advocating a ban on all palm oil, but given rising demand for edible oils, especially in China and India, this is an unlikely solution. Other groups, including SOS and OIC, are hopeful that the Roundtable on Sustainable Palm Oil (RSPO), a multi-stakeholder body devising a certification standard that aims to improve the environmental performance of palm oil production, could be the path forward, provided the scheme is credible. But credibility is elusive when RSPO members (whom are not necessarily certified palm oil producers; they are only required to pay a membership fee to be part of RSPO) are found to be attempting to game the system, breaking rules and refusing third-party compliance monitoring. Such practices risk turning RSPO into little more than another greenwashing initiative, a concern that has already turned away some potential supporters, including a few major buyers of palm oil who are now seeking other vegetable oil options. Still, OIC believes that in the end a credible RSPO will be better for orangutans and better for business than the alternative—continued destruction of tropical forests and peatlands. 

In a series of interviews conducted in Medan and Bukit Lawang (Sumatra) and via e-mail, Panut Hadisiswoyo and David Dellatore of OIC, and Helen Buckland, UK Director of the Sumatran Orangutan Society, talked about their efforts to save the world's rarest orangutan species as well as the "palm oil paradox." 

INDONASIAN RAINFOREST - IN DANGER

Today just under half of Indonesia is forested, representing a significant decline in its original forest cover. Between 1990 and 2005 the country lost more than 28 million hectares of forest, including 21.7 hectares of virgin forest. Its loss of biologically rich primary forest was second only to Brazil during that period, and since the close of the 1990s, deforestation rates of primary forest cover have climbed 26 percent. Today Indonesia's forests are some of the most threatened on the planet.

Indonesia's forests are being degraded and destroyed by logging, mining operations, large-scale agricultural plantations, colonization, and subsistence activities like shifting agriculture and cutting for fuelwood. Rainforest cover has steadily declined since the 1960s when 82 percent of the country was covered with forest, to 68 percent in 1982, to 53 percent in 1995, and 49 percent today. Much of this remaining cover consists of logged-over and degraded forest.

The effects from forest loss have been widespread, including irregular river flows, soil erosion, and reduced yield from of forest products. Pollution from chlorine bleach used in pulp bleaching and run-off from mines has damaged river systems and adjacent cropland, while wildlife poaching has reduced populations of several conspicuous species including the orangutan (endangered), Bali and Javan tigers (extinct), and Javan and Sumatran rhinos (on the brink of extinction). On the island of New Guinea (Irian Jaya) the world's only tropical glacier is receding due to climate change, but also due to the local effects of mining and deforestation. 

Nicobar Pigeon

Logging for tropical timbers and pulpwood is the best-known cause of forest loss and degradation in the country. Indonesia is the world's largest exporter of tropical timber, generating upwards of US$5 billion annually, and more than 48 million hectares (55 percent of the country's remaining forests) are concessioned for logging. Logging in Indonesia has opened some of the most remote, forbidding places on earth to development. After decimating much of the forests in less remote locations, timber firms have stepped up practices on the island of Borneo and the state of Irian Jaya on New Guinea, where great swaths of forests have been cleared in recent years and logging firms have to move deeper and deeper into the interior to find suitable trees. For example, in the mid-1990s, only 7 percent of Indonesia's logging concessions were located in Irian Jaya, but today more than 20 percent exist in the territory. 


Legal timber harvesting affects 700,000-850,000 hectares of forest per year in Indonesia, but widespread illegal logging boosts the overall logged area to at least 1.2-1.4 million hectares and possibly much higher—in 2004, Environment Minister Nabiel Makarim said that 75 percent of logging in Indonesia is illegal. Despite an official ban on the export of raw logs from Indonesia, timber is regularly smuggled to Malaysia, Singapore, and other Asian countries. By some estimates, Indonesia is losing around $1 billion a year in tax revenue from the illicit trade. Illegal cutting is also hurting legitimate timber-harvesting businesses by reducing the supply of logs available for processing, and undercutting international prices for wood and wood products. 

