No success has been achieved at the climate summit in Copenhagen. Head of the governments or representatives from at least 194 countries gathered together to reach understanding on some points, to reduce carbon emission, and to work out how all the vulnerable countries would get payment as compensation. But the demand of developed and developing countries could not be harmonized at all during the summit.

The summit ended up by fulfilling the developed nations' demand of keeping global temperature below 2 degrees Celsius , and only holding out further hope for the developing countries, which is obviously deceitful.

All the leaders from around the world were busy during the summit to deliver their good speeches. No government from any country of the world was able to submit any project or proposal against the climate change and its effects, that the funds they receive would be spent on.

1. Twenty percent of global CO2 emission is attributed to deforestation. This is more than the CO2 emitted yearly by all of the world's cars and trucks combined!

2. We are near a threshold, beyond which photovoltaics will have a cost advantage over fossil fuels!

3. Third generation biofuels will yield fuels like biobutanol that can be easily blended with other regular fuels, or directly burned in internal combustion engines.

4. Soils have tremendous potential to absorb CO2. If farmers adopt mulching; no-till farming and manure, it can absorb about 12 percent of annual global CO2 emission!

5. One of the most exciting new strategies for restoring carbon to depleted soil is by using biochar. This is basically porous charcoal made by burning grass, corn and rice husk and other organic farming wastes that absorb CO2, like a charcoal filter in a cigarette absorbs gases.

Widespread practice of biochar making could absorb 40 percent of annual CO2 emission!

6. Methane, flared at oil and gas wells is a big source of CO2 emission!

Removing one ton of black carbon particles from such flames has the same effect as removing 2000 to 3000 tons of CO2! Removing black carbon particles is effective, because rainwater and mist causes it to fall back into the soil, while CO2 gases stays in atmosphere for decades!

Estimates vary widely on the costs of damage from climate change, easing these impacts and taming the carbon gas stoking the problem, but economists agree the bill is likely to be in the trillions of dollars.

Figures depend on different forecasts for greenhouse-gas emissions and the timeline for reaching them. In addition, key variables remain sketchy.

How will rainfall, snowfall, storm frequency and ocean levels look a few decades from now? How will they affect a specific country or region? And how fast will nations introduce low-carbon technologies, carbon taxes and other policies that alter energy use?

Despite these uncertainties, economists share a broad consensus: climate change will ultimately cost thousands of billions of dollars, a tab that keeps rising as more carbon enters the atmosphere.

"The cost of climate impacts goes up with the delay on emissions mitigation," said Sam Fankhauser of the Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment at the London School of Economics (LSE).

"On the cost of adaptation, there's a timing issue. For instance, there's no point building sea walls now if the sea levels are only going to rise gradually over the next 50 years. But we do know that costs of adaptation will go up non-linearly, in other words exponentially, with the degree of warming that we have."

Following is a snapshot of the main items on the tab.

-- IMPACTS: Warming of between two to three degrees Celsius (3.6-5.4 degrees Fahrenheit) over pre-industrial times would inflict a permanent loss in global world output of up to three percent, according to the 2006 Stern Review, authored by British economist Nicholas Stern.

But this would rise to an average of five to 10 percent loss of GDP with warming of five to six C (9.0 F), with poor countries suffering costs "in excess" of 10 percent of GDP.

On current trends, Earth is headed for an average increase of 4 C (7.2 F) this century, to which 0.74 C (1.33 F) of warming from the 20th century must be added, according to the so-called A1F1 emissions scenario of the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

-- MITIGATION: Action to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases focuses on more efficient use of coal, oil and gas and a switch to clean renewable sources.

The European Union (EU) and others have set the target of limiting overall warming to 2C (3.6 F), which entails stabilising carbon concentrations in the atmosphere at 450 parts per million (ppm).

Attaining this would require 10.5 trillion dollars in energy-related investment by 2030, which would be additional to money committed under existing policies, the International Energy Agency (IEA) says.

