3. I'm not sure how convinced I am that the population increase is the cause of all environmental degradation, however, this article was interesting to read. I'm not sure if it's just us over-populating the earth or our deliberate actions toward it. This author seems to think our general ignorance (besides our mere existence) is perpetuating the problem but I feel like there's more to it than that. "Issues such as oil and aquifer depletion and climate change are set to reach crisis points within decades." I don't think he's too far from the truth, but he does come across as very "alarmist" as he even admits. I do agree though, we are the problem we need to solve. But that gets to me my second thought: if we are what needs to be fixed, is there any hope for a permanent fix? Awareness is key, spreading the truth will set us free. Rhymes!
----------------------------------
Humanity is the greatest challenge John Feeney
VIEWPOINT John Feeney
The growth in human population and rising consumption have exceeded the planet's ability to support us, argues John Feeney. In this week's Green Room, he says it is time to ring the alarm bells and take radical action in order to avert unspeakable consequences.
Commuters at a railway station (Getty Images)
We're out of our league, influencing systems we don't understand
We humans face two problems of desperate importance. The first is our global ecological plight. The second is our difficulty acknowledging the first.
Despite increasing climate change coverage, environmental writers remain reluctant to discuss the full scope and severity of the global dilemma we've created. Many fear sounding alarmist, but there is an alarm to sound and the time for reticence is over.
We've outgrown the planet and need radical action to avert unspeakable consequences. This - by a huge margin - has become humanity's greatest challenge.
If we've altered the climate, it should come as no surprise that we have damaged other natural systems. From deforestation to collapsing fisheries, desertification, the global spread of chemical toxins, ocean dead zones, and the death of coral reefs, an array of interrelated declines is evidence of the breadth of our impact.
Add the depletion of finite resources such as oil and ground-water, and the whole of the challenge upon us emerges.
Barring decisive action, we are marching, heads down, toward global ecological collapse.
Web of life
We're dismantling the web of life, the support system upon which all species depend. We could have very well entered the "sixth mass extinction"; the fifth having wiped out the dinosaurs.
Spider's web (Image: AP)
Human activity is threatening the web of life, warns Mr Feeney
Though we like to imagine we are different from other species, we humans are not exempt from the threats posed by ecological degradation.
Analysts worry, for example, about the future of food production. Climate change-induced drought and the depletion of oil and aquifers - resources on which farming and food distribution depend - could trigger famine on an unprecedented scale.
Billions could die. At the very least, we risk our children inheriting a bleak world, empty of the richness of life we take for granted.
Alarmist? Yes, but realistically so.
The most worrisome aspect of this ecological decline is the convergence in time of so many serious problems. Issues such as oil and aquifer depletion and climate change are set to reach crisis points within decades.
Biodiversity loss is equally problematic. As a result of their ecological interdependence, the extinction of species can trigger cascade effects whereby impacts suddenly and unpredictably spread. We're out of our league, influencing systems we don't understand.
Road closed sign (Getty Images) One thing is certain: continued inaction or half-hearted efforts will be of no help - we're at a turning point in human history
Any of these problems could disrupt society. The possibility of them occurring together is enough to worry even the most optimistic among rational observers.
Some credible analyses conclude we've postponed action too long to avoid massive upheaval and the best we can do now is to soften the blow. Others hold out hope of averting catastrophe, though not without tough times ahead.
One thing is certain: continued inaction or half-hearted efforts will be of no help - we're at a turning point in human history.
Though few seem willing to confront the facts, it's no secret how we got here. We simply went too far. The growth which once measured our species' success inevitably turned deadly.
Unceasing economic growth, increasing per capita resource consumption, and global population growth have teamed with our reliance on finite reserves of fossil energy to exceed the Earth's absorptive and regenerative capacities.
Getting a grip
We are now in "overshoot"; our numbers and levels of consumption having exceeded the Earth's capacity to sustain us for the long-term.
A boat stranded by the lack of water (Getty Images) Many regions are experiencing the strain of water shortages
And as we remain in overshoot, we further erode the Earth's ability to support us.
Inevitably, our numbers will come down, whether voluntarily or through such natural means as famine or disease.
So what can get us out of this mess? First comes awareness. Those in a position to inform must shed fears of alarmism and embrace the truth.
More specifically, we need ecological awareness. For instance, we must "get" that we are just one among millions of interdependent species.
