"I believe that the people who run the private sector, who run these companies, they do have children, they do have grandchildren, they do live and breathe in the world," said Samuel Bodman, U.S. Secretary of Energy. "It’s a matter of working with the leadership of these companies and seeking their participation."

Alexander Downer, Australia’s foreign minister, concurred that the onus of CO2 emissions reduction falls on industry leaders, not governments. "The point here is that indiv?dual companies have to develop their individual strategies ? we’re not trying to run a police state here," he said.

Both men were speaking at the opening meeting of the Asia-Pacific Partnership on Clean Development and Climate, an ad hoc group consisting of senior officials from the U.S., Australia, Japan, China, South Korea and India and executives from energy companies. Many of the partnership’s members share the belief that mandatory emissions cuts?as called for by the Kyoto Protocol on Climate Change that the U.S. and Australia did not join?will do irreparable harm to their respective countries’ economies. While Japan, China and India are all Kyoto signatories, the latter two countries do not have any binding emissions targets under the pact due to their status as developing nations.

Reporting by Roddy Scheer

"The cancer risk and the risk of other long-term health effects is quite significant according to (federal) standards," said Gina Solomon, the physician who is leading the research and analysis for NRDC.

Meanwhile, officials at the Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality (LDEQ) and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) dispute the charges, saying they were surprised that the pollution left behind by Katrina wasn’t worse. "We are all becoming more comfortable with what we are seeing as the data come in," said Tom Harris of the LDEQ. He added that while a few spots around town tested high in contaminants, most of the city remained safe for people.

Wherein the truth lies is anybody’s guess. But environmentalists would rather be safe than sorry. "This isn’t an isolated problem," Solomon added. "It spans the entire city, every area where the floodwaters touched?. These all will require action in order to protect health, especially as families contemplate moving back into these areas. We want to make sure they’re safe."

While the as-yet unclassified animal in the grainy night-time photographs bears some similarity to viverrids (cat-sized tropical mammals with mongoose-like pointed muzzles), Indonesian hunters and biologists say they have never seen anything like what the photographs depict. Meanwhile, others are skeptical, insisting that the subject of the photos is just another viverrid, perhaps with slightly different coloration and features than typical examples of the species.

WWF has been working in the region for years, and of late has been trying to block approval of a new palm oil plantation that would eat up 7,000 square miles of currently pristine Indonesian forest, some of which is within the boundaries of the Kayan Mentara National Park. "We are working with the government of Indonesia to look at alternatives in the lowlands which, in fact, are much more suitable for growing palm than the highlands," says Ginette Hemley, vice president for species conservation at WWF in the U.S. "For us as conservationists these photos underscore the urgency of protecting what is some of the last remaining untouched forest in Southeast Asia, both lowland and upland."

"Technology alone is not enough. This has become very clear from the policy that the United States is following," EU Environment Commissioner Stavros Dimas told a news conference.

"According to their approach, they are increasing their emissions, right now about 15 percent more than in 1990 … We have decreased our emissions, we are below the 1990 level."

A UN conference of about 190 states begins on Nov. 28 in Montreal, Canada, to discuss ways to combat global warming after a first phase of the UN’s Kyoto Protocol expires in 2012.

Under Kyoto, rich nations are meant to cut their emissions of heat-trapping carbon dioxide by at least 5 percent below 1990 levels by 2008-12.

The United States, the world’s biggest polluter, pulled out of Kyoto in 2001, saying it was too costly and wrongly excluded developing nations until after 2012. Australia has also pulled out.

US President George W. Bush has stressed voluntary measures and big investments in new technology, like "clean coal" or hydrogen, rather than Kyoto-style caps on emissions.?

"The EU will do all it can to persuade all countries to move forward. A determined action is needed at the global level if we are to win the battle with climate change," said Dimas.

Scientists say the world’s temperature could rise by 1.4-5.8 Celsius (2.5-10.5F) this century, bringing droughts and storms, while melting polar ice caps will raise sea levels and threaten the livelihoods of millions of people.

Most agree that a main cause of warming is carbon dioxide from burning fossil fuels. The EU also operates an emissions trading scheme to give industries incentives to cut emissions.

The EU is on track overall with its Kyoto targets, helped by a collapse of Soviet-era smokestack industries, according to UN data. But some countries, like Spain, Portugal, Ireland and Greece, are further above Kyoto goals than the United States.

The EU sought to hammer its message home by launching, along with the WWF environmental group, a campaign to promote "climate change witnesses" or ordinary people whose lives are affected by global warming.

