Infomation of news, learning, entertainment,...

Commonwealth leaders back climate change fund

2009-11-29T23:59:00.000+07:00

Commonwealth leaders back climate change fund

http://news.bbc.co.uk

Queen Elizabeth II got a carnival welcome in Port of Spain

Commonwealth leaders have backed a multi-billion-dollar plan to help developing nations to deal with climate change and cut greenhouse gases.

The fund, proposed by UK and French leaders at the Commonwealth summit on Friday, would start next year and build to $10bn annually by 2012.

Many Commonwealth members are island states threatened by rising sea levels.

Leaders also called for the strongest possible outcome at next month's climate change summit in Copenhagen.

They unanimously agreed to seek a legally binding international agreement, but accepted that "a full legally binding outcome" might have to wait to 2010.

ANALYSIS

James Robbins, BBC News diplomatic correspondent

Did the Commonwealth give a lead to the world on climate change, as the Queen urged when she opened this summit? The Commonwealth Climate Declaration does emphasise that "an internationally binding agreement is essential" but then concedes in the next sentence that "a full legally binding outcome" will have to wait until 2010.

That doesn't mean the Commonwealth has failed. The wording looks cautious but realistic. It is the breakdown in global negotiations which threatens to sink a strong deal.

There does seem to have been some meeting of minds at the Commonwealth on the global fund to distribute money from rich countries to the developing countries to help them adapt and pay for low-carbon alternatives.

Poorer countries can start to see the money now, with the promise of payouts starting soon after a global treaty is agreed.

That's a very direct incentive for the developing world.

Commonwealth leaders "welcomed the initiative to establish, as part of a comprehensive agreement, a Copenhagen Launch Fund starting in 2010 and building to a level of resources of $10 billion annually by 2012," a statement in Trinidad on Saturday said.

UK Foreign Secretary David Miliband said the declaration sent a clear political message.

"The Commonwealth is showing that you can find some common ground amidst countries that are very different, large and small, rich and poor, and that climate change is an issue that affects us all, and that the world needs to show the sort of resolution that we've seen here over the past 24 hours," he said.

It added that "fast start funding" for adaptation should be focused on the most vulnerable countries.

"We also recognise the need for further, specified and comparable funding streams, to assist the poorest and most vulnerable countries, to cope with, and adapt to the adverse impacts of climate change. We recognise that funding will be scaled up beyond 2012."

UK Prime Minister Gordon Brown said half the $10bn fund should go towards helping developing nations reduce their greenhouse gas emissions and the other half towards helping them adapt to climate change.

The first cash would be made available next year, he said, before any emissions deal could take effect.

'Clock ticking'

Kevin Rudd stressed it was "time for action"

Commonwealth leaders met days after pledges by the US and China to limit their greenhouse gas emissions, amid concerns that December's Copenhagen meeting on climate change could fail to agree substantial cuts.

Australian Prime Minister Kevin Rudd told a news conference in Trinidad on Saturday that the Commonwealth - representing a third of the world's population - believed "the time for action on climate change has come."

"The clock is ticking to Copenhagen. We've achieved one further step, significant step forward with this communique and we believe the political goodwill and resolve exists to secure a comprehensive agreement at Copenhagen."

India's Prime Minister Manmohan Singh said that when his country unveils its first targets for carbon emission cuts they would be "ambitious".

But he also stressed that India's offer would be conditional on other countries sharing the burden.

That neatly illustrates the greatest threat to a global deal, says the BBC's James Robbins.

Many countries will only make binding concessions if every other nation also gives ground, our correspondent says.

Speaking earlier at the summit, UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon said he believed an agreement was in sight, with recent moves by some countries a positive step to cutting emissions.

The head of the UN's panel of climate experts, Rajendra Pachauri, said he was now very optimistic a deal could be reached in Copenhagen.

Honduras voting for new president

2009-11-29T23:56:00.000+07:00

Honduras voting for new president

http://news.bbc.co.uk

Some Hondurans are optimistic the political crisis may soon be over

Presidential elections are under way in Honduras, five months after a political crisis ousted President Manuel Zelaya.

He was forced from Honduras at gunpoint in June, and replaced by Roberto Micheletti. Neither are candidates.

The favourite to win is conservative Porfirio Lobo from the National Party, and Elvin Santos from the Liberal Party is considered his nearest rival.

Mr Zelaya has called for a boycott of the election. Voting began at 0700 (1300 GMT) and will last nine hours.

Mr Lobo, 61, narrowly lost to Mr Zelaya in 2005, and Mr Santos, 46, was previously Mr Zelaya's vice president in the divided Liberal Party.

About 30,000 soldiers and police are to provide security for the elections, but many fear violence could erupt.

The political crisis and election have divided the region, with the US indicating it would endorse the result if the elections are deemed "free and fair".

Costa Rica, which has long been the mediator between the two sides in this crisis, has said likewise, but other Latin American countries have opposed the vote.

Porfirio Lobo is considered the favourite to win

Argentina and Brazil have said they will not recognise any government installed after the election, arguing that to do so would legitimise the coup which ousted an elected president, and thus set a dangerous precedent.

The main regional grouping, the Organisation of American States, has declined to send an observer mission.

BBC correspondent Stephen Gibbs in the capital Tegucigalpa says that while supporters of Mr Zelaya are watching events with dismay, many Hondurans are expressing optimism that an end to the country's political crisis is in sight.

Congress is due to vote on Mr Zelaya's reinstatement on 2 December. His term ends on 27 January.

Mr Micheletti temporarily stepped down from office - for a week until 2 December - to allow the elections to proceed "peacefully and transparently", his spokesman said.

Mr Zelaya was forced into exile on 28 June after trying to hold a vote on whether a constituent assembly should be set up to look at rewriting the constitution.

His critics said the vote, which was ruled illegal by the Supreme Court, aimed to remove the current one-term limit on serving as president and pave the way for his possible re-election.

Mr Zelaya has repeatedly denied this and some commentators say it would have been impossible to change the constitution before his term in office was up.

He sneaked back into the country in September and has been living in the Brazilian embassy in Tegucigalpa.

Gordon Brown's tough tone over Afghanistan's future

2009-11-29T23:49:00.000+07:00

Gordon Brown's tough tone over Afghanistan's future

http://news.bbc.co.uk

By John Pienaar in Trinidad
Political correspondent, BBC News

Prime Minister Gordon Brown is under pressure over Afghanistan

Gordon Brown has clearly decided it's time to add urgency and method to the international effort to hand control of Afghanistan to the Afghans.

His tone in setting down terms for co-operation with Hamid Karzai's government has never been more forceful.

The prime minister has been accused by critics of presiding over a mission with unclear aims, and beginning to drift.

Was it driven by the need to deny terrorists a safe haven from which to plan and launch attacks on the UK and its allies? Was it about establishing a functioning democracy in Afghanistan, purged of corruption and endowed with traditions of equality and justice?

And crucially, was it geared to enable Afghanistan to manage its own security within a realistic timetable?

Gordon Brown has now attempted to show all these aims are interlinked, and progress in achieving them will be measured as a condition of British and other troops continuing to risk - and lose - their lives in the Afghan cause.

Conceivably, the newly re-elected Afghan president may resent being handed his marching orders in this way. But the prime minister's tone implied he was not overly concerned with Hamid Karzai's sensitivities.

Continuing criticism

And Mr Brown is under a good deal of pressure on his own account. British public opinion has been growing steadily more sceptical towards the Afghan mission.

Hamid Karzai is under pressure to bring order to Afghanistan

Constant suggestions that British troops have lacked necessary equipment - helicopters in particular - have taken their toll, despite ministerial denials.

The prime minister will be hoping this tough new tone wins over a few British doubters. He seemed confident that the international conference on 28 January next year would bring with it fresh promises of troops.

He seemed on course to confirm 500 more British troops would join the 9,000 already serving in Afghanistan in a statement to the Commons next week.

Mr Brown was offering no timetable for withdrawing those troops, and insisted he would not be doing so.

But an assessment of progress by the end of 2010, he suggested, might finally place the scale of British involvement on the agenda.

The existence of "benchmarks" for progress might also help him as he deals with an inevitably rising casualty list, and an increasingly sceptical public in the run up to the 2010 general election.

Al-Qaeda head Osama Bin Laden was 'within grasp' of US

2009-11-29T23:47:00.001+07:00

Al-Qaeda head Osama Bin Laden was 'within grasp' of US

http://news.bbc.co.uk

Osama Bin Laden is believed to be hiding in Pakistan's tribal areas

US forces had Osama Bin Laden "within their grasp" in Afghanistan in late 2001, a US Senate report says.

It says calls for US reinforcements were rejected, allowing the al-Qaeda leader to "walk unmolested" into Pakistan's unregulated tribal areas.

The report was prepared by the Foreign Relations Committee Democratic staff.

It says the failure to kill or capture Bin Laden had far-reaching consequences and laid the foundation for the protracted Afghan insurgency.

The report comes as President Barack Obama prepares to announce a long-awaited decision on sending troop reinforcements to Afghanistan.

It is highly critical of officials in former President George W Bush's administration and military commanders at the time.

'Potent symbolic figure'

It says that while the "vast array of American military power... was kept on the sidelines", US commanders "chose to rely on air strikes and untrained Afghan militias" to pursue Bin Laden in the mountainous complex of caves and tunnels known as Tora Bora.

SEE THE FULL REPORT

Tora Bora Revisited[3.1MB]

Most computers will open this document automatically, but you may need Adobe Reader

Download the reader here

"On or around 16 December [2001], two days after writing his will, Bin Laden and an entourage of bodyguards walked unmolested out of Tora Bora and disappeared into Pakistan's unregulated tribal area," where he is still thought to be hiding, the report says.

The then US Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld expressed concern at the time that a large US troop presence in the area could provoke a backlash and he said the evidence about Bin Laden's location was not conclusive.

Open door

The report says the "failure to finish the job" laid the foundation for "today's protracted Afghan insurgency and inflaming the internal strife now endangering Pakistan".

It acknowledges that removing Bin Laden "would not have eliminated the worldwide extremist threat".