India battles to cut greenhouse gases from cattle

Global warming is normally associated with the gases coming out of cars and factories, but it seems India's contribution to heating the planet is mostly four-legged and sacred.
Local scientists are now trying to make the country's cows eat better and emit less gas.


Each cow emits 200 kilograms of methane into the atmosphere, every day.


That may not sound like much, but put hundreds of millions of them together, and you have a monumental problem. Consequently, India's livestock contributes more to global warming than the country's cars and factories put together.




At the National Dairy Research Institute at Karnal, 160 km from the capital New Delhi, Dr. Singhal explains that, despite the threat of global warming, livestock are the backbone of India's rural economy and cannot be simply wished away.


“Whatever [an] animal consumes is fermented inside their stomachs and methane is being produced, and that is emitted into the environment. So it is a problem,” Dr. Singhal says.


Unlike its robust counterparts in Western countries, the majority of India's livestock is underfed and undernourished, and given poor-quality feed. This means higher amounts of methane being emitted.


So scientists are working on ways to improve their diets, and cause them to emit smaller amounts of the gas.


The typical Indian farmer is unable to buy expensive dietary supplements created in the West. So the emphasis here is on finding indigenous solutions, for example herbal additives that contain the chemical saponin. These are cheaper and reduce methane emission by 20%. The institute believes it could have a marketable product within three years.


“Methane emissions are going to play a more important role in global warming than carbon dioxide in this century. This is absolutely true, because the rate at which methane is increasing, is 6 to 7 times higher than carbon dioxide… The projects which we are planning, if we succeed in them, then certainly we will be a leader in solving the problem of global warming related to the livestock sector,” Dr. Anil Kumar Srivastava, head of the National Dairy Research Institute says.


This is where a key battle against global warming will be fought. India is hoping to set the pace when it comes to research against methane emissions. By that, it hopes to change what is a disadvantage – in terms of number of livestock – into an advantage.

Facts That you should Know

We people are unaware of pollution but there are many simple facts that will amaze all of us. After taking a look, think what we have done & then you can imagine yourself that what will be our  future.  Just take a look - 

1. For every one of the 6 billion people on earth, nearly four tons of carbon dioxide is spewed into the air annually.

2. World wide, rainforests are dissapearing at a rate of one and a half football fields per second. Each spring the forests beathe in oxygen and the earth breathes out again the following autumn, but like a heavy smokers lungs the earth is loosing its ability to breathe at all. Just a few centuries ago, earths equator was girdled by a green belt of 15 million sq. miles of rain forest, an area about 5-times that of contiguous US. Now the equiv. of 3 USA's worth of Forest are GONE! there is only 6.2 million sq. miles left ...

3. Americans consume 22% of the worlds oil, even though they make up just 5% of the world's population - as a result the past 100 years has seen heat trapping gases increase by 22%

4. Other 'warming gases' are; methane, nitrous, oxide and chloroflurocarbons (or CFC's). CFC's were invented by Thomas Midgley, Jr. whilst working for General Motors. CFC's exist at parts per trillion (ppt), however, each molecule has more than 12,000 times the heat-trapping potential of a molecule of CO2.

5. Our atmosphere was first compared to a "Glass Vessel" in 1827 by the French mathematicians, Jean-Baptiste Joseph Fourier. IN 1850 British physicist James Tyndall took things further and tried to measure the heat trapping properties of various componenets of the atmosphere. He discovered that (suprisingly) that the twomost common gases, nitrogen and oxygen, have no heat-trapping ability; 99% of the atmosphere has no insulating properties at all. It's up to a few trace gases, water vapour, CO2, methane and others to keep the planet cosy.

6. Importance of CO2 as earth's climate regulator was confirmed when scientists drilled out Ice Core in Antartica. They extracted a mile long cylinder of ice. Dating back 160,000 years they found an unbroken record of both temp and atmospheric levels of CO2; these two factors alone controlling previous thaws and ice ages.

7. Every time CO2 descends so do the temperatures. When temps were avg. 5oC, CO2 = 190ppm (parts per million) Throughout the 160,000 years the temps fluctuated between 190 - 280 ppm.