Among the first five "witnesses", presented in Brussels, was an Italian organic honey producer who said his bees were confused by changing weather patterns and a forester from Germany, who noticed spruce trees disappearing from the Steigerwald forest in Bavaria.

Nestle said the chemical substance was not harmful, but announced it was recalling the infant food in four European countries, including Italy, because of the problem, which related to Tetra Pak cartons.

Italian Agriculture Minister Gianni Alemanno demanded tests to see if babies given the contaminated milk over a prolonged period faced health risks.

?It is incredible that such defenceless beings as babies should face such serious risks in a product as widely used as milk," Alemanno said in a statement.

Italian officials said they had already seized about 2 million litres of Nestle baby milk earlier this month after finding traces of isopropylthioxanthone (ITX), an ink component used in the offset printing process of the Tetra Pak cartons.

They broadened their net on Tuesday, sweeping hundreds of packets of milk off supermarket shelves and out of depots around Italy. Police said they also searched lorries in their effort to root out the four Nestle products under investigation.

Nestle, the world’s biggest food company, said it had decided to recall all liquid infant formula milks packed in offset printed cartons in Italy, France, Spain and Portugal.

"This decision was taken as an extreme precautionary measure to reassure consumers," the company said in a statement. "Nestle believes that the level of ITX measured in the tested products does not represent a health risk."

BOTTOM LINE SAFE

A spokesman at Nestle’s corporate headquarters in Switzerland said a new packaging process had been put in place to prevent the contamination and that the recall would not have a significant impact on the company’s results at a group level.

Nestle shares were down 0.5 percent at 1615 GMT in a slightly higher overall Swiss market.

Tetra Pak spokeswoman Patricia O’Hayer said ITX was not recognised as a toxic substance on any official list and was not on the World Health Organisation lists of toxic substances that should not come into contact with food.

"We have studied the toxicological data available, and that confirms that it is not toxic," she told Reuters.

O’Hayer said Tetra Pak removed the printing technology in question in October to prevent any printing compound, even if not dangerous, from seeping into a product.

"We had no indication that this was in any way a cause for concern," she said.

This is the second time Nestle has run foul of Italian authorities this year.

In October, Italy’s antitrust authority fined seven producers of baby formula including Nestle a total of 9.743 million euros for running a cartel in Italy to keep prices much higher than in many European countries.

Negotiators will meet in Montreal from Nov. 28 to Dec. 9 for talks on how to replace the UN’s 1997 Kyoto Protocol, a tiny first step to curb rising emissions of heat-trapping gases from power plants, factories and cars.

Environment ministers from around the globe will attend the final three days in Montreal. Some predict the negotiations they launch may last 5 years.

"It will be very complex," said Elliot Diringer, a director of the Washington-based Pew Center on Global Climate Change. "Any agreement has to be more flexible than Kyoto b?t at the same time has to deliver real cuts in emissions."

"And the Bush administration is adamantly opposed to any process aimed at widening Kyoto," he said.

Many scientists say that a buildup of greenhouse gases from burning fossil fuels could have catastrophic effects on the climate by spurring more hurricanes, spreading deserts, driving thousands of species to extinction and raising sea levels.

Under Kyoto, which entered into force in February after years of dispute between Washington and its main allies, about 40 rich nations have to cut emissions of heat-trapping carbon dioxide by 5.2 percent below 1990 levels by 2008- 12.

One trick will be to extend a UN scheme to poor countries, which reject Kyoto-style caps because higher energy use — like bringing electricity to slum dwellers or building roads to help trade — is a key to ending poverty.

WRONG, COSTLY

Adding to the tangle, the world’s biggest polluter has rejected Kyoto. President George W. Bush pulled the United States out in 2001, saying Kyoto was too costly and wrongly excluded developing nations before 2012.

Paula Dobriansky, US Under Secretary for Global Affairs, who leads US climate policy, will lead the US delegation in Montreal. Businesses planning long-term investments in new technologies, and investors in carbon markets set up to squeeze industrial emissions, want to know what to expect after 2012.

A report for the European Commission said the climate talks were "a Gordian knot that will need much creativity to unravel."

"Developed countries should continue after 2012 with Kyoto-type commitments with ever deeper cuts," said Jennifer Morgan, climate policy director at the WWF environmental group. "But developing countries should start with less strict goals."

Goals for poor nations could include brakes on the rise of emissions, promises to clean up heavy-polluting industries like coal-fired power plants or targets for higher use of non- polluting solar or wind power.