But it adds that "the decisions that opened the door for his escape to Pakistan allowed Bin Laden to emerge as a potent symbolic figure who continues to attract a steady flow of money and inspire fanatics worldwide".

The report rebuffs claims by Bush administration officials at the time that intelligence about Bin Laden's location was inconclusive.

"The review of existing literature, unclassified government records and interviews with central participants underlying this report removes any lingering doubts and makes it clear that Osama Bin Laden was within our grasp at Tora Bora," it says.

Pakistan must help break al-Qaeda, says Brown

2009-11-29T23:43:00.004+07:00

Pakistan must help break al-Qaeda, says Brown

http://news.bbc.co.uk

Brown warns Pakistan on al-Qaeda

Gordon Brown has told the BBC that Pakistan must do more to "break" al-Qaeda and find Osama Bin Laden.

Questions must be asked about why nobody had been able "to spot or detain or get close to" the al-Qaeda leader, the prime minister said.

He said he wanted to see "more progress in taking out" Bin Laden and his second-in-command Ayman Zawahiri.

Meanwhile, a Senate report claims US forces had Bin Laden "within their grasp" in Afghanistan in late 2001.

BBC World Affairs correspondent Mike Wooldridge said this was not a new claim.

However, he said, staff working for the Democratic majority on the Foreign Relations Committee now claimed to have evidence that in December 2001 US military power was kept on the sidelines while Bin Laden escaped "unmolested" into Pakistan's unregulated tribal areas.

Air strikes

The report comes days before US President Barack Obama is due to announce additional US troops for Afghanistan - Mr Brown is to announce whether conditions have been met to send an extra 500 British troops.

Speaking in a BBC interview, the prime minister said that if so much effort was going into building up security in Afghanistan, Pakistan had "to be able to show that it can take on al-Qaeda".

The prime minister said Pakistan had made progress against the Taliban in south Waziristan.

We want to see more progress in taking out these two people at the top of al Qaida

Gordon Brown

Bin Laden was 'within US grasp'

Brown's tough tone on Afghanistan

But he told the BBC: "We've got to ask ourselves why, eight years after September the 11th, nobody has been able to spot or detain or get close to Osama bin Laden, nobody's been able to get close to Zawahiri, the number two in al-Qaeda."

Pakistan had to "join us in the major effort that the world is committing resources to, and that is not only to isolate al-Qaeda, but to break them in Pakistan", he said.

Pakistan's prime minister, Yousuf Raza Gilani, will meet Mr Brown at Downing Street on Thursday. Mr Brown informed Pakistan's president, Asif Ali Zardari by telephone that he intended to speak out about the hunt for Osama Bin Laden.

The prime minister told the BBC that over eight years "we should have been able to do more ... to get to the bottom of where al-Qaeda is operating from".

'Political surge'

Progress had been made he said, but Pakistan had to make sure that "in South Waziristan we are taking on al-Qaeda directly".

"We want, after eight years, to see more progress in taking out these two people at the top of al-Qaeda, who have done so much damage and are clearly the brains behind many of the operations that have hit Britain," said Mr Brown.

Later Foreign Secretary David Miliband said Britain wanted Pakistan to "join us in upping our game" in tackling terrorism on its border with Afghanistan.

"We know that the Pakistani authorities, as the prime minister said, are taking big losses in their drive against the so-called Pakistan Taliban... we recognise that."

But he said it was "right that we recognise that stability in Afghanistan requires stability in Pakistan too and that requires a combined effort."

"We've all got to do more, Pakistan has got to do more, Afghanistan has got to do more and the international community has got to do more, but we've also got to do better."

Shadow defence secretary Liam Fox told BBC One's Politics Show that Pakistan faced economic and political problems and its army did not "really have the capabilities for the sort of anti-terrorist counter-insurgency measures that we want".

"The international community has to give Pakistan a lot of help if Pakistan is to fulfil the role we want it to do," he said.

And Edward Davey, for the Liberal Democrats, said: "The real questions are, why hasn't this happened before and because it hasn't, why is it suddenly going to happen now?

"This looks more like wishful thinking than a new well considered strategy"

Pakistan's High Commissioner in London, Wajid Shamsul Hasan, told BBC Radio 4's The World This Weekend: "We are doing what we could. We have carried out two very big military operations at enormous cost to the country."

He added: "The people of Pakistan want its allies to do more. If you provide us with equipment and expertise we will be able to be more successful - we are successful, but more successful - in tracking down al-Qaeda leadership."

Iran 'planning 10 new uranium enrichment sites'

2009-11-29T23:39:00.000+07:00

Iran 'planning 10 new uranium enrichment sites'

http://news.bbc.co.uk

Iran insists its nuclear programme is for peaceful purposes

Iran's government has approved plans to build 10 new uranium enrichment plants, according to state TV.

The government told the Iranian nuclear agency to begin work on five sites, with five more to be located over the next two months, the report said.

It comes days after the UN nuclear watchdog rebuked Iran for covering up a uranium enrichment plant.

Western powers say Iran is trying to develop nuclear arms. Iran says its nuclear programme is peaceful.

BBC Tehran correspondent Jon Leyne says Sunday's announcement is a massive act of defiance likely to bring forward direct confrontation over Iran's nuclear programme.

On Friday, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) passed a resolution that was heavily critical of Iran for covering up a uranium enrichment plant near the town of Qom.

Earlier on Sunday it was reported that the Iranian parliament had urged President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's government to reduce co-operation with the IAEA.

HOW SWINE FLU OUTBREAK EMERGED

2009-11-28T09:15:00.001+07:00

HOW SWINE FLU OUTBREAK EMERGED

http://news.bbc.co.uk

: Flu viruses mutate over time causing small changes to proteins on their surface called antigens. If the immune system has met a particular strain of the virus before, it is likely to have some immunity; but if the antigens are new to the immune system, it will be weakened.
: The influenza A virus can mutate in two different ways; antigenic drift, in which existing antigens are subtly altered, and antigenic shift, in which two or more strains combine. Antigenic drift causes slight flu mutations year on year, from which humans have partial, but not complete, immunity. By contrast, the new strain of H1N1 appears to have originated via antigenic shift in Mexican pigs
: The name "swine flu" is a slight misnomer as it is believed pigs acted as a mixing pot for several flu strains, containing genetic material from pigs, birds and humans. Most humans have never been exposed to some of the antigens involved in the new strain of flu, giving it the potential to cause a pandemic.
: The new virus has made the jump from pigs to humans and has demonstrated it can also pass from human to human. This is why it is demanding so much attention from health authorities. The virus passes from human to human like other types of flu, either through coughing, sneezing, or by touching infected surfaces, although little is known about how the virus acts on humans.

Q&A: Advice about swine flu

2009-11-28T09:09:00.003+07:00

Q&A: Advice about swine flu

http://news.bbc.co.uk

Swine flu has spread across the world since emerging in Mexico and is now officially the first flu pandemic for 40 years. Experts fear millions of people will be infected.

What is swine flu and what are the symptoms?

SWINE FLU SYMPTOMS

Typical symptoms: sudden fever (38C or above) and sudden cough

Other symptoms include:

1. Tiredness and chills

2. Headache, sore throat, runny nose and sneezing

3. Stomach upset, loss of appetite, diarrhoea

4. Aching muscles, limb or joint pain

Source: NHS

Swine flu is a respiratory disease, caused by a strain of the influenza type A virus known as H1N1.

H1N1 is the same strain which causes seasonal outbreaks of flu in humans on a regular basis.

But this latest version is different: it contains genetic material that is typically found in strains of the virus that affect humans, birds and swine.

Although the strain may have originated in pigs, it is now a wholly human disease.

It can be spread from person to person by coughing and sneezing.

Symptoms of swine flu in humans appear to be similar to those produced by standard, seasonal flu - fever, cough, sore throat, body aches and chills. Some people with the virus have also reported nausea and diarrhoea.

However, many people who get flu show no symptoms at all.

Health experts say this could happen in half of all cases and with swine flu an analysis has shown that for children one in four of those infected may not fall ill.

What are the risks of the flu?

Experts have wrestled with the question ever since the pandemic emerged.

The problem is that for most people it is mild - about 98% recover without the need for any hospital treatment.

But doctors have found it very hard to predict who will develop complications, hence it has been dubbed a "Jekyll and Hyde" virus.

A fifth of the people who have died have been previously healthy individuals without any health conditions.

Nonetheless, certain groups are known to be at higher risk.

Pregnant women are between three to four times more likely to get seriously ill.

Young children also have higher rates of hospitalisation - although this could be partly because doctors are quicker to admit them.

Should I have the vaccine if offered it?

The vaccination programme is well under way.

Nearly 14m people, including NHS workers, people with health problems and pregnant women, will be offered the jab by Christmas. Healthy children under the age of five are also due to start getting it.

But already polls suggest people are worried about whether to get vaccinated.

The government says that getting immunised is the best way to protect yourself against flu.

However, its experts recognise that people are jumpy about vaccines and have said it is very much a personal decision.

People who are suspicious of vaccines often talk about the risk of complications.

One of the most common which is mentioned in association with flu vaccines is Guillain-Barré syndrome (GBS), a rare disorder in which a person's own immune system damages the nerve cells, causing muscle weakness and sometimes paralysis.

Most of the evidence suggests vaccines do not increase the risk, however there is research to indicate that getting flu increases it seven-fold.

Another allegation sometimes made is that being given the vaccine could actually give you flu.

Doctors are adamant this is not the case - the two vaccines being used in the UK do not contain the live virus.

As for deaths, the World Health Organization has been monitoring this and while a handful of people have died after being given the vaccine, officials have ruled out any link to the jab.

Why has the UK been more affected than other countries?

The UK has a comprehensive flu surveillance system, hence more cases may be identified in the UK than in other countries with less comprehensive monitoring services.

Also, the spread of the infection in the early stages was linked to flights out of Mexico.