By the end of the 1900's CO2 = 300 ppm

8. In 1896 Arrhenius spelled out in an essay; "we are evaporating our coal mines into the air." You used to be able to stand on a hill and see up to 70 miles away, now you can only seeabout 15 miles.

9. In the year AD1 there were about 250million humans on earth. It took 1,650 years for that number to double. Between 1650 and 1930 the human population rose 4 times to 2 billion. By the turn of the century 6 billion on Earth - 3X the population just 70 years earlier. 

10. There are about 500 million cars on the planet and by 2030 it is expected to double to 1 billion cars ... It is believed that current fuel supplies peaked in 2006.

When you consider that the entire atmosphere of Earth weighs 5 million, billion tons, it seems okay - but remember only a little CO2 controls the warming.

                                                                                

                                                                                                                

THINK AGAIN

       We are responsible

         For What????

   For That  

                       Here is the result








 

US climate agency declares CO2 public danger

US climate agency declares CO2 public danger
Environmental Protection Agency declaration allows it to impose emissions cuts without agreement of reluctant Senate

Lisa Jackson announcing the new US government position that greenhouse gases are a threat to public health. Photograph: Jonathan Ernst/Reuters



The Obama administration adopted its climate change plan B today, formally declaring carbon dioxide a public danger so that it can cut greenhouse gas emissions even without the agreement of a reluctant Senate.


The timing of the announcement – in the opening hours of the UN's Copenhagen climate change summit – prevents Barack Obama from arriving at the talks without concrete evidence that America will do its bit to cut the emissions that cause global warming.


"Climate change has now become a household issue," said Lisa Jackson, head of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), adding that the evidence of climate change was real and increasingly alarming. "This administration will not ignore science or the law any longer, nor will we ignore the responsibility we owe to our children and our grandchildren."


The announcement gives the EPA a legal basis for capping emissions from major sources such as coal power plants, as well as cars. Jackson said she hoped it would help to spur a deal in Copenhagen.


The EPA action had been seen as a backstop should Congress fail to pass climate change law. Obama and other officials had repeatedly said they would prefer to pass legislation, but that prospect has grown increasingly remote. The House of Representatives narrowly passed a climate change bill in June, but the proposals have stalled in the Senate.


Jackson said the EPA's regulations, which would come into effect from next spring, would not be too onerous, applying only to facilities emitting more than 25,000 tonnes of carbon dioxide a year.


The oil and manufacturing industries, which have opposed climate change action, said the move was overly politicised, and warned that the new regulations would be tied up in lawsuits.


The US Chamber of Commerce, also sceptical on global warming, said the move would hurt the economy. "An endangerment finding from the EPA could result in a top-down, command-and-control regime that will choke off growth by adding new mandates to virtually every major construction and renovation project," said Thomas Donohue, the chamber's president.


Jackson is to address the Copenhagen meeting on Wednesday, while Obama will join more than 100 other world leaders in the Danish capital on the final day of the conference, on 18 December.


The endangerment declaration dates from a supreme court decision in 2007 ordering the EPA to make a ruling on whether carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gas emissions were a pollutant subject to the Clean Air Act of the 1970s.

Rapid Climate Change

Sea levels will rise if the gigantic ice sheets in Greenland and west Antarctica start to break up

What is climate change?


The Earth's climate has always varied, so the term climate change is now generally used to describe the changes caused by human activity - specifically, greenhouse emissions such as carbon dioxide and methane, which build up in the atmosphere and trap heat.


Is it the same as global warming?


As human activity increases the concentration of these gases in the atmosphere far beyond their natural levels, much more heat is trapped. Hence, the term climate change is often used interchangeably with global warming.


Can it be explained by natural causes?


Measurements at the Earth's surface show that average temperatures have risen by some 0.4C since the 1970s. Scientists are confident this change can be blamed on human emissions because the increase is too big to be explained by natural causes.


Although natural factors such as changes in the sun and large volcanic eruptions are known to have warmed and cooled the planet in the past, these effects are not powerful enough to explain the rapid warming seen recently. Only an increased greenhouse effect caused by higher amounts of heat-trapping gases in the atmosphere can explain it.


