Source:http://www.allgov.com Thursday, November 05, 2009
Source: http://www.sidewaysnews.com
By Channel 4 News
Similarly, he said the vast stretch of coastal lines, Himalayan glaciers in the Northern regions and thick forests in Central India were under threat.
"Without being told by the world what we should do, we have to be very proactive and take a leadership role and show the global communities how to adapt and mitigate the adverse impact of climate change," the minister added.
Appreciating the Delhi Government's effort in becoming the first State to prepare the domestic action plan to tackle global warming caused by green house gas emissions, he said, it is in keeping with the Prime Minister Manmohan Singh's call all the States to come out with such points.
He also appreciated the government's 'green initiatives' such as taking solar energy in the households through power tariffs, preparing a map for carbon footprints of the city and greening the capital by setting up urban forests across the city.
But you don't know what those are going to be on the basis of any history. There's never been a time before when there was six to ten billion people on the Earth, when they're demanding dramatic increases in their standards of living, and when they're using the cheapest available technology - usually coal and oil burning, big cars - to get there. So, before you can forecast how warm it will be in 2100 - and whether it's worth a trillion-dollar investment not to have that outcome - you've got to know a bunch of social factors.
The bad scenario is business as usual. We keep getting richer as fast as we can. We do what we did in the Victorian Industrial Revolution in the rich countries: sweat shops, coal-burning internal combustion engines. Well, what do you think China and India are doing?
The worst of all worlds is an increase of more than seven degrees. That's an astronomically large number, because an ice age is about six degrees cooler than an interglacial that we're now in. And we're talking about a ten-percent chance it's as large a temperature difference as an ice age to an interglacial cycle, but happening in a century; not in five thousand years.
That's an easy prescription for a catastrophic outcome with regard to species extinction, coastal damage, fires, heat waves, droughts, and floods. As Bill Clinton said when I first presented this in the White House in 1997, "all the biblical stuff."
editor: Valdis Wish
The switch from carbon dioxide to oxygen
Minuscule changes – global impact
It's never seemed truly American to worry extravagantly. We embrace diversity, of course, but gloomy, weepy types have customarily been relegated to the margins. They are not the content of our character, which is famously optimistic. This could be a reason why authors Steven Levitt and Stephen Dubner report in their new book "Super Freakonomics" that the country's fears of global warming have been subsiding. Curtailing carbon dioxide emissions boils down to prohibiting many uses of fire. Fire has been popular since prehistoric peoples started using it for warmth, tool-making and rendering food safer and yummier. Nowadays, vilifying oil companies and coal-powered industries, kicking car companies that are already down and tiptoeing guiltily through your carbon footprints doesn't always satisfy cravings for guilt. How about real changes in lifestyle? A correspondent recently wondered if global warmists should punish the bread industry because yeast makes all those CO2 bubbles. He thought the peasants should eat cake instead of bread. I reminded him that baking powder makes bubbles, too. That's why cake is light and fluffy instead of tasting like sweetened glue. The EPA now has authority to require large bakeries to scrub their smokestacks of yeast-created ethanol that escapes from dough when bread is baked. Maybe the Carrie Nations of global warming will take up their figurative hatchets and commence demolishing pizza shops. Then if CO2 doesn't worry you enough, there's good old Elsie the Cow. Bovine flatulence contains methane, a greenhouse gas far more potent than CO2. With billions of cattle roaming the globe, we've got plenty to fret about. Hollywood, that temple of self-restraint, fields numerous animal rights activists who insist that humanity needs to cure yet another dangerous addiction and quit meat and dairy products in favor of veggies; eschew wool, leather and fur. Doubters facing sham readily exclaim, "That's bull——!" Is the passing of gas by domestic cows destroying the biosphere as we know it? If so, methane control might require a "Blaapp tax" added to cap-and-trade greenhouse gas management. Who wants the job of methane monitor in the milking parlor? Dairy farmers already endure condemnation from the new asceticism. Do they need enviro-cops running past lines of cows' backsides with high-tech toot meters recording violations on their BlackBerries? Supposedly, around one-third of anthropogenic methane issues from domestic cattle. But before restricting the side effects of cud-chewing by another tedious, administrative bureaucracy, we might consider whether our wretched species has actually accelerated the global breaking of wind by keeping herds of domestic animals. If punishing felonious flatulence is a necessity for saving the planet, we should know if the billions of wild animals that predated the emergence of homo sapiens are any better than the critters we have now. Maybe someone should investigate the hinterlands to see if raccoons, weasels and woodchucks are tooting more than their rightful share. We know how tough it is to prod humanity to act on its collective conscience. What if we all vanished in a plague or migrated to another planet with better surf, cuter beachgoers, redder convertibles and a more forgiving atmosphere? Or checked our entire sinful species into Ethical Suicide Parlors and returned this biosphere to our noble predecessors? Presumably domestic animals would die off, since they're no longer adaptable to wild, natural conditions. Wouldn't the world be repopulated by the critters that predated Holsteins and Merinos? Don't buffalo, antelopes and giraffes pass gas? Haven't they always? What about camels? They sure look like they do. Then there's elephants. I wouldn't want to stand downwind of one of them, even on a lucrative dare. For all we know, there's no hope for the stratosphere until we make the remaining herd into piano keys and umbrella stands and get it over with. People produce methane, too, especially if they eschew pork chops in favor of beans. Uh-oh! The list of enviro-criminals is getting huge. Tom Gelsthorpe, a sailor and former farmer, lives in Cataumet. Call him at 508-564-4919 or e-mail him at gels_adelphia1@comcast.net.
