One of the trickiest issues nations face in trying to reduce global greenhouse-gas emissions is the problem of fairness. The U.S., Western Europe, Japan, and a few other countries have a high standard of living, thanks largely to a long history of getting energy from burning cheap fossil fuels—coal, oil, and natural gas—which we now know are the main source of planet-warming carbon dioxide. But putting a lid on emissions makes energy more expensive, which means that developing countries wouldn't be able to improve their standard of living so easily. Why, they wonder, should they have to work harder than the already-developed countries did for their chance at the good life?
Back in 1997, the answer, enshrined in the Kyoto Protocol, was that they shouldn't. The document only assigned cutbacks to industrialized nations; that's one reason why American politicians rejected it. Now, though, China is a bigger greenhouse-gas emitter than the U.S. overall, and scientists have a better understanding of how deeply emissions need to be reduced globally to avoid overheating the planet. So the problem is more acute while the question of fairness is no less thorny.
But a new paper just published in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences may offer a way out—or at least the outlines of one. Instead of assigning limits based on a country's overall emissions, the focus should be on the highest emitters, no matter where they're located, argue lead author Shoibal Chakravarty, of Princeton University, and several colleagues. "Half of all emissions," Chakravarty says, "come from about 10 percent of the world's population." More of them are obviously in industrial countries, but, says Massimo Tavoni, another coauthor, "there are also people in China who drive Ferraris and fly a lot." So in this proposed new scheme, they write, "All of the world's high-CO2-emitting individuals are treated the same, regardless of where they live."
One way to do this is to put a cap on how much each person is allowed to emit, and calculate national targets from there. Say you want to guarantee that by 2030, emissions are no greater than they are today—about 30 billion metric tons of CO2 annually. Without some sort of cap, that figure is projected to rise to 43 billion by 2030.
placeAd2(commercialNode,'bigbox',false,'')
But you can reach the goal if you assign a specific emissions limit to every individual in the world of 10.8 tons per person per year—and there are currently more than 1 billion people emitting above that level. "About a quarter of those," says Chakravarty, "live in the U.S., a quarter live in China, a quarter live in countries of the OECD [the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, which is mostly European] and a quarter in the rest of the world."
"The average American," says Tavoni, "emits about 20 tons today, so that will be pretty tough. It tells you that a lot of Americans will have to reduce." In Europe, the average is closer to 10, so on average nobody will have to cut back, but in practice, anyone living above the limit will. (For the record, nobody keeps track of individual emissions, but it turns out, unsurprisingly, that high-income levels are correlated with high emissions. The scientists used World Bank data to estimate how many individuals in each country are above a certain emissions cap.) China's average is about four tons per person, and India's is about one—and the same rules apply. "So it turns out that even poor countries have to do something."
The authors also note that many people live entirely outside the fossil-fuel economy, in extreme poverty. "You want to bring these abjectly poor people up to the level of ordinary poverty," says Rob Socolow, another Princeton University coauthor, "to give them minimal electricity, access to motorized transport, even if it's only a motorbike, and some sort of cooking fuel that doesn't have to be gathered by hand." To do that, say the authors, the world could impose a carbon-emissions floor of, say one ton per year (which would lower the worldwide cap from 10.8 to about 10.3 tons). "There's an ideology out there," says Socolow, "that says, 'When you go to help the poorest people, don't hook them on fossil fuels.' This to me is outrageous. These are the people who deserve the cheapest solutions to their problems possible. Sure, sometimes it'll be biofuels or photovoltaic cells. But sometimes it will be kerosene, and that's just fine."
The authors don't pretend that their idea is the final word on dealing with the fairness problem—nor that it's the first. "At some point," says Chakravarty, "we found out others had thought about more or less similar schemes, although they differ in detail." But when more than 100 nations meet in Copenhagen next December at the Conference of the Parties to negotiate a successor agreement to the Kyoto Protocol, he says, ideas like these might just help break the fairness logjam.
Saturday, July 25, 2009
Climate-Change Calculus
Among the phrases you really, really do not want to hear from climate scientists are: "that really shocked us," "we had no idea how bad it was," and "reality is well ahead of the climate models." Yet in speaking to researchers who focus on the Arctic, you hear comments like these so regularly they begin to sound like the thumping refrain from Jaws: annoying harbingers of something that you really, really wish would go away.
Let me deconstruct the phrases above. The "shock" came when the International Polar Year, a global consortium studying the Arctic, froze a small vessel into the sea ice off eastern Siberia in September 2006. Norwegian explorer Fridtjof Nansen had done the same thing a century before, and his Fram, carried by the drifting ice, emerged off eastern Greenland 34 months later. IPY scientists thought their Tara would take 24 to 36 months. But it reached Greenland in just 14 months, stark evidence that the sea ice found a more open, ice-free, and thus faster path westward thanks to Arctic melting.
The loss of Arctic sea ice "is well ahead of" what the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change forecast, largely because emissions of carbon dioxide have topped what the panel—which foolishly expected nations to care enough about global warming to do something about it—projected. "The models just aren't keeping up" with the reality of CO2 emissions, says the IPY's David Carlson. Although policymakers hoped climate models would prove to be alarmist, the opposite is true, particularly in the Arctic.
The IPCC may also have been too cautious on Greenland, assuming that the melting of its glaciers would contribute little to sea-level rise. Some studies found that Greenland's glacial streams were surging and surface ice was morphing into liquid lakes, but others made a strong case that those surges and melts were aberrations, not long-term trends. It seemed to be a standoff. More reliable data, however, such as satellite measurements of Greenland's mass, show that it is losing about 52 cubic miles per year and that the melting is accelerating. So while the IPCC projected that sea level would rise 16 inches this century, "now a more likely figure is one meter [39 inches] at the least," says Carlson. "Chest high instead of knee high, with half to two thirds of that due to Greenland." Hence the "no idea how bad it was."
