President Obama praised efforts by industrialized and developing nations to set guidelines in the battle to control climate change and said today that the United States will increase its role in that fight.Speaking from Italy, where officials from 17 nations met and set the new targets, Obama warned that further steps would be needed and cautioned against those who would dismiss today's announced agreement, which fell short of what some environmentalists had hoped for but was a significant step from the policies of the Bush administration.
We've made a good start, but I am the first one to acknowledge that on this issue it will not be easy," Obama said. "I think one of the things we will have to do is fight the temptation toward cynicism, to feel that the problem is so immense that somehow we cannot make significant strides."It is no small task for 17 leaders to bridge their differences on an issue like climate change," Obama said.The president spoke at the news conference after the forum that included key industrialized countries and developing economies such as Australia, India, China and South Korea. The countries represent more than three-quarters of emissions blamed for raising the world's temperature.
The group agreed to prevent the Earth's climate from rising by 2 degrees Celsius (about 3.6 degree Fahrenheit). That will entail a sharp cut in emissions by 2050, about 80% for industrialized nations and 50% for the developing world."Developed countries like my own have a historic responsibility to take the lead," Obama said. "We have the much larger carbon footprint per capita, and I know that sometimes the U.S. has fallen short of meeting our responsibilities.""Those days are over," Obama said."We don't expect to solve this problem in one meeting or in one summit," Obama said, adding that he believed some progress had been made."Climate change is one of the greatest challenges of our time," read the official statement by the 17 nations. "As leaders of the world's major economies, both developed and developing, we intend to respond vigorously to this challenge, being convinced that climate change poses a clear danger requiring an extraordinary global response."Among other things, the leaders agreed to establish a global carbon capture institute, charged with spurring large-scale research programs around the world. Australia Prime Minister Kevin Rudd predicted the initiative, to be based in his country, will speed the development of technology critical for reducing carbon emissions.In his comments after the meeting, Rudd said he welcomed the return of U.S. leadership on the climate front.Several nations also agreed to take the lead on particular technologies, including solar energy and advanced vehicles.The fact that developing nations balked at the plan reflects in part their contending political and economic needs, Obama suggested."Each of our nations comes to the table with different needs," said Obama. They want to make sure they don't have to sacrifice prosperity for progress on climate change, he said.The progress of the president's climate bill through Congress made it easier for Obama to push other nations on the climate-change measures, White House officials said."It strengthens our hand in those negotiations," press secretary Robert Gibbs said. The vote demonstrates "for the first time in many, many years our country's grave concern, shared by others in Europe . . . and how important that is to driving consensus.""We all have some skin in this game," said Gibbs."I'm not entirely sure that we expected to come here and have eight to 10 years of disagreement wash away in a couple of days in July in Italy. I think everybody understands that -- everybody understands that this is going to take some time."
Saturday, July 11, 2009
Global warming: The heat is on the U.S.
This week's Group of 8 summit has pretty much lived down to the low expectations it generated from the outset, yet it did produce a long-overdue agreement to fight climate change.The club of industrialized nations agreed to cut greenhouse gas emissions 80% by 2050. It was less than President Obama had hoped for -- he had aimed to get developing countries such as China and India to sign on as well -- but it represents the first time the United States has taken the international lead on climate change since the 1990s, and demonstrates to recalcitrant nations that the industrialized world is willing to take responsibility for its outsized contribution to the problem.
Such international pacts are usually meaningless without the backing of Congress; President Clinton, after all, signed the Kyoto Protocol to fight global warming in 1998, but it was never ratified by the Senate. That chamber once again finds itself in a position to overrule the president as it considers a sweeping climate-change bill that was narrowly approved last month in the House. It would fulfill Obama's G-8 promise by meeting the 2050 goal.The clamor from global-warming deniers has heated up as the nation gets closer to taking action, yet their comprehension of climate science hasn't improved. A particularly common obfuscation from right-wing pundits is the "revelation" that global temperatures have been declining since 1998, even as carbon emissions during the intervening 11 years have risen. This hardly debunks the climate change theory. The cyclical El Niño phenomenon and heavy greenhouse gas concentrations combined to make 1998 the hottest year in recorded history. Such statistical blips are properly ignored by most climatologists, who look at average temperatures over time rather than year-to-year data. And the last decade was on average the hottest ever recorded. Conservatives are trotting out other long-discredited hypotheses, such as the notion that solar activity rather than greenhouse gases is responsible for rising global temperatures, but the climate bill's fate in the Senate will depend less on crackpot theories than on hardheaded horse-trading. Its effectiveness was undermined in the House by special interests seeking to maximize profits at the expense of the environment, and the same is happening in the Senate as the bill makes its way through various committees.
With his leadership on climate change at the G-8, Obama posited that the United States would no longer ignore a pressing global threat that is largely of its making. If the Senate proves him wrong, it would harm more than our international standing. Those who advocate inaction are gambling with the future of everyone on Earth, and those stakes are too high.
Such international pacts are usually meaningless without the backing of Congress; President Clinton, after all, signed the Kyoto Protocol to fight global warming in 1998, but it was never ratified by the Senate. That chamber once again finds itself in a position to overrule the president as it considers a sweeping climate-change bill that was narrowly approved last month in the House. It would fulfill Obama's G-8 promise by meeting the 2050 goal.The clamor from global-warming deniers has heated up as the nation gets closer to taking action, yet their comprehension of climate science hasn't improved. A particularly common obfuscation from right-wing pundits is the "revelation" that global temperatures have been declining since 1998, even as carbon emissions during the intervening 11 years have risen. This hardly debunks the climate change theory. The cyclical El Niño phenomenon and heavy greenhouse gas concentrations combined to make 1998 the hottest year in recorded history. Such statistical blips are properly ignored by most climatologists, who look at average temperatures over time rather than year-to-year data. And the last decade was on average the hottest ever recorded. Conservatives are trotting out other long-discredited hypotheses, such as the notion that solar activity rather than greenhouse gases is responsible for rising global temperatures, but the climate bill's fate in the Senate will depend less on crackpot theories than on hardheaded horse-trading. Its effectiveness was undermined in the House by special interests seeking to maximize profits at the expense of the environment, and the same is happening in the Senate as the bill makes its way through various committees.
With his leadership on climate change at the G-8, Obama posited that the United States would no longer ignore a pressing global threat that is largely of its making. If the Senate proves him wrong, it would harm more than our international standing. Those who advocate inaction are gambling with the future of everyone on Earth, and those stakes are too high.
Despite Obama's pledge, G-8 makes little headway on global warming
Addressing leaders of the world's most important economies early Thursday, President Obama wasted no time in proclaiming a new day for U.S. policy on climate change."I know that in the past, the United States has sometimes fallen short of meeting our responsibilities," he said. "So let me be clear: Those days are over."
But by the end of the day, when the Group of 8 summit in L'Aquila, Italy, wrapped up its deliberations on climate, Obama found himself stymied by many of the same roadblocks that plagued previous efforts to tackle global warming.Leaders of the most developed nations again declined to commit themselves to any specific actions now or in the immediate future to curb the greenhouse gas emissions that contribute to global warming -- actions that would require increasing energy prices, raising taxes or imposing other unpopular economic measures on their people.Instead, they embraced the high-sounding goal of reducing their own emissions by 80% and worldwide emissions by 50% by 2050 -- without pledging to take any specific steps to get there. China, India and other major developing countries, which pressed for action in the next decade by the G-8 countries, reacted by rejecting the package.
And a side meeting Obama convened Thursday to bring together the nations most responsible for greenhouse emissions ended with only general pronouncements, and no firm financial commitments, to work against warming and share emissions-curbing technologies in the future.Paying the economic and political costs for effective action against climate change has always been a problem. But it was especially difficult this time because of the global recession, even with a popular new leader such as Obama seeking to forge ahead."There's always a high expectation for what the U.S. can deliver, and higher expectations for Obama, because he's Obama," said Jake Schmidt, international climate policy director for the Natural Resources Defense Council. "Those are difficult expectations to meet."Schmidt and other activists said that Obama, by bringing the United States to the table on global warming after what they called foot-dragging by the Bush administration, has given new steam to negotiations that will culminate at a United Nations climate conference in Copenhagen in December.The Italy talks represented small but important progress in the debate, they said.The environmental group Greenpeace, by contrast, derided the package as a "missed opportunity" for more aggressive emissions reductions and a failure of leadership by Obama and the G-8.Obama convened the 17-nation climate meeting at a giant circular table, inviting fellow leaders to speak openly about their hopes and concerns. Several acknowledged the new leadership from the U.S., administration officials said.The discussions yielded a consensus declaration that the world should try to limit warming to 2 degrees Celsius (3.6 degrees Fahrenheit) above preindustrial temperatures, a level scientists say would minimize the dangers of the most catastrophic warming effects.The 17 major emitters -- the most advanced economies that make up the G-8, plus the nine biggest emerging economies -- also agreed to partner in research on energy technologies that would reduce emissions, such as solar power and the capture and storage of carbon from coal.They set broad principles for financing the effort, but did not pledge specific contributions.After the meeting, Australian Prime Minister Kevin Rudd praised the American president for his role in the sessions."Can I say on behalf of so many of us," he told Obama, "how welcome it is to see the return of U.S. global leadership on climate change under your presidency."The warm words did not change the fact that, with the global economy racked by recession and even the wealthiest countries struggling with unemployment and other economic pain, considerable obstacles remain for moving against climate change now -- in the United States and elsewhere.Reflecting the challenge on the home front, Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.), head of the committee drafting the centerpiece of Obama's climate change legislation, announced that she was pulling back from a promise to act swiftly and would not finish work on a bill until at least September.The House last month passed a climate bill that would gradually impose carbon emissions limits and set up a "cap and trade" system to encourage industries to reduce pollution. Europe has already created such a system.During the climate talks, Obama aides said, some developing nations asked why they should sacrifice when other countries have caused more of the damage. Analysts said Obama would have more leverage in dealing with such objections from other countries if the Senate approved a climate bill.The president's clear call for action in Italy could help down the road, too, they said.Michael Oppenheimer, a Princeton University geoscientist and longtime participant in the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, said that the G-8 meeting was "a chance for the heads of state to look at each other in the eye and say, 'Yeah, we agree about this' -- and then the word goes down to the negotiators.""That kind of signal then reverberates," he said, "and then a deal that seems impossible can be done."The climate discussions dominated a day at the G-8 that saw little other action.Leaders did agree to work toward completing a long-stalled global trade agreement, and Obama became the first U.S. president to shake hands with Libyan leader Moammar Kadafi, whose country has won favor in Washington in recent years since he abandoned its nuclear program.