The largest increase -- 4.7 trillion -- is in transport, mainly to purchase more efficient, but more expensive, vehicles.

Investment to make buildings more energy-efficient would cost an additional 2.5 trillion dollars by 2030 while a switch to clean or low-carbon power generation would notch up another 1.7 trillion.

-- ADAPTATION: Estimates of the cost of protecting against water stress, flood, extreme storms, rising sea levels and other ills vary widely, from four billion a year to 109 billion annually over the next 20 years.

A widely-regarded estimate put forward in 2007 by the UN Framework Convention for Climate Change (UNFCCC) suggested the bill by 2030 could be between 49 and 171 billion dollars annually, of which 27-66 billion would be needed in developing countries.

The figure is based on the need to climate-proof infrastructure; help agriculture; protect water supplies; defend coastal zones; and treat malnutrition, diarrhoea and malaria, which are among the diseases likely to be amplified by climate change.

But this is only half, or even just a third, of the likely cost, as it does not factor in protecting ecosystems, energy, tourism, manufacturing and mining, according to a paper published in August by Martin Parry of Imperial College London.

By way of comparison, the EU estimates developing nations will need 100 billion euros (150 billion dollars) per year by 2020, for both adaptation and mitigation.

Trillions spent in mitigation and adaptation will have an economic benefit and create new jobs, although exactly how far they will ease the cost of impacts is -- once more -- hard to calculate, say economists.

Global climate change poses a potential danger to the development efforts, ecosystem and productive capacity of our environment. Climate change particularly the temperature rise due to greenhouse gases may cause rise of sea level. According to one study, one meter net rise of the sea level would inundate 17% of the total area of Bangladesh, particularly the low lying flood plain and coastal areas, including Sundarbans and man made coastal mangrove forests. It is a big threat to land use, its system, related sectors and overall ecology and economy.

The coast of Bangladesh is known as a zone of multiple vulnerabilities due to climate change. It is prone to severe natural disasters, such as cyclones, storm surges and floods. Records of the last 200 years show that at least 70 major cyclones have hit the coastal belt.

Although 50% (1,004,639 hector) of the forests (including largest mangrove forest--Sundarbans) of Bangladesh are in the coastal region, these are insufficient to protect the coastal belt.

Deforestation rate is very high in coastal areas. The principle cause of deforestation is expansion of agricultural land through cutting the forest areas. Growth of population and economic pressure are two prominent factors leading to large scale clearing of forests. Almost all of the mangrove forests in the vicinity of Chittagong and Cox's Bazar have already been cleared for other land uses. It increases the risk during the time of any natural disaster like cyclone and tidal surge in the coastal areas.

In the context of climate change, massive, efficient management and protection of forest play a major role for coastal defence.

THERE is no scope for disagreement on the issue that legal empowerment of the poor is both a development strategy and a development objective. I believe in this thesis because poverty is among the gravest human rights challenges in the world. It embodies a range of interrelated and mutually reinforcing deprivations, and is associated with stigma, discrimination, insecurity and social exclusion.

As is clear in Bangladesh, or in several other sub-regions in South Asia (with its high concentration of poverty affliction), poverty is not simply the deficiency of material goods and opportunities such as employment, ownership of productive assets and savings. It is also the lack of intangible assets and social goods, such as legal identity, good health, physical integrity, freedom from fear and violence, organisational capacity, the capacity to exert political influence, and the ability to claim rights and live in respect and dignity.

It would also be correct to acknowledge here that the poor are not a homogeneous group and that vulnerability and challenges vary among those mired in poverty. It is this aspect that leads me to state that there needs to be a human rights approach to development and the eradication of poverty. This context will then recognise that poverty results from disempowerment and multiple exclusions.

