UNITED
NATIONS, April
19 -- Days
before the
signing of the
Paris climate
change
agreement,
Inner City
Press asked
the Director
of the
Secretary-General’s
Climate Change
Support Team
Selwin Hart
and Mr. David
Nabarro,
Secretary-General's
Special
Adviser on the
2030 Agenda
for
Sustainable
Development
and Climate
Change about
critique of
the agreement.
Specifically,
Inner City
Press asked if
where are the
$100 billion
dollars, why
aviation and
shipping are
excluded, and
how hot
current
commitments
would make the
planet. Hart
said it's
imperfect but
praised it, as
did Nabarro. Video here.
This takes
place days
after the UN
evicted Inner
City Press'
longtime UN
office,
ostensibly
based on Inner
City Press
seeking to
cover an event
of the UN
Correspondents
Association in
the UN Press
Briefing Room
January 29,
the day day
Inner City
Press showed
the UN's Janos
Pazstor the
faux recycling
in front of
UNCA's office.
While
the UN purports
to be
recycling, its
garbage cans
with
separately holes for
glass, paper
and waste in
fact have a
single bag
behind them:
nothing is
separated.
After
exposing the
fake recycling
on January 22,
and asking UN
Spokesman
Stephane
Dujarric about
in on January
25 (he said
everyone can
see it's fake,
so it's OK),
on January 29
Inner City
Press asked
Ban Ki-moon's
Special
Adviser on
Climate Change
Janos Pasztor
about it.
Video here.
To his credit,
after the
briefing
Pasztor came
with Inner
City Press to
see one of the
fake recycling
garbage cans,
directly in
front of the
door of the UN
Correspondents
Association.
Looking in
through the
separate
Glass, Paper
and Waste
openings and
seeing inside
a single
garbage bag,
Pasztor agreed
that it was
and is totally
unacceptable.
We'll see.
Later on
January 29,
the response
of UNCA --
whose
president
Giampaolo
Pioli was
right there
when Pasztor
was shown the
scam -- was
not to
recycle, but
to simply
remove the top
of the garbage
can. Tweeted
photo here.
This is
today's UN,
and those who
are supposed
to watch it.
We'll have
more on this.
Inner City
Press also
asked Pasztor
about the $100
billion in the
Paris
Agreement on
climate
change, and
what
percentage
might just be
market rate
loans, even to
coal projects.
Video here.
We'll have
more on
this, too.
On
January 25,
Inner City
Press asked UN
Secretary
General Ban
Ki-moon's
spokesman
Stephane
Dujarric about
the fake
recycling. Video here. Dujarric said that
everyone can
see it, then
that he was
going to
lunch. Video
here.
But not only
is this fake
recycling
contradictory
to the UN's
and Ban's
ostensibly
environmental
positions - it
also appears,
from responses
Inner City
Press has
received, that
many people
are not aware
of this
particular
pretense by
the UN. From
the UN's
January 25
transcript:
Inner
City Press: I
wanted to ask
you about
recycling at
the UN.
I noticed that
these cans
that are, that
exist that
have circles
for glass and
plastic, paper
and waste,
when you look
into them,
there's just
one bag.
So, it seems
like it's all
mixed, and
it's not
actually being
separated or
recycled.
Is that
true?
And if so,
what's the
point of
having the
separation?
Spokesman:
Well, if
you've seen
it, I have no
doubt that
it's
true. I
can look into
the situation
and… I can
look further
into the
garbage
recycling
issue.
Inner City
Press: I
think the
question
really is, is
it misleading
to pretend to
be recycling
if you're
not? If
you're just
not, just say
you're not.
Spokesman:
I think
anybody can
look, when you
throw
something into
the garbage,
anybody can
look and see
what's going
on. On
that note, I'm
going to have
lunch.
Then
after
interaction,
Inner City
Press
broadcast the
garbage can
live on
Periscope,
preserved on
YouTube
here.
Isn't this
hypocrisy? Why
didn't the
media using
this scam
garbage can --
CBS, Voice of
America,
Foreign
Policy,
Reuters and
AFP from down
the hall, the
UN
Correspondents
Association
right next
door -- say
anything about
this?