But by the end of the day, when the Group of 8 summit in L'Aquila, Italy, wrapped up its deliberations on climate, Obama found himself stymied by many of the same roadblocks that plagued previous efforts to tackle global warming.Leaders of the most developed nations again declined to commit themselves to any specific actions now or in the immediate future to curb the greenhouse gas emissions that contribute to global warming -- actions that would require increasing energy prices, raising taxes or imposing other unpopular economic measures on their people.Instead, they embraced the high-sounding goal of reducing their own emissions by 80% and worldwide emissions by 50% by 2050 -- without pledging to take any specific steps to get there. China, India and other major developing countries, which pressed for action in the next decade by the G-8 countries, reacted by rejecting the package.
And a side meeting Obama convened Thursday to bring together the nations most responsible for greenhouse emissions ended with only general pronouncements, and no firm financial commitments, to work against warming and share emissions-curbing technologies in the future.Paying the economic and political costs for effective action against climate change has always been a problem. But it was especially difficult this time because of the global recession, even with a popular new leader such as Obama seeking to forge ahead."There's always a high expectation for what the U.S. can deliver, and higher expectations for Obama, because he's Obama," said Jake Schmidt, international climate policy director for the Natural Resources Defense Council. "Those are difficult expectations to meet."Schmidt and other activists said that Obama, by bringing the United States to the table on global warming after what they called foot-dragging by the Bush administration, has given new steam to negotiations that will culminate at a United Nations climate conference in Copenhagen in December.The Italy talks represented small but important progress in the debate, they said.The environmental group Greenpeace, by contrast, derided the package as a "missed opportunity" for more aggressive emissions reductions and a failure of leadership by Obama and the G-8.Obama convened the 17-nation climate meeting at a giant circular table, inviting fellow leaders to speak openly about their hopes and concerns. Several acknowledged the new leadership from the U.S., administration officials said.The discussions yielded a consensus declaration that the world should try to limit warming to 2 degrees Celsius (3.6 degrees Fahrenheit) above preindustrial temperatures, a level scientists say would minimize the dangers of the most catastrophic warming effects.The 17 major emitters -- the most advanced economies that make up the G-8, plus the nine biggest emerging economies -- also agreed to partner in research on energy technologies that would reduce emissions, such as solar power and the capture and storage of carbon from coal.They set broad principles for financing the effort, but did not pledge specific contributions.After the meeting, Australian Prime Minister Kevin Rudd praised the American president for his role in the sessions."Can I say on behalf of so many of us," he told Obama, "how welcome it is to see the return of U.S. global leadership on climate change under your presidency."The warm words did not change the fact that, with the global economy racked by recession and even the wealthiest countries struggling with unemployment and other economic pain, considerable obstacles remain for moving against climate change now -- in the United States and elsewhere.Reflecting the challenge on the home front, Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.), head of the committee drafting the centerpiece of Obama's climate change legislation, announced that she was pulling back from a promise to act swiftly and would not finish work on a bill until at least September.The House last month passed a climate bill that would gradually impose carbon emissions limits and set up a "cap and trade" system to encourage industries to reduce pollution. Europe has already created such a system.During the climate talks, Obama aides said, some developing nations asked why they should sacrifice when other countries have caused more of the damage. Analysts said Obama would have more leverage in dealing with such objections from other countries if the Senate approved a climate bill.The president's clear call for action in Italy could help down the road, too, they said.Michael Oppenheimer, a Princeton University geoscientist and longtime participant in the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, said that the G-8 meeting was "a chance for the heads of state to look at each other in the eye and say, 'Yeah, we agree about this' -- and then the word goes down to the negotiators.""That kind of signal then reverberates," he said, "and then a deal that seems impossible can be done."The climate discussions dominated a day at the G-8 that saw little other action.Leaders did agree to work toward completing a long-stalled global trade agreement, and Obama became the first U.S. president to shake hands with Libyan leader Moammar Kadafi, whose country has won favor in Washington in recent years since he abandoned its nuclear program.
G-8 pledges $20 billion to fight world hunger after appeal from Obama
World leaders agreed to come up with $20 billion to fight hunger after a personal appeal from President Obama, who capped the European leg of his latest foreign trip with a visit to the Vatican this morning.At a news conference summarizing his first Group of 8 summit, Obama said the leading industrialized nations had made progress on feeding the hungry in the less developed world, controlling climate change and dealing with nuclear proliferation. His next and final stop before heading home to Washington will be Ghana.
Obama and his wife, Michelle, met for about 25 minutes with Pope Benedict XVI at the Vatican, where the pair also exchanged gifts."It's a great honor for me. Thank you so much," Obama said as he met the pontiff for the first time. The two have talked by phone, however.The pope and Obama share similar concerns on some issues. Both have blamed greed for the current economic crisis around the globe and urged reforms for the business world. They also share a long-standing concern with providing economic help for the poor around the world.
"The president, in both his words and in his deeds, expresses many things that many Catholics recognize as fundamental to our teaching," said Denis McDonough, a devout Catholic and foreign policy advisor to the president. "One is that the president often refers to the fundamental belief that each person is endowed with dignity . . . and the president often underscores that dignity of people is a driving goal in what we hope to accomplish in development policy, for example, and in foreign policy."But the two are separated by issues as well, especially abortion rights, supported by Obama and vigorously opposed by the Vatican. Aides hope the papal audience helps Obama boost to his efforts to court American Catholics, and to rewrite the dialogue between progressives and the church in general.For weeks, aides to the president have been inviting abortion opponents to Washington to talk about finding common ground on issues like family planning, sex education and adoption. The White House is trying to come up with a series of recommendations by the end of the summer that both sides of the abortion issue can support.At the beginning of the Group of 8 summit here this week, world leaders had planned to raise $15 billion toward humanitarian efforts to feed the hungry, but decided over the course of two days to increase the amount to $20 billion at the request of Obama.During his news conference, Obama said the G-8 had made some progress, especially in getting nations to work together on common problems."We've come to L'Aquila [Italy] for a very simple reason: because the challenges of our time threaten the peace and prosperity of every single nation, and no one nation can meet these challenges alone," Obama said."The threat of climate change can't be contained by borders on a map, and the theft of loose nuclear materials could lead to the extermination of any city on Earth," he said. "Reckless actions by a few have fueled a recession that spans the globe, and rising food prices means that 100 million of our fellow citizens are expected to fall into desperate poverty."So right now, at this defining moment, we face a choice. We can either shape our future or let events shape it for us. We can let the stale debates and old disagreements of the past divide us, or we can recognize our shared interests and shared aspirations and work together to create a safer and cleaner and more prosperous world for future generations," Obama said.At the news conference Obama also defended his administration's work at home to pass healthcare reform, an effort that has come under fire from some on Capitol Hill as he takes his fourth foreign trip while lawmakers wrestle with his proposal.He also called on leaders of Iran to take note of the G-8 statement condemning its treatment of peaceful protests, Holocaust denial and defiance of international nuclear standards. Obama emphasized the consensus in the statement, noting that it included Russia, "which doesn't make statements like that lightly."As leaders discussed the problem of world hunger, according to people who were present, Obama at one point rose to make a personal appeal for a more substantial commitment to food security.When his father left Kenya five decades ago, his home country had a higher per capita income and gross domestic product than did South Korea. Today, South Korea is prosperous and Kenya still struggles with poverty, a state Obama attributes to stronger social institutions in South Korea.At his news conference, Obama acknowledged relying on his own history in arguing for extra aid."My father traveled to the United States a mere 50 years ago," he said. "Yet now I have family members who . . . live in villages where hunger is real."The question he raised in the meeting, he said, was, "Why is that?""If you talk to people on the ground in Africa, certainly in Kenya, they will say that, part of the issue here is the institutions aren't working for ordinary people," he said. For instance, he said, many people know they can't get jobs and other opportunities without paying bribes.Strengthening democracies and social institutions will be a key theme Obama emphasizes when he travels to Africa today. It will be the African American president's first trip to sub-Saharan Africa since his election last year.While there, Obama is expected to emphasize the responsibility of developing nations to use international assistance in a transparent and accountable way.
Obama and his wife, Michelle, met for about 25 minutes with Pope Benedict XVI at the Vatican, where the pair also exchanged gifts."It's a great honor for me. Thank you so much," Obama said as he met the pontiff for the first time. The two have talked by phone, however.The pope and Obama share similar concerns on some issues. Both have blamed greed for the current economic crisis around the globe and urged reforms for the business world. They also share a long-standing concern with providing economic help for the poor around the world.