When it comes to our diets, we put a lot of emphasis on calories and cholesterol levels. We're concerned about how diet affects our personal health. But should we also be considering how what we eat affects the planet? There's plenty of evidence demonstrating that production of certain foods contributes substantially to the amount of gases believed to be causing global warming. The U.N. Food and Agriculture Organization in 2006 reported that meat production accounts for about one-fifth of the world's greenhouse gas production. That's more than the greenhouse gases produced by all of the world's cars, trucks, planes, trains and boats. Meat production and distribution promote climate change in other ways, according to the report: They lead to deforestation. Vast areas of Earth's land mass are used for cattle grazing. Fewer trees mean less carbon dioxide can be absorbed from the atmosphere, and more carbon dioxide is released when trees are burned to clear grazing land. They promote noxious emissions. Animals raised for food produce manure that sends nitrous oxide into the atmosphere, a gas with nearly 300 times the warming power of carbon dioxide. Then there's the other kind of gas. When cows pass gas - and they pass a lot of it - the methane has a more powerful warming effect than carbon dioxide. They make intensive use of resources. A large share of the grain and soybeans grown around the world is fed to animals rather than being eaten by people. Only a fraction of those food calories are returned in the form of meat. Fossil fuels and huge quantities of water are needed for meat production and distribution. Industrial feedlots drain water supplies and pollute the air, water and soil. When you consider that diets heavy in animal products promote obesity, coronary artery disease, cancer and other chronic diseases, you have to wonder why meat production is on the rise worldwide. Last week, Lord Stern, an economist at the London School of Economics and former chief economist at the World Bank, told the Times of London that as people become aware of the carbon content of their food, meat-eating will become less acceptable. Although not a vegetarian himself, he advocated that people switch to more meatless meals to help preserve the environment.
African nations walk out in Spain; GOP absent from debate in Washington Published on Wednesday, Nov 04, 2009 Boycotts on either side of the Atlantic on Tuesday showed just how difficult it will be to clinch an agreement on global warming next month. At U.N. climate talks in Barcelona, Spain, African nations walked out of meetings to protest rich nations' reluctance to make substantial carbon-cutting commitments. In Washington, some conservative Republicans boycotted the start of committee debate on a bill to curb greenhouse gases, fearful of the cost to the U.S. economy. German Chancellor Angela Merkel, in a bid to support the Democratic-sponsored climate bill, told a rare joint session of Congress ''there is no time to lose'' in tackling climate change. But the lukewarm response to her comments on global warming — in contrast to the ovations she received at other times — only underscored the skeptical mood in the U.S. about climate action, which would require a shift away from fossil fuels to wind and solar power, smaller cars and — the Republicans argue — more expense to consumers. GOP senators on the Environment and Public Works Committee shunned the planned startup of voting on amendments to the bill. Only Sen. George Voinovich, R-Ohio, showed up to give the reasons for the Republicans' absence. African countries ended a boycott of meetings in Spain at U.N. climate negotiations, having reset the talks' agenda to spend more time on complaints that industrial countries had set carbon-cutting targets too low for reducing global greenhouse gas emissions. The parallel actions were elements of a dramatic finale leading up to the 192-nation conference in Copenhagen Dec. 7-18, which is meant to adopt a treaty regulating carbon emissions that will shake economies around the globe. The African revolt was largely symbolic, because it was clear that industrial countries cannot alter their positions without high-level political decisions by governments. It was a signal that hard-liners would dominate negotiations by the developing countries at the decisive Copenhagen forum, and marked the 50-nation African group as an influential player on the global stage. The Africans, supported by about 70 other developing countries, including China, say the industrial world is failing to live up to pledges of deep cuts in emissions, while droughts and floods already are causing death and devastation on the badly hit continent. ''I don't think we can get to a result in the way we're going now,'' said Algerian negotiator Kamel Djemouai, who chairs the Africa group. The White House and Democratic leaders in Congress have essentially abandoned prospects of getting a climate bill to President Barack Obama's desk before the Copenhagen meeting. But they hope a show of progress in the Senate — along with the House having passed a bill and Obama's call for more fuel-efficient cars — will show the world the U.S. is taking climate change seriously. U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon acknowledged the climate change treaty may not be resolved this year, adding that nations might be unable to commit to firm emissions limits at Copenhagen. ''We may not be able to agree [on] all the words,'' Ban said after meeting in London with British Prime Minister Gordon Brown. Ban said he would push leaders to strike a pact in Copenhagen, but that it was more likely to be an agreement on principles — rather than specific targets for cuts.
By IANS
Western Disturbances over the
The minimum temperature recorded in the capital Wednesday was 15.6 degrees Celsius, two degrees above the average. The maximum temperature Tuesday touched 31 degrees Celsius, a notch above the average.
The official added that the sky would be partly cloudy during the day but the western disturbances would clear by evening.
The IMD website updates indicated that the minimum temperatures in most parts of Rajasthan were three to six degrees above average.