What is the main greenhouse gas?


Water vapour in the atmosphere produces the strongest greenhouse effect, but it has been in balance for millions of years. Human emissions, though relatively small, tip that balance.


Carbon dioxide is the chief greenhouse gas produced by human activity. It is produced when we burn fossil fuels: oil, gas and coal. The level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is measured in parts per million (ppm). 


Before the industrial revolution, the carbon dioxide level was about 280ppm. It is now 386ppm and rising by 2-3ppm each year. When other greenhouse gases such as methane are included, the total level in the atmosphere, known as the carbon dioxide equivalent, is closer to 440ppm. 


What future temperature rise is expected?


Scientists say continued emissions will cause the planet to heat up further. To work out how much, they use computer models based on the programs used to predict the weather.


These models are not perfect, and struggle to simulate some features of the climate system such as clouds. To get around this, the scientists run many different versions and pool the results. The computer models predict that if emissions continue to rise at the present rate, average temperatures will most likely increase by 4C by 2100.


There are uncertainties, though - for example, the planet's oceans, forests and soils could release their massive stocks of carbon as the world warms, leading to much greater temperature rises than human emissions alone would cause.


Why are warmer temperatures bad?


Most plants and animals have evolved to live in a fairly narrow ecological niche. Some will move to find their desired conditions, others will be able to adapt. Those that cannot move or adapt will perish. Some animals, such as the polar bear, have nowhere to move to.


A warmer climate will affect agriculture and water availability. Increased temperatures are also expected to limit rainfall in some regions and bring more extreme weather events such as storms to others. 


Sea levels will rise - gradually at first as the extra warmth works its way into the oceans and makes them expand; more quickly if the gigantic ice sheets in Greenland and west Antarctica start to break up.


How can we tackle global warming?


Scientists say the only realistic way at present is to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. How to do that - and where - is a political hot potato.


Because it takes time for the heat to build up in the atmosphere, and because carbon dioxide stays in the atmosphere for a long time, there is a lag in the system, which means the effect of any changes will not be felt for decades. Put bluntly, we are headed for about another 0.5C of warming whatever we do.


What are the Kyoto protocol and the Copenhagen climate talks?


The world's only existing treaty to limit emissions, the Kyoto protocol, has had limited success, and expires in 2012. Politicians are working to develop a replacement that would include countries excluded from Kyoto, such as China, and those that refused to join, such as the US. 


From December 7, environment ministers and officials will meet in Copenhagen to thrash out a successor to Kyoto. The two week event is being seen by many environmentalists as a crucial diplomatic opportunity to create an international agreement on meaningful cuts in emissions that will prevent the worst consequences of climate change.


Can renewable energy help?


The United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has said that we already have most of the technology we need to bring down emissions significantly. These include renewable energy sources such as windmills, geothermal and solar panels, as well as more efficient cars and power stations.


What about carbon trading?


Carbon trading is a market mechanism to achieve cuts in emissions. Countries or groups of countries (such as the EU) first agree a cap or maximum emissions level. Individual companies are then either given or must purchase carbon credits - the right to emit a certain amount of CO2. If they exceed their allowance they must purchase permits from another company that has company that has fallen short of its cap. If the cost of buying carbon credits is high enough it incentivises companies to invest in measures to reduce their emissions.


To date, the EU's emissions trading scheme has been heavily criticised for failing to reduce emissions. In the first phase, the number of permits issued was too high, sending the carbon price crashing and so removing any incentive for companies to spend money reducing their emissions. The environmentalist James Lovelock has branded Europe's carbon trading scheme a "scam".


What about carbon offsetting?


Offsetting is controversial because some people see it as an excuse not to change our behaviour. There are also concerns about whether it delivers the promised savings, as much of the market is unregulated.


What about storing the CO2 underground or blocking the sun?


One technology that would allow us to continue burning fossil fuels such as coal and oil without increasing CO2 levels in the atmosphere is carbon capture and storage (CCS). This involves extracting CO2 at power stations then pumping it underground. Critics argue the technology will prove expensive and is several years away from being proven. 