It's imperative we reduce personal resource consumption. The relocalisation movement promoted by those studying oil depletion is a powerful strategy in that regard.
We need a complete transition to clean, renewable energy. It can't happen overnight, but reliance on non-renewable energy is, by definition, unsustainable.
But there is a caveat: abundant clean energy alone will not end our problems. There remains population growth which increases consumption of resources other than energy.
Industrial area (Image: Getty Images) The demand for more goods means we need more energy
We have to rethink the corporate economic growth imperative. On a finite planet, the physical component of economic growth cannot continue forever.
In fact, it has gone too far already. As a promising alternative, the field of ecological economics offers the "steady state economy".
We must end world population growth, then reduce population size. That means lowering population numbers in industrialised as well as developing nations.
Scientists point to the population-environment link. But today's environmentalists avoid the subject more than any other ecological truth. Their motives range from the political to a misunderstanding of the issue.
Neither justifies hiding the truth because total resource use is the product of population size and per capita consumption. We have no chance of solving our environmental predicament without reducing both factors in the equation.
Fortunately, expert consensus tells us we can address population humanely by solving the social problems that fuel it.
Implementing these actions will require us all to become activists, insisting our leaders base decisions not on corporate interests but on the health of the biosphere.
Let's make the effort for today's and tomorrow's children.
2. Human-generated Ozone Will Damage Crops, According to MIT Study
3.Almost all article written about environmental pollution, climate changes etc. show us many shocking datas which express how environmentla problems are severe. But, in my opinion, so many people cannot recognize how severe they are. According to this article, "Human-generated Ozone" do harm crops, which "We" eat. I really wonder who protect environment on earth. --------------------------------- A novel MIT study concludes that increasing levels of ozone due to the growing use of fossil fuels will damage global vegetation, resulting in serious costs to the world's economy.
The analysis, reported in the November issue of Energy Policy, focused on how three environmental changes (increases in temperature, carbon dioxide and ozone) associated with human activity will affect crops, pastures and forests.
The research shows that increases in temperature and in carbon dioxide may actually benefit vegetation, especially in northern temperate regions. However, those benefits may be more than offset by the detrimental effects of increases in ozone, notably on crops. Ozone is a form of oxygen that is an atmospheric pollutant at ground level.
The economic cost of the damage will be moderated by changes in land use and by agricultural trade, with some regions more able to adapt than others. But the overall economic consequences will be considerable. According to the analysis, if nothing is done, by 2100 the global value of crop production will fall by 10 to 12 percent.
"Even assuming that best-practice technology for controlling ozone is adopted worldwide, we see rapidly rising ozone concentrations in the coming decades," said John M. Reilly, associate director of the MIT Joint Program on the Science and Policy of Global Change. "That result is both surprising and worrisome."
While others have looked at how changes in climate and in carbon dioxide concentrations may affect vegetation, Reilly and colleagues added to that mix changes in tropospheric ozone. Moreover, they looked at the combined impact of all three environmental "stressors" at once. (Changes in ecosystems and human health and other impacts of potential concern are outside the scope of this study.)
They performed their analysis using the MIT Integrated Global Systems Model, which combines linked state-of-the-art economic, climate and agricultural computer models to project emissions of greenhouse gases and ozone precursors based on human activity and natural systems.
Expected and unexpected findings
Results for the impacts of climate change and rising carbon dioxide concentrations (assuming business as usual, with no emissions restrictions) brought few surprises. For example, the estimated carbon dioxide and temperature increases would benefit vegetation in much of the world.
The effects of ozone are decidedly different.
Without emissions restrictions, growing fuel combustion worldwide will push global average ozone up 50 percent by 2100. That increase will have a disproportionately large impact on vegetation because ozone concentrations in many locations will rise above the critical level where adverse effects are observed in plants and ecosystems.
Crops are hardest hit. Model predictions show that ozone levels tend to be highest in regions where crops are grown. In addition, crops are particularly sensitive to ozone, in part because they are fertilized. "When crops are fertilized, their stomata open up, and they suck in more air. And the more air they suck in, the more ozone damage occurs," said Reilly. "It's a little like going out and exercising really hard on a high-ozone day."
What is the net effect of the three environmental changes? Without emissions restrictions, yields from forests and pastures decline slightly or even increase because of the climate and carbon dioxide effects. But crop yields fall by nearly 40 percent worldwide.