Some experts favour goals for industrial sectors, such as a target for how much carbon dioxide is emitted per tonne of steel or cement, for instance, or global auto emission standards.

Some nations favour a revival of nuclear power, which produces no greenhouse gases. The United States is expected to push at Montreal for a scheme to bury carbon dioxide underground.

"There are, let’s admit it, very wide differences of opinion amongst governments," said Richard Kinley, acting head of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change.

"It will be over the course of the next say 2-3 years that the process of coming to grips about what needs to be done about climate change could be addressed," he said. Many nations indicated agreement could be reached around 2008- 10, he said.

And global warming will worsen if poor nations follow the rich in use of fossil fuels since the Industrial Revolution. Average per capita emissions of greenhouse gases worldwide, for instance, are 3.6 tonnes against 20.1 per American.

WWF said the proposal — filed for a meeting of the 1979 Berne Convention on protecting wildlife to be held at the Council of Europe in Strasbourg next week — was "unacceptable and irresponsible."

"It is incredible that Switzerland, with a wolf population of two or three individuals, has the audacity to ask the Council of Europe to allow hunting," said Joanna Schoenenberger, a specialist in the WWF’s European Alpine Programme.

Swiss officials said what they sought was a change in the wolf’s status under the Convention from "strictly protected" to "protected", like the lynx, thus allowing controlled culling in order to maintain a manageable population level.

"The aim is to limit the scope for conflict with mountain farming," said one government official.

Wolves were driven to extinction throughout most of western Europe by the start of the 20th century, largely by hunting and the expansion of human settlements and upland farming into areas in which they had ranged free.

RETURN TO THE ALPS

But over the past few decades, partly as a result of the Berne Convention, some have returned to the Alps — stretching from France across northern Italy and Switzerland to Austria — with the help of conservationists.

Single animals came back to Switzerland from Italy in 1995.

"But none of these individuals have reproduced. Any culling in the Alps would be a disaster for the wolf population here," the WWF’s Schoenenberger said in a statement.

The Strasbourg meeting, on Nov. 28 and Dec. 1, is a session of the Standing Committee of the Berne Convention, named for the Swiss capital where it was signed and aimed at preserving European wildlife and its natural habitat.

The Council of Europe, which links countries inside and outside the European Union in the west and east of the continent, supervises implementation of the Convention.

Swiss officials argue that the wolf population presents a threat to local communities in mountain areas and to their livestock, especially sheep.

Farmers often blame wolves for the loss of sheep. But the WWF, formerly known as the World Wide Fund for Nature, says dogs are usually the killers.

Here are some frequently asked questions about Kyoto:

—————————————–
WHAT IS THE KYOTO PROTOCOL?

It is a pact agreed by governments at a 1997 UN conference in Kyoto, Japan, to reduce greenhouse gases emitted by developed countries by 5.2 percent of 1990 levels from 2008 to 2012. A total of 156 nations have ratified the pact.

—————————————————-
IS IT THE FIRST AGREEMENT OF ITS KIND?

Governments agreed to tackle climate change at an "Earth Summit" in Rio de Janeiro in 1992. Kyoto is the follow-up and is the first legally binding global agreement to cut greenhouse gases.

———————————
SO IT’S LEGALLY BINDING?

Kyoto has legal force from Feb. 16, 2005. It represents 61.6 percent of developed nations’ total emissions. The United States, the world’s biggest polluter, has pulled out, saying Kyoto is too expensive and wrongly omits developing nations.

————————————
HOW WILL IT BE ENFORCED?

Countries overshooting their targets in 2012 will have to make both the promised cuts and 30 percent more in a second period from 2013.

——————————————————————————
DO ALL COUNTRIES HAVE TO CUT EMISSIONS BY 5.2 PERCENT?

No, only 39 relatively developed countries have target levels for 2008-12 under a principle that richer countries are most to blame and so should take the lead.

—————————————
HOW ARE THEY DOING SO FAR?

Rich nations’ emissions were 5.9 percent below 1990 levels in 2003 but this was mainly due to a collapse of Soviet-era industries. Many other nations are above target — US emissions were up 13.1 percent.

—————————————————-
WHAT ARE THESE "GREENHOUSE GASES"?

Greenhouse gases trap heat in the earth’s atmosphere. The main one is carbon dioxide, most of which comes from burning fossil fuel. The protocol also covers methane, much of which comes from agriculture, and nitrous oxide, mostly from fertiliser use. Three industrial gases are also included.