FLU PANDEMICS

1918: The Spanish flu pandemic remains the most devastating outbreak of modern times. Caused by a form of the H1N1 strain of flu, it is estimated that up to 40% of the world's population were infected, and more than 50 million people died, with young adults particularly badly affected

1957: Asian flu killed two million people. Caused by a human form of the virus, H2N2, combining with a mutated strain found in wild ducks. The impact of the pandemic was minimised by rapid action by health authorities, who identified the virus, and made vaccine available speedily. The elderly were particularly vulnerable

1968: An outbreak first detected in Hong Kong, and caused by a strain known as H3N2, killed up to one million people globally, with those over 65 most likely to die

With Mexico being a popular tourist destination for British tourists, Britain was one of the first countries alongside the US and Canada to start seeing cases.

As the UK was affected earlier than some other countries the infection spread to a higher number of people at the start of the pandemic.

However, as the British summer progressed, cases fell, while southern hemisphere countries saw rises as they went through their winters.

More recently cases have started going up again in the UK, but other countries, such as France, also have high rates.

What should I do if I think I have it?

Anyone with flu-like symptoms who suspects they might have the swine flu virus are being advised to stay at home and contact the National Flu Service on 0800 1 513 100 or via the internet at www.direct.gov.uk/pandemicflu

The service allows sufferers to get access to anti-flu drugs without the need to consult a GP.

However, those with underlying health conditions, pregnant women and parents of children under one are still being advised to contact a doctor.

The GP route is also open to anyone who does not want to use the service.

In the initial phase of the outbreak, lab testing was done to diagnose the flu but this is no longer happening routinely.

How is it treated?

Two drugs commonly used to treat flu, Tamiflu and Relenza, are effective at treating infection, reducing the length of the illness and cutting the chances that people will have serious complications.

Use of these drugs may also make it less likely that infected people will pass the virus on to others.

However, the drugs must be administered at an early stage to be effective.

Researchers have also questioned whether the drugs are helpful in children aged between one and 12, saying the risk of side effects might outweigh any benefits.

But the Department of Health maintains a "safety-first approach" of offering antivirals to everyone remains a sensible and responsible way forward.

It said it would keep the policy under review.

Where can I get further advice?

Further information and advice on swine flu can be found at websites of leading health and research organisations around the world. The World Health Organisation gives background information on the virus.

The UK's government services website is carrying regularly updated health and travel information. The Health Protection Agency advises the public about what to do if returning from an affected area. NHS Choices outlines how swine flu is different from other flu.

The European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control is another good source of information.

The US government's Centers for Disease Control and Prevention is counting the number of cases in the US.

You can also track spread of swine flu reports using unofficial sources. Google is mapping search term data as an indicator of flu activity both across the US down to state level and in Mexico. Healthmaps maps viruses using news reports. Social media guide Mashable lists a range of ways to track the virus .

Information and links to useful websites are being shared on Twitter, the micro-blogging service, while social networking website Facebook is tracking swine flu discussion amongst users.

Further questions from our readers have been answered by a UK-based expert.

And the BBC's medical correspondent, Fergus Walsh, is filing regular entries on his blog on H1N1.

Fergus On Flu

2009-11-28T09:04:00.003+07:00

Fergus On Flu
http://news.bbc.co.uk

Death rates and mutations

I don't want to end the week on an alarming note, and - let's face it - there's been enough alarmist reporting about H1N1 swine flu.

But I would like to draw your attention to a couple of issues which many of you are likely to pick up elsewhere on the web or perhaps in the papers.

The first is a big jump in the global death toll. The World Health Organization said the number of deaths was up around 1,000 on a week ago, reaching at least 7,826 worldwide since the H1N1 virus emerged in April. That should neither surprise nor alarm you. We are now getting into the peak flu season. Seasonal flu kills several hundred thousand very elderly and frail people each year. The difference with swine flu is that the majority of deaths are in the under-65s.

On a more positive note, the WHO said that the epidemic may have peaked in parts of the northern hemisphere. That seems to be the case in the UK and in the United States, which has had several weeks of falling levels of flu.

Secondly, I have picked up via BBC Monitoring that two patients in France, in different hospitals, have died from mutated H1N1 swine flu. (For those who don't know, the BBC monitoring service is based in Caversham in Reading; it listens to news broadcasts from around the world and provides accurate translations.)

The monitoring translation of La Chaine Info Television went like this:

French newsreader: "The health authorities dreaded this. The H1N1 virus is in the process of mutating. The phenomenon reported in Norway has also been detected in France in two deceased patients who were not related in any way and who were in hospitals in two different cities. This mutation could increase the virus's ability to affect certain airways, as well as the lungs."

Read like that, it seems pretty scary, and it is certainly not good news that mutations are occurring. But, as has been pointed out by me and by many of the wise men and women who post comments here, mutations are what we should expect with flu. Flu is an RNA virus in which genetic replication is pretty poor and which makes lots of mistakes. It's the reason that flu viruses drift and the reason we need a new flu jab every winter.

The mutations reported in France have been seen in Norway and in several other countries, and the WHO put out some very clear advice on this recently.

The French mutation has been found in two cities, but we need to know a lot more about it before becoming unduly alarmed. The patients may have been immuno-compromised, making them more susceptible to mutated viruses, and we don't have any evidence that mutated strains are spreading in the wider community.

To sum up, mutation and deaths are sadly unavoidable when it comes to H1N1 swine flu. But this pandemic is still reassuringly mild for the vast vast majority of those infected.

GPs urged to go 'full throttle' in accelerating vaccination

Around one million people in England are now estimated to have been vaccinated against swine flu.

Across the UK, 10 million doses of the vaccine have been distributed to GPs and hospitals.

That one million figure refers to those in the initial priority groups, such as those with chronic asthma, heart and other organ disease, immune problems and pregnant women.

Clearly there is still a long way to go. There are nine million people in the priority groups in England, and around 11.5 million across the UK. Then add to that the three million or more under fives who will be offered the jab after that.

Professor David Salisbury, Director of Immunisation at the Department of Health said he hoped GPs would now be able to accelerate the vaccination process:

"All GPs have now had some vaccine and we are now at the stage of re-stocking them and so the brakes can come off to some extent. We'd like to get the priority groups vaccinated before Christmas, and there will be enough vaccine to do that. GPs don't want to call in patients if they are unsure there have enough vaccine, but now they know they have it in the fridge they can go full throttle."

Professor Salisbury said he wanted doctors to get through the priority groups as quickly as possible so that they could move on to immunising children under five.

Carers for the elderly and disabled will also be entitled to receive the swine flu jab once the initial priority groups have been cleared.

I hope this answers some of the questions many of you have raised about the roll-out of the vaccine.

There are no figures yet for the uptake of vaccine among more than two million front-line health workers.

But Ian Dalton, National Director for Flu Resilience said that "informal conversations" had shown promising levels of uptake. He gave some examples:

• West Midlands Ambulance Service has offered the jab to around 1,000 front line staff and 70% have accepted.
• Guy's and St Thomas' Hospitals have received 2,000 doses and used 1,500 already.
• They have also immunised 4,000 staff against seasonal flu, double the number last year.

So how much swine flu is there in Britain at present? Estimated figures from across the UK suggest cases are falling very slightly but the number of deaths is rising sharply.

Indeed the past week has seen the biggest single rise in deaths since the pandemic began.

UK deaths to date related to H1N1 swine flu: 245
163 England
13 Northern Ireland
46 Scotland
23 Wales

Why are deaths rising if cases are falling? Firstly, remember that weekly estimates for the number of cases of swine flu are probably wildly out (but are useful for showing trends over time).

The latest weekly estimate for England was 46,000 cases of swine flu with a cumulative total of 760,000. But since the Health Protection Agency now reckons that one in five children may have had swine flu, that cumulative figure maybe just a tenth of the real total (and that's just my guess).

I've discussed this apparent contradiction about falling cases and rising death rates earlier this month - something that has been seen in other countries.

It's important to note that there is no evidence that the H1N1 swine flu virus is mutating into something more deadly.

Finally a few graphs - very useful for showing trends. My thanks to the Department of Health and the RCGP for supplying the data:

You can see that the rate of flu is now about average for this time of year but well below the peak we saw in July.

This is a snapshot of the number of patients in hospital in England with suspected swine flu related illness as of 25 November. It's always worth showing this because it's a reminder that while flu is mild for most, for a small minority it can be very serious.

This is the first time I've seen this. It reveals the death toll from swine flu, in England from week to week. You can see that the rate has risen throughout November.

Useful resources:

• Detailed UK weekly epidemiology update
• Swine flu figures for Northern Ireland
• Swine flu figures for Scotland
• Swine flu figures for Wales

Up to a third of children in some areas have been infected

It's been one of the big questions of this pandemic. Just how many of us in Britain have actually had swine flu?

Knowing that would be incredibly useful, as the bigger the proportion infected, the further we are into this pandemic and the less likely there will be a further sting in its tail.

The Health Protection Agency (HPA) has done blood tests of hundreds of children and parents connected to early school outbreaks.

With one school in south west England they tested around 500 people. They found that although around one in 10 children fell ill, three to five times as many got infected and developed antibodies.

After analysing this and other data relating to the number of children being seen by GPs, the HPA has now come up with these interesting estimates:

• Up to one third of children in swine flu hotspots (such as England and the West Midlands) have already been infected with the H1N1 virus.
• Across the UK up to one in five children has had had swine flu.
• About half of those who get infected show no symptoms.

This is all very reassuring. Professor Maria Zambon from the HPA said:

"We didn't get the pandemic that we planned for and you might say that we've been lobbed a soft ball. There hasn't been high case mortality, the virus is sensitive to drugs, and we've been able to make vaccine and roll it out. I am incredibly grateful that we are not dealing with a pandemic of H5 (bird flu)."

Professor Zambon said the virus had had a relatively low impact on older adults and that was probably explained by pre-existing immunity. The HPA has these estimates:

• For those aged over 50 up to four in 10 people have pre-existing protective antibodies to the H1N1 pandemic virus.
• If you are under 50 it falls to around one in 10 of the population.

The professor, who is an acknowledged world expert on flu, did utter a few words of caution. "Influenza is full of mystery and intrigue. It has lots of twists and turns" and she predicted that mutations of the swine flu virus should be expected. She also pointed out that there could still be a substantial outbreak of seasonal flu over winter.