Inner City
Press, aware
of UNCA's and
these media's
attempts to
censor and
even through
the
investigative
Press out of
the UN, filmed
it and puts it
online here.
Amid
self-congratulations
about the
Paris
Agreement on
climate
change,
several
environmental
groups even
inside the
conference
site on
December 12 were
critical. But
when UN
Secretary
General Ban
Ki-moon took
three softball
questions from
correspondents
at the UN on
December 14,
it was another
stage in Ban
and his
enablers' use
of the UN to
campaign for a
Nobel Prize.
The first
question was,
by CBS, to ask
Ban about his
legacy.
The
next, by the
outgoing vice
president of
the UN
Correspondents
Association --
selling
seats with Ban
for $6000 on
Wall Street
-- was, There
is criticism,
what is your
response? But
not a single
criticism was
listed: the
easiest
question
possible. The
last was, from
UNCA's earlier
in the day
question, was
What should be
do?
Inner City
Press asked
loudly about
corpses dumped
in the streets
over the
weekend in Burundi,
where several
UN member
states are
warning of a
new genocide,
and on which
Ban and his
office have
yet to
comment. Ban
had no
response - he
returned to
say he will
brief the
General
Assembly; his
spokesman said
he will take
more questions
on December
16: also
pre-selected?
Later in the
day, Ban and
his UN
Censorship
Alliance which
sells access
with him will
be reviving
and
re-establishing
UN corruption
in the wake of
the
indictments of
former
President of
the General
Assembly John
Ash, Sheri
Yan, the
founder of
South South
News and Ng
Lap Seng.
Watch this
site.
On COP
21, earlier on
December 14,
Inner City
Press asked at
the UN climate
change press
conference
which replaced
the noon
briefing and
all other
topics about
developed
countries
skirting
responsibility
and liability,
and of the
Trans Pacific
Partnership
undercuts
efforts on
climate. The
answer was of
a Twitter feed
nearly
uniformily
positive. The
UN,
apparently,
hears and
answers only
what it wants.
An NGO
from the
United States
pointed out
that President
Barack Obama
is pushing the
Trans Pacific
Partnership,
which will
undercut
climate change
efforts;
Obama's
“climate
change hiatus”
after the
failure of the
Waxman Markey
bill failed in
2009.
An NGO from
the
Philippines
called the
agreement less
concrete than
in the past;
another called
it a “huge
disappointment”
on human
rights. But
there was Ban
Ki-moon,
talking about
all his travel
in the past
nine years
(and, one
surmised,
campaigning of
a Nobel Peace
Prize, with an
eye on the
Korean
peninsula). A
stream of
press releases
ensued; we'll
have more on
this.
Back on
November 20 in
the run-up to the
talks,
Inner City
Press asked
UN official
Janos Pasztor
if commitments
on adaptation
funding will
be increased,
about
corporations
making
sometimes
dubious
pledges in
connection
with CoP21 and
specifically
about requests
that the Green
Climate Fund
not accredit
HSBC or Credit
Agricole,
given their
track records.
Pasztor
earnestly
answered the
questions,
though he said
he was unaware
of the request
to the GCF
about the two
banks (see here);
he also said
that while the
march planned
in Paris for
November 29
has been
canceled by
the
government,
marches can be
held elsewhere
- in other
countries.
Agence France
Presse, before
other
journalists
got even one
question, cut
in with
repeated
“follow-ups.” France
is branding
CoP21, while
now limited
civil society
participation
- except for
corporations.
Relatedly,
when the
UNFCCC held a
press
conference in
Bonn earlier
in the week,
the corporate
media in the
room had no
questions,
then few
questions. But
the selection
of questions
submitted by
social media
trended toward
Thomson
Reuters
Foundation and
the Climate
Group; press
questions
submitted by
Twitter and
email were
never
answered.
We'll have
more on this.
On October
13
Inner City
Press asked
Pasztor about
criticism of
the OECD's
claims about
developed
countries'
progress
toward $100
billion in
2020, and
about the
IMF's or
Christine
Lagarde's call
for a carbon
tax. Video
here.
