A runaway spurt of global warming
55 million years ago turned Earth into a hothouse but how this happened remains worryingly unclear, scientists said
Previous research into this period, called the Palaeocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum, or PETM, estimates the planet's surface temperature blasted upwards by between five and nine degrees Celsius in just a few thousand years. The Arctic Ocean warmed to 23 C, or about the temperature of a lukewarm bath. How PETM happened is unclear but climatologists are eager to find out, as this could shed light on aspects of global warming. What seems clear is that a huge amount of heat-trapping "greenhouse" gases -- natural, as opposed to man-made -- were disgorged in a very short time. The theorised sources include volcanic activity and the sudden release of methane hydrates in the ocean. Even though there are big differences between Earth's geology and ice cover then and now, the findings are relevant as they highlight the risk of hidden mechanisms that add dramatically to warming, says the paper. After the big warm-up, the planet eventually cooled around 100,000 years later, but not before there had been a mass extinction, paving the way to the biodiversity that is familiar to us today.
Saturday, July 18, 2009
Emission compromise at cost of development?
The war of words within the government on the MEF statement has got heated up. If the UN negotiations were to adopt the concepts India has signed on at theMajor Emitters' Forum on climate change, the tables could turn against India, an official negotiator has warned.
. While warning of the spin being given to the Prime Minister's signing on to the declaration in Italy, the negotiator has explained in an internal note how the ideas in the political statement, if adopted, could impact India's growth. But with the special envoy to the PM and the chief negotiator, Shyam Saran, coming out in defence of the statement the rift in the negotiators has now sprung out of the bureaucratic corridors. The negotiator, continuing to be a part of the government think tank on climate issues and still consulted by the PM and the special envoy along with other negotiators after the Italy meet, refused to comment when contacted. But in his correspondence with other colleagues, he has warned that while India has accepted that it would go below the `business-as-usual' scenario, for a rapidly developing country the phrase itself has little meaning. Only progressively lower energy intensity and parallel lowering of poverty is the real measure of India walking on a green path to development. He points out that the MEF declaration even when coupled with the developed world's seemingly ambitious target of cutting emissions to 85% below 1990 levels by 2050 would allow the rich nations to occupy more than their equitable carbon space in the atmosphere in perpetuity while leaving India stranded at much lower levels. Other observers have concluded that under the MEF model, even China and South Africa would be able to surge far ahead of India. He has written that under an `equitable allocation of environmental space' this occupation of excess carbon space would have to be paid for by the rich nations. "If duly adjusted for time value of money, it amount to trillions of dollars in unpaid climate debt," he has said. He points out that even the British economist Nicolas Stern, whose work on climate is recognized worldwide, accepts it so. He says that in a fair deal, the industrialized nations would therefore have to pay the full costs of technology and capacity building of reducing emissions in the developing world. But the MEF statement that India has signed on to, though calling it a mere political line not really enforceable at the UN negotiations, has now weakened the link between actions that India takes and the costs that the rich nations would bear. At the negotiations, India has demanded full costs passed through the UN convention but at the MEF the government has agreed to only supportive costs including those given outside the UN and through private sector channels. With all the negotiators TOI contacted refusing to talk, the controversy may get buried as India would now have to prepare to explain its moves to its allies in the G77 and to hunt for holding on to its negotiating space at the next round of UN negotiations in Bonn in August.