The frozen north had another surprise in store. Scientists have long known that permafrost, if it melted, would release carbon, exacerbating global warming, which would melt more permafrost, which would add more to global warming, on and on in a feedback loop. But estimates of how much carbon is locked into Arctic permafrost were, it turns out, woefully off. "It's about three times as much as was thought, about 1.6 trillion metric tons, which has surprised a lot of people," says Edward Schuur of the University of Florida. "It means the potential for positive feedbacks is greatly increased." That 1.6 trillion tons is about twice the amount now in the atmosphere. And Schuur's measurements of how quickly CO2 can come out of permafrost, reported in May, were also a surprise: 1 billion to 2 billion tons per year. Cars and light trucks in the U.S. emit about 300 million tons per year.
In an insightful observation in The Guardian this month, Jim Watson of the University of Sussex wrote that "a new breed of climate sceptic is becoming more common": someone who doubts not the science but the policy response. Given the pathetic (non)action on global warming at the G8 summit, and the fact that the energy/climate bill passed by the House of Representatives is so full of holes and escape hatches that it has barely a prayer of averting dangerous climate change, skepticism that the world will get its act together seems appropriate. For instance, the G8, led by Europe, has vowed to take steps to keep global warming below 2 degrees Celsius by reducing CO2 emissions. We're now at 0.8 degree. But the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is already enough to raise the mercury 2 degrees. The only reason it hasn't is that the atmosphere is full of crap (dust and aerosols that contribute to asthma, emphysema, and other diseases) that acts as a global coolant. As that pollution is reduced for health reasons, we're going to blast right through 2 degrees, which is enough to ex-acerbate droughts and storms, wreak havoc on agriculture, and produce a planet warmer than it's been in millions of years. The 2-degree promise is a mirage.
The test of whether the nations of the world care enough to act will come in December, when 192 countries meet in Copenhagen to hammer out a climate treaty. Carlson vows that IPY will finish its Arctic assessment in time for the meeting, and one conclusion is already clear. "A consensus has developed during IPY that the Greenland ice sheet will disappear," he says
Let me deconstruct the phrases above. The "shock" came when the International Polar Year, a global consortium studying the Arctic, froze a small vessel into the sea ice off eastern Siberia in September 2006. Norwegian explorer Fridtjof Nansen had done the same thing a century before, and his Fram, carried by the drifting ice, emerged off eastern Greenland 34 months later. IPY scientists thought their Tara would take 24 to 36 months. But it reached Greenland in just 14 months, stark evidence that the sea ice found a more open, ice-free, and thus faster path westward thanks to Arctic melting.
The loss of Arctic sea ice "is well ahead of" what the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change forecast, largely because emissions of carbon dioxide have topped what the panel—which foolishly expected nations to care enough about global warming to do something about it—projected. "The models just aren't keeping up" with the reality of CO2 emissions, says the IPY's David Carlson. Although policymakers hoped climate models would prove to be alarmist, the opposite is true, particularly in the Arctic.
The IPCC may also have been too cautious on Greenland, assuming that the melting of its glaciers would contribute little to sea-level rise. Some studies found that Greenland's glacial streams were surging and surface ice was morphing into liquid lakes, but others made a strong case that those surges and melts were aberrations, not long-term trends. It seemed to be a standoff. More reliable data, however, such as satellite measurements of Greenland's mass, show that it is losing about 52 cubic miles per year and that the melting is accelerating. So while the IPCC projected that sea level would rise 16 inches this century, "now a more likely figure is one meter [39 inches] at the least," says Carlson. "Chest high instead of knee high, with half to two thirds of that due to Greenland." Hence the "no idea how bad it was."
The frozen north had another surprise in store. Scientists have long known that permafrost, if it melted, would release carbon, exacerbating global warming, which would melt more permafrost, which would add more to global warming, on and on in a feedback loop. But estimates of how much carbon is locked into Arctic permafrost were, it turns out, woefully off. "It's about three times as much as was thought, about 1.6 trillion metric tons, which has surprised a lot of people," says Edward Schuur of the University of Florida. "It means the potential for positive feedbacks is greatly increased." That 1.6 trillion tons is about twice the amount now in the atmosphere. And Schuur's measurements of how quickly CO2 can come out of permafrost, reported in May, were also a surprise: 1 billion to 2 billion tons per year. Cars and light trucks in the U.S. emit about 300 million tons per year.
In an insightful observation in The Guardian this month, Jim Watson of the University of Sussex wrote that "a new breed of climate sceptic is becoming more common": someone who doubts not the science but the policy response. Given the pathetic (non)action on global warming at the G8 summit, and the fact that the energy/climate bill passed by the House of Representatives is so full of holes and escape hatches that it has barely a prayer of averting dangerous climate change, skepticism that the world will get its act together seems appropriate. For instance, the G8, led by Europe, has vowed to take steps to keep global warming below 2 degrees Celsius by reducing CO2 emissions. We're now at 0.8 degree. But the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is already enough to raise the mercury 2 degrees. The only reason it hasn't is that the atmosphere is full of crap (dust and aerosols that contribute to asthma, emphysema, and other diseases) that acts as a global coolant. As that pollution is reduced for health reasons, we're going to blast right through 2 degrees, which is enough to ex-acerbate droughts and storms, wreak havoc on agriculture, and produce a planet warmer than it's been in millions of years. The 2-degree promise is a mirage.
The test of whether the nations of the world care enough to act will come in December, when 192 countries meet in Copenhagen to hammer out a climate treaty. Carlson vows that IPY will finish its Arctic assessment in time for the meeting, and one conclusion is already clear. "A consensus has developed during IPY that the Greenland ice sheet will disappear," he says
Drought turning Texas as dry as toast
Off-duty police officers are patrolling streets, looking for people illegally watering their lawns and gardens. Residents are encouraged to stealthily rat out water scofflaws on a 24-hour hot line. One Texas lake has dipped so low that stolen cars dumped years ago are peeking up through the waterline.