Jump in number of global swine flu deaths

2009-11-28T08:59:00.001+07:00

Jump in number of global swine flu deaths

http://news.bbc.co.uk

The virus was first recorded in Mexico

The global number of swine flu deaths has jumped by more than 1,000 in a week, latest figures from the World Health Organization (WHO) show.

At least 7,826 people are now known to have died following infection with the H1N1 virus since it first emerged in Mexico in April.

Europe saw an 85% increase in the week, with the total number of deaths rising from at least 350 to at least 650.

However, in most cases the virus continues to produce mild symptoms.

If every mutation is reported out there it would be like reporting changes in the weather

Keiji Fukuda
WHO special adviser on pandemic influenza

An overwhelming majority of patients usually recover, even without medical treatment, within a week.

The biggest rise in deaths was recorded in the Americas, where the death toll rose to 5,360 - a rise of 554 cases in one week.

Health authorities in Norway and France have each recorded two fatalities from a mutated strain of H1N1.

China, Japan, Norway, Ukraine and the US have also recorded cases of people being infected with a mutated strain.

Uncertainty

French health officials confirmed that two patients infected by a mutation that was also recently detected in Norway had died in two different cities in France.

SWINE FLU SYMPTOMS

1. High temperature, tiredness and lowered immunity

2. Headache, runny nose and sneezing

3. Sore throat

4. Shortness of breath

5. Loss of appetite, vomiting and diarrhoea

6. Aching muscles, limb and joint pain

Source: NHS

Fergus on Flu

Q&A: Advice about swine flu

"This mutation could increase the ability of the virus to affect the respiratory tracts and, in particular, the lung tissue," said a statement from the government's Health Surveillance Institute.

The French institute added that, in the case of one of the patients who died, the mutation was accompanied by another mutation known to confer resistance to the main drug being used to treat swine flu, which is sold under the brand name Tamiflu.

It was the first drug-resistant strain found in France among the 1,200 strains experts have analysed here, it said.

Speaking on Thursday, Keiji Fukuda, the WHO's special adviser on pandemic influenza, said that conclusions had still to be drawn about the reported mutations.

"The question is whether these mutations suggest that there is a fundamental change going on in viruses out there - whether there's a turn for the worse in terms of severity," he said.

"The answer right now is that we are not sure."

Dr Fukuda noted that mutations were common in influenza viruses.

"If every mutation is reported out there it would be like reporting changes in the weather," he said.

"What we're trying to do when we see reports of mutations is to identify if these mutations are leading to any kinds of changes in the clinical picture - do they cause more severe or less severe disease?

"Also we're trying to see if these viruses are increasing out there as that would suggest a change in epidemiology."

In his latest survey of swine flu developments, the WHO notes that many countries have stopped counting individual cases of swine flu, particularly of milder illness, and the case count is likely to be significantly lower than the actual number of cases that have occurred.

Cell discovery clues to body clock and beating jet lag

2009-11-28T08:56:00.001+07:00

Cell discovery clues to body clock and beating jet lag

http://news.bbc.co.uk

By Dave Lee
Health Check, BBC World Service

The discovery could hold the key to solving body clock mysteries

New discoveries into how the body clock works could provide clues to help combat jet lag, research suggests.

A University of Manchester team studied special cells which they say play an important role in regulating a person's body clock.

The cells had been thought to be inactive during the day - but their research found the opposite is true.

It is hoped the findings may also pave the way to combating sleep disorders triggered by body clock malfunctions.

Professor Hugh Piggins, an expert in neuroscience at the university, said the research will allow a new approach to being able to tune our daily clock.

Two cells

The Manchester research turns on its head the idea that the brain keeps the body clock on track by firing more cells during daylight and very few during the night.

There's a lot of interest in the pharmaceutical industry, obviously, to try to develop chemical treatments to reset your daily clock

Professor Hugh Piggins

"The traditional model said the clock and the brain communicated to the rest of the brain via the number of electrical impulses that the brain cells were producing," Prof Piggins told the BBC World Service's Health Check programme.

"These impulses would travel around the brain, telling it what time of day it is.

"What we've found is in fact that there are at least two types of cells in this part of the brain."

These brain cells behave unlike any other cell seen so far, and contain a key gene - per1 - which allows them to sustain unusually high levels of "excitability".

The cells becoming so "excited" that they seem quiet or even dead; but then later they calm down, recover and become normally active again.

It is this activity which tells the human body when to be awake.

Sleep dysfunction

HEALTH CHECK

Health Check is the weekly health programme broadcast from the BBC World Service

It is broadcast on Monday at 1032GMT and repeated at 1532GMT, 2032GMT and on Tuesday at 0132GMT

It is also available as a podcast

Prof Piggins added: "There's a lot of interest in the pharmaceutical industry, obviously, to try to develop chemical treatments to reset your daily clock to help counteract things like jetlag.

"Or, perhaps more importantly, different kind of sleep disorders for which dysfunctions in this clock are often involved."

This study marks the first time these "quiet" cells have been studied.

"This may mean that elsewhere in the brain there are cells like this that can also survive these very unusual conditions."

Climate change around the world

2009-11-28T08:35:00.003+07:00

Climate change around the world

http://news.bbc.co.uk

World leaders at the G8 summit in Italy are negotiating a deal to limit the effects of climate change. Click on the buttons and words above to find out more about the impact of global warming.

AFRICA

Some regions are likely to experience water shortages. Coupled with increasing demand, this is likely to result in large increases in the number of people at risk of water scarcity. It is likely to affect livelihoods, the report by the International Panel on Climate Change says.

Projected reductions in the area suitable for growing crops, and in the length of the growing season, are likely to produce an increased risk of hunger. In some countries, yields from rain-fed agriculture could be reduced by up to 50% by 2020.

Rising sea levels threaten large cities. Degradation of coral reefs and mangroves is likely, with impacts on local fisheries and tourism.

Rising temperatures, coupled with over-fishing, will decrease the supply of fish from large lakes, with important impacts on food supplies.

ASIA

Glacier melting in the Himalayas is virtually certain to disrupt water supplies within the next 20 to 30 years. Floods and rock avalanches are virtually certain to increase. Heavily-populated coastal regions, including the deltas of rivers such as the Ganges and Mekong, are likely to be at risk of increased flooding.

Economic development is likely to be impacted by the combination of climatic change, urbanisation, and rapid economic and population growth.

Forecast changes in temperature and rainfall are likely to reduce crop yields overall, increasing the risk of hunger.

The presence of lethal diarrhoeal diseases associated with floods and droughts is expected to rise in East, South and Southeast Asia and rises in coastal water temperature could exacerbate cholera in South Asia.

AUSTRALIA AND NEW ZEALAND

Ongoing water shortages, notably in southern and eastern Australia, are likely to get worse by 2030.

Ecologically important regions such as the Great Barrier Reef and Kakadu National Park are likely to lose a significant part of their wildlife before then, by 2020.

Some coastal communities are very likely to see an increased risk of coastal storms and flooding.

Temperature rises of 1C-2C are likely to bring benefits to cooler areas, such as New Zealand, in the form of longer growing seasons and reduced energy demand. Greater warming is likely to bring a net negative impact - such as increased risk of drought and fire.

EUROPE

Nearly all European regions are expected to be negatively affected by some future impacts of climate change.

Central and Eastern European countries could face less summer rainfall, causing higher water stress. Health risks due to heat waves are expected to increase. Forest productivity is expected to fall and the frequency of peatland fires to increase.

Southern European countries are very likely to see reduced water supplies, lower crop production, more wildfires and health impacts from increased heatwaves.

Northern countries are likely to benefit from increased crop yields, forest productivity, and food supplies from the North Atlantic. By 2020, most areas of Europe are likely to see an increased flood risk.

LATIN AMERICA

Increasing temperatures and decreases in soil water in the eastern Amazon region would lead to replacement of tropical forest by savannah. Species extinctions are likely.

Drier areas are likely to see salinisation and desertification of agricultural land, with falling crop yields and livestock productivity reducing food security. However, soybean yields are likely to increase in temperate zones.

Sea level rise is very likely to bring flooding to low-lying regions such as the coast of El Salvador, Guyana and the Rio de la Plata estuary. Increasing sea temperatures are likely to impact coral reefs and south-east Pacific fish stocks.

Changes in rainfall patterns and the disappearance of glaciers are projected to significantly affect water availability for human consumption, agriculture and energy generation.

NORTH AMERICA

Warming in western mountains is very likely to reduce snowpack, bringing more floods in winter and reduced water supplies in summer.

Increases in problems with pests, diseases and forest fires are likely.

Cities with a history of heat waves are likely to experience many more, with potential health impacts, especially for the elderly.

Rising sea levels, severe weather and storm surges, combined with population growth in coastal areas, are very likely to increase economic losses.

POLAR REGIONS: ARCTIC AND ANTARCTICA

Reductions are likely in the thickness and extent of glaciers and ice sheets, and the extent of sea ice and permafrost.

The depth of summer permafrost melting is likely to increase.

Changes to natural ecosystems are likely to impact migrating birds, mammals and higher predators adversely. Specific ecosystems and habitats are expected to be vulnerable, as climatic barriers to species invasions are lowered.

There are virtually certain to be both negative and positive effects on Arctic peoples. Detrimental impacts would include those on infrastructure and traditional indigenous ways of life while beneficial effects would include reduced heating costs and more navigable northern sea routes.

SMALL ISLANDS

Sea level rise is likely to worsen floods, storm surges and coastal erosion, with impacts on the socio-economic wellbeing of island communities.

Beach erosion and coral bleaching are likely to reduce tourism.

There is strong evidence that water resources in small islands are likely to be seriously compromised.

Increased invasion by non-native species is likely.

WATER

The supply of water is very likely to increase at higher latitudes and in some wet tropics, including populous areas in east and southeast Asia. It is very likely to decrease over much of the mid-latitudes and dry tropics, which are presently water-stressed areas.

Drought-affected areas will likely increase. Instances of extreme rainfall are likely to increase in frequency and intensity, raising the risk of floods. Increases in the frequency and severity of floods and droughts will have implications on sustainable development.