A more drastic approach is so-called geo-engineering. These are major technological fixes such as seeding clouds to bounce some of the sun's radiation back into space or stimulating the growth of algae in the oceans to soak up CO2. These are much more speculative, but Barack Obama's scientific adviser, John Holdren, has said that he is open to even these drastic measures.

Carbon Emission

Caption Ford Factory at Sunset Image ID: JS005355 Photographer: Joseph Sohm Date Photographed: ca. 1992 Image or Work Type: Color photography Location Information: Cleveland, Ohio, USA Credit Line: CORBIS/Joseph Sohm; ChromoSohm Inc. The Cleveland Ford Factory is silhouletted against the sky at sunset. Ohio. Corbis UK Ltd. Photograph: Joseph Sohm/Corbis

What are carbon emissions?

Carbon emissions usually refer to the man-made production of a series of gases that accumulate in the atmosphere and help to warm it. Strictly speaking, not all of these so-called greenhouse gases contain carbon so some – including New York Times journalist Andrew Revkin – have labelled the phrase misleading. Some use the phrase as shorthand for emissions of carbon dioxide, which is the most important greenhouse gas produced. Often the emissions of other greenhouse gases are measured by converting them to the equivalent quantity of carbon dioxide needed to produce a similar warming effect – denoted as CO2[eq].

Why do they matter?

They trap heat sent from the Earth's surface in a physical trick discovered by Svante Arrhenius in 1896 known as the greenhouse effect. Sunlight, either direct from the sun or reflected back from shiny parts of the Earth, can pass straight through. But sunlight absorbed by the Earth and then re-emitted as thermal energy – such as from a tarmac road on a sunny day – is absorbed. As carbon emissions build up in the atmosphere, so the amount of heat they trap and send back to the surface increases. This steadily increases the temperature of the Earth's surface and drives global warming.

Where do they come from?

Mostly from energy use: fossil fuels such as oil, gas and coal have driven the world's economies since the industrial revolution and have released carbon emissions in the process. Almost all aspects of our lifestyles rely on access to cheap energy – from transport to central heating, which, in turn, rely on fossil fuels. Energy-intensive industries such as steel and cement have particularly high carbon emissions. Besides energy use, activities such as agriculture produce greenhouse gas emissions, either directly through changes in land-use or indirectly from fertilisers.

How much is produced?

About 26 billion tons of carbon dioxide every year, and rising. World emissions have increased sharply since 2000 mainly driven by the coal-driven economic boom in China. Carbon emissions are closely tied to GDP, so as the economy grows, so do emissions. The 2008/9 recession may reduce emissions slightly, but is not expected to have a significant impact in the long term.

Can they be reduced?

Only by the world using less energy, or making the switch to renewable energy such as wind power, which does not produce carbon pollution. Both are proving hard. Demand for energy is expected to soar over the next few decades and efforts to develop and introduce renewable alternatives are patchy at best. Another possible solution is to trap emissions underground, but the technology required is unproven on a large scale.

What about the Kyoto Protocol?

The 1997 Kyoto agreement is the world's only attempt to regulate carbon emissions. It set targets for rich countries, who collectively were supposed to reduce emissions by about 5%. While some countries such as Britain are likely to meet their 2012 target, many are way over budget. The US famously refused to participate in Kyoto, which significantly weakened its impact. The first phase of Kyoto expires in 2012, and the world is still trying to agree a successor.

What about carbon trading?

Carbon trading allows companies and rich countries to claim reductions in their emissions by paying others to make the required cuts. Supporters say it helps find the cheapest, quickest way to reduce overall pollution, but carbon trading has been criticised as flawed and open to abuse. The environmentalist James Lovelock has referred to the European Carbon Trading Scheme as a "scam".

Is there a limit to how much we should produce?

Scientists say the world can only burn a total of about a trillion tonness of carbon if we want to limit global warming to a 2C rise above pre-industrial levels. About half of this has already been used, and at current rates, we will burn the remaining half a trillion tonnes inside 40 years.