The nation's most drought-stricken state is deep-frying under relentless 100-degree days and waterways are drying up, especially in the hardest-hit area covering about 350 miles across south-central Texas. That's making folks worried about the water supply — and how long it might last.
"The water table's fallin' and fallin' and fallin,' like a whole lot of other people around here," said Wendell McLeod, general manager of Liberty Hill Water Supply Corp. and a 60-year resident of the town northwest of Austin. "This is the worst I can recall seeing it. I tell you, it's just pretty bleak."
There are 230 Texas public water systems under mandatory water restrictions, including those in and near San Antonio, Dallas, Houston and Austin. Another 60 or so have asked for voluntary cutbacks. Water levels are down significantly in lakes, rivers and wells around Texas.
Liberty Hill's Web site urges its 1,400 or so residents in all-red letters to stop using unnecessary water with this plea: "If we follow these strict guidelines, we may have drinking water." The town's shortage eased some with the arrival this week of 35,000 gallons a day from a nearby water system, but residents are still worried.
77 Texas counties in severe droughtAccording to drought statistics released by the U.S. Department of Agriculture, 77 of Texas' 254 counties are in extreme or exceptional drought, the most severe categories. No other state in the continental U.S. has even one area in those categories. John Nielsen-Gammon, the Texas state climatologist at Texas A&M University, said he expects harsh drought conditions to last at least another month.
In the bone-dry San Antonio-Austin area, the conditions that started in 2007 are being compared to the devastating drought of the 1950s. There have been 36 days of 100 degrees or more this year in an area where there are usually closer to 12.
Among the most obvious problems are the lack of water in Lake Travis and Lake Buchanan near Austin, two massive reservoirs along the Colorado River that provide drinking water for more than 1 million people and also are popular boating and swimming spots. Streams and tributaries that feed the lakes have "all but dried up," according to the Lower Colorado River Authority.
Lake Travis is more empty than full, down 54 percent. All but one of the 12 boating ramps are closed because they no longer reach the water, and the last may go soon. The receding waters have even revealed old stolen cars shoved into the lake years ago, authorities said.
There's no threat to the area's drinking water supply, Rose said, but there are increased boating hazards from the "sometimes islands" that pop up when the water's low, increased risk of wildfires, and more interactions between humans and wildlife.
"We're seeing deer and armadillo and other animals in places we don't typically see them," he said. "They're starving for water and food."
At the Oasis, a popular restaurant with a deck overlooking Lake Travis, the islands are even starting to grow heavy vegetation.
"You can see all the white on the rocks where the waterline used to be," said Becca Torbert, a server at the restaurant who says the boat traffic is down, but the water is down even more.
San Antonio policing water offendersSan Antonio, which relies on the Edwards Aquifer for its water, is enduring its driest 23-month period since weather data was recorded starting in 1885, according to the National Weather Service. The aquifer's been hovering just above 640 feet deep, and if it dips below that the city will issue its harshest watering restrictions yet.
The nation's most drought-stricken state is deep-frying under relentless 100-degree days and waterways are drying up, especially in the hardest-hit area covering about 350 miles across south-central Texas. That's making folks worried about the water supply — and how long it might last.
"The water table's fallin' and fallin' and fallin,' like a whole lot of other people around here," said Wendell McLeod, general manager of Liberty Hill Water Supply Corp. and a 60-year resident of the town northwest of Austin. "This is the worst I can recall seeing it. I tell you, it's just pretty bleak."
There are 230 Texas public water systems under mandatory water restrictions, including those in and near San Antonio, Dallas, Houston and Austin. Another 60 or so have asked for voluntary cutbacks. Water levels are down significantly in lakes, rivers and wells around Texas.
Liberty Hill's Web site urges its 1,400 or so residents in all-red letters to stop using unnecessary water with this plea: "If we follow these strict guidelines, we may have drinking water." The town's shortage eased some with the arrival this week of 35,000 gallons a day from a nearby water system, but residents are still worried.
77 Texas counties in severe droughtAccording to drought statistics released by the U.S. Department of Agriculture, 77 of Texas' 254 counties are in extreme or exceptional drought, the most severe categories. No other state in the continental U.S. has even one area in those categories. John Nielsen-Gammon, the Texas state climatologist at Texas A&M University, said he expects harsh drought conditions to last at least another month.
In the bone-dry San Antonio-Austin area, the conditions that started in 2007 are being compared to the devastating drought of the 1950s. There have been 36 days of 100 degrees or more this year in an area where there are usually closer to 12.
Among the most obvious problems are the lack of water in Lake Travis and Lake Buchanan near Austin, two massive reservoirs along the Colorado River that provide drinking water for more than 1 million people and also are popular boating and swimming spots. Streams and tributaries that feed the lakes have "all but dried up," according to the Lower Colorado River Authority.
Lake Travis is more empty than full, down 54 percent. All but one of the 12 boating ramps are closed because they no longer reach the water, and the last may go soon. The receding waters have even revealed old stolen cars shoved into the lake years ago, authorities said.
There's no threat to the area's drinking water supply, Rose said, but there are increased boating hazards from the "sometimes islands" that pop up when the water's low, increased risk of wildfires, and more interactions between humans and wildlife.
"We're seeing deer and armadillo and other animals in places we don't typically see them," he said. "They're starving for water and food."
At the Oasis, a popular restaurant with a deck overlooking Lake Travis, the islands are even starting to grow heavy vegetation.
"You can see all the white on the rocks where the waterline used to be," said Becca Torbert, a server at the restaurant who says the boat traffic is down, but the water is down even more.
San Antonio policing water offendersSan Antonio, which relies on the Edwards Aquifer for its water, is enduring its driest 23-month period since weather data was recorded starting in 1885, according to the National Weather Service. The aquifer's been hovering just above 640 feet deep, and if it dips below that the city will issue its harshest watering restrictions yet.