Water volumes stored in glaciers and snow cover are very likely to decline, reducing summer and autumn flows in regions where more than one sixth of the world population currently live.

ECOSYSTEMS

Many ecosystems are likely to be challenged beyond their capacity to adapt over the course of the century by an unprecedented combination of climate change, associated disturbances such as wildfires, and other aspects of modern-day global change.

In the second half of this century, ecosystems on land are likely to become a net source of carbon rather than a net absorber. This extra carbon will amplify climate change.

Roughly 20-30% of species are likely to be at high risk of irreversible extinction if the global average temperature rises by 1.5-2.5C beyond 1990 levels. For increases in global average temperature exceeding 1.5-2.5C, there are very likely to be major changes in ecosystems which will adversely effect the environmental goods and services which humans use.

FOOD

Crop yields are likely to increase at higher latitudes for global average temperature increases of up to 1-3C (depending on the crop), and then decrease beyond that. This is even after allowing for effects of CO2 fertilisation.

At lower latitudes, especially the seasonally dry tropics, crop yield potential is likely to decrease for even small global temperature increases, which would increase risk of hunger.

Global agricultural production potential is likely to increase with increases in global average temperature up to about 3C, but above this it is very likely to decrease.

Increased frequency of droughts and floods would affect local production negatively, especially in subsistence sectors at low latitudes.

COASTS

Coasts are very likely to be exposed to increasing risks due to climate change and sea level rise, and the effect will be exacerbated by increasing human-induced pressures on coastal areas.

It is likely that corals will experience a major decline due to increased bleaching and mortality due to rising seawater temperatures. Salt marshes and mangroves will also be negatively affected by sea-level rise.

Many millions more people are expected to be flooded every year due to sea-level rise by the 2080s, especially in densely populated and low-lying settlements which already face other challenges such as tropical storms or local coastal subsidence. The numbers affected will be largest in the mega-deltas of Asia, but small islands face the highest relative increase in risk.

INDUSTRY

The benefits and costs of climate change for industry, settlement, and society will vary widely by location and scale. Some of the effects in temperate and polar regions will be positive, and others elsewhere will be negative. Generally, a higher degree of warming is more likely to bring negative consequences.

The most vulnerable industries, settlements and societies are those in coastal and river flood plains, those whose economies are closely linked with climate-sensitive resources, and those in areas prone to extreme weather events, especially where rapid urbanisation is occurring.

Poor communities can be especially vulnerable because they tend to be concentrated in relatively high-risk areas, have more limited coping capacities, and can be more dependent on climate-sensitive resources such as local water and food supplies. Where extreme weather events become more intense, the economic costs of those events will increase, and these increases are likely to be substantial in the areas most directly affected.

Return to map

HEALTH

Projected climate change is likely to affect millions of people, particularly those with low capacity to adapt, through increases in malnutrition and consequent disorders.

This will have implications for child growth and development; increased deaths, disease and injury due to heat waves, floods, storms, fires and droughts, the altered burden of water-related diseases; the increased frequency of cardio-respiratory diseases due to higher concentrations of ground level ozone, and the movement of some infectious disease carriers into new regions. vectors.

Climate change is likely to have some mixed effects, such as the expansion and contraction of the range of malaria in different regions. In some places, climate change is likely to bring some benefits to health such as fewer deaths from cold exposure.

Return to map

IPCC definitions of probability of occurrence

Virtually certain: more than 99%
Extremely likely: more than 95%
Very likely: more than 90%
Likely: more than 66%
More likely than not: more than 50%
Very unlikely: less than 10%
Extremely unlikely: less than 5%

Copenhagen: What's your solution?

2009-11-28T08:26:00.001+07:00

Copenhagen: What's your solution?

http://news.bbc.co.uk

If you had the microphone at the Copenhagen climate summit, what would you say?

What is your message to world leaders on global warming?

BBC News would like you to send us your message for Copenhagen.

The best video messages we receive will be featured in a special televised debate on BBC News, at the climax of the conference.

Last chance

The UN Climate Change Conference begins in Copenhagen, Denmark, on December 7.

Example of a video message - Children send their messages to Barack Obama

Some say it is our last chance to save the world from runaway climate change.

Many hope that world leaders will agree significant cuts in greenhouse gas emissions; and compensation for countries suffering from global warming.

But talks so far have been slow, with key nations cagey to commit. There are fears that no firm action will be agreed.

• Are you worried about climate change?

• What deal would you strike in Copenhagen?

• Who should cut their emissions? By how much? And how should they make these cuts?

• How would you improve the negotiation process?

Send us your comments in video

Life in 2050

How will climate change affect you in future?

Is it already affecting you now?

Perhaps you are farmer whose crops are vulnerable.

Or you may live in a coastal area at risk of flooding.

You may be an oil worker, or a coal miner whose job is threatened.

Whatever you do, we'd like to hear from you.

Tell us:

• Why does climate change matter to you?

• How much are you personally willing to adapt, to live more sustainably?

• Are you prepared to change the way you travel, the food you eat, or to have fewer children?

• Would you pay more taxes - to invest in green energy and compensate countries hurt by climate change?

A brief history of climate change

2009-11-28T08:21:00.000+07:00

A brief history of climate change

http://news.bbc.co.uk

As the UN climate summit in Copenhagen approaches, BBC News environment correspondent Richard Black traces key milestones, scientific discoveries, technical innovations and political action.

The Newcomen Engine foreshadowed industrial scale use of coal

1712 - British ironmonger Thomas Newcomen invents the first widely used steam engine, paving the way for the Industrial Revolution and industrial scale use of coal.

1800 - world population reaches one billion.

1824 - French physicist Joseph Fourier describes the Earth's natural "greenhouse effect". He writes: "The temperature [of the Earth] can be augmented by the interposition of the atmosphere, because heat in the state of light finds less resistance in penetrating the air, than in re-passing into the air when converted into non-luminous heat."

1861 - Irish physicist John Tyndall shows that water vapour and certain other gases create the greenhouse effect. "This aqueous vapour is a blanket more necessary to the vegetable life of England than clothing is to man," he concludes. More than a century later, he is honoured by having a prominent UK climate research organisation - the Tyndall Centre - named after him.

1886 - Karl Benz unveils the Motorwagen, often regarded as the first true automobile.

1896 - Swedish chemist Svante Arrhenius concludes that industrial-age coal burning will enhance the natural greenhouse effect. He suggests this might be beneficial for future generations. His conclusions on the likely size of the "man-made greenhouse" are in the same ballpark - a few degrees Celsius for a doubling of CO2 - as modern-day climate models.

Svante Arrhenius unlocked the man-made greenhouse a century ago

1900 - another Swede, Knut Angstrom, discovers that even at the tiny concentrations found in the atmosphere, CO2 strongly absorbs parts of the infrared spectrum. Although he does not realise the significance, Angstrom has shown that a trace gas can produce greenhouse warming.

1927 - carbon emissions from fossil fuel burning and industry reach one billion tonnes per year.

1930 - human population reaches two billion.

1938 - using records from 147 weather stations around the world, British engineer Guy Callendar shows that temperatures had risen over the previous century. He also shows that CO2 concentrations had increased over the same period, and suggests this caused the warming. The "Callendar effect" is widely dismissed by meteorologists.

1955 - using a new generation of equipment including early computers, US researcher Gilbert Plass analyses in detail the infrared absorption of various gases. He concludes that doubling CO2 concentrations would increase temperatures by 3-4C.

1957 - US oceanographer Roger Revelle and chemist Hans Suess show that seawater will not absorb all the additional CO2 entering the atmosphere, as many had assumed. Revelle writes: "Human beings are now carrying out a large scale geophysical experiment..."

1958 - using equipment he had developed himself, Charles David (Dave) Keeling begins systematic measurements of atmospheric CO2 at Mauna Loa in Hawaii and in Antarctica. Within four years, the project - which continues today - provides the first unequivocal proof that CO2 concentrations are rising.

Change in future is likely to be more fundamental and more widespread than anything we have known hitherto

Margaret Thatcher

1960 - human population reaches three billion.

1965 - a US President's Advisory Committee panel warns that the greenhouse effect is a matter of "real concern".

1972 - first UN environment conference, in Stockholm. Climate change hardly registers on the agenda, which centres on issues such as chemical pollution, atomic bomb testing and whaling. The United Nations Environment Programme (Unep) is formed as a result.

1975 - human population reaches four billion.

1975 - US scientist Wallace Broecker puts the term "global warming" into the public domain in the title of a scientific paper.

1987 - human population reaches five billion

1987 - Montreal Protocol agreed, restricting chemicals that damage the ozone layer. Although not established with climate change in mind, it has had a greater impact on greenhouse gas emissions than the Kyoto Protocol.

1988 - Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) formed to collate and assess evidence on climate change.

1989 - UK Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher - possessor of a chemistry degree - warns in a speech to the UN that "We are seeing a vast increase in the amount of carbon dioxide reaching the atmosphere... The result is that change in future is likely to be more fundamental and more widespread than anything we have known hitherto." She calls for a global treaty on climate change.

1989 - carbon emissions from fossil fuel burning and industry reach six billion tonnes per year.

The CO2 concentration, as measured at Mauna Loa, has risen steadily

1990 - IPCC produces First Assessment Report. It concludes that temperatures have risen by 0.3-0.6C over the last century, that humanity's emissions are adding to the atmosphere's natural complement of greenhouse gases, and that the addition would be expected to result in warming.

1992 - at the Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro, governments agree the United Framework Convention on Climate Change. Its key objective is "stabilization of greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere at a level that would prevent dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system". Developed countries agree to return their emissions to 1990 levels.

1995 - IPCC Second Assessment Report concludes that the balance of evidence suggests "a discernible human influence" on the Earth's climate. This has been called the first definitive statement that humans are responsible for climate change.

1997 - Kyoto Protocol agreed. Developed nations pledge to reduce emissions by an average of 5% by the period 2008-2012, with wide variations on targets for individual countries. US Senate immediately declares it will not ratify the treaty.

1998 - strong El Nino conditions combine with global warming to produce the warmest year on record. The average global temperature reached 0.52C above the mean for the period 1961-1990 (a commonly-used baseline).