"The president, in both his words and in his deeds, expresses many things that many Catholics recognize as fundamental to our teaching," said Denis McDonough, a devout Catholic and foreign policy advisor to the president. "One is that the president often refers to the fundamental belief that each person is endowed with dignity . . . and the president often underscores that dignity of people is a driving goal in what we hope to accomplish in development policy, for example, and in foreign policy."But the two are separated by issues as well, especially abortion rights, supported by Obama and vigorously opposed by the Vatican. Aides hope the papal audience helps Obama boost to his efforts to court American Catholics, and to rewrite the dialogue between progressives and the church in general.For weeks, aides to the president have been inviting abortion opponents to Washington to talk about finding common ground on issues like family planning, sex education and adoption. The White House is trying to come up with a series of recommendations by the end of the summer that both sides of the abortion issue can support.At the beginning of the Group of 8 summit here this week, world leaders had planned to raise $15 billion toward humanitarian efforts to feed the hungry, but decided over the course of two days to increase the amount to $20 billion at the request of Obama.During his news conference, Obama said the G-8 had made some progress, especially in getting nations to work together on common problems."We've come to L'Aquila [Italy] for a very simple reason: because the challenges of our time threaten the peace and prosperity of every single nation, and no one nation can meet these challenges alone," Obama said."The threat of climate change can't be contained by borders on a map, and the theft of loose nuclear materials could lead to the extermination of any city on Earth," he said. "Reckless actions by a few have fueled a recession that spans the globe, and rising food prices means that 100 million of our fellow citizens are expected to fall into desperate poverty."So right now, at this defining moment, we face a choice. We can either shape our future or let events shape it for us. We can let the stale debates and old disagreements of the past divide us, or we can recognize our shared interests and shared aspirations and work together to create a safer and cleaner and more prosperous world for future generations," Obama said.At the news conference Obama also defended his administration's work at home to pass healthcare reform, an effort that has come under fire from some on Capitol Hill as he takes his fourth foreign trip while lawmakers wrestle with his proposal.He also called on leaders of Iran to take note of the G-8 statement condemning its treatment of peaceful protests, Holocaust denial and defiance of international nuclear standards. Obama emphasized the consensus in the statement, noting that it included Russia, "which doesn't make statements like that lightly."As leaders discussed the problem of world hunger, according to people who were present, Obama at one point rose to make a personal appeal for a more substantial commitment to food security.When his father left Kenya five decades ago, his home country had a higher per capita income and gross domestic product than did South Korea. Today, South Korea is prosperous and Kenya still struggles with poverty, a state Obama attributes to stronger social institutions in South Korea.At his news conference, Obama acknowledged relying on his own history in arguing for extra aid."My father traveled to the United States a mere 50 years ago," he said. "Yet now I have family members who . . . live in villages where hunger is real."The question he raised in the meeting, he said, was, "Why is that?""If you talk to people on the ground in Africa, certainly in Kenya, they will say that, part of the issue here is the institutions aren't working for ordinary people," he said. For instance, he said, many people know they can't get jobs and other opportunities without paying bribes.Strengthening democracies and social institutions will be a key theme Obama emphasizes when he travels to Africa today. It will be the African American president's first trip to sub-Saharan Africa since his election last year.While there, Obama is expected to emphasize the responsibility of developing nations to use international assistance in a transparent and accountable way.
Environmental education finally finds a place in India's school textbooks
Thanks to a two-year study that identified the gaps and anomalies in environmental education in India, 800 schools now have a new and improved syllabus that promotes an understanding of environmental issues
More than 100 schools in the state of Maharashtra, and 700 more around India, now have a syllabus that aims to improve children's understanding and knowledge of the environment.
This change stems from a World Bank-aided study, undertaken by the Indian government since 1999, with the objectives of strengthening environment education in the formal school system. Apart from Maharashtra, seven other states -- Andhra Pradesh, Assam, Goa, Jammu and Kashmir, Orissa, Punjab and Uttaranchal -- were selected for the pilot implementation of this project.
The project was designed in two phases. In the first phase, a critical content analysis was undertaken in order to find out the status of environmental content in the textbooks currently being used in the schools. On the basis of the findings, the second phase of pilot implementation was designed, to ensure that environmental education is covered through infusion in existing subjects and not as a separate subject. Practical, hands-on activities, field experiences, work experiences etc are important components of environmental learning. These need to be planned and operationalised with inputs from NGOs and learning centres like museums, zoos etc.
The eight states were selected for the project on the basis of their geographical spread, existing environmental content in textbooks and willingness of the state to participate in the exercise. Eight hundred schools in these states (100 schools in each state) were selected for the initiative.
The Bharati Vidyapeeth Institute of Environment Education and Research (BVIEER), Pune, did a two-year content analysis of more than 1,800 textbooks from all over the country, studying their handling of environmental subjects. Textbooks in General Science, Geography and Languages were analysed to assess the environment education inputs.
The BVIEER content analysis identified 99 environmental concepts including Natural Resources, Biodiversity, Pollution, People and Environment, Energy etc. Each concept was assessed for accuracy, relevance to the text, appropriateness to the age-group, consistency, bias etc. Once the matrix was complete it was easy to identify the lacunae or 'gaps' in the curriculum.
While most of the Geography textbooks did discuss the importance of the atmosphere, hydrosphere and lithosphere in detail, and focused on the greenhouse effect, ozone depletion etc, the researchers found that there is little effort to interlink environmental concepts and real life experiences. This means that most students learn the subject by rote and do not identify or believe in the cause of environmental protection. There is a serious absence of locale-specific information and several gaps in the appreciation of ecosystems, their structure, functions, uses, degradation and conservation. There is hardly any information on sustainable lifestyles and what individuals can and should do for environmental preservation as a part of personal day-to-day activity.
Several simple environmental topics such as the variety of plant and animal species in the world, in India and in each state, do not find appropriate representation in the curriculum. Very often, information provided is dated. For instance, DDT in most books is mentioned as a common pesticide, even though commercial production and use of DDT is banned in India.While solar energy is frequently focused on, other sources of non-conventional energy are not dealt with adequately. In most instances it is observed that the complexity and frequency of each concept does not progress over the years.
Comprehension and the will to teach these topics seemed dismal amongst most teachers. Most put this down to lack of time, lack of sufficiently locale-specific environmentally relevant educational material, lack of institutional and parental support and a host of such explanations.
The researchers subsequently suggested changes in the textbooks. Dr E K Bharucha, director of BVIEER says, "Based on the analysis we made of the textbooks, the textbooks of standards 6, 7 and 8 have been redrafted in eight states of the country." In Maharashtra, BVIEER actually sat with the textbook writers to bring about changes in the curriculum.
For the pilot implementation of Phase II, textbooks of science, social sciences and languages at middle school level (standards VI to VIII) were targeted. The concerned textbooks in these states have been modified to strengthen the infusion of environmental concepts and have been introduced in the selected project schools in six states. The remaining two states are in the process of introducing these modified textbooks. The project also involved orientation for all the major stakeholders. This was done through workshops for the Educational Administrators, concerned officials of the State Council of Educational Research and Training (SCERT) Textbook Bureaus and state education departments, besides school principals and parents of students. At the same time, workshops were also conducted for textbook writers and illustrators, where experts from the field of environment education provided inputs and helped the writers revise the existing textbooks.
Model textbooks have thus been created by each state for standards 6, 7 and 8. The 'good' lessons that need to be replicated across states were retained and the poor or incorrect concepts and identified gaps that need to be addressed in future textbooks were corrected. At a larger level, there is increased interaction between textbook writers, NGOs and government bureaus. "They are now more aware of what issues to handle and how," says project coordinator Shamita Kumar.
As Dr Bharucha says, "The change has been different in different states, but you cannot expect everyone to react in the same manner. The report is so complex and large that it will take some time for the changes to register properly."
More than 100 schools in the state of Maharashtra, and 700 more around India, now have a syllabus that aims to improve children's understanding and knowledge of the environment.
This change stems from a World Bank-aided study, undertaken by the Indian government since 1999, with the objectives of strengthening environment education in the formal school system. Apart from Maharashtra, seven other states -- Andhra Pradesh, Assam, Goa, Jammu and Kashmir, Orissa, Punjab and Uttaranchal -- were selected for the pilot implementation of this project.
The project was designed in two phases. In the first phase, a critical content analysis was undertaken in order to find out the status of environmental content in the textbooks currently being used in the schools. On the basis of the findings, the second phase of pilot implementation was designed, to ensure that environmental education is covered through infusion in existing subjects and not as a separate subject. Practical, hands-on activities, field experiences, work experiences etc are important components of environmental learning. These need to be planned and operationalised with inputs from NGOs and learning centres like museums, zoos etc.
The eight states were selected for the project on the basis of their geographical spread, existing environmental content in textbooks and willingness of the state to participate in the exercise. Eight hundred schools in these states (100 schools in each state) were selected for the initiative.
The Bharati Vidyapeeth Institute of Environment Education and Research (BVIEER), Pune, did a two-year content analysis of more than 1,800 textbooks from all over the country, studying their handling of environmental subjects. Textbooks in General Science, Geography and Languages were analysed to assess the environment education inputs.
The BVIEER content analysis identified 99 environmental concepts including Natural Resources, Biodiversity, Pollution, People and Environment, Energy etc. Each concept was assessed for accuracy, relevance to the text, appropriateness to the age-group, consistency, bias etc. Once the matrix was complete it was easy to identify the lacunae or 'gaps' in the curriculum.
While most of the Geography textbooks did discuss the importance of the atmosphere, hydrosphere and lithosphere in detail, and focused on the greenhouse effect, ozone depletion etc, the researchers found that there is little effort to interlink environmental concepts and real life experiences. This means that most students learn the subject by rote and do not identify or believe in the cause of environmental protection. There is a serious absence of locale-specific information and several gaps in the appreciation of ecosystems, their structure, functions, uses, degradation and conservation. There is hardly any information on sustainable lifestyles and what individuals can and should do for environmental preservation as a part of personal day-to-day activity.
Several simple environmental topics such as the variety of plant and animal species in the world, in India and in each state, do not find appropriate representation in the curriculum. Very often, information provided is dated. For instance, DDT in most books is mentioned as a common pesticide, even though commercial production and use of DDT is banned in India.While solar energy is frequently focused on, other sources of non-conventional energy are not dealt with adequately. In most instances it is observed that the complexity and frequency of each concept does not progress over the years.
Comprehension and the will to teach these topics seemed dismal amongst most teachers. Most put this down to lack of time, lack of sufficiently locale-specific environmentally relevant educational material, lack of institutional and parental support and a host of such explanations.
The researchers subsequently suggested changes in the textbooks. Dr E K Bharucha, director of BVIEER says, "Based on the analysis we made of the textbooks, the textbooks of standards 6, 7 and 8 have been redrafted in eight states of the country." In Maharashtra, BVIEER actually sat with the textbook writers to bring about changes in the curriculum.
