The Jeffrey And Tracey Info Emporium

At first glance it’s hard to imagine how the proliferation of human activity upon the environment has been a major factor in climate change given that climate change alone is nothing new. Over two million years the earth’s history has seen enormous changes. Indeed, in the last ten thousand years the warming and cooling of the earth has been on a larger scale that what we see today.

The climate is however very changeable these days. Getting the politics right has been half the fight. Unfortunately, the right policy has been held at bay partially by having the right knowledge of what’s happening to the climate. The climate changes we see today are the result of only a century and a half of study, peanuts in comparison the huge shifts over the earths history.

The recent UN Climate Change Conference sought to put in place a policy to take over the Kyoto protocol. At its core were some recently publicised results:

1. The warming trend on the earth’s surface has been taking place since the early part of the twentieth century. The last ten years have been the warmest of that millennium.

2. There have been rapid signs of melting the Arctic circle. The sea ice there has fallen by around eight percent over thirty years.

3. The old inconsistency in the data between the temperature rise in the atmosphere and on the planets surface seems to have levelled out. They appear to rise in parallel.

4. The Scripps Institute of Oceanography in California noted that the ocean has been warming at different depths for over 65 years. These results match the predictions that warming has been induced more by greenhouse gases that as a result of small changes in the suns heat output.

5. There has been an observed and recorded link between the sea surface temperature and the frequency and intensity of tropical storms, typhoons and hurricanes.

6. The existing computer models of the change in ocean currents, in particular in the North Atlantic, are correct.

There are however still some unknowns. For example the solar hypothesis is now known to be a lesser contributor, the miniscule changes in the suns heat output over its eleven year sunspot cycle is adding to the mix. Also, the aerosol emissions from sulphurous fuel promote the formation of clouds, and as a consequence the sunlight reflected from the earths surface increases, effectively opposing the greenhouse gas effect.

Some even argue for the benefits of global warming, which include for example the opening up of new shipping lanes in the artic as the ice recedes, new oil drilling opportunities and longer harvest periods in Canada and Russia.

It seems climate change is inevitable and the small economic ideas such as banning coal subsidies bear little fruit as a means of curbing the problem. More than ever, political will must be demonstrated at first to show to industry and populations that it is even an issue. More importantly perhaps, the will of the politicians must be met with achievable methods from the technological and scientific community.

Professor Socolow is leading the way with what he calls “stabilisation wedges”. On a graph of climate change, the space between the trend line and the stability line is known as the “stabilisation triangle’. By dividing these triangles into wedges and assigning realistic goals to each wedge the massive problem is given a usable and effective solution.

The goals to assign to the wedges range from greater overall efficiencies, the decarbonisation of electricity, fuel displacement by low carbon electricity, methane management, and natural carbon sinks.

By further subdividing each wedge into sub wedges, such as decarbonised electricity being subdivided into nuclear power, renewable energy, natural gas as an alternative to coal, and the storage of carbon dioxide – these problems are confounded into what everyone has been looking for. A short list of solutions that together will balance the problem.

It seems the technology for all this exists. It is merely in need of refinement. For example the management of carbon dioxide from the burning of fossil fuels could be dealt with through further carbon sequestration. A couple of power plants already employ this particular technique to good effect. The carbon dioxide is extracted at the source and is injected into porous rocks deep underground to prevent it escaping into the atmosphere.

Steam reformation is another technique. It is, in essence, a pre-emptive technique that reacts the fuel used with water to yield hydrogen. The hydrogen output is burnt to create electricity.

Of all the possibilities of reworking and inventing technologies, perhaps the best idea is the oldest idea. Replanting programmes. The idea of photosynthesis to combine carbon dioxide with water and sunlight is a relatively cheap and exponential idea and would be hugely effective.

Jacob Fiennes is an enthusiastic traveller and photographer with a passion for discovery. He is a founder and regular contributor to the hugely popular worldwide hotel reservations site TravelBX.com. Visit the site for your next hotel room reservation, flight ticket, tailored holiday package and much more. >> www.travelbx.com

On any given day, the weather trend is usually the first subject of conversation. During the past month, anywhere you go in the United States, the price of gasoline has become a primary topic to complain about. Most people, and businesses, feel helpless when looking toward winter’s fuel bills.