European environment ministers stress need for acceleration in negotiations
The EU presidency held the ministerial meeting in Åre, Sweden where the 27 EU environment ministers focused on issues in preparation for the climate change negotiations in the autumn.
Sweden holds the rotating European Union Presidency for the second half of the current year 2009 till the end of the year. The EU is a unique negotiating machine, with its 27 countries all with different skills and contacts.
It is now less than five months until the UN Climate Change Conference in Copenhagen, where a new agreement will be reached. The EU plays a leading role in the international negotiations and is keen to reach an ambitious climate change agreement in December.
The chairs of the two advisory groups for the UN climate change negotiations, Michael Zammit Cutajar and John Ashe, presented their view of the current situation in the talks and what was needed in order to reach a successful conclusion in Copenhagen.
The view was that the negotiations are moving far too slowly, but that there are also negotiations underway in parallel processes, such as in the G8, a group made up of eight large industrialized economies, the Major Economies Forum (MEF), which gathers both industrialized countries and rapidly growing economies such as China and India, and bilateral meetings that can boost the negotiation process.
Denmark’s Minister for the Climate and Energy Connie Hedegaard reported during the meeting from the Greenland Dialogue, an informal network of environment ministers from all over the world, and Italy’s Environment Minister Stefania Prestigiacomo reported from the G8 and MEF.
In the subsequent discussion, it was confirmed the two-degree target is significant and gives new momentum ahead of the continued negotiations in the autumn.
The two-degree target, which the MEF countries supported at the beginning of July, means that the global temperature may increase by a maximum of two degrees compared with pre-industrial levels.
The G8 countries supported a 50% reduction in global emissions and an 80% reduction on the part of industrialized countries. The countries of the G8 and MEF are together responsible for around 80% of the world's emissions.
In the discussion, the EU’s trendsetting role in reaching successful conclusions at the G8 and MEF was emphasized, and strong support was given for continued clear EU leadership. ?“The EU has taken the lead by presenting the most ambitious goal that any group of countries has established. From now until Copenhagen, we will take the lead to speed up the negotiations. Other countries need to follow the EU’s example and do more. The gap between what science demands and the offers that are on the table is far too wide”, said Andreas Carlgren.
Carlgren continued: “The EU countries will use all our contacts in order to work together to increase the possibilities of reaching an ambitious climate change agreement with sufficient global emissions reductions and financing. We need clear reductions in emissions, both from industrialized countries and rapidly growing economies.”
EU COMMISSIONER DIMAS
The discussions also touched on financing and comparable measures. European Environment Commissioner Stavros Dimas presented a report on financing.?
"There is a significant short-term need to help developing countries with strategies for development with reduced emissions, and measures for adaptation to a changing climate", said Commissioner Dimas.
Commissioner Dimas also presented a report on comparable measures and the process for the EU's ‘scaling up’ to 30% if a sufficiently ambitious agreement is reached in Copenhagen. The heads of state and government have decided that the EU will contribute with a 30% reduction in emissions by 2020, compared with 1990 levels, if other industrialized countries make comparable commitments and the rapidly growing economies commit to significant measures.
“Our offer is not unconditional. We will use the increase from 20 to 30% as a lever to gain adequate offers from other countries”, commented Andreas Carlgren
Sweden holds the rotating European Union Presidency for the second half of the current year 2009 till the end of the year. The EU is a unique negotiating machine, with its 27 countries all with different skills and contacts.
It is now less than five months until the UN Climate Change Conference in Copenhagen, where a new agreement will be reached. The EU plays a leading role in the international negotiations and is keen to reach an ambitious climate change agreement in December.
The chairs of the two advisory groups for the UN climate change negotiations, Michael Zammit Cutajar and John Ashe, presented their view of the current situation in the talks and what was needed in order to reach a successful conclusion in Copenhagen.
The view was that the negotiations are moving far too slowly, but that there are also negotiations underway in parallel processes, such as in the G8, a group made up of eight large industrialized economies, the Major Economies Forum (MEF), which gathers both industrialized countries and rapidly growing economies such as China and India, and bilateral meetings that can boost the negotiation process.
Denmark’s Minister for the Climate and Energy Connie Hedegaard reported during the meeting from the Greenland Dialogue, an informal network of environment ministers from all over the world, and Italy’s Environment Minister Stefania Prestigiacomo reported from the G8 and MEF.
In the subsequent discussion, it was confirmed the two-degree target is significant and gives new momentum ahead of the continued negotiations in the autumn.
The two-degree target, which the MEF countries supported at the beginning of July, means that the global temperature may increase by a maximum of two degrees compared with pre-industrial levels.
The G8 countries supported a 50% reduction in global emissions and an 80% reduction on the part of industrialized countries. The countries of the G8 and MEF are together responsible for around 80% of the world's emissions.
In the discussion, the EU’s trendsetting role in reaching successful conclusions at the G8 and MEF was emphasized, and strong support was given for continued clear EU leadership. ?“The EU has taken the lead by presenting the most ambitious goal that any group of countries has established. From now until Copenhagen, we will take the lead to speed up the negotiations. Other countries need to follow the EU’s example and do more. The gap between what science demands and the offers that are on the table is far too wide”, said Andreas Carlgren.
Carlgren continued: “The EU countries will use all our contacts in order to work together to increase the possibilities of reaching an ambitious climate change agreement with sufficient global emissions reductions and financing. We need clear reductions in emissions, both from industrialized countries and rapidly growing economies.”
EU COMMISSIONER DIMAS
The discussions also touched on financing and comparable measures. European Environment Commissioner Stavros Dimas presented a report on financing.?
"There is a significant short-term need to help developing countries with strategies for development with reduced emissions, and measures for adaptation to a changing climate", said Commissioner Dimas.
Commissioner Dimas also presented a report on comparable measures and the process for the EU's ‘scaling up’ to 30% if a sufficiently ambitious agreement is reached in Copenhagen. The heads of state and government have decided that the EU will contribute with a 30% reduction in emissions by 2020, compared with 1990 levels, if other industrialized countries make comparable commitments and the rapidly growing economies commit to significant measures.