. While warning of the spin being given to the Prime Minister's signing on to the declaration in Italy, the negotiator has explained in an internal note how the ideas in the political statement, if adopted, could impact India's growth. But with the special envoy to the PM and the chief negotiator, Shyam Saran, coming out in defence of the statement the rift in the negotiators has now sprung out of the bureaucratic corridors. The negotiator, continuing to be a part of the government think tank on climate issues and still consulted by the PM and the special envoy along with other negotiators after the Italy meet, refused to comment when contacted. But in his correspondence with other colleagues, he has warned that while India has accepted that it would go below the `business-as-usual' scenario, for a rapidly developing country the phrase itself has little meaning. Only progressively lower energy intensity and parallel lowering of poverty is the real measure of India walking on a green path to development. He points out that the MEF declaration even when coupled with the developed world's seemingly ambitious target of cutting emissions to 85% below 1990 levels by 2050 would allow the rich nations to occupy more than their equitable carbon space in the atmosphere in perpetuity while leaving India stranded at much lower levels. Other observers have concluded that under the MEF model, even China and South Africa would be able to surge far ahead of India. He has written that under an `equitable allocation of environmental space' this occupation of excess carbon space would have to be paid for by the rich nations. "If duly adjusted for time value of money, it amount to trillions of dollars in unpaid climate debt," he has said. He points out that even the British economist Nicolas Stern, whose work on climate is recognized worldwide, accepts it so. He says that in a fair deal, the industrialized nations would therefore have to pay the full costs of technology and capacity building of reducing emissions in the developing world. But the MEF statement that India has signed on to, though calling it a mere political line not really enforceable at the UN negotiations, has now weakened the link between actions that India takes and the costs that the rich nations would bear. At the negotiations, India has demanded full costs passed through the UN convention but at the MEF the government has agreed to only supportive costs including those given outside the UN and through private sector channels. With all the negotiators TOI contacted refusing to talk, the controversy may get buried as India would now have to prepare to explain its moves to its allies in the G77 and to hunt for holding on to its negotiating space at the next round of UN negotiations in Bonn in August.
Ganga, Yamuna "no cleaner" now than 20 yrs ago, says Ramesh
In a frank admission, Government on Friday said in Lok Sabha that rivers Ganga and Yamuna were "no cleaner" now as they were two decades ago despite spending over Rs.1,700 crore.
"I admit with full responsibility that Ganga and Yamuna are no cleaner than 20 years ago," said environment minister Jairam Ramesh while responding to a Calling Attention Motion on checking pollution in rivers and lakes in India. He said a "determined and renewed effort" was required to cleanse these major rivers. To a question by BJP member Adityanath on the cleanliness of the two major rivers of North India, Ramesh said he could provide figures on their pollution levels but "I myself don't believe these numbers. ... For a layman, the answer is a depressing 'no'". While over Rs 816 crore was spent on two phases of the Ganga Action Plan (GAP), Rs 682 crore was spent on the first phase of the Yamuna Action Plan (YAP) in the first phase and another Rs 190 crore on the second phase so far, he said. Referring to the National Ganga River Basin Authority headed by Prime Minister Manmohan Singh, he said global tender for project consultants to prepare a basin management plan have attracted 30 bids and the selection would be done in the next two months.
"I admit with full responsibility that Ganga and Yamuna are no cleaner than 20 years ago," said environment minister Jairam Ramesh while responding to a Calling Attention Motion on checking pollution in rivers and lakes in India. He said a "determined and renewed effort" was required to cleanse these major rivers. To a question by BJP member Adityanath on the cleanliness of the two major rivers of North India, Ramesh said he could provide figures on their pollution levels but "I myself don't believe these numbers. ... For a layman, the answer is a depressing 'no'". While over Rs 816 crore was spent on two phases of the Ganga Action Plan (GAP), Rs 682 crore was spent on the first phase of the Yamuna Action Plan (YAP) in the first phase and another Rs 190 crore on the second phase so far, he said. Referring to the National Ganga River Basin Authority headed by Prime Minister Manmohan Singh, he said global tender for project consultants to prepare a basin management plan have attracted 30 bids and the selection would be done in the next two months.
Wal-Mart plans green ratings for its products
If they green it, will we shop? Wal-Mart Stores Inc. officially unveiled its widely rumored plan Thursday to slap "eco-ratings" on the hundreds of thousands of products in its stores. The world's largest retailer is betting that shoppers increasingly will care how green their purchases are -- and maybe even pay more for environmentally friendly merchandise.The green ratings will take years to show up on the chain's shelves. In the first phase of its three-part initiative, the Bentonville, Ark., retail giant will ask its more than 100,000 suppliers questions about their business practices, such as the amount of water they use in producing items and the locations of their factories. The goal is to develop a green index for Wal-Mart products similar to the nutrition label found on the packaging for food products. "Customers want products that are more efficient, that last longer and perform better," Wal-Mart Chief Executive Mike Duke said in a statement. "And increasingly they want information about the entire life cycle of a product so they can feel good about buying it. . . . We do not see this as a trend that will fade."