Will dispensing oil from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve help us? If you think short-term – Yes; it will help temporarily.

In fact, you can expect to see products and services increase in price due to the price of fuel and transportation. This is only the beginning of economic change. Many of the “Mom and Pop” businesses may not be able to adapt fast enough to handle the upcoming heating bills. Many of the local businesses, in my area, are still “smarting” from last winter’s fuel bills.

So what can we do? There has been a flood of Emails that tell us to boycott a particular oil company, but nobody can agree on exactly which company to boycott. Most oil companies are considered “greedy corporate giants,” with questionable political agendas, by the consumers. If we are going to be driven out of business, and into an economic disaster, it is time to declare economic warfare on the largest oil companies.

Sorry to choose such strong words and opinions, but this has gone on long enough. Osama Bin Laden may not feel that you are paying enough at the pump, but you don’t have his millions to pay your fuel bills with.

There is also an effort to stop buying gasoline on a particular day. Every business deals with ups and downs, but you have to come back to the pump; a day of poor sales isn’t going to matter to multi-millionaires. However, a month, or a season, will wake them up.

If we made a serious commitment to walk or bike more, we would all be healthier, and send a message to the oil companies. Granted, many of us commute great distances to get to work, but taking the car around the block to pick up a half-gallon of milk is ridiculous.

A little self-discipline goes a long way. Get rid of all gas guzzlers and don’t even think of buying one. Does anyone really need a 5.7 liter hemi? What are the auto manufacturers thinking? This is total gluttony, and we all know that the world’s oil reserves will run out, so let’s conserve what we have.

In your home, or business, you should insulate everything possible. Many people, and businesses, already have done this, but heat is becoming too precious a commodity to take for granted.

Write your local legislators about alternative fuel sources. Let them know this is an important election issue. They have all sat on their rear ends long enough. Foreign oil dependence has become our foreign policy; it’s time to become self sufficient.

The oil companies are currently engaged in price gouging, but we are not helpless. If we conserve, and get some action from government, it will be for the common good.

Paul Jerard, is a co-owner and the director of Yoga teacher training at: Aura Wellness Center, in North Providence, RI. He has been a certified Master Yoga teacher since 1995. He is a master instructor of martial arts, with multiple Black Belts, four martial arts teaching credentials, and was recently inducted into the USA Martial Arts Hall of Fame. He teaches Yoga, martial arts, and fitness to children, adults, and seniors in the greater Providence area. Recently he wrote: Is Running a Yoga Business Right for You? For Yoga students, who may be considering a new career as a Yoga teacher.

www.yoga-teacher-training.org/index.html

I wrote a very positive article about the responses to Katrina for http://ezinearticles.com
Entitled “New Orleans My Home - Katrina My Nightmare” and another article “Katrina What It Is Like To Be An Evacuee” In both articles I endeavored to stay on the upside and we aren’t complaining to anyone but today was the straw that broke…etc

Everyone it seems, has an answer for who is to blame or who to call for help or how to deal with your insurance company. But I wonder if anybody is really asking the right questions! As evacuees, as victims of Katrina we have our own set of questions. They are not a product of bitterness but of pure frustration and at times exhaustion. Anyone may answer these questions since the people or agencies we are dealing with have not…so far.

Here is just a short list of our questions. The long list would overwhelm you.

Why has my wife been dialing Red Cross for five days only to hear someone say she should keep trying but all the lines are busy. Then a recording says we are going to hang up now, and they do!

Where are the 40,000 volunteers said to be helping the Red Cross when we call them?

What does Red Cross do exactly with the billions of dollars it collects in times like these?

Has anyone of the agencies helping people in shelters considered that giving people food, water and a blow up mattress for the next few months contributes nothing to their starting a new life.

Do insurance companies that are already trying to find ways out of paying for losses have a legal right to do this? Is it decent? Is it moral?

Do the national guard soldiers that were standing by as we entered our neighborhood and assuring us that all was safe and secure realize that it is a little to late for safe and secure. Does a pile of rubble need to be secured?