For the pilot implementation of Phase II, textbooks of science, social sciences and languages at middle school level (standards VI to VIII) were targeted. The concerned textbooks in these states have been modified to strengthen the infusion of environmental concepts and have been introduced in the selected project schools in six states. The remaining two states are in the process of introducing these modified textbooks. The project also involved orientation for all the major stakeholders. This was done through workshops for the Educational Administrators, concerned officials of the State Council of Educational Research and Training (SCERT) Textbook Bureaus and state education departments, besides school principals and parents of students. At the same time, workshops were also conducted for textbook writers and illustrators, where experts from the field of environment education provided inputs and helped the writers revise the existing textbooks.
Model textbooks have thus been created by each state for standards 6, 7 and 8. The 'good' lessons that need to be replicated across states were retained and the poor or incorrect concepts and identified gaps that need to be addressed in future textbooks were corrected. At a larger level, there is increased interaction between textbook writers, NGOs and government bureaus. "They are now more aware of what issues to handle and how," says project coordinator Shamita Kumar.
As Dr Bharucha says, "The change has been different in different states, but you cannot expect everyone to react in the same manner. The report is so complex and large that it will take some time for the changes to register properly."
Arctic ice shows 40 percent thinning since 2004
Monthly Archive Show all RSS
A new NASA study has revealed that the Arctic Ocean's permanent blanket of ice around the North Pole has thinned by more than 40 per cent since 2004. Scientists said the rapid loss was "remarkable" and said it could force experts to reassess how quickly the Arctic ice in the summer may disappear completely. They have called for more research to pin down the causes of the change, which they say is probably down to increased melting and shifts in the way the ice moves around.
The study, based on satellite measurements, is among the first to estimate the thickness of the Arctic ice, rather than just its surface area.
Ron Kwok, senior research scientist at Nasa's Jet Propulsion Laboratory in California, said: "Even in years when the overall extent of sea ice remains stable or grows slightly, the thickness and volume of the ice cover is continuing to decline, making the ice more vulnerable to continued shrinkage."
The study looked at measurements taken of the Arctic region by the ICESat satellite, launched in 2003. Overall, the experts found that the ice, typically up to about 3m thick, thinned by 67cm over the last four winters.
Converting to ice volume, the scientists worked out the amount of so-called multiyear ice, which persists through Arctic summers, had decreased by 1540 cubic kilometres between 2004 and 2008 – a decline of 42 per cent. The research is published in the Journal of Geophysical Research: Oceans.
Ron Kwok said: "Ice volume allows us to calculate annual ice production and gives us an inventory of the fresh water and total ice mass stored in Arctic sea ice. Our data will help scientists better understand how fast the volume of Arctic ice is decreasing and how soon we might see a nearly ice-free Arctic in summer."
The Arctic ice cap fluctuates with the seasons, growing in the freezing winter and shrinking over the summer. An important finding of the study is that the majority of Arctic ice no longer survives the summer. In 2003, this multiyear ice made up 62 per cent of the region's total ice volume. By 2008, this was down to 32 per cent. The remaining 68 per cent was ‘first-year’ seasonal ice, which was open water during the summer, so is thinner and more likely to melt away.
A new NASA study has revealed that the Arctic Ocean's permanent blanket of ice around the North Pole has thinned by more than 40 per cent since 2004. Scientists said the rapid loss was "remarkable" and said it could force experts to reassess how quickly the Arctic ice in the summer may disappear completely. They have called for more research to pin down the causes of the change, which they say is probably down to increased melting and shifts in the way the ice moves around.
The study, based on satellite measurements, is among the first to estimate the thickness of the Arctic ice, rather than just its surface area.
Ron Kwok, senior research scientist at Nasa's Jet Propulsion Laboratory in California, said: "Even in years when the overall extent of sea ice remains stable or grows slightly, the thickness and volume of the ice cover is continuing to decline, making the ice more vulnerable to continued shrinkage."
The study looked at measurements taken of the Arctic region by the ICESat satellite, launched in 2003. Overall, the experts found that the ice, typically up to about 3m thick, thinned by 67cm over the last four winters.
Converting to ice volume, the scientists worked out the amount of so-called multiyear ice, which persists through Arctic summers, had decreased by 1540 cubic kilometres between 2004 and 2008 – a decline of 42 per cent. The research is published in the Journal of Geophysical Research: Oceans.
Ron Kwok said: "Ice volume allows us to calculate annual ice production and gives us an inventory of the fresh water and total ice mass stored in Arctic sea ice. Our data will help scientists better understand how fast the volume of Arctic ice is decreasing and how soon we might see a nearly ice-free Arctic in summer."
The Arctic ice cap fluctuates with the seasons, growing in the freezing winter and shrinking over the summer. An important finding of the study is that the majority of Arctic ice no longer survives the summer. In 2003, this multiyear ice made up 62 per cent of the region's total ice volume. By 2008, this was down to 32 per cent. The remaining 68 per cent was ‘first-year’ seasonal ice, which was open water during the summer, so is thinner and more likely to melt away.
For the study, researchers analysed the amount of five amino acids - the building blocks of protein - in the diets of participants from the US, the UK
Broccoli and cabbage are particularly high in a chemical called glutamic acid.Glutamic acid is the most common amino acid and accounts for almost a quarter of vegetable protein and nearly a fifth of animal protein.Whole grain foods like rice, breads and cereals, soy products such as tofu and durum wheat, which is used tomake pasta, are other sources. For the study, researchers analysed the amount of five amino acids - the building blocks of protein - in the diets of participants from the US, the UK, China and Japan. The study of 4,680 people, aged 40 to 59, showed that on average that the more of the protein component they consumed the more their blood pressure fell. "Glutamic acid may partly explain the link between vegetable protein and lower blood pressure," the Daily Express quoted study author Dr Ian Brown, an epidemiologist at Imperial College, London, as saying."However there is no 'magic bullet' for preventing high blood pressure, and vegetable protein and glutamic acid are individual elements of a broader healthy eating pattern," Brown added. The study has been published in Circulation: Journal of the American Heart Association.make pasta, are other common sources.
ndian-origin researcher unveils biodegradable scaffold to fix damaged knees
A research team at Hospital for Special Surgery, including an Indian-origin scientist, have developed a biodegradable scaffold that can be used to treat patients with damaged knee cartilage.Dr Asheesh Bedi, a fellow in sports medicine and shoulder surgery at Hospital for Special Surgery, has revealed that his team's invention is a Trufit plug that has mechanical properties similar to cartilage and bone."The data has been encouraging to support further evaluation of this synthetic scaffold as a cartilage repair technique," he said.Damage to so-called articular cartilage can occur in various ways, ranging from direct trauma in a motor vehicle accident to a noncontact, pivoting event on the soccer field. The Trufit plug has two layers. The top layer has properties similar to cartilage and the lower layer has properties similar to bone. The bilayered structure has mechanical properties that approximately match the adjacent cartilage and bone. During the study, surgeons inserted the plug in the knees of 26 patients with donor lesions from OATS procedures and followed up with imaging studies (with MRI and T2-mapping) at various intervals for a period of 39 months. "Quantitative MRI, when combined with morphologic assessment, allows us to understand the natural history of these repair techniques and define those patients who are most likely to benefit from the surgery," said Hollis Potter, M.D., chief of the Division of Magnetic Resonance Imaging, director of Research in the Department of Radiology and Imaging at Hospital for Special Surgery and lead author of the study. "We gain knowledge about the biology of integration with the host tissue, as well as the repair tissue biochemistry, all by a noninvasive imaging technique," he added."What we found was that the plug demonstrated a predictable process of maturation on imaging studies that paralleled the biology of their incorporation," Bedi said. The findings were presented at annual meeting of the American Orthopedic Society for Sports Medicine.
an an individual's bitter-taste sensitivity help determine diabetes risk?
A research team at Kansas State University, including an Indian origin scientist, are studying whether an individual's bitterness sensitivity can help predict his/her risk of developing type 2 diabetes.ead researcher Kathy Nguyen, senior in public health nutrition along with colleagues Koushik Adhikari and Mark Haub, are studying the genotypes of diabetic and non-diabetic individuals to determine the possible link.For the study, Nguyen is collecting cheek cell samples from about 60 men and women between the ages of 40 and 70. The sample includes people with and without type 2 diabetes.The researchers will later genotype two variations within a DNA sequence to determine whether the individuals are supertasters, tasters or non-tasters of bitterness. Supertasters are more sensitive to bitterness than tasters, and non-tasters are not sensitive.The team hopes that by understanding whether bitterness sensitivity is linked to type 2 diabetes, there is a potential to screen individuals for bitterness sensitivity, and to use that information as a predictive marker for the disease and other chronic disease such as heart disease and obesity."This is a preliminary stage with a small sample size," Adhikari said.
The study has to be repeated with a larger population of different ethnicities to arrive at any meaningful conclusions. However, Kathy will establish the protocol for this project," he added.
The study has to be repeated with a larger population of different ethnicities to arrive at any meaningful conclusions. However, Kathy will establish the protocol for this project," he added.
River delta areas can provide clue to environmental changes in 21st century
Researchers at Texas A and M University, US, have determined that the historical information that can be gathered from sediment cores collected in and around river delta areas regions is critical for a better understanding of enhe research was carried out by Thomas Bianchi, a professor in the Department ofOceanography, Texas A and M University, and colleague Mead Allison.The researchers have examined sediments from delta areas around the world, most notably the Mississippi in the United States and the (Huanghe) Yellow and Yangtze in China. "These sediments contain information that can provide data on past changes in nitrogen application in the drainage basin from agricultural fertilizers, records of past flooding and hurricane events, to name a few," Bianchi said. "These deltaic sediments can serve as a history book of sorts on land-use change in these large drainage basins which is useful for upland and coastal management decisions as related to climate change issues," he explained.