However, those yield losses do not translate directly into economic losses. According to the economic model, the world adapts by allocating more land to crops. That adaptation, however, comes at a cost. The use of additional resources brings a global economic loss of 10-12 percent of the total value of crop production.
The regional view
Global estimates do not tell the whole story, however, as regional impacts vary significantly.
For example, northern temperate regions generally benefit from climate change because higher temperatures extend their growing season. However, the crop losses associated with high ozone concentrations will be significant. In contrast, the tropics, already warm, do not benefit from further warming, but they are not as hard hit by ozone damage because ozone-precursor emissions are lower in the tropics.
The net result: regions such as the United States, China and Europe would need to import food, and supplying those imports would be a benefit to tropical countries.
Reilly warns that the study's climate projections may be overly optimistic. The researchers are now incorporating a more realistic climate simulation into their analysis.
Reilly's colleagues are from MIT and the Marine Biological Laboratory. The research was supported by the Department of Energy, the Environmental Protection Agency, the National Science Foundation, NASA, the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration and the MIT Joint Program on the Science and Policy of Global Change.
It is part of the MIT Energy Initiative (MITEI), an Institute-wide initiative designed to help transform the global energy system to meet the challenges of the future. MITEI includes research, education, campus energy management and outreach activities, an interdisciplinary approach that covers all areas of energy supply and demand, security and environmental impact. ------ http://www.enn.com/climate/article/24335
1. Min Sook Kim 2. U.N. chief sees Antarctic meltdown 3. UN’s 21st Century’s Overarching concerns are Peace/Justice & Integrity of Creation identified as “Sustainable Development.” Peace refers ‘No to Just War’, Justice refers ‘Free from Poverty’, and Integrity of Creation refers ‘Right of Environment.’ New UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon launched UN Millennium Development Goals to eradicate poverty and hunger in Africa targeted by 2015. And Ban told Prof. Kyung-seo Park of Ewha who visited him recently that he mostly may have to focus on the global warming issues during his term. The following article echoes what he said, and also let us think how critical the global warming problem has become. ---------------- CHILEAN PRESIDENTE EDUARDO FREI BASE, Antarctica (AP) -- U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon visited the Antarctica on Friday to see firsthand the impact of climate change and the melting of glaciers. Ban flew from Chile's southernmost city of Punta Arenas to that country's station on the Antarctica, Chilean Air Force President Eduardo Frei base, accompanied by officials and scientists. From there, he took a 45-minute flight over the region, seeing several glaciers. The U.N. leader also visited the Antarctic bases of Uruguay and South Korea, his home country. At the Korean base he was greeted by a small reception and offered traditional Korean food and drink. He then returned to Punta Arenas. On Thursday, Ban attended the opening of the Ibero-American summit, a gathering of leaders from Latin American countries, Spain and Portugal, that is being held in Santiago, Chile. He told summit delegates that global warming will be a central concern of his term as head of the world body. On Saturday, Ban was scheduled to visit Torres del Paine national park, where experts say the effects of global warming on glaciers are evident. Copyright 2007 The Associated Press. All rights reserved.This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed. ------ http://edition.cnn.com/2007/TECH/science/11/10/bankimoon.antarctic.ap/index.html
1. YingQi Fan 2. To approve the planting of GM crops or not? 3. The commercial planting of genetically modified hasn’t been approved for there are gaps in our scientific knowledge and significant uncertainties about the long-term impacts of GM food and crops on our health and environment. If the government asks my view on GM crops, I will say O.K. It’s a tendency to pursue biotechnology which may promise future gains. I just thought about the blog I wrote last week, which was about the biofuels. Using GM crops to produce biofuels seems a not bad idea. The merit that GM crops gave higher yields for lower costs can eradicate the drawback of biofuels to sacrificing too many crops to produce them. ------------------------------
GM crops 'should not be approved' Ministers must not approve commercial planting of GM crops in England, until it is proved safe, say the Lib Dems.
Chris Huhne said responses to a Defra survey show planting should not be allowed until ministers can prove non-GM crops will not be contaminated.
Most respondents opposed Defra's plan to allow GM crops to be grown in fields at least 35m (114ft) from non-GM crops.
A Defra spokesman said they would await the results of three reports, due next spring, before plans are taken further.