                                                                                     By Google News

Cpoenhagen Climate summit

Three hours after the "Danish text" had been leaked to the Guardian, Lumumba Di-Aping, the Sudanese chairman of the group of 132 developing countries known as G77 plus China, spelt out exactly why the poor countries he represents were so incensed. "The text robs developing countries of their just and equitable and fair share of the atmospheric space. It tries to treat rich and poor countries as equal," said the diplomat.

The text is a draft proposal for the final political agreement that should be signed by national leaders including Barack Obama and Gordon Brown at the end of the Copenhagen summit on 18 December. It was prepared in secret by a group of individuals known as "the circle of commitment" but understood to include the US and Denmark.

Five hours later, the UN's top climate diplomat had responded. Yvo de Boer said: "This was an informal paper ahead of the conference given to a number of people for the purposes of consultations. The only formal texts in the UN process are the ones tabled by the chairs of this Copenhagen conference at the behest of the parties [involved]."

But the representatives of developing nations felt betrayed by the intent of the proposals in the draft.

"This text destroys both the UN convention on climate change and the Kyoto protocol. This is aimed at producing a new treaty, a new legal initiative that throws away the basis of [differing] obligations between the poorest and most wealthy nations in the world," said Di-Aping.

The existing treaty is the only global agreement that legally obliges rich countries to reduce their emissions.

Lumumba Di-Aping, the Sudanese chairman of the group of 132 developing countries known as G77 plus China, responds to the leak of the 'Danish text'. Photograph: Jens Norgaard Larsen/EPA

Di-Aping is one of the most outspoken of developing country leaders, at once charming and radical.

What the west had failed to grasp, he said, was the very deep hurt that had been growing steadily since the climate negotiations were effectively taken over by heads of state and were conducted outside the UN, the only forum in which poor countries feel they are equally represented.

The text is now likely to be withdrawn because of its reception by China, India and many other developing countries. It suggests that rich countries are desperate for world leaders to have a text to work from when they arrive next week.

Few numbers are included in the text, because these would be filled in later after negotiation by world leaders.

However, it does seek to hold global temperature rises to 2C, the safe limit according to scientists, and it mentions the sum of $10bn a year in aid to help poor countries cope with climate change, starting in 2012.

Last night the G77 reaction was seen by some developed world analysts as an exaggerated but fundamentally correct response to the way that the US, the UK and other rich countries have sought to negotiate.

Development NGOs were particularly scathing in their criticism.

Antonio Hill, climate policy adviser for Oxfam International, said: "This is only a draft, but it highlights the risk that when the big countries come together, the small ones get hurt."

Hill added: "It proposes a green fund to be run by a board, but the big risk is that it will run by the World Bank and the Global Environment Facility [a partnership of 10 agencies including the World Bank and the UN Environment Programme] and not the UN.

"That would be a step backwards, and it tries to put constraints on [emissions in] developing countries when none were negotiated in earlier UN climate talks."

A spokesman for Cafod, a development charity with close links to some of the poorest countries in the world, said: "This draft document reveals the backstage machinations of a biased host who, instead of acting as nonpartisan broker, is taking sides with the developed countries.

"The document should not even exist. There is a UN legal process which is the official negotiating text. The Danish text disrespects the solid, steady approach of the UN process."

Over the next days several new texts will emerge and out of them a likely contender to be carried by consensus of all the countries. Di-Aping said that the G77 remained committed to the talks.

"We will not walk out of the talks at this late hour, because we will not allow the failure of Copenhagen. But we will not sign an inequitable deal; we will not accept a deal that condemns 80% of the world population to further suffering and injustice."

Later this week, the rich countries can expect fresh assaults from the Africa group of countries, the least developed countries group, and the association of small island states. Each is liable to upset the best laid plans of developed world leaders who those groups say appear to place the need to reach an agreement above fully engaging with the poorest countries.

"We call ordinary people to put the utmost pressure on politicians to come to their senses," said Di-Aping.

Butterfly - Small Beauty

Butterfly one of the most beautiful animal in this earth.Is Now disappearing , vanishing  from earth  because of us.

We have destroyed natural flora & fauna for our earning , never thinking about the result who will the worst sufferer - 

"WE THE HUMAN BEING"