—————————————–
HOW WILL COUNTRIES COMPLY?

The European Union set up a market in January 2005 under which about 12,000 factories and power stations are given carbon dioxide quotas. If they overshoot they can buy extra allowances in the market or pay a financial penalty; if they undershoot they can sell them.

————————-?————————
WHAT OTHER MECHANISMS ARE THERE?

Developed countries can earn credits to offset against their targets by funding clean technologies, such as solar power, in poorer countries.

Austria’s Tyrol region imposed a ban in 2003 on lorries of over 7.5 tonnes from carrying goods such as waste, stone, soil, cars, timber or cereals on a section of the A12 motorway, to protect human, animal and plant health.

But the European Court of Justice said in a statement on its ruling that such a sectoral ban obstructed the free movement, and especially the free transit, of goods.

"The measure concerns a road section of the utmost importance, constituting one of the main land routes between the south of Germany and the north of Italy," it said.

The court noted ?hat the area had exceeded the annual limit for nitrogen dioxide in 2002 and 2003, placing Austria under an obligation to bring the level down.

"However, the Tyrol sectoral ban and its legal basis, the Austrian law on air pollution … do not fulfil all the conditions necessary for the disputed ban to constitute a measure covered by those directives," it said.

"The sectoral traffic ban infringes the principle of proportionality," it added, saying Austria should have looked at less restrictive measures, did not study whether there were realistic alternative rail and road routes, and allowed only two months for implementing the ban.

Below are several facts about the draft law:

WHAT IS REACH?

REACH is a new regulatory system proposed by the European Commission to make producers and importers of chemicals prove that the substances they put on the market in the European Union are safe for consumers to use.

REACH stands for Registration, Evaluation and Authorisation of Chemicals. It applies to about 30,000 chemicals found in products as diverse as cars, computers and paint.

WHAT DOES THE COMMISSION’S PROPOSAL REQUIRE?

*All chemicals produced in or imported into the EU in quantities of at least one tonne per year must be registered with a central database. A series of tests is required to provide that information, varying according to the volume of the substances in question.

*Chemicals that are of "very high concern" such as those that can cause cancer, damag? genes or have an effect on fertility, and those that are persistent, bioaccumulative and toxic (PBT) or very persistent and very bioaccumulative (vPvB) would have to go through an evaluation.

*Chemicals of greatest concern will need an authorisation for specific uses. Authorisation will be granted if the company shows that risks can be adequately controlled.

WHAT CHANGES HAS PARLIAMENT PROPOSED?

*The conservatives, socialists and liberals in the European Parliament agreed a compromise package on the subject of registration that reduces the number of substances in the low-tonnage category that would require tests.

That category applies to chemicals that are produced or imported in amounts of between 1 and 10 tonnes a year, estimated to be between 17,500 and 20,000 substances.

The package is expected to get broad support in Thursday’s vote.

*The Green party has produced an alternative to that compromise.

WHAT ARE SOME OF THE OUTSTANDING ISSUES?

*No agreement has been reached on the issue of mandatory substitution for hazardous chemicals.

*The amount of animal testing required by REACH remains a divisive subject.

HOW BIG IS THE EUROPEAN CHEMICALS SECTOR?

*According to industry group CEFIC, the EU’s chemical industry had sales of 586 billion euros in 2004, making it the leading chemical-producing area in the world, followed by Asia and the United States. Germany is Europe’s largest chemical producer with companies including BASF and Bayer.

*CEFIC says the EU chemical industry (excluding pharmaceuticals) is made up of roughly 27,000 companies, 96 percent of which have fewer than 250 employees, placing them in the category of small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs).

WHAT ARE THE COSTS AND BENEFITS OF REACH?

*The European Commission forecasts REACH will cost the chemical industry 2.3 billion euros ($2.8 billion) over 11 years. Total costs to industry — including sectors such as metals, textiles, electronics and cars — are estimated between 2.8 billion and 5.2 billion euros.

*The Commission says REACH would create health benefits worth 50 billion euros over 30 years.

WHAT DO THE CRITICS SAY?

*Environmental and health organisations say the bill has already been seriously watered down and want to make sure it stays true to its original goals. The chemical industry is worried that the costs of the new requirements will eat up profits, lead to the removal of chemicals from the market and shut down SMEs that cannot cope.

*Other countries have also pressured the EU about REACH. The United States has criticised it for trade reasons, and African nations have said its requirements could harm their mining industries and push them further into poverty.