No commercial GM crops are yet grown in the UK and are not expected for several years, but the government wants to have measures in place in England for the "coexistence" of GM, conventional and organic crops. Cross-pollination EU regulations state that food containing more than 0.9% of genetically modified ingredients have to be labelled as GM produce - even if they were grown as a conventional crop.
The government is proposing having compulsory separation distances between crops to minimise cross pollination of non-GM varieties. And farmers intending to sow GM crops would be required to notify neighbouring farmers.
The three-month consultation attracted 11, 676 responses - 11,442 from "members of the public".
Defra said about 80% were in the form of stock letters or petitions, which conveyed a "basic disagreement" with Defra's proposals and said 0.9% was too high and in organic produce, it should be less than 0.1%. Responses 'polarised' Of the remaining 20% about 1,370 people registered a "general opposition to GM crops" while about 390 people were mainly concerned about "a perceived threat to organic farming". Other responses included those from farming organisations, councils, organic farmers, biotechnology companies, scientific bodies and other organisations.
Defra said responses were "polarised" between pro and anti-GM views - with some favouring the government's proposals as "pragmatic and proportionate".
Mr Huhne, environment spokesman for the Liberal Democrats, said: "People want to be safe and not sorry on GM foods, as the overwhelming bulk of responses to the government's consultation show.
"Ministers should not give any go-ahead for commercial planting until they can state confidently that GM varieties would not contaminate non-GM foods and that they are safe.
"This is essential for consumers who prefer non-GM foods, but also for organic farming which is the fastest growing part of British agriculture."
Environment Minister Phil Woolas said the government was still awaiting three important research projects on co-existence, due to be published next spring - and EU guidance on labelling GM presence in seeds. But the intention was to have "pragmatic measures in place".
He said: "GM crops may be approved for cultivation here in the future, if they pass the rigorous safety assessment procedure that is in place.
"We need to be ready for that possibility and the consultation on coexistence measures has been an important step forward in that process."
A very down to earth* kind of guy. I'm an environmental sociologist interested in establishing material and organizational sustainability worldwide. I'm always looking for interesting materials/technologies, inspiring ideas, or institutional examples of sustainability to inspire others to recognize their choices now. To be fatalistic about an unsustainable world is a sign of a captive mind, given all our options.
*(If "earth" is defined in a planetary sense, concerning comparative historical knowledge and interest in the past 10,000 years or so anywhere...) See both blogs.
4 comments:
1. Peaches Park
2. We're getting too big?
3. I'm not sure how convinced I am that the population increase is the cause of all environmental degradation, however, this article was interesting to read. I'm not sure if it's just us over-populating the earth or our deliberate actions toward it. This author seems to think our general ignorance (besides our mere existence) is perpetuating the problem but I feel like there's more to it than that. "Issues such as oil and aquifer depletion and climate change are set to reach crisis points within decades." I don't think he's too far from the truth, but he does come across as very "alarmist" as he even admits. I do agree though, we are the problem we need to solve. But that gets to me my second thought: if we are what needs to be fixed, is there any hope for a permanent fix? Awareness is key, spreading the truth will set us free. Rhymes!
----------------------------------
Humanity is the greatest challenge
John Feeney
VIEWPOINT
John Feeney
The growth in human population and rising consumption have exceeded the planet's ability to support us, argues John Feeney. In this week's Green Room, he says it is time to ring the alarm bells and take radical action in order to avert unspeakable consequences.
Commuters at a railway station (Getty Images)
We're out of our league, influencing systems we don't understand
We humans face two problems of desperate importance. The first is our global ecological plight. The second is our difficulty acknowledging the first.
Despite increasing climate change coverage, environmental writers remain reluctant to discuss the full scope and severity of the global dilemma we've created. Many fear sounding alarmist, but there is an alarm to sound and the time for reticence is over.
We've outgrown the planet and need radical action to avert unspeakable consequences. This - by a huge margin - has become humanity's greatest challenge.
If we've altered the climate, it should come as no surprise that we have damaged other natural systems. From deforestation to collapsing fisheries, desertification, the global spread of chemical toxins, ocean dead zones, and the death of coral reefs, an array of interrelated declines is evidence of the breadth of our impact.
Add the depletion of finite resources such as oil and ground-water, and the whole of the challenge upon us emerges.
Barring decisive action, we are marching, heads down, toward global ecological collapse.
Web of life
We're dismantling the web of life, the support system upon which all species depend. We could have very well entered the "sixth mass extinction"; the fifth having wiped out the dinosaurs.