"Although the information stored in these sediments can be altered during itstransport from the upper drainage basin to the coast, we still find very stable tracers, both organic and inorganic, that can be used to document changes induced by natural and human forces," he added. According to the researchers, such sediments are ever-present, noting that 87 percent of the Earth's land surface is connected to the ocean by river systems. Much of the sediment from rivers forms into what are called large river delta-front estuaries (LDEs), and human activity in some of these can be traced back more than 5,000 years ago to some of the first cities in Mesopotamia, along the Nile and in regions of China. The knowledge learned from these delta areas tell about the history of the region from how the land was used - or not used - through time, according to the researchers. In the US, hypoxic areas - where there is little or no oxygen - can in some cases be linked with deltaic regions that are releasing large amounts of water and nutrients, Bianchi explained.
"Low oxygen in aquatic systems is clearly not good for the organisms in those systems, but not all aquatic systems respond in the same way," he noted. "It affects marine life in some areas severely, while other areas seem unchanged. We need to find out why," he added.
"Although the information stored in these sediments can be altered during itstransport from the upper drainage basin to the coast, we still find very stable tracers, both organic and inorganic, that can be used to document changes induced by natural and human forces," he added. According to the researchers, such sediments are ever-present, noting that 87 percent of the Earth's land surface is connected to the ocean by river systems. Much of the sediment from rivers forms into what are called large river delta-front estuaries (LDEs), and human activity in some of these can be traced back more than 5,000 years ago to some of the first cities in Mesopotamia, along the Nile and in regions of China. The knowledge learned from these delta areas tell about the history of the region from how the land was used - or not used - through time, according to the researchers. In the US, hypoxic areas - where there is little or no oxygen - can in some cases be linked with deltaic regions that are releasing large amounts of water and nutrients, Bianchi explained.
"Low oxygen in aquatic systems is clearly not good for the organisms in those systems, but not all aquatic systems respond in the same way," he noted. "It affects marine life in some areas severely, while other areas seem unchanged. We need to find out why," he added.
Expert panel giving conflicted IPR approvals
India's National Biodiversity Authority (NBA) has granted over 335 approvals related to research, commercial exploitation, transfer of research results and Intellectual Property Rights (IPRs). But are these all legal?
None of the approvals granted by the NBA have followed a mandatory legal provision of the Biological Diversity Act, 2002 (Section 41 (2)), where it is prescribed that approvals are to be granted only after consultations with the relevant village-level Biodiversity Management Committees (BMCs). Official minutes of meetings have no record of this. With only about 2000 BMCs established in a country of 500,000PLUS villages, it also does not seem to be a remote possibility that such consultations were carried out!
In 2002, India enacted its Biological Diversity Act in response to its obligations to the international Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD). This legislation puts into place an institutional structure where approvals on access to India's biodiversity, its sustainable use and sharing of benefits arising out of that use are determined. The legislation also puts forth imperatives for conservation through mechanisms of protection of local knowledge, declaration of Heritage sites etc.
The National Biodiversity Authority (NBA) based in Chennai that has been entrusted with most of the decisive role, with some also prescribed for State level Biodiversity Boards and village level Biodiversity Management Committees (BMCs).
Over the last six and half years, foremost on the priority in the implementation of this law has been setting into place the mechanisms for grant of access to biological resources for research and commercial use, third party transfer of material and research as well as permissions for IPRs. (see here; here and here). A significant conflict of interest-issue has come to light in the grant of such permissions under the NBA. The NBA's Expert Committee for Evaluation of Applications for Access, Seeking Patent, Transfer of Research Results and Third Party Transfer of Bioresources handles approvals for access to or transfer of intellectual property rights (IPR). Many of the institutions or departments who have also sent in applications for IPR consideration are represented on the committee itself.
Examples of IPR approvals give by the expert committee:
CSIR received approval for a new product derived from the fruit of Mangroves Xylocarpus species), found in the Sundarbans, Andaman, Orissa coast, Goa, Maharashtra and Pichavaram (Tamilnadu). A former CSIR department head was on the committee when approval was given.
Syngenta received approval for transfer of imported vip3A gene from Baaccillus thuringiensis (Bt) to Cotton and these were multiplied and utilised for making various crosses. A Syngenta consultant was on the committee when approval was given.
• From biodiversity to biotech • The downward spiralWhile this committee has been reconstituted three times since October 2005, it has had several meetings since then, with the last one being in January 2009. During this period there have been various applications from government-affiliated bodies such as National Bureau of Plant Genetic Resources (NBPGR), NRC on Medicinal and Aromatic Plants etc., all of which had a representative on the committee even while the recommendation for the approval was given.
For instance, in the 23 January 2009 meeting of the committee, a collaborative research project application for the export of guava fruit cultivars from the Germplasm Exchange Division of NBPGR was considered by the committee when and a senior scientist from NBPGR, Dr Pratibha Brahmi, was part of the decision making. An earlier Expert Committee with the tenure from August 2007 to February 2008 had only one meeting. With an emeritus scientist, Dr K V P R Tilak (former Head, Microbiology, of the Council for Scientific and Industrial Research) on the Committee, 126 requests by CSIR for Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) were considered and approved. In yet another instance, an application for third party transfer by the multi national seed giant, Syngenta Inc, was approved when a consultant of the company, Dr Dasgupta, was a member of the committee.
Nor do the minutes of the meetings available on the NBA website do not indicate that such members on the committee abstained from being part of the decisions.
In May 2009, over 50 organisations and individuals came together and wrote to the NBA and the nodal Ministry of Environment and Forests (MoEF) highlighting this major conflict of interest in the approvals process. The letter brings out the likely bias and lack of independent decision making with regards to this committee. The letter also raises objection to the fact that while Syngenta's consultant finds a place on the committee, there is no representation from local communities, farmers' groups, conservation organisations, political parties or civil society organizations. While concluding, the letter demands actions that range from revocation of the approvals to the reconstitution of the committee.
The composition of these committees is not prescribed in the Biological Diversity Act. The legislation only prescribes the composition of the National Biodiversity Authority, State Boards and BMCs. It allows of the NBA to set up specialised committees to achieve the legislation's objectives. It is the NBA which decides on the members. Currently, members are primarily from Government of India Departments (GoI). There are several committees set up related to specific tasks of documentation, designation of repositories, identification of endangered species and so on.
On 14 May 2009, the NBA responded, stating among other things that "the members of every committee of NBA are experts in their respective fields and are persons of high integrity and credibility. All recommendations made by these expert committees are within the parameters of law. All decisions on approvals made by the Authority are in National Interest and the same have not been compromised at any level." This is ironic as the evidence presented in the letter states a clear conflict of interest in the decisions. The letter calls the allegations as "hasty and defamatory" but does not systematically refute them.
Conflict of interest apart, the current approvals process is proceeding without other required bodies envisaged in the law for checks-and-balances. Take for example the approval granted to Kemin Industries Inc, Chennai to collect water samples from paddy fields from ten locations in Tamilnadu and Kerala. The company wanted the water samples for "screening microorganisms, particularly bacteria and fungi from paddy fields in South India having enzyme activity for fiber degradation." In January 2009, the NBA's expert committee met in Chennai and granted approval and also determined the percentage of the gross sales to be paid to the NBA to be 5 per cent. (This money goes to the NBA fund.) Kemin Industries Inc is a US-headquartered bioscience firm.
Why was it not felt necessary to wait for the BMCs to be set up, carry out the mandatory consultation process and only then grant the approval? This is where the difficulty is: The law mandates that BMCs are to be set up, but there is no clarity on who will set them up. Panchayats, for example, can set up their own BMCs. However the NBA and the state boards are of the view that setting up the BMCs is a facilitative function of the state boards, even the law itself does not explicitly say so.
In sum, it is a worrisome state of affairs. Way back in 1984-85, in an article in the State of India's Environment-1984-85: The Second Citizen's Report, by Dunu Roy had written: "Why is it that even though a host of data, statistics and experience is mustered to back arguments about the protection of the environment, those in authority pay no attention, and even when they do and policy is framed, it is never implemented in the way the policy is designed?" It is 25 years since that statement was made, and one feels the same despair while continuing to hope otherwise.
None of the approvals granted by the NBA have followed a mandatory legal provision of the Biological Diversity Act, 2002 (Section 41 (2)), where it is prescribed that approvals are to be granted only after consultations with the relevant village-level Biodiversity Management Committees (BMCs). Official minutes of meetings have no record of this. With only about 2000 BMCs established in a country of 500,000PLUS villages, it also does not seem to be a remote possibility that such consultations were carried out!
In 2002, India enacted its Biological Diversity Act in response to its obligations to the international Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD). This legislation puts into place an institutional structure where approvals on access to India's biodiversity, its sustainable use and sharing of benefits arising out of that use are determined. The legislation also puts forth imperatives for conservation through mechanisms of protection of local knowledge, declaration of Heritage sites etc.
The National Biodiversity Authority (NBA) based in Chennai that has been entrusted with most of the decisive role, with some also prescribed for State level Biodiversity Boards and village level Biodiversity Management Committees (BMCs).
Over the last six and half years, foremost on the priority in the implementation of this law has been setting into place the mechanisms for grant of access to biological resources for research and commercial use, third party transfer of material and research as well as permissions for IPRs. (see here; here and here). A significant conflict of interest-issue has come to light in the grant of such permissions under the NBA. The NBA's Expert Committee for Evaluation of Applications for Access, Seeking Patent, Transfer of Research Results and Third Party Transfer of Bioresources handles approvals for access to or transfer of intellectual property rights (IPR). Many of the institutions or departments who have also sent in applications for IPR consideration are represented on the committee itself.
Examples of IPR approvals give by the expert committee:
CSIR received approval for a new product derived from the fruit of Mangroves Xylocarpus species), found in the Sundarbans, Andaman, Orissa coast, Goa, Maharashtra and Pichavaram (Tamilnadu). A former CSIR department head was on the committee when approval was given.