Do all the warnings about those who are committing fraud when it comes to being a legitimate Red Cross site or collection point sufficiently scared away what might amount to thousands of donors. What ever happened to check it then give. Is “it might be fraudulent” the new excuse for indifference.

Is there something wrong with helping an individual or a family. Is it just as conscience soothing to dump big checks into big organizations as to actually help a real person, one with a name and not just a social security number.

Does FEMA really expect people to return from places they have gone to for refuge, some that are hundreds or thousands of miles away from the Gulf coast area to keep an appointment with them to see their house? Is there even a child in America that doesn’t know that these houses have been photographed sitting in ten feet of water for the past ten days? Could one of these children please call FEMA and let them know? Oh, I forgot it took my wife over five hundred attempts to reach FEMA before she got through. The result is now the familiar “hurry up and wait.”

Will America with its worldwide reputation for its short attention span and its penchant for the pop culture, hottest item, latest news mentality really carry this thing through. Will interest wane before we can begin again.

President Bush said, “New Orleans will rise again.” But infrastructure and Superdomes do not a city make. A city is people. How can we help people?

Rev Bresciani is the author of two books. His website is americanprophet.org

On April 8, 2003, in a testimony before the Senate Steel Caucus, industry executives urged legislators to ignore the future decision of a World Trade Organization appeals panel, widely expected to uphold an earlier preliminary ruling that U.S.-imposed steel tariffs flouted international trade law.

Several senators called on the United States to withdraw from the multilateral body. Wilbur Ross, chairman of International Steel Group, blamed the burgeoning balance of payments deficit on the rulings and regulations of the WTO.

According to Steve Seidenberg in the National Law Journal, defiance of the WTO is a growing trend. Gary Horlick of the Washington DC law firm, Wilmer, Cutler & Pickering, reckons that one in seven judgments rendered by the WTO’s dispute mechanisms have been hitherto ignored.

Nor is the USA alone in its transgressions.

Ten polities - including the European Union and Canada - are serial violators. The WTO cannot enforce its decrees. It can only grant complainants permission to retaliate by imposing their own tariffs on products imported from the unrepentant country. This is a blunt and ineffective instrument. Experts warn of a return to unilateralism with the entire edifice of multilateral trade law discredited.

Revamping the dispute settlement rules is one item on the agenda of the current phase of trade negotiations, dubbed, in a November 2001 WTO Ministerial Conference, the Doha “Development” Round. Like the rest of the itinerary, it is going nowhere fast.

Alarmed by a looming and unrealistic deadline on May 31, 2003 the Chairman of the Dispute Settlement Body (DSB), Peter Balas, proposed to first concentrate on a framework document, followed by a draft text. But, as James Wolfensohn, the former President of the World Bank, observed, with everyone preoccupied with Baghdad, Doha - arguably far more crucial to the global economy - is sidelined.

This is unfortunate - and ominous. The 146 members of the WTO - the newest one being Macedonia - failed to agree on the future shape of farm trade by the stipulated deadline of March 31, 2003. The goalposts were then moved again and again with a deadline conference in December 2005. The September 2003 Ministerial Conference convenes in Cancun, Mexico was an abysmal failure.

In the meantime, the multilateral regime which bolstered international trade in the past 10 years, is being supplanted by a patchwork of bilateral and regional treaties, albeit subject to WTO rules. Scholars disagree whether, in the absence of a global compact, these are preferable to the status quo. But everyone accepts that international rules are the best option.

But divisions run deep.

India - an important player and the unofficial spokesperson for the “less privileged” club - joined Cuba, Egypt, Malaysia, Dominican Republic, Honduras and Jamaica in demanding “special and differential developing country provisions”. With Indonesia, Malaysia, Mauritius, Egypt, Kenya, Nigeria, Tanzania, Uganda and Zimbabwe, it insists on preferential market access for the group’s non-agricultural goods.

The developing countries regard the previous Uruguay Round as a rip-off perpetrated by the club of developed and industrialized countries at the expense of the indigent. They have sworn not be led down the garden path again. Hence their furious resistance to demands to expand the negotiations to include such issues as animal welfare, food safety and labeling and the protection of geographical trade names. They see these as thinly veiled attempts to introduce trade restraints through the backdoor.