Spider's web (Image: AP)
Human activity is threatening the web of life, warns Mr Feeney
Though we like to imagine we are different from other species, we humans are not exempt from the threats posed by ecological degradation.
Analysts worry, for example, about the future of food production. Climate change-induced drought and the depletion of oil and aquifers - resources on which farming and food distribution depend - could trigger famine on an unprecedented scale.
Billions could die. At the very least, we risk our children inheriting a bleak world, empty of the richness of life we take for granted.
Alarmist? Yes, but realistically so.
The most worrisome aspect of this ecological decline is the convergence in time of so many serious problems. Issues such as oil and aquifer depletion and climate change are set to reach crisis points within decades.
Biodiversity loss is equally problematic. As a result of their ecological interdependence, the extinction of species can trigger cascade effects whereby impacts suddenly and unpredictably spread. We're out of our league, influencing systems we don't understand.
Road closed sign (Getty Images)
One thing is certain: continued inaction or half-hearted efforts will be of no help - we're at a turning point in human history
Any of these problems could disrupt society. The possibility of them occurring together is enough to worry even the most optimistic among rational observers.
Some credible analyses conclude we've postponed action too long to avoid massive upheaval and the best we can do now is to soften the blow. Others hold out hope of averting catastrophe, though not without tough times ahead.
One thing is certain: continued inaction or half-hearted efforts will be of no help - we're at a turning point in human history.
Though few seem willing to confront the facts, it's no secret how we got here. We simply went too far. The growth which once measured our species' success inevitably turned deadly.
Unceasing economic growth, increasing per capita resource consumption, and global population growth have teamed with our reliance on finite reserves of fossil energy to exceed the Earth's absorptive and regenerative capacities.
Getting a grip
We are now in "overshoot"; our numbers and levels of consumption having exceeded the Earth's capacity to sustain us for the long-term.
A boat stranded by the lack of water (Getty Images)
Many regions are experiencing the strain of water shortages
And as we remain in overshoot, we further erode the Earth's ability to support us.
Inevitably, our numbers will come down, whether voluntarily or through such natural means as famine or disease.
So what can get us out of this mess? First comes awareness. Those in a position to inform must shed fears of alarmism and embrace the truth.
More specifically, we need ecological awareness. For instance, we must "get" that we are just one among millions of interdependent species.
It's imperative we reduce personal resource consumption. The relocalisation movement promoted by those studying oil depletion is a powerful strategy in that regard.
We need a complete transition to clean, renewable energy. It can't happen overnight, but reliance on non-renewable energy is, by definition, unsustainable.
But there is a caveat: abundant clean energy alone will not end our problems. There remains population growth which increases consumption of resources other than energy.
Industrial area (Image: Getty Images)
The demand for more goods means we need more energy
We have to rethink the corporate economic growth imperative. On a finite planet, the physical component of economic growth cannot continue forever.
In fact, it has gone too far already. As a promising alternative, the field of ecological economics offers the "steady state economy".
We must end world population growth, then reduce population size. That means lowering population numbers in industrialised as well as developing nations.
Scientists point to the population-environment link. But today's environmentalists avoid the subject more than any other ecological truth. Their motives range from the political to a misunderstanding of the issue.
Neither justifies hiding the truth because total resource use is the product of population size and per capita consumption. We have no chance of solving our environmental predicament without reducing both factors in the equation.
Fortunately, expert consensus tells us we can address population humanely by solving the social problems that fuel it.
Implementing these actions will require us all to become activists, insisting our leaders base decisions not on corporate interests but on the health of the biosphere.
Let's make the effort for today's and tomorrow's children.
---
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7078857.stm
1. SuJung, Kim
2. Human-generated Ozone Will Damage Crops, According to MIT Study
3.Almost all article written about environmental pollution, climate changes etc. show us many shocking datas which express how environmentla problems are severe. But, in my opinion, so many people cannot recognize how severe they are. According to this article, "Human-generated Ozone" do harm crops, which "We" eat. I really wonder who protect environment on earth.
---------------------------------
A novel MIT study concludes that increasing levels of ozone due to the growing use of fossil fuels will damage global vegetation, resulting in serious costs to the world's economy.
The analysis, reported in the November issue of Energy Policy, focused on how three environmental changes (increases in temperature, carbon dioxide and ozone) associated with human activity will affect crops, pastures and forests.