Syngenta received approval for transfer of imported vip3A gene from Baaccillus thuringiensis (Bt) to Cotton and these were multiplied and utilised for making various crosses. A Syngenta consultant was on the committee when approval was given.
• From biodiversity to biotech • The downward spiralWhile this committee has been reconstituted three times since October 2005, it has had several meetings since then, with the last one being in January 2009. During this period there have been various applications from government-affiliated bodies such as National Bureau of Plant Genetic Resources (NBPGR), NRC on Medicinal and Aromatic Plants etc., all of which had a representative on the committee even while the recommendation for the approval was given.
For instance, in the 23 January 2009 meeting of the committee, a collaborative research project application for the export of guava fruit cultivars from the Germplasm Exchange Division of NBPGR was considered by the committee when and a senior scientist from NBPGR, Dr Pratibha Brahmi, was part of the decision making. An earlier Expert Committee with the tenure from August 2007 to February 2008 had only one meeting. With an emeritus scientist, Dr K V P R Tilak (former Head, Microbiology, of the Council for Scientific and Industrial Research) on the Committee, 126 requests by CSIR for Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) were considered and approved. In yet another instance, an application for third party transfer by the multi national seed giant, Syngenta Inc, was approved when a consultant of the company, Dr Dasgupta, was a member of the committee.
Nor do the minutes of the meetings available on the NBA website do not indicate that such members on the committee abstained from being part of the decisions.
In May 2009, over 50 organisations and individuals came together and wrote to the NBA and the nodal Ministry of Environment and Forests (MoEF) highlighting this major conflict of interest in the approvals process. The letter brings out the likely bias and lack of independent decision making with regards to this committee. The letter also raises objection to the fact that while Syngenta's consultant finds a place on the committee, there is no representation from local communities, farmers' groups, conservation organisations, political parties or civil society organizations. While concluding, the letter demands actions that range from revocation of the approvals to the reconstitution of the committee.
The composition of these committees is not prescribed in the Biological Diversity Act. The legislation only prescribes the composition of the National Biodiversity Authority, State Boards and BMCs. It allows of the NBA to set up specialised committees to achieve the legislation's objectives. It is the NBA which decides on the members. Currently, members are primarily from Government of India Departments (GoI). There are several committees set up related to specific tasks of documentation, designation of repositories, identification of endangered species and so on.
On 14 May 2009, the NBA responded, stating among other things that "the members of every committee of NBA are experts in their respective fields and are persons of high integrity and credibility. All recommendations made by these expert committees are within the parameters of law. All decisions on approvals made by the Authority are in National Interest and the same have not been compromised at any level." This is ironic as the evidence presented in the letter states a clear conflict of interest in the decisions. The letter calls the allegations as "hasty and defamatory" but does not systematically refute them.
Conflict of interest apart, the current approvals process is proceeding without other required bodies envisaged in the law for checks-and-balances. Take for example the approval granted to Kemin Industries Inc, Chennai to collect water samples from paddy fields from ten locations in Tamilnadu and Kerala. The company wanted the water samples for "screening microorganisms, particularly bacteria and fungi from paddy fields in South India having enzyme activity for fiber degradation." In January 2009, the NBA's expert committee met in Chennai and granted approval and also determined the percentage of the gross sales to be paid to the NBA to be 5 per cent. (This money goes to the NBA fund.) Kemin Industries Inc is a US-headquartered bioscience firm.
Why was it not felt necessary to wait for the BMCs to be set up, carry out the mandatory consultation process and only then grant the approval? This is where the difficulty is: The law mandates that BMCs are to be set up, but there is no clarity on who will set them up. Panchayats, for example, can set up their own BMCs. However the NBA and the state boards are of the view that setting up the BMCs is a facilitative function of the state boards, even the law itself does not explicitly say so.
In sum, it is a worrisome state of affairs. Way back in 1984-85, in an article in the State of India's Environment-1984-85: The Second Citizen's Report, by Dunu Roy had written: "Why is it that even though a host of data, statistics and experience is mustered to back arguments about the protection of the environment, those in authority pay no attention, and even when they do and policy is framed, it is never implemented in the way the policy is designed?" It is 25 years since that statement was made, and one feels the same despair while continuing to hope otherwise.
Carbon Dioxide- green energy source!
Scientists here have succeeded in converting a greenhouse gas like carbon dioxide into a green energy source.
Institute of Bioengineering and Nanotechnology (IBN) researchers said that they used organocatalysts to help carbon dioxide (CO2) produce methanol, a widely used industrial feedstock and clean-burning biofuel.
Organocatalysts are catalysts that comprise non-metallic elements found in organic compounds. They can be produced easily at low cost.
The scientists made CO2 react by using N-heterocyclic carbenes (NHCs), an organocatalyst, which unlike heavy, toxic and unstable metal catalysts are stable, even in the presence of oxygen.
"NHCs have shown tremendous potential for activating and fixing carbon dioxide. Our work can contribute towards transforming excess carbon dioxide in the environment into useful products such as methanol," said Siti Nurhanna Riduan, IBN senior lab officer.
Previous attempts to convert CO2 into more useful products have required more energy input and a much longer reaction time. They also require transition metal catalysts, which are both unstable in oxygen and expensive, said an IBN release.
Institute of Bioengineering and Nanotechnology (IBN) researchers said that they used organocatalysts to help carbon dioxide (CO2) produce methanol, a widely used industrial feedstock and clean-burning biofuel.
Organocatalysts are catalysts that comprise non-metallic elements found in organic compounds. They can be produced easily at low cost.
The scientists made CO2 react by using N-heterocyclic carbenes (NHCs), an organocatalyst, which unlike heavy, toxic and unstable metal catalysts are stable, even in the presence of oxygen.
"NHCs have shown tremendous potential for activating and fixing carbon dioxide. Our work can contribute towards transforming excess carbon dioxide in the environment into useful products such as methanol," said Siti Nurhanna Riduan, IBN senior lab officer.
Previous attempts to convert CO2 into more useful products have required more energy input and a much longer reaction time. They also require transition metal catalysts, which are both unstable in oxygen and expensive, said an IBN release.
Can G8 live up to the climate challenge?
A year ago, the leaders of the world's eight leading industrialised nations promised that their children would fight climate change. This summer, they will have to show whether they are willing to do something about it themselves.
The leaders of Britain, Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, Russia and the US are set to meet during July 8-10 in the earthquake-stricken Italian town of L'Aquila, with climate change high on the agenda ahead of UN talks in Copenhagen in December.
The last time when the leaders from the Group of Eight (G8) met in Japan in July 2008, they agreed to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions by 50 per cent before 2050.
Environmental groups attacked that pledge, saying that the leaders at the summit would be dead long before the target date, and that the target itself was meaningless, since it did not say what year would be used as the base for calculating the actual size of the cut.
Now the pressure is on for G8 members to set shorter-range targets which they themselves might have to implement.
Italy, which currently holds the G8 presidency, wants the meeting to agree that global emissions should peak by 2020 and that world temperature change should be limited to 2 degrees Centigrade above pre-industrial levels.
Those two targets are based on the research of the UN's climate change experts, and have already been accepted in the EU.
But they have not yet been endorsed by the G8's non-European members, with the US and Japan - the world's two biggest economies - saying that it would be wrong to agree on a mid-term target and overall temperature goal before the Copenhagen talks.
G8 members are also at odds over the question of how each one should define its national emissions reduction targets.
EU members want the G8 to use 1990 as the "base year" for calculating cuts. The EU has already put that policy into practice by pledging to cut emissions to 20 per cent below 1990 levels by 2020, and to go to 30 per cent if other major economies follow suit.
EU emissions have fallen by some eight percent since 1990, meaning that the bloc will have to manage a further cut of some 12 per cent compared with 1990 over the next 12 years.
But the US and Japan, whose emissions have risen by close on 20 per cent since 1990, say that they cannot accept 1990 as a base year, because this would leave them having to make much steeper cuts than their European economic rivals.
The duo, who are currently eyeing cuts which would bring them back to or just below 1990 levels by 2020, insist that any G8 deal should be based on the principle of equal effort from now on.
That is unlikely to go down well in the EU and Russia, who want to be given the maximum possible credit for their post-1990 cuts.
Meetings on the fringes of the G8 summit are also set to be fraught, with the Major Economies Forum (MEF) - the G8 plus Australia, Brazil, China, India, Indonesia, South Korea, Mexico and South Africa - also due to debate thorny issues of global warming.
The thorniest is the question of how rich countries should pay poor ones to fight climate change - and who counts as "poor".
Estimates of the amount needed to support less wealthy states in the climate change fight range from $100 billion to $200 billion a year by 2020. Britain has proposed a $100-billion-a-year fund, to be funded by the sale of emissions permits and by development aid.
On June 19, an EU summit urged leading powers to agree on a formula for splitting the bill, based on their historical emissions and current wealth.
They also said that major developing economies should chip in.
Both calls are likely to provoke fierce debate in L'Aquila - especially since EU members have, as yet, been unable to agree how they themselves should split the EU's share of the total global bill.
But with the Copenhagen talks just five months away, G8 and MEF leaders are likely to find that the pressure is on them to agree to action for this decade, rather than the next.
The leaders of Britain, Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, Russia and the US are set to meet during July 8-10 in the earthquake-stricken Italian town of L'Aquila, with climate change high on the agenda ahead of UN talks in Copenhagen in December.
The last time when the leaders from the Group of Eight (G8) met in Japan in July 2008, they agreed to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions by 50 per cent before 2050.
Environmental groups attacked that pledge, saying that the leaders at the summit would be dead long before the target date, and that the target itself was meaningless, since it did not say what year would be used as the base for calculating the actual size of the cut.
Now the pressure is on for G8 members to set shorter-range targets which they themselves might have to implement.
Italy, which currently holds the G8 presidency, wants the meeting to agree that global emissions should peak by 2020 and that world temperature change should be limited to 2 degrees Centigrade above pre-industrial levels.
Those two targets are based on the research of the UN's climate change experts, and have already been accepted in the EU.