1998 - publication of the controversial "hockey stick" graph indicating that modern-day temperature rise in the northern hemisphere is unusual compared with the last 1,000 years. The work would later be the subject of two enquiries instigated by the US Congress.

Rajendra Pachauri's IPCC netted the Nobel Peace Prize in 2007

1999 - human population reaches six billion.

2001 - President George W Bush removes the US from the Kyoto process.

2001 - IPCC Third Assessment Report finds "new and stronger evidence" that humanity's emissions of greenhouse gases are the main cause of the warming seen in the second half of the 20th Century.

2005 - the Kyoto Protocol becomes international law for those countries still inside it.

2005 - UK Prime Minister Tony Blair selects climate change as a priority for his terms as chair of the G8 and president of the EU.

2006 - the Stern Review concludes that climate change could damage global GDP by up to 20% if left unchecked - but curbing it would cost about 1% of global GDP.

2006 - carbon emissions from fossil fuel burning and industry reach eight billion tonnes per year.

2007 - the IPCC's Fourth Assessment Report concludes it is more than 90% likely that humanity's emissions of greenhouse gases are responsible for modern-day climate change.

2007 - the IPCC and former US vice-president Al Gore receive the Nobel Peace Prize "for their efforts to build up and disseminate greater knowledge about man-made climate change, and to lay the foundations for the measures that are needed to counteract such change".

2007 - at UN negotiations in Bali, governments agree the two-year "Bali roadmap" aimed at hammering out a new global treaty by the end of 2009.

2008 - half a century after beginning observations at Mauna Loa, the Keeling project shows that CO2 concentrations have risen from 315 parts per million (ppm) in 1958 to 380ppm in 2008.

2008 - two months before taking office, incoming US president Barack Obama pledges to "engage vigorously" with the rest of the world on climate change.

2009 - China overtakes the US as the world's biggest greenhouse gas emitter - although the US remains well ahead on a per-capita basis.

2009 - 192 governments convene for the UN climate summit in Copenhagen.

Q&A: The Copenhagen climate summit

2009-11-28T08:17:00.003+07:00

Q&A: The Copenhagen climate summit

http://news.bbc.co.uk

In December, delegations from 192 countries will hold two weeks of talks in Copenhagen aimed at establishing a new global treaty on climate change. Here, BBC environment correspondent Richard Black looks at what the talks are about and what they are supposed to achieve.

Why are the Copenhagen talks happening?

The majority of the world's governments believe that climate change poses a threat to human society and to the natural world.

Successive scientific reports, notably those from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), have come to ever firmer conclusions about humankind's influence on the modern-day climate, and about the impacts of rising temperatures.

Two years ago, at the UN climate talks held in Bali, governments agreed to start work on a new global agreement.

The Copenhagen talks mark the end of that two-year period.

Governments hope to leave the Danish capital having completed the new deal.

The talks are technically known as the 15th Conference of the Parties to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) - often abbreviated to COP15.

Why is climate change happening - and is it the same as global warming?

The Earth's climate has always changed naturally over time.

For example, variability in our planet's orbit alters its distance from the Sun, which has given rise to major Ice Ages and intervening warmer periods.

According to the last IPCC report, it is more than 90% probable that humankind is largely responsible for modern-day climate change.

A brief history of climate change

What's your Copenhagen solution?

The principal cause is burning fossil fuels - coal, oil and gas.

This produces carbon dioxide (CO2), which - added to the CO2 present naturally in the Earth's atmosphere - acts as a kind of blanket, trapping more of the Sun's energy and warming the Earth's surface.

Deforestation and processes that release other greenhouse gases such as methane also contribute.

Although the initial impact is a rise in average temperatures around the world - "global warming" - this also produces changes in rainfall patterns, rising sea levels, changes to the difference in temperatures between night and day, and so on.

This more complex set of disturbances has acquired the label "climate change" - sometimes more accurately called "anthropogenic (human-made) climate change".

Why is a new treaty needed?

The Copenhagen talks sit within the framework of the UNFCCC, established at the Rio de Janeiro Earth Summit in 1992.

In 1997, the UNFCCC spawned the Kyoto Protocol.

Denmark's Environment Minister Connie Hedegaard will chair COP15

But neither of these agreements can curb the growth in greenhouse gas emissions sufficiently to avoid the climate impacts projected by the IPCC.

In particular, the Kyoto Protocol's targets for reducing emissions apply only to a small set of countries and expire in 2012.

Governments want a new treaty that is bigger, bolder, wider-ranging and more sophisticated than the Kyoto agreement.

In June, the G8 and a number of large developing countries agreed that the average temperature rise since pre-industrial times should be limited to 2C (3.6F).

In principle, they are looking to the Copenhagen treaty to curb the growth in greenhouse gas emissions enough to keep the world within that limit.

Who is looking for what in the new treaty?

A lot of issues are involved.

Industrialised nations will set targets for reducing their greenhouse gas emissions in order to mitigate climate change.

The key date for these commitments is 2020, although some countries are looking beyond that, to 2050.

Australia, the EU, Japan and New Zealand have already said what they are prepared to do by 2020.

Richer developing countries are also likely to be asked to constrain their emissions.

If they do make any pledges, they are likely to restrain the growth of emissions rather than making actual cuts.

CLIMATE CHANGE GLOSSARY

Select a term from the dropdown:

Suggest additions

Glossary in full

Their commitments are likely to be expressed in terms of a reduction in emissions growth of a certain percentage compared with "business as usual".

In order to help developing countries constrain their greenhouse gas emissions, industrialised nations have agreed in principle to help them in areas such as renewable energy.

Developing countries are looking for mechanisms that can speed up this technology transfer.

Many countries are thinking about how to prepare for the impacts of climate change - what sorts of adaptation will be necessary.

These include measures such as building sea defences, securing fresh water supplies and developing new crop varieties.

Developing countries are looking for substantial and reliable finance to help them adapt. Their argument is that as the industrialised world has caused the problem, it must pay to sort it out.

Measures to protect forests will be a component of the deal.

How much will it cost?

In general, fossil fuels provide us with our cheapest sources of energy.

The main route to reducing greenhouse gas emissions is to avoid burning fossil fuels; so a successful treaty would almost certainly make energy more expensive.

Funding clean technologies will be part of any deal

There are different analyses of how much it would cost to make this transition quickly enough to avert "dangerous" climate change.

Developing countries are looking for money in the order of hundreds of billions of dollars each year for mitigation - the ballpark figure that the International Energy Agency calculates is necessary to fund a large-scale switch to low-carbon energy.

A number of studies, including one by the World Bank, also suggest that a further $100bn per year or thereabouts will be needed to help poorer countries adapt.

By comparison, the amount of overseas aid currently given each year by rich countries is in the region of $100bn.

What are the prospects for a deal?

Four broad outcomes are possible from the Copenhagen summit:

a comprehensive deal with all loose ends tied up
a deal agreeing the "big picture", but with lots of details remaining to be thrashed out over the coming months or years
adjournment of the COP, probably until midway through 2010
breakdown.

Almost every government attending the talks says it wants a deal; and many contend it is necessary to have the essential ingredients in place by the time the Kyoto Protocol's current targets expire in 2012.

But in the weeks leading up to Copenhagen, it has become clear that a full, legally-binding treaty is not possible, with a number of key players suggesting something less ambitious is indicated given the immense amount of detail remaining to be worked out and the fact that the US is not in a position to make firm pledges on mitigating its own emissions or on providing financial support to the developing world.

A political agreement appears more likely, with attempts to secure a legally-binding treaty deferred until some point in 2010.

Would a Copenhagen deal solve climate change?

The global average temperature has already risen by about 0.7C since pre-industrial times.

In some parts of the world this is already having impacts - and a Copenhagen deal could not stop those impacts, although it could provide funding to help deal with some of the consequences.

Greenhouse gases such as CO2 stay in the atmosphere for decades; and concentrations are already high enough that further warming is almost inevitable.

Many analyses suggest an average rise of 1.5C since pre-industrial times is guaranteed.

A strong Copenhagen deal might keep the temperature rise under 2C; but given uncertainties in how the atmosphere and oceans respond to rising concentrations of greenhouse gases, it might not.

This is why developing countries put such an emphasis on adaptation, which they argue is necessary already.

IPCC figures suggest that to have a reasonable chance of avoiding 2C, global emissions would need to peak and start to decline within about 15-20 years.

Currently, the cuts pledged by industrialised nations are not enough to halt the overall global rise in emissions.

Whatever happens in Copenhagen, further meetings will almost certainly be necessary to finalise the "rules" of any new treaty.

Further ahead, at some point governments will almost certainly begin the process of securing the deal after Copenhagen.

Nuclear fuel cycle

2009-11-28T08:09:00.001+07:00

http://news.bbc.co.uk

Introduction :: Mining uranium

Uranium is the basic raw material of both civilian and military nuclear programmes.

It is extracted from either open-cast pits or by underground mining. Although uranium occurs naturally all over the world, only a small fraction is found in concentrated ores.

When certain atoms of uranium are split in a chain reaction, energy is released. This process is called nuclear fission.

In a nuclear power station this fission occurs slowly, while in a nuclear weapon, very rapidly. In both instances, fission must be very carefully controlled.

Nuclear fission works best if isotopes - atoms with the same number of protons, but different numbers of neutrons - of uranium 235 (or plutonium 239) are used.These isotopes have almost identical chemical properties, but different nuclear properties. Uranium-235 is known as a "fissile isotope" because of its propensity to split in a chain reaction, releasing energy in the form of heat.

When a U-235 atom splits, it emits two or three neutrons. When other U-235 atoms are present, these neutrons collide with them causing the other atoms to split, producing more neutrons.

A nuclear reaction will only take place if there are enough u-235 atoms present to allow this process to continue as a self-sustaining chain reaction. This requirement is known as "critical mass".

However, every 1,000 atoms of naturally-occurring uranium contain only seven atoms of U-235, with the remaining 993 being denser U-238.

Q&A: Iran and the nuclear issue

2009-11-28T08:02:00.003+07:00

Q&A: Iran and the nuclear issue

http://news.bbc.co.uk

Iran says its nuclear regime is peaceful

Iran is defying Security Council resolutions ordering it to suspend the enrichment of uranium.