“Our offer is not unconditional. We will use the increase from 20 to 30% as a lever to gain adequate offers from other countries”, commented Andreas Carlgren
Friday, July 24, 2009
Iran's Women A Driving Force Behind Green Movement
Her eyes, wide open, she seemed to be staring into nothingness as her body was drained of its blood.
The world watched Neda Agha-Soltan, a 26-year-old music student, die from a gunshot wound after protesting peacefully in Tehran. The video, circulated on YouTube, was something that a lot of people won't forget very soon. I know, as an Iranian, I never will.
Even though official reporting of events has been very limited due to restrictions by the government, we were able to get a glimpse of what is going on in the streets via amateur videos and photos. What was evident in all those images is a very clear presence of women of all ages in the protests. Photos showed young, green-clad girls standing defiantly next to other, male protesters.
The images give evidence of the bravery of Iranian women. Today those women are not just fighting for a sheerer head-scarf or the freedom to show a little more of their arms; they are fighting to change the political face of the country and thus their future.
For years many women have carried out subtle campaigns of civil disobedience. They pushed the boundaries with acts as small as wearing brighter nail polish, more make up and even by smoking cigarettes in cafes. These were considered huge steps. But these protests were as far as women would go because they feared punishment.
Azadeh Moaveni, who reported for Time Magazine from Tehran, in her latest book "Honeymoon in Tehran" described how the general population in Iran was not ready for revolt: "Every few months an editor at Time would ask whether we could do an 'Iranian youth at boiling point' story, and I would explain that Iranian youth weren't even heating up yet."
Moaveni's view, which was very apt at the time, shows how so much changed this June when election results were announced and young Iranians felt anger and frustration. Many women, who used to be preoccupied with the latest fashion trends and what to wear to the next party, faced bullets and batons in the streets. Risking their lives, or imprisonment, they were fighting for what they had yearned for over many years. They were trying to get their rights by peaceful means because they knew the consequences.
Women have been undoubtedly a great part of the so called "Green Movement." Zahra Rahnavard, the wife of opposition leader Mir-Hossein Mousavi, became a key part of the campaign. Her presence meant a promise of a more open arena for women in the political scene and maybe some relaxation of the rigid social laws. Young women appreciated the attention that Mousavi gave his wife, treating her as his equal and a friend. They envisioned that such relationships would become more widespread in Iran if he became the next president.
President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's declaration of an overwhelming victory, however, was a big blow to their hopes. They now feel betrayed and dejected. One friend who supported Mousavi told me two days before the election that if Mousavi didn't win, she wouldn't stay in Iran for a moment longer.
Times change
When in 1979 the Iranian Revolution took place, all people who participated had one vision in mind: Get rid of the despotic Shah and replace him with democracy. But the revolution had a different outcome. Velayat-e Faqih -- the current ruling system -- gives power to the Supreme Leader. So in a way Iranians, after so much bloodshed and hard work, have accepted what could be considered little change.
But how could today, if the uprising were to result in big changes, be any different? The answer lies within the family structure in Iran. In 1979, even though a revolution took place, patriarchy was at the heart of many families. The mindset was that in families, fathers and husbands had the last word. It was a pyramid-shaped system, where men were at the top. They were in most cases the sole breadwinners and decision makers. In a larger sense, that would apply to the country too. People needed a single power at the top to decide everything.
Today, if we look at family structures in Iran, in many cases there has been a shift in power. Women have taken a place at the top of the pyramid alongside men. They are decision makers and breadwinners, educated and open-minded. This makes Iranian society today more fertile for democracy and the present autocratic system less acceptable.
When women can't openly protest in the streets, they find other ways to rebel. But in the end, they express their discontent.
A glimmer of hope in dark times
For now all that occupies Iranians' minds is sadness and sorrow, and nothing can heal their wounds. But there was a single moment of hope after the protests ended. Ali Shahrokhi, head of the Legal Commission in Parliament, announced on June 23 that the parliament is reconsidering the Shiite law of stoning. Stoning is a capital punishment that can be meted out on any woman convicted of adultery. Iran has decreased its used considerably, but the punishment does still exist in the law. Talks of removing it from the country's laws are gathering strength.
There is still a very long way to go for Iranian women, but it is interesting that the parliament brought the issue into more light after these tumultuous days, and especially after the death of Neda Agha-Soltan.
The world watched Neda Agha-Soltan, a 26-year-old music student, die from a gunshot wound after protesting peacefully in Tehran. The video, circulated on YouTube, was something that a lot of people won't forget very soon. I know, as an Iranian, I never will.
Even though official reporting of events has been very limited due to restrictions by the government, we were able to get a glimpse of what is going on in the streets via amateur videos and photos. What was evident in all those images is a very clear presence of women of all ages in the protests. Photos showed young, green-clad girls standing defiantly next to other, male protesters.
The images give evidence of the bravery of Iranian women. Today those women are not just fighting for a sheerer head-scarf or the freedom to show a little more of their arms; they are fighting to change the political face of the country and thus their future.
For years many women have carried out subtle campaigns of civil disobedience. They pushed the boundaries with acts as small as wearing brighter nail polish, more make up and even by smoking cigarettes in cafes. These were considered huge steps. But these protests were as far as women would go because they feared punishment.
Azadeh Moaveni, who reported for Time Magazine from Tehran, in her latest book "Honeymoon in Tehran" described how the general population in Iran was not ready for revolt: "Every few months an editor at Time would ask whether we could do an 'Iranian youth at boiling point' story, and I would explain that Iranian youth weren't even heating up yet."
Moaveni's view, which was very apt at the time, shows how so much changed this June when election results were announced and young Iranians felt anger and frustration. Many women, who used to be preoccupied with the latest fashion trends and what to wear to the next party, faced bullets and batons in the streets. Risking their lives, or imprisonment, they were fighting for what they had yearned for over many years. They were trying to get their rights by peaceful means because they knew the consequences.
