don't worry... I'm ON TOPIC right after the image.... :o)
Gee thinking of I'm humming Memories.... and remembering
not the most flattering picture of Babs... or is it ...
and recalling this..
uic.com.au
China signs nuclear reactor agreement with Canada.
Atomic Energy of Canada Ltd has signed a C$ 3500 million financing agreement for the construction of two 700 MWe Candu 6 units at Qinshan, near Shanghai. This settles the key elements of a final contract for the units, including technical scope, price and payment schedule.
The Canadian Export Development Corporation has agreed to a C$ 1500 million loan (must be getting pricey to service that debt :O) to cover most of the Canadian content, Hitachi and Bechtel are reported to have arranged finance for the Japanese and US content. A six year project schedule is envisaged, from January 1997.
ENS NucNet news # 342/96, UNECAN News July 96.
and China signs nuclear reactor agreement with Canada.
Atomic Energy of Canada Ltd has signed a C$ 3500 million financing agreement for the construction of two 700 MWe Candu 6 units at Qinshan, near Shanghai. This settles the key elements of a final contract for the units, including technical scope, price and payment schedule.
from the same article... (I guess the intent was good...) seems that delaying Kyoto etc... is bad for U...
Greenhouse Crunch Looms
The second Conference of the Parties to the Framework Convention on Climate Change was held in Geneva in July with the Federal Environment Minister, Senator Hill attending the Ministerial component of it. The meeting signalled a half-way point in the negotiations leading up to the anticipated adoption of a protocol containing tougher commitments for developed countries at the third Conference of Parties to be held in Kyoto in December 1997.
In a major development, the US outlined a new proactive approach to climate change by strongly backing the science of climate change and supporting the call for legally-binding targets for emission reductions, tradeable permits and joint implementation to be included in a new protocol. While the US position was remarkably short on detail, their change of position towards legally binding targets has significantly altered the nature of negotiations. It also makes the whole US nuclear industry look positively virtuous.
With most parties now favouring legally binding targets (although real differences remain over their nature and level), the potential for Australia to be isolated in future negotiations was underlined when the Ministers from the US, EU, Japan, Canada and most other developing country parties compromised and issued a Ministerial Statement supporting the notion of legally binding targets for emission reductions. Other than the OPEC countries, Australia stood alone in issuing a statement registering dissent on the call for such targets at this point in the negotiations. It took the line that the scientific evidence was inadequate and that the proposed controls were neither fair nor achievable. Most industrialised countries will not achieve the voluntary targets set in 1992.
Despite this "Geneva Declaration" there was little progress in the substantive negotiating sessions in resolving differences and little agreement on how to proceed. Importantly for Australia, more attention is now being given to the issue of differentiation of commitments.
The Framework Convention on Climate Change Secretariat has called for national submissions on the possible content and structure of a future protocol embodying tougher commitments from developed countries by October 15. Senator Hill has committed Australia to providing a submission. The concept of differentiated commitments will be a focus for the Australian Government's input to the protocol, and industry is working to assist the Government in fleshing this out.
Al
Still cute and cuddly after all these years... |