On 27 November 2009, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) criticised Iran for building another uranium enrichment plant.

Iran is now considering an offer to have much of its enriched uranium converted into fuel abroad.

Why has the IAEA criticised Iran again?

It argues that Iran's new plant near Qom should have been declared much earlier and is demanding that construction stops. Iran revealed the plant only days before President Obama accused it of developing a secret enrichment facility which the president suggested might have a military use. Iran says it was on time with its declaration - there is a dispute about its obligations to the IAEA - and is constructing the plant - in a mountain - in order to safeguard its technology from any attack.

The IAEA has inspected the plant and says that it will have room to house 3000 centrifuges.

What is the significance of the uranium enrichment offer?

The plan is to take about 75% (1,200kg) of the low-enriched uranium Iran has stockpiled and convert it into fuel rods in Russia and France for use in the research reactor Iran has run in Tehran for years. This produces isotopes for use in medical treatments.

It is potentially significant because it would lower tension with Iran and get most of the enriched uranium out of Iran, reducing fears that it could be further enriched and made suitable for a nuclear device.

However, Iran would still go on enriching and it could make up the amount in about a year.

Iran has given its agreement in principle but wants changes. The head of the IAEA Mohamed ElBaradei says that Iran is offering to release the uranium in two batches. It is not clear how, or indeed if, the agreement will go ahead.

Why is Iran refusing to obey the Security Council resolutions?

Under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), a signatory state has the right to enrich uranium to be used as fuel for civil nuclear power. Such states have to remain under inspection from the IAEA. Iran is under such inspection. However, only those signatory states with nuclear weapons at the time of the treaty in 1968 are allowed to enrich to the much higher level needed for a nuclear weapon.

Iran says it is simply doing what it is allowed to do under the treaty and intends only to enrich to the level needed for nuclear power station fuel. It blames the Security Council resolutions on political pressure from the US and its allies. It argues that it needs nuclear power and wants to control the whole process itself...

President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has repeatedly stressed that Iran will not yield to international pressure: "The Iranian nation will not succumb to bullying, invasion and the violation of its rights," he has said.

What does Iran say about developing nuclear weapons?

It says it will not break its obligations under the NPT and will not use the technology to make a nuclear bomb.

On 18 September 2009, President Ahmadinejad told NBC News: "We don't need nuclear weapons... it's not a part of our programmes and plans."

He said that nuclear-armed states should themselves give up their nuclear weapons.

Shortly afterwards Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei, who is reported to have issued a fatwa some time ago against nuclear weapons said: "We fundamentally reject nuclear weapons."

Why has the Security Council ordered Iran to stop enrichment?

Because the technology used to enrich uranium for use as fuel for nuclear power can also be used to enrich the uranium to the higher level needed to produce a nuclear explosion. There are fears that Iran is at least acquiring the know-how so that one day it has the option of going for a bomb. Iran hid an enrichment programme for 18 years, so the Council says that until Iran's peaceful intentions can be fully established, it should stop enrichment and certain other nuclear activities. The Council's order is obligatory and supersedes other rights.

What precisely does the Security Council and the IAEA want Iran to do?

It wants Iran to stop all enrichment activities, including the preparation of uranium ore, the installation of the centrifuges in which a gas from the ore is spun to separate the richer parts, and the insertion of the gas into the centrifuges. It also has to suspend its work on heavy water projects, notably the construction of a heavy water reactor. Such a reactor could produce plutonium, an alternative to uranium for a nuclear device.

The IAEA has also called on Iran to ratify and implement an additional protocol allowing more extensive inspections as a way of establishing confidence.

What does the IAEA say about Iran?

In September 2009, IAEA chief Mohamed ElBaradei said in an interview that there was "no credible evidence" about an Iranian weapons attempt. He said: "I do not think based on what we see that Iran has an ongoing nuclear weapons programme."

The IAEA has Iran's Natanz fuel enrichment plant under its surveillance and in presenting his latest report in September 2009 Mr ElBaradei said: "Since my last report, the Agency has continued to verify the non-diversion of declared nuclear material in Iran. Iran has co-operated with the Agency in improving safeguards measures at the Fuel Enrichment Plant and in providing the required access to the Iran Nuclear Research Reactor (IR-40) at Arak for purposes of design information verification.

"On all other issues relevant to Iran's nuclear programme, however, there is stalemate. Iran has not suspended its enrichment related activities or its work on heavy water related projects as required by the Security Council, nor has Iran implemented the Additional Protocol. Likewise, Iran has not co-operated with the Agency in connection with the remaining issues, detailed fully and completely in the Agency's reports, which need to be clarified in order to exclude the possibility of there being military dimensions to Iran's nuclear programme."

The IAEA also reports that Iran is not cooperating with its request for an answer to questions about possible studies on nuclear warheads carried out in the past. On 26 November 2009, Mr ElBaradei said the discussions on this issue had reached a "dead end."

These past studies - which Iran calls fabrications - have caused concern in that Iran appears to have examined how to design a nuclear warhead.

What about a reported secret IAEA document on Iran's work?

This was reported by the Associated Press on 18 September 2009. The document is said to state that IAEA experts believe that Iran has "sufficient information" to make a nuclear device and has worked on a warhead that could be carried on a missile. When it is supposed to have done so is not clear.

This reported assessment goes beyond anything in published IAEA reports on Iran but in a statement the agency said it had "no concrete proof that there is or has been a nuclear weapons programme in Iran."

On 4 October, the New York Times also reported on the unpublished IAEA document and earlier the Institute for Science and International Security published what it said were excerpts.

President Obama offered an "extended hand" to Iran. What happened to that?

President Obama said: "If countries like Iran are willing to unclench their fist, they will find an extended hand from us." He proposed that talks take place between Iran and the so-called P5 +1, that is the five permanent members of the Security Council - the US, Russia, China, Britain and France - plus Germany.

On 9 September 2009, Iran handed what appears to be its reply - a five page letter called "Cooperation for Peace, Justice and Progress". The letter offers global talks on a range of international issues, including global nuclear disarmament, but does not mention Iran's own nuclear work. President Ahmadinejad had said earlier that discussion of the Iranian nuclear issue was "finished" and that he would never negotiate on "the Iranian nation's obvious rights."

President Obama has said there will have to be an assessment of the Iranian position by the end of the year, the implication being that further sanctions would be considered if no progress was made.

What new sanctions are possible?

Russia and China are reluctant to agree to new Security Council sanctions, so a coalition of countries, including the EU, might take action themselves. Consideration was given to stopping the export to Iran of refined petroleum products. Despite its oil wealth, Iran cannot produce enough such products itself. However, there is opposition to this idea because it would hit ordinary people. There might efforts to get a ban on investment in oil and gas and on financial dealings, especially reinsurance.

Incentives are being offered to Iran. What are these?

The US, Russia, China, the UK, France and Germany say that if Iran suspends uranium enrichment, then talks can start about a long-term agreement. On offer is recognition of Iran's right to develop nuclear energy for peaceful purposes and the treatment of Iran in "the same manner" as other states under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.

Iran would get help with developing nuclear power stations and be guaranteed fuel for them. It would also be offered trade concessions, including the possible lifting of US sanctions, which prevent it for example from buying new civilian aircraft and parts.

What sanctions have been imposed on Iran?

The US has imposed restrictions since the taking of American hostages in 1979, leading to a total trade embargo in 1995. In addition the UN has imposed wider sanctions.

Security Council Resolution 1737, passed in December 2006, mandates all UN member states "to prevent the supply, sale or transfer... of all items, materials, equipment, goods and technology which could contribute to Iran's enrichment-related, reprocessing or heavy water-related activities or to the development of nuclear weapon delivery systems".

In March 2007, the Council passed resolution 1747. This seeks to tighten the squeeze on Iran's nuclear and missile programmes by preventing dealings with the state Bank Sepah and 28 named people and organisations, many connected to the elite Revolutionary Guard. Member states have been told to exercise restraint in and to report the travel of individuals connected to these programmes.

Imports of arms from Iran are banned and member states are told to exercise restraint in selling major arms systems to Iran. Loans are supposed to be limited to humanitarian and development purposes. Resolution 1803 of March 2008 extends asset restrictions and travel bans on more Iranian individuals said to be involved in nuclear work and on more Iranian companies. It bans the sale to Iran of so-called dual-use items - items which can have either a military or civilian purpose - as well as calling on governments to withdraw financial backing from companies trading with Iran, to inspect cargo going into and out of the country, and to monitor the activities of two Iranian banks.

What does the US intelligence assessment say about Iran?

The National Intelligence Estimate plays down any early threat of an Iranian nuclear weapon. It assesses "with high confidence" that Iran did have a nuclear weapons programme until 2003, but this was discovered and Iran stopped it. The NIE adds: "We do not know whether it currently intends to develop nuclear weapons." The assessment admits that Iran appears "less determined" to develop nuclear weapons than US intelligence had previously thought. It says that the earliest date by which Iran could make a nuclear weapon would be late 2009 but that this is "very unlikely".

What are the chances of an attack on Iran?

The Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu constantly stresses what he sees as a potential existential threat from Iran. Israel has reportedly carried out a major air force exercise, seen as practice for a raid on Iran. It is sceptical that diplomatic means will force Iran to stop enrichment and does not want to let Iran develop even a theoretical capacity to make a nuclear bomb.

So the possibility of an attack, by Israel at least, remains.

Does everyone accept the NIE report?

No. Israel does not. The then Israeli prime minister Ehud Olmert said on 12 February 2008 that Israel thought Iran was aiming to create "a capacity for non-conventional weapons." The present prime minister Mr Netanyahu takes the same view.

And in London on 5 March 2008, a senior British diplomat said: "Many of us were surprised by how emphatic the writers [of the NIE] were... I haven't seen any intelligence that gives me even medium confidence that these programmes haven't resumed."