Pasztor
replied that
at the meeting
in Peru,
finance
ministers had
raised
questions
about the
OECD's
methodology,
which he said
the OECD
Secretary
General had
responded to.
He called
Lagarde's
proposals “an
important way
that countries
can address
this issue.”
Back on
September 21 the
2015 Equator
Prize winners
were announced at a
UN press
conference featuring
Alec Baldwin
and Hilaria
Baldwin,
UNDP's Helen
Clark and
UNFCCC's
Christiana
Figueres,
about whose 3
degree Celsius
prediction
Inner City
Press asked
last week.
Inner
City Press
asked Figueres
about her
fellow UN
official Janos
Pasztor's
prediction
that current
Intended
Nationally
Determined
Contributions
would equate
to 3.5
degrees. She
did not
disagree;
UNDP's Helen
Clark said the
INDCs are not
ambitious
enough
yet.
Given
UNDP's direct
work with
governments,
Inner City
Press asked
Helen Clark
about, for
example, the
Democratic
Republic of
the Congo
being accuses
of going soft
on illegal
logging, for
example on
Lebanese-owned
firm Cotrefor.
Video
here.
Alec
Baldwin cited
Canadian tar
sands, and
also
ExxonMobil
(earlier on
September 21,
Inner City
Press asked
about BNP
Paribas
funding coal
power plants).
Climate Week
began...
Inner
City Press on
September 17
asked UN's
Assistant
Secretary-General
on Climate
Change Janos
Pasztor
whether INDCs
to date would
raised
temperatures
by 3 degrees
Celsius,
as Christiana
Figueres has
said, or 2.5
degree as the
Guardian has
an unnamed UK
official
saying.Video
here.
Pasztor's
answer to
Inner City
Press included
"3.5 degrees;"
Figueres'
spokesperson
chimes in this
is the
difference
between frying
and cooking.
But who was
the Guardian's
anonymous
"merely
warming"
source?
Amina
Mohammed,
Special
Advisor to the
Secretary-General
on Post-2015
Development
Planning,
spoke about
financing
issues, on
which Inner
City Press
asked about
how to count
if the $100
billion goal
is reached by
2020.
Back
on August 11
after the
climate change
announcement
of Australia,
Inner City
Press on
August 11
asked UN
Secretary
General Ban
Ki-moon's
spokesman
Stephane
Dujarric about
it, video
here, transcript here:
Inner
City Press: in
the statement
about the
countries
coming out
with their
climate change
targets,
Australia came
out with
one.
It's sort of
become a
touchstone,
many people
are saying
there's no way
it would lead
to 2°C…
Spokesman
Dujarric:
First of all,
we very much
welcome
countries that
issue their
INDC.
It's an
important
step, and we
very much hope
that all
Member States
will do
so. They
really need to
be seen as a
floor and not
a
ceiling.
They're a
starting
point.
There will be
discussions
prior to
Paris.
There will,
obviously, be
discussions in
Paris.
People are
free to,
obviously,
express their
opinion on
certain
countries'
INDCs, but for
our part,
we're glad we
have them, and
we do see them
as a starting
point in the
discussions.
Back
on June 18
when the UN
gave a climate
change
briefing by
UNDP's Cassie
Flynn, and Jo
Scheuer, on
June 18 Inner
City Press
asked about
the
under-funding
of the Least
Development
Countries
Fund, and if
South Korea is
backsliding in
its Intended
Nationally
Determined
Contributions.
Video
here.
The
answers, on
film, were to
promote other
funding
vehicles, and
to say that
South Korea
has still yet
to file its
INDC.
Pasztor said
that the CDM
is still
needed; he
said country
have committed
not to
backslide. Video here. (South Korea had yet
to submit its
INDCs, it
seems). Inner
City Press
asked Pasztor
to provide a
comment, if he
has one, once
South Korea's
filing is
made.
Back
on May 5,
Inner City
Press asked
him about
criticism of
the Green
Climate Fund,
including at
the recent
Permanent
Forum on
Indigenous
Issues. Video
here and
embedded
below.
Specifically,
why will the
"Green"
Climate Fund
provide
financial for
coal-powered
plants?