Women have been undoubtedly a great part of the so called "Green Movement." Zahra Rahnavard, the wife of opposition leader Mir-Hossein Mousavi, became a key part of the campaign. Her presence meant a promise of a more open arena for women in the political scene and maybe some relaxation of the rigid social laws. Young women appreciated the attention that Mousavi gave his wife, treating her as his equal and a friend. They envisioned that such relationships would become more widespread in Iran if he became the next president.
President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's declaration of an overwhelming victory, however, was a big blow to their hopes. They now feel betrayed and dejected. One friend who supported Mousavi told me two days before the election that if Mousavi didn't win, she wouldn't stay in Iran for a moment longer.
Times change
When in 1979 the Iranian Revolution took place, all people who participated had one vision in mind: Get rid of the despotic Shah and replace him with democracy. But the revolution had a different outcome. Velayat-e Faqih -- the current ruling system -- gives power to the Supreme Leader. So in a way Iranians, after so much bloodshed and hard work, have accepted what could be considered little change.
But how could today, if the uprising were to result in big changes, be any different? The answer lies within the family structure in Iran. In 1979, even though a revolution took place, patriarchy was at the heart of many families. The mindset was that in families, fathers and husbands had the last word. It was a pyramid-shaped system, where men were at the top. They were in most cases the sole breadwinners and decision makers. In a larger sense, that would apply to the country too. People needed a single power at the top to decide everything.
Today, if we look at family structures in Iran, in many cases there has been a shift in power. Women have taken a place at the top of the pyramid alongside men. They are decision makers and breadwinners, educated and open-minded. This makes Iranian society today more fertile for democracy and the present autocratic system less acceptable.
When women can't openly protest in the streets, they find other ways to rebel. But in the end, they express their discontent.
A glimmer of hope in dark times
For now all that occupies Iranians' minds is sadness and sorrow, and nothing can heal their wounds. But there was a single moment of hope after the protests ended. Ali Shahrokhi, head of the Legal Commission in Parliament, announced on June 23 that the parliament is reconsidering the Shiite law of stoning. Stoning is a capital punishment that can be meted out on any woman convicted of adultery. Iran has decreased its used considerably, but the punishment does still exist in the law. Talks of removing it from the country's laws are gathering strength.
There is still a very long way to go for Iranian women, but it is interesting that the parliament brought the issue into more light after these tumultuous days, and especially after the death of Neda Agha-Soltan.
Sensitive to an array of pollutants, Kathy Hemenway uprooted herself to find a clean environment. Should the rest of us worry?
No paint on the walls. No carpets on the floors. No TV in the living room. Or the bedroom. Or the kitchen. No TV anywhere in the house.Kathy Hemenway's home in Snowflake, Ariz., is a refuge from the gases, chemicals and electromagnetic fields that are nearly ubiquitous in our 21st century world.
Her chemical sensitivities began when she was just a kid. "I couldn't figure out why people liked perfume," she says. "It gave me a headache. And fabric stores gave me a sore throat."Those problems grew more severe in adulthood, so she started making small changes -- using natural, fragrance-free shampoos and soaps; avoiding air fresheners, fresh paint, pesticides and lawn-care chemicals; and becoming super-diligent about housekeeping, but only with natural cleaners such as baking soda and vinegar.Then she started moving -- from homes with carpet to homes with hardwood floors, then from Menlo Park, Calif., where she was a successful software engineer, to Santa Cruz and a home with all the other safe stuff plus fresh ocean air.
But after an accidental exposure there to nearby lawn chemicals, Hemenway began to have trouble breathing and even more trouble sleeping. She grew agitated, jittery and depressed, and felt as if she were in a fog, she says. She also became sensitive to many more substances than usual and had to use an oxygen tank to recover from even mild exposures, such as breathing exhaust fumes on the freeway. She wound up at the Environmental Health Center in Dallas for treatment, which included oxygen therapy and sauna sessions (for detoxification), a special diet (rotated every four days) and nutritional supplements she took orally and intravenously. After that, she says, "I was desperate for a safe home, and that's when I decided to go to the safest place I could find."She found Snowflake."It's hard, frequently devastating, to accept that you're never going to get better unless you move to a whole other environment," Hemenway says of her leap 10 years ago. But, she decided, the quality of her life depended on it.The house she built in this remote high desert town is not only a no-paint, no-carpet zone, but also a no-plywood, no-particleboard, no-tar paper zone. And no pesticides were used on the foundation or on the land before the foundation was laid.The exterior of the house is made of masonry blocks, and most of the interior framing is made of steel. So is the roof. The floors are glazed ceramic tile throughout the house, and in the bedroom the walls and ceiling are too.The house has radiant in-floor heating instead of forced-air heating. "It doesn't blow the dust around," Hemenway says, "and you don't have the combustion byproducts of a forced-air furnace."And not to worry -- she can watch TV. But to avoid its electromagnetic field, she keeps the set in a barn about 200 feet from the house and records programs there, then brings the DVDs inside and plays them on a projection system.Hemenway is one of millions of Americans who believe that sprays meant to freshen the air actually pollute it, that chemicals meant to beautify our yards in fact poison them, and that many of the products and materials that make modern life fast and convenient also make people sick. They cite studies connecting a host of suspect substances to a host of human illnesses, from headaches and sniffles to immune disorders and cancer.Most people can't move to Snowflake and build "safe houses," of course (and if too many of us did, we'd mess up the air quality anyway). Fortunately, most are not as sensitive to environmental pollutants as Hemenway, whose condition is recognized by many -- but not all -- medical professionals as "environmental illness."Still, a connection between health and the environment is widely recognized in the medical and scientific communities. More than 30 years ago, for example, the Air Pollution Health Effects Laboratory was established at UC Irvine especially to study the connections between air quality and health. Raising awareness of these connections empowers people, says Robert Phalen, the laboratory's founder and current director and also a professor of medicine."Within the last year or two, there's been a tremendous awareness about green buildings -- and healthy buildings too," says Peter Sierck, the principal of Environmental Testing & Technology in San Diego, which specializes in testing for mold, moisture, electromagnetic fields and general indoor air quality.But some researchers worry that consumers' fears are getting ahead of the scientific evidence. Some have ripped out carpets to avoid chemical releases or renounced miracle fabrics in favor of natural fibers.Many people have concerns about perfumes, shampoos, soaps and other products that produce odors, says Dr. Ware Kuschner, an associate professor of pulmonary and critical care medicine at the Stanford University School of Medicine who practices at the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs. He does research on the health effects of indoor and outdoor air pollution. "But the link between exposure to these products and serious adverse health effects is often quite tenuous."That's because the harm a substance can do generally depends on how much of it you're exposed to and how long you're exposed to it -- as well as how sensitive you are.Knowing whether to be concerned, or how much to be concerned, isn't easy. Scientists at regulatory agencies spend years making official risk assessments.Still, it's possible to set some priorities, and you probably shouldn't spend too much time worrying about things that are very unlikely to happen, says Dr. Philip Harber, a professor of occupational and environmental medicine at UCLA. "Many more people die of drowning in a swimming pool than die of exposure to mold. . . . It's really important not to overlook the obvious."