But they have not yet been endorsed by the G8's non-European members, with the US and Japan - the world's two biggest economies - saying that it would be wrong to agree on a mid-term target and overall temperature goal before the Copenhagen talks.
G8 members are also at odds over the question of how each one should define its national emissions reduction targets.
EU members want the G8 to use 1990 as the "base year" for calculating cuts. The EU has already put that policy into practice by pledging to cut emissions to 20 per cent below 1990 levels by 2020, and to go to 30 per cent if other major economies follow suit.
EU emissions have fallen by some eight percent since 1990, meaning that the bloc will have to manage a further cut of some 12 per cent compared with 1990 over the next 12 years.
But the US and Japan, whose emissions have risen by close on 20 per cent since 1990, say that they cannot accept 1990 as a base year, because this would leave them having to make much steeper cuts than their European economic rivals.
The duo, who are currently eyeing cuts which would bring them back to or just below 1990 levels by 2020, insist that any G8 deal should be based on the principle of equal effort from now on.
That is unlikely to go down well in the EU and Russia, who want to be given the maximum possible credit for their post-1990 cuts.
Meetings on the fringes of the G8 summit are also set to be fraught, with the Major Economies Forum (MEF) - the G8 plus Australia, Brazil, China, India, Indonesia, South Korea, Mexico and South Africa - also due to debate thorny issues of global warming.
The thorniest is the question of how rich countries should pay poor ones to fight climate change - and who counts as "poor".
Estimates of the amount needed to support less wealthy states in the climate change fight range from $100 billion to $200 billion a year by 2020. Britain has proposed a $100-billion-a-year fund, to be funded by the sale of emissions permits and by development aid.
On June 19, an EU summit urged leading powers to agree on a formula for splitting the bill, based on their historical emissions and current wealth.
They also said that major developing economies should chip in.
Both calls are likely to provoke fierce debate in L'Aquila - especially since EU members have, as yet, been unable to agree how they themselves should split the EU's share of the total global bill.
But with the Copenhagen talks just five months away, G8 and MEF leaders are likely to find that the pressure is on them to agree to action for this decade, rather than the next.
Russia rejects G8 emissions cut target
ussia has refused to back a target of an 80 per cent cut in greenhouse gas emissions by 2050 proposed by the Group of Eight (G8) countries, a Kremlin aide said on Wednesday after the first day of the G8 summit.
At a news conference earlier in the day, European Commission President Jose Manuel Barroso said the world's richest nations should cut their emissions by 80 per cent by the middle of the century.
Arkady Dvorkovich, who is accompanying President Dmitry Medvedev at the summit in the central Italian mountain town of L'Aquila, told reporters: "We will not sacrifice our economic growth to meet emissions cuts. Economic growth must be effective. Everyone spoke about this."
He called the 80 per cent target "unacceptable, and probably unattainable".
Prime Minister Fredrik Reinfeldt of Sweden, which holds the European Union (EU) presidency, earlier said the G8 had agreed to set targets that would limit the likely rise in global temperatures due to man-made emissions to no more than two degrees Celsius. He also said 1990 should be set as the base year for measuring emission reductions.
At a news conference earlier in the day, European Commission President Jose Manuel Barroso said the world's richest nations should cut their emissions by 80 per cent by the middle of the century.
Arkady Dvorkovich, who is accompanying President Dmitry Medvedev at the summit in the central Italian mountain town of L'Aquila, told reporters: "We will not sacrifice our economic growth to meet emissions cuts. Economic growth must be effective. Everyone spoke about this."
He called the 80 per cent target "unacceptable, and probably unattainable".
Prime Minister Fredrik Reinfeldt of Sweden, which holds the European Union (EU) presidency, earlier said the G8 had agreed to set targets that would limit the likely rise in global temperatures due to man-made emissions to no more than two degrees Celsius. He also said 1990 should be set as the base year for measuring emission reductions.
Environmentalists unfurl Mt. Rushmore banner
Environmentalists who used National Park Service rock anchors to scale Mount Rushmore and unfurl an anti-global warming banner along President Abraham Lincoln's face Wednesday were charged with trespassing.
The 11 activists also were charged with the misdemeanor crime of climbing on Mount Rushmore National Monument, U.S. Attorney Marty Jackley said. They pleaded not guilty to all charges.
The environmental group Greenpeace said in a statement that its members used the park service's existing rock anchors to scale the mountain and unfurl a 65-foot (20-meter)-by-35-foot (10.7-meter) banner reading, "America honors leaders not politicians: Stop Global Warming."
Mount Rushmore Ranger Nav Singh said security warnings and tourists alerted officials when the banner was unrolled. The banner was removed about an hour after it was unfurled.
"You can't create any security system that's 100 percent fail-safe. There's just not enough resources for that," Singh said. "Determined individuals that are properly equipped and willing to do damage to government property can do this sort of thing."
Taken away in handcuffs and foot chainsTwelve people were taken away in handcuffs and foot chains. The 12th person taken into custody was released without being charged, Jackley said.
The National Park Service said in a statement that its staff and security detected the activists early and responded "within minutes." Visitors were not in danger, authorities said.
Park service staff remained at the mountain Wednesday to assess damage to the sculpture and security systems.
A number of demonstrations have taken place at Mount Rushmore over the years. In the early 1970s, American Indian Movement members tried several times to occupy and deface the monument. In August 1970, AIM members hung a banner with the words "Sioux Indian Power" on the monument.
In October 1987, Greenpeace activists tried unsuccessfully to unfurl a banner shaped like a gas mask over George Washington's face. That banner said, "We the People Say No to Acid Rain."
Security measures were beefed up after the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks.
The 11 activists charged Wednesday were released on their own recognizance after the court hearing. A trespassing conviction carries up to six months in prison and a $5,000 fine, prosecutors said.
The 11 activists also were charged with the misdemeanor crime of climbing on Mount Rushmore National Monument, U.S. Attorney Marty Jackley said. They pleaded not guilty to all charges.
The environmental group Greenpeace said in a statement that its members used the park service's existing rock anchors to scale the mountain and unfurl a 65-foot (20-meter)-by-35-foot (10.7-meter) banner reading, "America honors leaders not politicians: Stop Global Warming."
Mount Rushmore Ranger Nav Singh said security warnings and tourists alerted officials when the banner was unrolled. The banner was removed about an hour after it was unfurled.
"You can't create any security system that's 100 percent fail-safe. There's just not enough resources for that," Singh said. "Determined individuals that are properly equipped and willing to do damage to government property can do this sort of thing."
Taken away in handcuffs and foot chainsTwelve people were taken away in handcuffs and foot chains. The 12th person taken into custody was released without being charged, Jackley said.
The National Park Service said in a statement that its staff and security detected the activists early and responded "within minutes." Visitors were not in danger, authorities said.
Park service staff remained at the mountain Wednesday to assess damage to the sculpture and security systems.
A number of demonstrations have taken place at Mount Rushmore over the years. In the early 1970s, American Indian Movement members tried several times to occupy and deface the monument. In August 1970, AIM members hung a banner with the words "Sioux Indian Power" on the monument.
In October 1987, Greenpeace activists tried unsuccessfully to unfurl a banner shaped like a gas mask over George Washington's face. That banner said, "We the People Say No to Acid Rain."
Security measures were beefed up after the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks.
The 11 activists charged Wednesday were released on their own recognizance after the court hearing. A trespassing conviction carries up to six months in prison and a $5,000 fine, prosecutors said.
H2-WHOA! Australian town bans bottled water
Residents of a rural Australian town hoping to protect the earth and their wallets have voted to ban the sale of bottled water, the first community in the country — and possibly the world — to take such a drastic step in the growing backlash against the industry.
Residents of Bundanoon cheered after their near-unanimous approval of the measure at a town meeting Wednesday. It was the second blow to Australia's beverage industry in one day: Hours earlier, the New South Wales state premier banned all state departments and agencies from buying bottled water, calling it a waste of money and natural resources.
"I have never seen 350 Australians in the same room all agreeing to something," said Jon Dee, who helped spearhead the "Bundy on Tap" campaign in Bundanoon, a town of 2,500 about 100 miles (160 kilometers) south of Sydney. "It's time for people to realize they're being conned by the bottled water industry
First popularized in the 1980s as a convenient, healthy alternative to sugary drinks, bottled water today is often criticized as an environmental menace, with bottles cluttering landfills and requiring large amounts of energy to produce and transport.
America's 'Think Outside the Bottle' campaignOver the past few years, at least 60 cities in the United States and a handful of others in Canada and the United Kingdom have agreed to stop spending taxpayer dollars on bottled water, which is often consumed during city meetings, said Deborah Lapidus, organizer of Corporate Accountability International's "Think Outside the Bottle" campaign in the U.S.
But the Boston-based nonprofit corporate watchdog has never heard of a community banning the sale of bottled water, she said.
"I think what this town is doing is taking it one step further and recognizing that there's safe drinking water coming out of our taps," she said.
Bundanoon's battle against the bottle has been brewing for years, ever since a Sydney-based beverage company announced plans to build a water extraction plant in the town. Residents were furious over the prospect of an outsider taking their water, trucking it up to Sydney for processing and then selling it back to them. The town is still fighting the company's proposal in court.
Then in March, Huw Kingston, who owns the town's combination cafe and bike shop, had a thought: If the town was so against hosting a water bottling company, why not ban the end product?
Reusable bottles proposedTo prevent lost profit in the 10-or-so town businesses that sell bottled water, Kingston suggested they instead sell reusable bottles for about the same price. Residents will be able to fill the bottles for free at public water fountains, or pay a small fee to fill them with filtered water kept in the stores.
The measure will not impose penalties on those who don't comply when it goes into effect in September. Still, all the business owners voluntarily agreed to follow it, recognizing the financial and environmental drawbacks of bottled water, Kingston said.
On Wednesday, 356 people turned up for a vote — the biggest turnout ever at a town meeting.
Only two people voted no. One said he was worried banning bottled water would encourage people to drink sugary beverages. The other was Geoff Parker, director of the Australasian Bottled Water Institute — which represents the bottled water industry.