Pasztor
replied that
some felt that
an exclusion
for coal would
have been
divisive. On
statements at
the PFII that
the UN is
helping to
"monetize"
nature,
Pasztor
replied that
most states
feel
differently.
But what about
the
indigenous?
Pasztor
in his opening
statement had
praised the UN
Pension Fund
for now
investing in
"green
equities" and
"green bonds."
Since the UN
has responded
to Press
questions
about
irregularities
alleged at the
Pension Fund
by emphasizing
how separate
and
independent it
is, Inner City
Press asked
Pazstor if the
UN Secretariat
had brought
about this
Pension Fund
decision.
Pazstor
replied that
the Pension
Fund answers
to the
Secretary
General and
that "she" -
Carolyn
Boykin,
presumably -
had made this
decision.
We'll have
more on this,
after noting
Pasztor by no
means the
least
responsive UN
official...
When
last September
21 the
People's
Climate March
assembled at
Manhattan's
Columbus
Circle, there
were
anti-corporate
puppets in
front of the
Trump
International
Hotel and
Tower,
speeches by
coal miners
and from the
Marshall
Islands.
Many called on
the UN to do
better. But UN
Secretary
General Ban
Ki-moon joined
the march
mid-way, at
Radio City
Musical Hall
with New York
Mayor Bill de
Blasio.
Senator Chuck
Schumer was on
hand, walking
by a Bronx
contingent
chanting how
Fresh Direct
has broken its
promises.
Inner City
Press' 90
second video
of the march
is here.
The UN's or
"BKM" (Ban
Ki-moon)
Climate Summit
will feature
Cargill and
Walmart,
Credit
Agricole and
Bank of
America. The
last of these
is the first,
in terms of
funding
mountain top
coal removal.
These are the
contradiction.
Inner City
Press tweeted
photos on @InnerCityPress. More to
follow.
The night
before the
People's
Climate March,
the UN
buildings on
First Avenue
lit up with
photos and
footage of
trees and fish
and written
messages.
It is called
"illUmiNations."
Inner City
Press video
here.
Looking back
at the UN's
press release
for the
upcoming "VIP
Press
Screening" --
hard to know
how they could
exclude
non-VIPs from
it, or why
they would
want to --
there were
laudatory
quotes about
UN Secretary
General Ban
Ki-moon, and:
Obscura
Digital
has staged
similar
large-scale
architectural
mapping
projection
events on the
Sydney Opera
House, the
Guggenheim
Museum, and
the Sheikh
Zayed Grand
Mosque. For
examples of
previous work,
please visit
the following
link http://wdrv.it/1tx7Emd.
In
that video
compilation,
well worth
watching,
there are also
corporate
projects for
Coca-Cola and
YouTube owned
by Google,
with history
at the UN.
A message
Inner City
Press photographed
on September
19, here,
was "In
nature's
economy, the
currency is
not money but
life." Is this
true of
Coca-Cola?
There are
questions
about the UN's
UNcritical
approach to
corporations
and corporate
"partnerships."
In the run up
to the UN's
September 23
Climate
Summit, the UN
put out a
media advisory
promoting the
participation
of 14
corporations
ranging from
Saudi Aramco
through Cargill,
McDonald's and
Walmart to Bank of America and
Credit
Agricole.
Orr mentioned
a luncheon
during the
summit about
carbon pricing
and the UN
Global
Compact, a
branch of the
UN which
repeatedly
says it does
not enforce
substantive
standards,
only
encourages
reporting and
dialogue.
Well,
Saudi Aramco
did not
respond to
the complaint
about
“employees
allegedly
dismissed
after being
detained for
participation
in civil
rights
protests in
Saudi Arabia.”
And what of
the
environment?
Bank of
America has
been the
number one
funder of
mountain-top
removal coal
mining, but
Ban Ki-moon
made it
chairman the
chief of his
Sustainable
Energy for All
initiative.
On behalf of
the Free
UN Coalition
for Access,
Inner City
Press asked
that those
making
commitments,
like the 14
corporations
named, hold
question and
answer
sessions
during the
summit. We'll
see.
, 