The research shows that increases in temperature and in carbon dioxide may actually benefit vegetation, especially in northern temperate regions. However, those benefits may be more than offset by the detrimental effects of increases in ozone, notably on crops. Ozone is a form of oxygen that is an atmospheric pollutant at ground level.
The economic cost of the damage will be moderated by changes in land use and by agricultural trade, with some regions more able to adapt than others. But the overall economic consequences will be considerable. According to the analysis, if nothing is done, by 2100 the global value of crop production will fall by 10 to 12 percent.
"Even assuming that best-practice technology for controlling ozone is adopted worldwide, we see rapidly rising ozone concentrations in the coming decades," said John M. Reilly, associate director of the MIT Joint Program on the Science and Policy of Global Change. "That result is both surprising and worrisome."
While others have looked at how changes in climate and in carbon dioxide concentrations may affect vegetation, Reilly and colleagues added to that mix changes in tropospheric ozone. Moreover, they looked at the combined impact of all three environmental "stressors" at once. (Changes in ecosystems and human health and other impacts of potential concern are outside the scope of this study.)
They performed their analysis using the MIT Integrated Global Systems Model, which combines linked state-of-the-art economic, climate and agricultural computer models to project emissions of greenhouse gases and ozone precursors based on human activity and natural systems.
Expected and unexpected findings
Results for the impacts of climate change and rising carbon dioxide concentrations (assuming business as usual, with no emissions restrictions) brought few surprises. For example, the estimated carbon dioxide and temperature increases would benefit vegetation in much of the world.
The effects of ozone are decidedly different.
Without emissions restrictions, growing fuel combustion worldwide will push global average ozone up 50 percent by 2100. That increase will have a disproportionately large impact on vegetation because ozone concentrations in many locations will rise above the critical level where adverse effects are observed in plants and ecosystems.
Crops are hardest hit. Model predictions show that ozone levels tend to be highest in regions where crops are grown. In addition, crops are particularly sensitive to ozone, in part because they are fertilized. "When crops are fertilized, their stomata open up, and they suck in more air. And the more air they suck in, the more ozone damage occurs," said Reilly. "It's a little like going out and exercising really hard on a high-ozone day."
What is the net effect of the three environmental changes? Without emissions restrictions, yields from forests and pastures decline slightly or even increase because of the climate and carbon dioxide effects. But crop yields fall by nearly 40 percent worldwide.
However, those yield losses do not translate directly into economic losses. According to the economic model, the world adapts by allocating more land to crops. That adaptation, however, comes at a cost. The use of additional resources brings a global economic loss of 10-12 percent of the total value of crop production.
The regional view
Global estimates do not tell the whole story, however, as regional impacts vary significantly.
For example, northern temperate regions generally benefit from climate change because higher temperatures extend their growing season. However, the crop losses associated with high ozone concentrations will be significant. In contrast, the tropics, already warm, do not benefit from further warming, but they are not as hard hit by ozone damage because ozone-precursor emissions are lower in the tropics.
The net result: regions such as the United States, China and Europe would need to import food, and supplying those imports would be a benefit to tropical countries.
Reilly warns that the study's climate projections may be overly optimistic. The researchers are now incorporating a more realistic climate simulation into their analysis.
Reilly's colleagues are from MIT and the Marine Biological Laboratory. The research was supported by the Department of Energy, the Environmental Protection Agency, the National Science Foundation, NASA, the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration and the MIT Joint Program on the Science and Policy of Global Change.
It is part of the MIT Energy Initiative (MITEI), an Institute-wide initiative designed to help transform the global energy system to meet the challenges of the future. MITEI includes research, education, campus energy management and outreach activities, an interdisciplinary approach that covers all areas of energy supply and demand, security and environmental impact.
------
http://www.enn.com/climate/article/24335
1. Min Sook Kim
2. U.N. chief sees Antarctic meltdown
3. UN’s 21st Century’s Overarching concerns are Peace/Justice & Integrity of Creation identified as “Sustainable Development.” Peace refers ‘No to Just War’, Justice refers ‘Free from Poverty’, and Integrity of Creation refers ‘Right of Environment.’
New UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon launched UN Millennium Development Goals to eradicate poverty and hunger in Africa targeted by 2015. And Ban told Prof. Kyung-seo Park of Ewha who visited him recently that he mostly may have to focus on the global warming issues during his term. The following article echoes what he said, and also let us think how critical the global warming problem has become.