Her chemical sensitivities began when she was just a kid. "I couldn't figure out why people liked perfume," she says. "It gave me a headache. And fabric stores gave me a sore throat."Those problems grew more severe in adulthood, so she started making small changes -- using natural, fragrance-free shampoos and soaps; avoiding air fresheners, fresh paint, pesticides and lawn-care chemicals; and becoming super-diligent about housekeeping, but only with natural cleaners such as baking soda and vinegar.Then she started moving -- from homes with carpet to homes with hardwood floors, then from Menlo Park, Calif., where she was a successful software engineer, to Santa Cruz and a home with all the other safe stuff plus fresh ocean air.
But after an accidental exposure there to nearby lawn chemicals, Hemenway began to have trouble breathing and even more trouble sleeping. She grew agitated, jittery and depressed, and felt as if she were in a fog, she says. She also became sensitive to many more substances than usual and had to use an oxygen tank to recover from even mild exposures, such as breathing exhaust fumes on the freeway. She wound up at the Environmental Health Center in Dallas for treatment, which included oxygen therapy and sauna sessions (for detoxification), a special diet (rotated every four days) and nutritional supplements she took orally and intravenously. After that, she says, "I was desperate for a safe home, and that's when I decided to go to the safest place I could find."She found Snowflake."It's hard, frequently devastating, to accept that you're never going to get better unless you move to a whole other environment," Hemenway says of her leap 10 years ago. But, she decided, the quality of her life depended on it.The house she built in this remote high desert town is not only a no-paint, no-carpet zone, but also a no-plywood, no-particleboard, no-tar paper zone. And no pesticides were used on the foundation or on the land before the foundation was laid.The exterior of the house is made of masonry blocks, and most of the interior framing is made of steel. So is the roof. The floors are glazed ceramic tile throughout the house, and in the bedroom the walls and ceiling are too.The house has radiant in-floor heating instead of forced-air heating. "It doesn't blow the dust around," Hemenway says, "and you don't have the combustion byproducts of a forced-air furnace."And not to worry -- she can watch TV. But to avoid its electromagnetic field, she keeps the set in a barn about 200 feet from the house and records programs there, then brings the DVDs inside and plays them on a projection system.Hemenway is one of millions of Americans who believe that sprays meant to freshen the air actually pollute it, that chemicals meant to beautify our yards in fact poison them, and that many of the products and materials that make modern life fast and convenient also make people sick. They cite studies connecting a host of suspect substances to a host of human illnesses, from headaches and sniffles to immune disorders and cancer.Most people can't move to Snowflake and build "safe houses," of course (and if too many of us did, we'd mess up the air quality anyway). Fortunately, most are not as sensitive to environmental pollutants as Hemenway, whose condition is recognized by many -- but not all -- medical professionals as "environmental illness."Still, a connection between health and the environment is widely recognized in the medical and scientific communities. More than 30 years ago, for example, the Air Pollution Health Effects Laboratory was established at UC Irvine especially to study the connections between air quality and health. Raising awareness of these connections empowers people, says Robert Phalen, the laboratory's founder and current director and also a professor of medicine."Within the last year or two, there's been a tremendous awareness about green buildings -- and healthy buildings too," says Peter Sierck, the principal of Environmental Testing & Technology in San Diego, which specializes in testing for mold, moisture, electromagnetic fields and general indoor air quality.But some researchers worry that consumers' fears are getting ahead of the scientific evidence. Some have ripped out carpets to avoid chemical releases or renounced miracle fabrics in favor of natural fibers.Many people have concerns about perfumes, shampoos, soaps and other products that produce odors, says Dr. Ware Kuschner, an associate professor of pulmonary and critical care medicine at the Stanford University School of Medicine who practices at the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs. He does research on the health effects of indoor and outdoor air pollution. "But the link between exposure to these products and serious adverse health effects is often quite tenuous."That's because the harm a substance can do generally depends on how much of it you're exposed to and how long you're exposed to it -- as well as how sensitive you are.Knowing whether to be concerned, or how much to be concerned, isn't easy. Scientists at regulatory agencies spend years making official risk assessments.Still, it's possible to set some priorities, and you probably shouldn't spend too much time worrying about things that are very unlikely to happen, says Dr. Philip Harber, a professor of occupational and environmental medicine at UCLA. "Many more people die of drowning in a swimming pool than die of exposure to mold. . . . It's really important not to overlook the obvious."