Instead, they want to concentrate on their main exports - agricultural produce and textiles - on tariff reductions and preferences, special treatment for certain products and safeguard provisions. Some of them want rich-world farm and export subsidies - totaling more than $300 billion a year - dramatically reduced, or even eliminated altogether. Export credits and state-owned trading enterprises are also contentious topics. The atmosphere is so dour that no one even broaches industrial tariffs and anti-dumping.

Poor countries are especially incensed at the United States for having torpedoed an agreement to grant poor countries access to generic drugs to fight AIDS and other diseases - and at the European Union for postponing any serious tweaking of its egregious Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) to 2013.

The United States - faced with inane European subventions - raised its own farm support by a whopping four fifths in May 2003. Yet, it is still far below EU largesse. America is also the prime driver - together with the Cairns group of agricultural exporters (including Canada, New Zealand, Australia and Brazil) - of a bold initiative to cut subsidies down to 5 percent of production, to slash tariffs to 25 percent and to abolish all export-related aid.

Japan, insensitively, is trying to reduce its rice import quota. Together with Norway, India, the EU and South Korea - known as the “friends of multifunctionality” - it is championing an unworkable “linear” formula by which countries should cut subsidies and tariffs equally, irrespective of prevailing levels of farm aid. Even so, the EU would like to slash subsidies by no more than 45 to 55 percent and tariffs by less than 36 percent, as per the WTO’s Agreement on Agriculture.

Nor is the camp of developing countries either homogeneous or cohesive. African and Caribbean nations enjoy preferential access to markets in the EU and the United States. Others - notably India - are terrified of the inevitable onslaught of efficient competition following farm liberalization. But no country, rich or poor, seems to be preparing its agricultural sector to cope with the impact of a successful Doha round.

Time is running out. The term of Pascal Lamy, the EU’s capable trade commissioner, ended in 2004 and he was replaced by Peter Mandelson. President George Bush’s fast track negotiating authority expires in 2007, if he makes it that far. As The Economist warns, the “peace clause”, yielded by the Uruguay Round, elapsed on December 31, 2003. While in force, it prevented a deluge of farm-related litigation from erupting on the scene. A trickle is already evident: Brazil has sued both the USA and the EU over cotton and sugar subsidies, respectively. Textile wars erupted between China and both the EU and the USA and were settled by inconclusive short-term agreements.

The crisis at the WTO is part of a global transition from the multilateralism that characterized the Cold War - to unilateralism or, rather, bilateralism. The breakdown of consensus-based alliances strains international institutions and laws. National - or supranational - interests emerge as renewed sources of legitimacy. While the United States may be blamed for the demise of political multilateralism - it is the EU that is largely responsible for the collapse of the international economic order.

The Doha Development Agenda falls prey to these geopolitical upheavals as it tries to tackle the most prickly issues. In a presentation in March 2003 to the 3rd International Temperate Rice Conference in Punte del Este, Uruguay, Dan Horovitz, of the Theodore Goddard law firm in Brussels, reminded the participants how uncertain the outcomes are:

“Whereas the average non-agricultural worldwide tariff is 4 percent, the average tariff imposed by developed countries on agricultural products is 40 percent, with peaks as high as 500 percent … The new Round’s negotiations are of paramount importance for the very viability and credibility of the WTO system. A failure to provide for proper solutions to the problems of the global agricultural trade would have particularly devastating results not only for trade in agriculture, but for the current trading system as a whole.”

Sam Vaknin ( samvak.tripod.com ) is the author of Malignant Self Love - Narcissism Revisited and After the Rain - How the West Lost the East. He served as a columnist for Global Politician, Central Europe Review, PopMatters, Bellaonline, and eBookWeb, a United Press International (UPI) Senior Business Correspondent, and the editor of mental health and Central East Europe categories in The Open Directory and Suite101.

Until recently, he served as the Economic Advisor to the Government of Macedonia.

Visit Sam’s Web site at samvak.tripod.com