----------------
CHILEAN PRESIDENTE EDUARDO FREI BASE, Antarctica (AP) -- U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon visited the Antarctica on Friday to see firsthand the impact of climate change and the melting of glaciers.
Ban flew from Chile's southernmost city of Punta Arenas to that country's station on the Antarctica, Chilean Air Force President Eduardo Frei base, accompanied by officials and scientists.
From there, he took a 45-minute flight over the region, seeing several glaciers. The U.N. leader also visited the Antarctic bases of Uruguay and South Korea, his home country.
At the Korean base he was greeted by a small reception and offered traditional Korean food and drink.
He then returned to Punta Arenas. On Thursday, Ban attended the opening of the Ibero-American summit, a gathering of leaders from Latin American countries, Spain and Portugal, that is being held in Santiago, Chile.
He told summit delegates that global warming will be a central concern of his term as head of the world body. On Saturday, Ban was scheduled to visit Torres del Paine national park, where experts say the effects of global warming on glaciers are evident.
Copyright 2007 The Associated Press. All rights reserved.This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
------
http://edition.cnn.com/2007/TECH/science/11/10/bankimoon.antarctic.ap/index.html
1. YingQi Fan
2. To approve the planting of GM crops or not?
3. The commercial planting of genetically modified hasn’t been approved for there are gaps in our scientific knowledge and significant uncertainties about the long-term impacts of GM food and crops on our health and environment. If the government asks my view on GM crops, I will say O.K. It’s a tendency to pursue biotechnology which may promise future gains. I just thought about the blog I wrote last week, which was about the biofuels. Using GM crops to produce biofuels seems a not bad idea. The merit that GM crops gave higher yields for lower costs can eradicate the drawback of biofuels to sacrificing too many crops to produce them.
------------------------------
GM crops 'should not be approved'
Ministers must not approve commercial planting of GM crops in England, until it is proved safe, say the Lib Dems.
Chris Huhne said responses to a Defra survey show planting should not be allowed until ministers can prove non-GM crops will not be contaminated.
Most respondents opposed Defra's plan to allow GM crops to be grown in fields at least 35m (114ft) from non-GM crops.
A Defra spokesman said they would await the results of three reports, due next spring, before plans are taken further.
No commercial GM crops are yet grown in the UK and are not expected for several years, but the government wants to have measures in place in England for the "coexistence" of GM, conventional and organic crops.
Cross-pollination
EU regulations state that food containing more than 0.9% of genetically modified ingredients have to be labelled as GM produce - even if they were grown as a conventional crop.
The government is proposing having compulsory separation distances between crops to minimise cross pollination of non-GM varieties.
And farmers intending to sow GM crops would be required to notify neighbouring farmers.
The three-month consultation attracted 11, 676 responses - 11,442 from "members of the public".
Defra said about 80% were in the form of stock letters or petitions, which conveyed a "basic disagreement" with Defra's proposals and said 0.9% was too high and in organic produce, it should be less than 0.1%.
Responses 'polarised'
Of the remaining 20% about 1,370 people registered a "general opposition to GM crops" while about 390 people were mainly concerned about "a perceived threat to organic farming".
Other responses included those from farming organisations, councils, organic farmers, biotechnology companies, scientific bodies and other organisations.
Defra said responses were "polarised" between pro and anti-GM views - with some favouring the government's proposals as "pragmatic and proportionate".
Mr Huhne, environment spokesman for the Liberal Democrats, said: "People want to be safe and not sorry on GM foods, as the overwhelming bulk of responses to the government's consultation show.
"Ministers should not give any go-ahead for commercial planting until they can state confidently that GM varieties would not contaminate non-GM foods and that they are safe.
"This is essential for consumers who prefer non-GM foods, but also for organic farming which is the fastest growing part of British agriculture."
Environment Minister Phil Woolas said the government was still awaiting three important research projects on co-existence, due to be published next spring - and EU guidance on labelling GM presence in seeds. But the intention was to have "pragmatic measures in place".
He said: "GM crops may be approved for cultivation here in the future, if they pass the rigorous safety assessment procedure that is in place.
"We need to be ready for that possibility and the consultation on coexistence measures has been an important step forward in that process."
-----
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/7085714.stm#
Post a Comment