RIO+20

Estadão.com.br
Title: Rio +20 sets the future we want - 2012
Twenty years after the Eco-92, representatives of NGOs, companies, civil society groups heads of state and government meet again to discuss what direction the planet must take to maintain sustainable growth and reduce damage to the environment in an attempt to reverse near one boundary condition with regard to nature. Was time the United Nations Conference on Sustainable Development - Rio +20 - which happened from 13 to 22 June in Rio de Janeiro.
The result is the document The Future We Want, document considered by President Dilma Rousseff as an advance in relation to elaborate on other UN conventions and like a failure for being unambitious by delegations and environmental NGOs.
Since the financial crisis as a backdrop, the challenge was essentially to establish guidelines for economic growth, social justice and environmental conservation walk together. In other words, define as all countries together can promote the so-called sustainable development "that meets the needs of present generations without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs" according to the official definition, 1987. Despite the differences, the Brazilian authorities commemorated the general consensus among the delegations, who approved the document on the last day of the meeting. It is now hoped that the terms agreed shall be implemented and that the commitments made by governments will not be only on paper. Time passes for the planet and the only ones who can change this situation we are even.
Title: Rio +20 is over filled with praise and criticism from: terra.com.br
Disappointment. For many, especially environmental organizations and international leaders, this is the summary of Rio +20. On the other hand, representatives of the Brazilian government claim to have already considered a success. In the middle of this crossfire, the UN and a text full of promises to eradicate poverty without harming nature, but few goals.
The UN Convention for the Sustainable Development stopped Rio de Janeiro. About 20 thousand men commanded by Army patrolled the streets, air and sea. The airspace was restricted and traffic was modified for Rio +20. In roundtable discussions, the thing seemed less organized - or at least, less objective. For the director of the UN Information Center for Brazil, Giancarlo Summa, despite having gone through other discussions earlier, only 25% of the document being discussed was ready when we arrived at the conference.
And this lack of decision was reflected in the event. The nearly 190 countries represented should reach a consensus between the 13th and 15th of June, a Friday. But the negotiations entered the weekend within. It was only in the early hours of Tuesday came the announcement that according to the text base.
With the agreement, the criticism came. With so many days of discussion, many important points were left out and became the target of criticism. A fund proposed by developing countries, for example, was deleted from the text. Another, who defended a woman's right to reproduce, was withdrawn under pressure from the Vatican - since it could be interpreted as support for abortion. The criticism, to withdraw this proposal came from former Chilean President Michelle Bachelet and U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. But these were just some of the excerpts taken from order to reach a consensus. The final text has faced criticism much tougher than NGO Friends of the Earth called "attack" and Greenpeace ranked the text of the Rio +20 "slap in the face", among other events. On the streets, many protests.
But there was still time to change. The last three days of the conference, including this Friday, gather the heads of state and government to discuss the document. Each representative who climbed onstage promised sustainable development, respect for the environment, reducing CO2 emissions and more. Some were still critical of the agreed text.
Moreover, the Brazilian government, host and leader of the negotiations, and the UN defended the document, which divided opinions about the agreement. Minister Antonio Patriota said the achievement was the consensus around the issue. President Dilma Rousseff said the text is just the beginning. The sample of opinions on the document of Rio +20 is the secretary general of the UN. He complained that the text shown previously approved on Tuesday was unambitious. But, under pressure from President Dilma Ban Ki-moon backed and defended the document. After the foreign minister, Antonio Patriota, pass the message that Rousseff was unhappy with the position, the South Korean changed the discourse and said he had "a great success".
Tonight, critics of the document seen their few hopes run out of time. The document was approved by the Summit of Heads of State (see the link www.uncsd2012.org/thefuturewewant.html text, in English, Spanish, French, Russian, Chinese or Arabic). Lack whether the applause of the secretaries, ministers, prime ministers, presidents and kings who closed until those 10 days of discussions and protests was deserved.

Title: Rio +20 is ignored in the U.S. and criticized by international press from: uol.com.br
The climate of disappointment dominated the international coverage on the Rio +20 UN Conference on Sustainable Development, held in Rio de Janeiro. The criticism of the lack of progress were not only worse than discrediting the press of the United Unidos.Hillary Clinton makes apology for private investment in sustainable development
Le Monde: "Rio +20: Brazil winner, loser world"
The French daily believes that Brazil had a goal at the conference, reach an agreement, and won. But to achieve this, deleted all passages of the statement that raised some kind of controversy. "Sad statement," writes "Le Monde", twenty years after the "flagship Earth Summit."
"El Pais" says disappointed Rio +20
"Green Summit ends in disappointment." This is how the Spanish newspaper "El Pais" called a report on the outcome of Rio +20, on its website. In the story, the newspaper says the United Nations Conference "ended the same way it began: with a document that does not serve as a guide for the international community to combat the deterioration of the planet."
"Guardian" does not see nothing concrete
The British newspaper "Guardian" said nothing concrete seems to leave on the last day of RIo +20, although countries pledge to work together in the coming years in relation to sustainable development measures.
"Clarín" speaks of the lack of progress
The Argentine daily "Clarin" said that with the lack of progress in Rio +20, "the UN claims plans to address natural disasters." In the article published on the newspaper's website, is criticized the lack of progress at the UN Conference.
China praises partnership with bilateral Brasilo anticipates that a fund should be created by the BRIC countries (Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa) early next year. This will be a solid background in the long term.

                                                                     Resume

The three sites talked about the RIO+20 and I think they wrote well the text but there wasn't the author. They wrote different things, the first one wrote about the good things of the conference, the second, was about the good and the bad points, the third, was about how it was understood in all over the world.

The first new was about the document written in RIO+20 (the future we want). This document was considered bad for ones and good for others. Estadao thinks it was good and they would do better, but it was good that way too. The second one was about the document too, but they didn't like it, so they wrote about the bad points of it. they said it didn't change a lot about the other conferece so it wasn't good enough for their thoughts. The third was about how the world saw it, and all the newspapers said that Brazil is fine but the world doesn't change anything, or that it didn't change anything for anyone.

I could concluse that it wasn't good and bad, it was normal, but it could be better, I think this way the world won't change and we need more than this. The ONU would organise another one, but with more objectives, like if they did a research about others kinds of energy for locomotion os vehicles.