CARS program can benefit economy, environment and wallet
Residents planning to buy or lease a new car this year may want to step it up and cash in on the Car Allowance Rebate System. CARS is a federal program that helps buyers purchase a more fuel-efficient vehicle.Those who qualify for the “Cash for Clunkers” program can save from $3,500 to $4,500 on their purchase by trading in their gas-guzzling older vehicle. The promotion is valid from late July through Nov. 1 or until the allotted money runs out. The rebate is in addition to any promotional discounts offered by the dealer or manufacturer of the vehicle.There are some caveats, however.Restrictions apply to the trade-in vehicle as well as the new vehicle to be purchased.According to www.cars.gov, the trade-in vehicle must be less than 25 years old, have a “new” combined city/highway fuel economy of 18 miles per gallon or less, be driveable, and be insured and registered to the same owner for at least a year.It gets trickier. Very large pickup trucks and cargo vans have different requirements.
= 1225756800) && (nAdsysTime = 1225756800) && (nAdsysTime = 1241568000) && (nAdsysTime = 1243382400) && (nAdsysTime = 1244073600) && (nAdsysTime
David Oakley Jr., of Oakley Chevrolet Buick Pontiac in Bartlesville, said he has seen some interest in the program but it’s not for everyone.“Not every car or individual will merit using it,” he said. “The program is complicated enough that we’ll have to look at it case by case.”Oakley said the program is environmentally driven, meant to rid the roads of non fuel-efficient vehicles. However, he said a person’s auto may not “be enough of a clunker,” depending on the fuel economy standard.Also, if the vehicle trade-in is worth more than $4,500, the person can just trade in the car and forget the rebate, according to Oakley.The good news is consumers don’t have to send away for a voucher. The dealership will handle the paperwork and apply a credit at purchase. However, before stepping onto the car lot, make sure the prospective dealer has registered for the program.Also, the dealer is required to tell the purchaser how much the scrap metal is worth (all trade-ins will be scrapped). And dealers are prohibited from charging a fee to sell or lease a vehicle under the CARS program.Oakley said the final rules should be posted today and dealerships that started the process early may be in trouble if the rules have changed.“There are still some things to work through, like getting the cars to a scrap metal site. It’s a shame we have to scrap the cars because someone like a single mother may have been able to use one of the vehicles,” he said.Restrictions on the new vehicles include a purchase price of not more than $45,000; for passenger vehicles, it must have a combined fuel economy of at least 22 miles per gallon. For category 1 trucks, the new vehicle must have a combined fuel economy value of at least 18 miles per gallon; for category 2 trucks, at least 15 miles per gallon; and category 3 trucks have no minimum fuel economy requirement. (See inset.)Oakley said he hopes a lot of people aren’t disappointed if the rebate isn’t what they expected.“They don’t have to feel silly if they can’t make heads or tails of the rules either,” he said.The value of the credit is determined by the difference of the combined fuel economy of both vehicles. For a credit of $3,500, the difference must be at least 4 but less than 10 miles per gallon higher. For the $4,500 credit, the difference must be at least 10 miles per gallon higher.Oakley cautions those considering the program to do their homework first; log on to www.cars.gov and check out the fuel economy ratings for the trade-ins.Prospective buyers can find the combined fuel economy of the new vehicle on the window sticker or visit www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/findacar.htm and search for the vehicle.“Also, consider your needs when shopping for a new car,” said Oakley. “Don’t buy a car you don’t really want just to get the credit.”
= 1225756800) && (nAdsysTime = 1225756800) && (nAdsysTime = 1241568000) && (nAdsysTime = 1243382400) && (nAdsysTime = 1244073600) && (nAdsysTime
David Oakley Jr., of Oakley Chevrolet Buick Pontiac in Bartlesville, said he has seen some interest in the program but it’s not for everyone.“Not every car or individual will merit using it,” he said. “The program is complicated enough that we’ll have to look at it case by case.”Oakley said the program is environmentally driven, meant to rid the roads of non fuel-efficient vehicles. However, he said a person’s auto may not “be enough of a clunker,” depending on the fuel economy standard.Also, if the vehicle trade-in is worth more than $4,500, the person can just trade in the car and forget the rebate, according to Oakley.The good news is consumers don’t have to send away for a voucher. The dealership will handle the paperwork and apply a credit at purchase. However, before stepping onto the car lot, make sure the prospective dealer has registered for the program.Also, the dealer is required to tell the purchaser how much the scrap metal is worth (all trade-ins will be scrapped). And dealers are prohibited from charging a fee to sell or lease a vehicle under the CARS program.Oakley said the final rules should be posted today and dealerships that started the process early may be in trouble if the rules have changed.“There are still some things to work through, like getting the cars to a scrap metal site. It’s a shame we have to scrap the cars because someone like a single mother may have been able to use one of the vehicles,” he said.Restrictions on the new vehicles include a purchase price of not more than $45,000; for passenger vehicles, it must have a combined fuel economy of at least 22 miles per gallon. For category 1 trucks, the new vehicle must have a combined fuel economy value of at least 18 miles per gallon; for category 2 trucks, at least 15 miles per gallon; and category 3 trucks have no minimum fuel economy requirement. (See inset.)Oakley said he hopes a lot of people aren’t disappointed if the rebate isn’t what they expected.“They don’t have to feel silly if they can’t make heads or tails of the rules either,” he said.The value of the credit is determined by the difference of the combined fuel economy of both vehicles. For a credit of $3,500, the difference must be at least 4 but less than 10 miles per gallon higher. For the $4,500 credit, the difference must be at least 10 miles per gallon higher.Oakley cautions those considering the program to do their homework first; log on to www.cars.gov and check out the fuel economy ratings for the trade-ins.Prospective buyers can find the combined fuel economy of the new vehicle on the window sticker or visit www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/findacar.htm and search for the vehicle.“Also, consider your needs when shopping for a new car,” said Oakley. “Don’t buy a car you don’t really want just to get the credit.”
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)