Experts have said the ambitious program, details of which had been trickling out for days on the Web, probably will spur suppliers to redesign products to reduce their environmental impact and improve their scores. And that could cause broad changes in manufacturing.Many of Wal-Mart's suppliers already have taken their own steps to become more eco-friendly. At Levi Strauss & Co., Michael Kobori, vice president of social and environmental sustainability, said the jeans maker has set water-quality standards for its suppliers and now recommends that its jeans be washed in cold water to save energy.Kobori said the San Francisco company was pleased with Wal-Mart's new initiative and called it the next logical step to improve the industry."It sends the right signal to the marketplace and the right signal to the supply chain that sustainability is important," he said. "We hope it changes the game."entally friendly merchandise.
Experts have said the ambitious program, details of which had been trickling out for days on the Web, probably will spur suppliers to redesign products to reduce their environmental impact and improve their scores. And that could cause broad changes in manufacturing.Many of Wal-Mart's suppliers already have taken their own steps to become more eco-friendly. At Levi Strauss & Co., Michael Kobori, vice president of social and environmental sustainability, said the jeans maker has set water-quality standards for its suppliers and now recommends that its jeans be washed in cold water to save energy.Kobori said the San Francisco company was pleased with Wal-Mart's new initiative and called it the next logical step to improve the industry."It sends the right signal to the marketplace and the right signal to the supply chain that sustainability is important," he said. "We hope it changes the game."entally friendly merchandise.
California panel decides against requiring warning labels for products containing bisphenol A
A state panel will not require warning labels on metal cans, plastic bottles and other products that contain bisphenol A, despite more than 200 studies that have linked the chemical to cancer and reproductive problems.Wednesday's unanimous decision may speak to the limitations of the state Environmental Protection Agency's Developmental and Reproductive Toxicant Identification Committee. Dorothy Burk, chairwoman of the committee, acknowledged its reach is limited.
"By law we can only look at prenatal exposure, so that's why we struggle so long," she said. "We may be thinking there is something here but we just don't have enough evidence to say it clearly causes this."Critics note the panel also failed to identify secondhand smoke as a reproductive toxin until 2006, and has voted to warn the public against only one chemical in the last three years."This isn't exactly a committee that's on the cutting edge of public health decisions in California," said Gretchen Lee Salter, policy manager at the Breast Cancer Fund.
The seven-member panel of scientists and physicians provide one venue through which products are required to display a warning label as part of Proposition 65.Under the proposition, which was approved by voters in 1986, chemicals can be added to the state's list of substances known to cause cancer and reproductive toxicity if an "authoritative body" establishes such a link.Following the panel's decision, the Natural Resources Defense Council presented a petition demanding that BPA be listed because a study by the National Toxicology Program -- a state-recognized authoritative body -- had found "some concern" about the chemical's impact on the brains, behaviors, and prostate glands of fetuses, infants and children.Meanwhile, some retailers have pulled products containing the chemical and many consumers have stopped buying plastic baby bottles.The state Senate voted in June to ban BPA in food and drink containers for children under the age of 3.The Assembly is expected to vote on the ban later this summer.Although the panel may not have found the scientific evidence strong enough to warn the public, the panel's chairwoman said she abides by the "precautionary principle.""I think if I had a baby I probably would try to use glass," Burk said.
"By law we can only look at prenatal exposure, so that's why we struggle so long," she said. "We may be thinking there is something here but we just don't have enough evidence to say it clearly causes this."Critics note the panel also failed to identify secondhand smoke as a reproductive toxin until 2006, and has voted to warn the public against only one chemical in the last three years."This isn't exactly a committee that's on the cutting edge of public health decisions in California," said Gretchen Lee Salter, policy manager at the Breast Cancer Fund.
The seven-member panel of scientists and physicians provide one venue through which products are required to display a warning label as part of Proposition 65.Under the proposition, which was approved by voters in 1986, chemicals can be added to the state's list of substances known to cause cancer and reproductive toxicity if an "authoritative body" establishes such a link.Following the panel's decision, the Natural Resources Defense Council presented a petition demanding that BPA be listed because a study by the National Toxicology Program -- a state-recognized authoritative body -- had found "some concern" about the chemical's impact on the brains, behaviors, and prostate glands of fetuses, infants and children.Meanwhile, some retailers have pulled products containing the chemical and many consumers have stopped buying plastic baby bottles.The state Senate voted in June to ban BPA in food and drink containers for children under the age of 3.The Assembly is expected to vote on the ban later this summer.Although the panel may not have found the scientific evidence strong enough to warn the public, the panel's chairwoman said she abides by the "precautionary principle.""I think if I had a baby I probably would try to use glass," Burk said.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)