Australians spent 500 million Australian dollars ($390 million) on bottled water in 2008 — a hefty sum for a country of just under 22 million people.
Ban criticized for removing consumer choiceOn Thursday, Parker blasted the ban as unfair, misguided and ineffective.
He said the bottled water industry is a leader in researching ways to minimize bottled beverage impact on the environment. Plus, he said, the ban removes consumer choice.
"To take away someone's right to choose possibly the healthiest option in a shop fridge or a vending machine we think doesn't embrace common sense," he said.
But tap water is just as good as the stuff you find encased in plastic, said campaign organizer Dee, who also serves as director of the Australian environment group Do Something!
"We're hoping it will act as a catalyst to people's memories to remember the days when we did not have bottled water," he said. "What is 'Evian' spelled backwards? 'Naive.'"
Residents of Bundanoon cheered after their near-unanimous approval of the measure at a town meeting Wednesday. It was the second blow to Australia's beverage industry in one day: Hours earlier, the New South Wales state premier banned all state departments and agencies from buying bottled water, calling it a waste of money and natural resources.
"I have never seen 350 Australians in the same room all agreeing to something," said Jon Dee, who helped spearhead the "Bundy on Tap" campaign in Bundanoon, a town of 2,500 about 100 miles (160 kilometers) south of Sydney. "It's time for people to realize they're being conned by the bottled water industry
First popularized in the 1980s as a convenient, healthy alternative to sugary drinks, bottled water today is often criticized as an environmental menace, with bottles cluttering landfills and requiring large amounts of energy to produce and transport.
America's 'Think Outside the Bottle' campaignOver the past few years, at least 60 cities in the United States and a handful of others in Canada and the United Kingdom have agreed to stop spending taxpayer dollars on bottled water, which is often consumed during city meetings, said Deborah Lapidus, organizer of Corporate Accountability International's "Think Outside the Bottle" campaign in the U.S.
But the Boston-based nonprofit corporate watchdog has never heard of a community banning the sale of bottled water, she said.
"I think what this town is doing is taking it one step further and recognizing that there's safe drinking water coming out of our taps," she said.
Bundanoon's battle against the bottle has been brewing for years, ever since a Sydney-based beverage company announced plans to build a water extraction plant in the town. Residents were furious over the prospect of an outsider taking their water, trucking it up to Sydney for processing and then selling it back to them. The town is still fighting the company's proposal in court.
Then in March, Huw Kingston, who owns the town's combination cafe and bike shop, had a thought: If the town was so against hosting a water bottling company, why not ban the end product?
Reusable bottles proposedTo prevent lost profit in the 10-or-so town businesses that sell bottled water, Kingston suggested they instead sell reusable bottles for about the same price. Residents will be able to fill the bottles for free at public water fountains, or pay a small fee to fill them with filtered water kept in the stores.
The measure will not impose penalties on those who don't comply when it goes into effect in September. Still, all the business owners voluntarily agreed to follow it, recognizing the financial and environmental drawbacks of bottled water, Kingston said.
On Wednesday, 356 people turned up for a vote — the biggest turnout ever at a town meeting.
Only two people voted no. One said he was worried banning bottled water would encourage people to drink sugary beverages. The other was Geoff Parker, director of the Australasian Bottled Water Institute — which represents the bottled water industry.
Australians spent 500 million Australian dollars ($390 million) on bottled water in 2008 — a hefty sum for a country of just under 22 million people.
Ban criticized for removing consumer choiceOn Thursday, Parker blasted the ban as unfair, misguided and ineffective.
He said the bottled water industry is a leader in researching ways to minimize bottled beverage impact on the environment. Plus, he said, the ban removes consumer choice.
"To take away someone's right to choose possibly the healthiest option in a shop fridge or a vending machine we think doesn't embrace common sense," he said.
But tap water is just as good as the stuff you find encased in plastic, said campaign organizer Dee, who also serves as director of the Australian environment group Do Something!
"We're hoping it will act as a catalyst to people's memories to remember the days when we did not have bottled water," he said. "What is 'Evian' spelled backwards? 'Naive.'"
G-8 leaders reach climate deal, tackle economy
Targeting global warming, leaders of the world's richest industrial countries pledged Wednesday to seek dramatic cuts in greenhouse gas emissions by 2050 to slow dangerous climate change. They agreed for the first time that worldwide temperatures must not rise more than a few degrees.
However, their goals are nonbinding, and it's far from clear they will be met. The wealthy nations failed to persuade the leaders of big developing countries to promise to cut their own fast-spreading pollution, unable to overcome arguments that the well-established industrial giants aren't doing enough in the short term.
President Barack Obama and the leaders of the other wealthy Group of Eight nations agreed that global temperatures should be kept from rising by more than 2 degrees Celsius, or 3.6 degrees Fahrenheit, in the fight against weather changes caused by mankind.
he results left some Western leaders cheering. British Prime Minister Gordon Brown called the group's statement a "historic agreement." German Chancellor Angela Merkel said it was "a clear step forward."
Environmental groups said the effort fell far short in its bid to cut carbon emissions that come mainly from energy production and that trap heat in the atmosphere. Still, climate-change experts said the measure on trying to limit temperature increases — with agreement by both the G-8 and a 17-member group of industrialized and developing nations meeting here this week — was an important step.
Rich and poor nationsAn increase up to the limit the leaders set wouldn't eliminate the risk of runaway climate change but would reduce it, experts said. Even a slight increase in average temperatures could wreak havoc on farmers around the globe, as seasons shift, crops fail and storms and droughts ravage fields.
"After a long struggle, all of the G-8 nations have finally accepted the 2-degree goal," said Merkel.
The United States and other G-8 nations set a goal of reducing their greenhouse gas emissions by 80 percent or more by 2050. That's part of a plan to have all such gases, from rich and poor nations alike, fall by 50 percent globally by that year.
But developing countries feel the better-established nations aren't doing enough in the shorter term. They also worry that major reduction commitments on their parts, even if below the 80 percent target of rich nations, would hamper economic growth in China, India, Mexico, Brazil and many other non G-8 countries.
As for the target for limiting global temperatures, a summit statement said it reflected a "broad scientific view."
Until now, however, the U.S. had resisted embracing the target because it implied a commitment to dramatically change the way the world generates electricity, fuels its cars and builds its houses. U.S. businesses and the broader national economy could suffer badly under strict pollution limits, many argue.
Environmentalists welcomed the shift in U.S. policy but criticized the G-8's failure to agree on more immediate goals for the industrial countries. The long-term ambition "is too far off to matter — poor people are being hit today," said Antonio Hill, of the nonprofit Oxfam International.
Economic outlookThe G-8 leaders also addressed the global recession and agreed economic conditions are still too shaky to begin rolling back massive fiscal stimulus plans.
A statement said leaders "note some signs of stabilization," but it stressed the difficult outlook instead of counter-concerns over debt and high spending.
The leaders did commit to preparing exit strategies from the "unprecedented and concerted action" that has been taken to boost growth through government spending, low interest rates and expansive monetary policy. Germany, worried about running up crippling debt, has pressed for spending restraint, but other major economies including Britain, Japan and the United States won't rule out the need to pump in more money.
However, their goals are nonbinding, and it's far from clear they will be met. The wealthy nations failed to persuade the leaders of big developing countries to promise to cut their own fast-spreading pollution, unable to overcome arguments that the well-established industrial giants aren't doing enough in the short term.
President Barack Obama and the leaders of the other wealthy Group of Eight nations agreed that global temperatures should be kept from rising by more than 2 degrees Celsius, or 3.6 degrees Fahrenheit, in the fight against weather changes caused by mankind.
he results left some Western leaders cheering. British Prime Minister Gordon Brown called the group's statement a "historic agreement." German Chancellor Angela Merkel said it was "a clear step forward."
Environmental groups said the effort fell far short in its bid to cut carbon emissions that come mainly from energy production and that trap heat in the atmosphere. Still, climate-change experts said the measure on trying to limit temperature increases — with agreement by both the G-8 and a 17-member group of industrialized and developing nations meeting here this week — was an important step.
Rich and poor nationsAn increase up to the limit the leaders set wouldn't eliminate the risk of runaway climate change but would reduce it, experts said. Even a slight increase in average temperatures could wreak havoc on farmers around the globe, as seasons shift, crops fail and storms and droughts ravage fields.
"After a long struggle, all of the G-8 nations have finally accepted the 2-degree goal," said Merkel.
The United States and other G-8 nations set a goal of reducing their greenhouse gas emissions by 80 percent or more by 2050. That's part of a plan to have all such gases, from rich and poor nations alike, fall by 50 percent globally by that year.
But developing countries feel the better-established nations aren't doing enough in the shorter term. They also worry that major reduction commitments on their parts, even if below the 80 percent target of rich nations, would hamper economic growth in China, India, Mexico, Brazil and many other non G-8 countries.
As for the target for limiting global temperatures, a summit statement said it reflected a "broad scientific view."
Until now, however, the U.S. had resisted embracing the target because it implied a commitment to dramatically change the way the world generates electricity, fuels its cars and builds its houses. U.S. businesses and the broader national economy could suffer badly under strict pollution limits, many argue.
Environmentalists welcomed the shift in U.S. policy but criticized the G-8's failure to agree on more immediate goals for the industrial countries. The long-term ambition "is too far off to matter — poor people are being hit today," said Antonio Hill, of the nonprofit Oxfam International.
Economic outlookThe G-8 leaders also addressed the global recession and agreed economic conditions are still too shaky to begin rolling back massive fiscal stimulus plans.
A statement said leaders "note some signs of stabilization," but it stressed the difficult outlook instead of counter-concerns over debt and high spending.
The leaders did commit to preparing exit strategies from the "unprecedented and concerted action" that has been taken to boost growth through government spending, low interest rates and expansive monetary policy. Germany, worried about running up crippling debt, has pressed for spending restraint, but other major economies including Britain, Japan and the United States won't rule out the need to pump in more money.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)