Even the Director of US National Intelligence, Mike McConnell, appeared to backtrack on 28 February 2008, in evidence to the Senate Armed Forces Committee. In this evidence, he said that Iran had probably halted warhead design and weaponisation, but pointed out that Iran's continued enrichment of uranium meant that it was continuing with "the most difficult challenge in nuclear production." He said: "We remain concerned about Iran's intentions... Tehran at a minimum is keeping the option open to develop nuclear weapons."

What other pressure has there been on Iran?

On 17 October 2007, the US designated part of the Revolutionary Guard as a "supporter of terrorism" and the Guard as a proliferator of weapons of mass destruction for its alleged work on ballistic missiles. The US imposed further sanctions on the Guards' commercial activities and on several Iranian banks. The EU has agreed to freeze assets of Iran's largest bank, Bank Melli, and to extend visa bans to more Iranians involved in nuclear and missile development.

Is it not too late now to stop Iran from acquiring enrichment technology?

Iran thinks so and has said so. Its Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei has called this a "great victory". According to Mohamed ElBaradei, the head of the IAEA, events have overtaken the current strategy and he thinks that Iran should now be allowed to undertake limited enrichment but under strict supervision. This approach has been rejected by the US and its supporters.

How soon could Iran make a nuclear bomb?

Experts believe that Iran could enrich enough uranium for a bomb within a few months. However, it has apparently not mastered the technology of making a nuclear warhead. In theory Iran could leave the NPT with three months notice and it would then be free to do what it wanted. However, by doing that it would signal its intentions and leave itself open to attack. If it tried to divert material for a bomb in secret and was found out, it would lay itself open to the same risk.

Mohamed ElBaradei has said that the threat of Iran developing a bomb has been "hyped."

Doesn't the Non-Aligned Movement support Iran?

The NAM, representing 120 nations, issued a statement in July 2008 supporting Iran's right to develop peaceful nuclear power. Iran said this reflected international support for its position. The statement did not directly criticise UN sanctions against Iran, though it said that any issues should be dealt within the IAEA. It also appeared to accept that there are some problems remaining when it said: "Diplomacy and dialogue through peaceful means must continue to find a comprehensive and long-term solution to the Iranian nuclear issue."

Don't existing nuclear powers have obligations to get rid of their weapons under the NPT?

Article VI commits them to "pursue negotiations in good faith on effective measures relating to cessation of the nuclear arms race at an early date and to nuclear disarmament". The nuclear powers claim they have done this by reducing their warheads, but critics say they have not really moved towards nuclear disarmament. Critics also argue that the US and UK have broken the treaty by transferring nuclear technology from one to another. The US and UK say that this is not affected by the NPT.

Doesn't Israel have a nuclear bomb?

Yes. Israel, however, is not a party to the NPT, so is not obliged to report to it. Neither are India or Pakistan, both of which have developed nuclear weapons. North Korea has left the treaty and has announced that it has acquired a nuclear weapons capacity.

On 18 September 2009, the IAEA called on Israel to join the NPT and open its nuclear facilities to inspection. The resolution said that the IAEA "Expresses concern about the Israeli nuclear capabilities, and calls upon Israel to accede to the NPT and place all its nuclear facilities under comprehensive IAEA safeguards... "

Israel refuses to join the NPT or allow inspections. It is reckoned to have up to 400 warheads but refuses to confirm or deny this.

Iran nuclear crisis: are new sanctions on the way?

2009-11-28T03:17:00.002+07:00

Iran nuclear crisis: are new sanctions on the way?

http://news.bbc.co.uk

By Paul Reynolds
World affairs correspondent, BBC News website

Iran has insisted it will not stop enriching uranium

The latest criticism of Iran by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) is another sign that new sanctions could be on the way.

The IAEA resolution, censuring Iran's secret construction of another uranium enrichment plant, was supported by Russia and China.

This does not mean they will join in a new round of international measures against Iran. But it does mean that Iran cannot count on them for diplomatic support.

And it possibly indicates that Russia will not supply Iran with the S-300 anti-missile system that Iran has ordered. That would be a sanction in itself.

US President Barack Obama has indicated that he will assess the Iranian position by the end of the year.

If he goes for more sanctions, he will try to get Russia and China on board. If he cannot, he will act with fellow negotiators Britain, France and Germany, plus, he hopes, the whole EU and other players.

Western 'trick'

Only two things could stop such moves. The first is Iranian compliance with the security demands for it to stop uranium enrichment.

This opportunity should be seized and it would be highly regrettable if it was missed

Mohamed ElBaradei

That will not happen, according to Iran's President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. He has been consistent on this so it is realistic to believe him.

The other is an agreement on a proposal to take Iran's stockpile of low-enriched uranium (LEU) and send it to Russia and France for conversion into fuel rods for use in Iran's small research reactor in Tehran, which produces isotopes for cancer treatment.

Some Iranian leaders see a trick in this, a way for the West to get hold of its uranium, then keep it.

However the head of the IAEA, Mohamed ElBaradei has said that Iran does have a proposal of its own.

He said this week: "My understanding of Iran's position so far is that it is ready to exchange LEU produced in Iran, in two batches, simultaneously upon receipt of an equivalent amount of fuel for its research reactor.

"Pending receipt of the fuel, Iran is ready to place the LEU under IAEA custody and control, but only in Iran."

Mr ElBaradei, who retires from his post next week, also said: "This opportunity should be seized and it would be highly regrettable if it was missed." This is an understatement.

Target oil

The UN Security Council has approved three rounds of sanctions so far - covering trade in nuclear material, as well as travel and financial restrictions aimed at Iranian organisations and individuals.

If there are to be new sanctions, then the targets will be Iran's oil trade, especially its reliance on imported refined petroleum products, and the buzzword is reinsurance.

Q&A: Iran and the nuclear issue

Nuclear fuel cycle

Reinsurance is the means by which insurers can protect themselves against losses and the idea would be to stop or dissuade companies from proving such services for trade with Iran.

According to Wilkie, Farr and Gallaher, an international law firm, the intent is this: "The Obama Administration's sanctions could affect most Iranian import and export trade.

"[Its] proposals could ban goods, services, technology, information, or other activities that support the importation or production of refined petroleum by Iran, including refinery construction, modernization, and repair."

Some governments might be satisfied with that for the time being, bearing in mind that there is no evidence of actual nuclear bomb-making activity and Iran's statement that it will not build any such device.

However, Israel is not and will not be convinced.

New sanctions would have to be given time to work or not.

So a military strike on Iran's nuclear sites at some stage might be less likely in the shorter term, but cannot be not ruled out.

Iran rebuked over nuclear 'cover-up' by UN watchdog

2009-11-28T02:21:00.000+07:00

Iran rebuked over nuclear 'cover-up' by UN watchdog

http://news.bbc.co.uk

Iran's second uranium enrichment facility came to light in September

The UN nuclear watchdog's governing body has passed a resolution condemning Iran for developing a uranium enrichment site in secret.

The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) also demanded that Iran freeze the project immediately.

The resolution, the first against Iran in nearly four years, was passed by a 25-3 margin with six abstentions.

Iran called the move "useless" but the US said it showed time was running out for Iran to address key issues.

Iran says its nuclear programme is for peaceful energy purposes, but the US says it is seeking nuclear weapons.

In September, it emerged that as well as its uranium enrichment facility at Natanz, Iran had a second such facility near the town of Qom.

The revelation deepened Western fears about the country's nuclear ambitions.

'Clear signal'

The IAEA resolution was passed with rare Russian and Chinese backing. Only Cuba, Venezuela and Malaysia voted against it.


						I believe the next stage will have to be sanctions if Iran does not respond to what is a very clear vote Gordon Brown New sanctions on way for Iran?

It called on Iran to reveal the purpose of the second plant and confirm that it is not building any other undeclared nuclear facilities.

After the resolution, the US said Iran needed to address "the growing international deficit of confidence in its intentions".

"Our patience and that of the international community is limited, and time is running out," White House spokesman Robert Gibbs said.

"If Iran refuses to meet its obligations, then it will be responsible for its own growing isolation and the consequences."

Speaking at a Commonwealth summit in Trinidad and Tobago, UK Prime Minister Gordon Brown said that sanctions were the next step if Iran did not respond to what was "a very clear vote".

Russia's Foreign Ministry urged Iran to react "with full seriousness" to the resolution.

ANALYSIS

Jon Leyne, BBC Tehran correspondent

This resolution is a sign of Iran's growing isolation. It is the first at the IAEA since 2006. Crucially it secured the support of Russia and China. That makes it more likely they will vote for new sanctions on Iran when debate is stepped up in the new year, though there are still some tough negotiations ahead.

It seems that Iran's hesitation over a new fuel deal for its Tehran research reactor and its reluctance to engage in more constructive talks has infuriated even those countries which have protected it in the past.

On Thursday IAEA head Mohamed ElBaradei, who has always pressed for a compromise solution, expressed his frustration in dealing with Iran.

In response, Iran has threatened to reduce its co-operation with the UN nuclear watchdog, but not to break off ties completely. The real trouble for Tehran is that the Iranian government now seems to be in too much internal turmoil to make clear decisions and follow them through.

But Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesman Ramin Mehmanparast called the IAEA vote "a theatrical move aimed at pressuring Iran" that would be "useless", state news agency Irna reported.

And Iran's ambassador to the IAEA, Ali Asghar Soltanieh, said it was a "hasty and undue" step that would jeopardise the chances of success in negotiations.

"The great nation of Iran will never bow to pressure and intimidation vis-a-vis its inalienable right to peaceful uses of nuclear energy," he said.

The resolution came a day after the outgoing head of the IAEA, Mohamed ElBaradei, expressed frustration at Iran's refusal to accept an international proposal to end the dispute over its nuclear programme.

The plan envisages Iran's low-enriched uranium being shipped overseas for processing into fuel. This is seen as a way for Iran to get the fuel it wants, while giving guarantees to the West that it will not be used for nuclear weapons.

Addressing IAEA governors in Vienna on Thursday, Mr ElBaradei said his inspectors had made no progress in their attempts to verify the peaceful nature of Iran's nuclear programme.

"It is now well over a year since the agency was last able to engage Iran in discussions about these outstanding issues," he said. "We have effectively reached a dead end, unless Iran engages fully with us."