A report prepared by the United Nations in 2008 and its Resolution 63/142 of December 2008, noted that in many developing countries, laws, institutions and policies governing social and economic interactions do not afford equal opportunity and protection to a large segment of the population -- the mostly poor, minorities, women and other disadvantaged groups. This is partially exacerbated sometimes by rural values and misplaced traditions.

In such situations, instead of fostering inclusive and equitable growth, some laws and institutions tend to impose barriers and biases against the poor. Within such paradigms it is also sometimes evident that even though there might be laws that protect and uphold the rights of the poor, they are often too ambiguous, cumbersome and costly for them to access.

One needs to also record here that in many developing countries, including Bangladesh, informal norms, practices and non-secular institutions govern the everyday life of the poor. This often forces the poor to survive by mixing customary practice with ingenuity, creating informal structures that can at times be more effective than their formal counterparts. However, even this format, a means of last resort, sometimes suffers because customary laws and practices discriminate against women and juveniles, who face multiple and intersecting grounds of exclusion.

From the above perspective, legal empowerment of the poor can be best understood as the process of systemic change through which the poor are protected and enabled to use the law to advance their rights and their interests as citizens and economic actors. From this point of view it is not only a means to an end but also an end in itself.

As has already been proven in certain areas within Bangladesh, legal empowerment fosters development through empowering and strengthening the voices of individuals and communities, starting at the grass roots and from within.

It is clear that legal empowerment promotes a participatory approach to development and recognises the importance of engaging civil society and community-based organisations to ensure that the poor and the marginalised have identity and voice. I believe that this approach facilitates the strengthening of democratic governance and accountability, which, in turn, can play a critical role in the achievement of the internationally agreed development goals, including the Millennium Development Goals.

Strengthening the rule of law for the poor in Bangladesh will help to establish the rule of law and ensure equal and equitable access to justice and tackle the root causes of exclusive, vulnerability and poverty. This will be particularly helpful for the millions in Bangladesh who live in chars, the coastal belt and on disputed land inhabited by the indigenous people. Security of livelihoods, of shelter, of tenure and of contracts can enable and empower the poor to defend themselves against possible violation of their rights, especially after natural disasters. It can then ensure protection for all and can prevent and protect against abuse of authority (by both the executive as well as the law enforcing agencies), bias and discrimination, which are often the root causes of social unrest, violence and conflict. From that point of view one could describe legal empowerment as being both preventive and curative.

I am emphasising today on the human rights viewpoint and its close relationship with the eradication of poverty because the enjoyment of human rights involves the interaction of claims on entitlements and corresponding duties. It also lends a human rights perspective in development and aims to develop the equation of social contract.

In this regard, I will refer here to the 2008 report (A/HRC/8/4, paragraph 26) submitted to the Human Rights Council by the Special Rapporteur on the independence of judges and lawyers. He correctly stressed the importance of free legal aid programs (generally the only legal assistance accessible to large portions of poverty-stricken populations) and emphasised the need to support the work of non-governmental organisations and bar associations, and their initiatives to bring justice to traditionally neglected regions and social groups. The rapporteur also significantly hit the button when he said that "nothing mirrors the indivisibility and interdependence of human rights better than extreme poverty, since anyone living in extreme poverty is adversely affected in every aspect of life."

The concept of strengthening the rule of law for the poor has now been embedded in the current UNDP Strategic Plan 2008-2011. This has been done because UN members have agreed that "effective reduction of poverty, inclusiveness and equity depend on the ability of institutions to deliver public good and social services" and providing "legal access to economic assets and opportunities in ways that are fair and equitable."

This has led UNDP to undertake its own constructive engagement in Bangladesh. That has included developing capacity of government entities at national and local levels and assisting in the undertaking of necessary legal and institutional reforms to deliver legal empowerment to the poorer sections of the community by engaging grassroots level organisations.

I have written this article with the hope that our responsible partners will now undertake steps to carry out an impartial audit to assess whether the steps taken are working. It is also necessary to evaluate whether the process of engagement is functioning meaningfully and effectively.