Saturday, October 31, 2009
E.U. Reaches Funding Deal on Climate Change
By JAMES KANTER and STEPHEN CASTLE
Published: October 30, 2009
European Union leaders on Friday offered to contribute money to a global fund to help developing countries tackle global warming hoping kick-start stalled talks on a new agreement on climate change.
Related
Building a Bridge Across the Generation Gap on Climate (October 31, 2009)
But E.U. leaders disappointed climate campaigners by making the offer conditional on donations from other parts of the world and by failing to decide how much Europe would contribute to a global pot of up to 50 billion euros by 2020.
Swedish Prime Minister Fredrik Reinfeldt insisted the E.U. now had "a very strong negotiating position" to press for a global deal at United Nations talks in Copenhagen in December that are aimed at agreeing a successor accord to the Kyoto Protocol.
Angela Merkel, the German chancellor, also stressed that Europe was leading the way.
"There is no-one else among the industrialized nations" to have made as concrete an offer of climate finance, Ms. Merkel told a press conference in Brussels.
But environmental groups took a mostly negative view of the results of the two-day summit, saying E.U. leaders had chosen vague, global figures and thereby diminished chances of unblocking climate negotiations ahead of the meeting in Copenhagen.
"Europe has failed once again to say how much it is prepared to contribute for climate finance," said Sonja Meister, a climate campaign coordinator for Friends of the Earth Europe. "In every way the EU is shirking its historical responsibilities and blocking progress towards the just and fair agreement the world needs in Copenhagen," she said.
The European Commission had called on E.U. leaders to make an offer of up to 15 billion euros annually by 2020.
Mr. Reinfeldt, the Swedish prime minister, said leaders had instead agreed that developing nations needed about 100 billion euros annually by 2020 and that, of that sum, between 22 billion euros and 50 billion euros would have to come from public funds, as opposed to private sources like investments in carbon-reduction projects.
Mr. Reinfeldt also said that E.U. nations could make a voluntary decision to contribute to a so-called fast-track mechanism that would make funds available immediately to developing countries.
Jose Manuel Barroso, the president of the European Commission, put a brave face on the result, underlining that the trade bloc should not be "naive" going into the negotiations in Copenhagen that are set to begin in fewer than six weeks.
"Our offer is not a blank check," said Mr. Barroso. "We are ready to act, if our partners deliver," he said.
E.U. officials said that Ms. Merkel, the German chancellor, who had been reticent over making any European commitment, had been persuaded that the figures were only conditional on steps being taken by other nation
(NYT, Oct.31/09
Tuesday, October 27, 2009
How long can commies milk the Asean Treaty
This is a road show exactly like the Nuclear deal. They talk at length about the poor. But unfortunately it is untrue. The party bosses can preach always about the poverty
and starvation.But there is nothing wrong in commies talking about for their own label.
Hail commies.
Thursday, October 22, 2009
RAIN WATER HARVESTING EXEMPTION:ASSAIL DECISION
There is a green line there. By the time 2050 arrives Mr. Paloli and will be dead and gone. But the implications of our action will be suffered by our grand children in Kerala. They will squarely blame us all for our near ignorant decisions.
Mr. Government keep taking such "wonderful" decisions.
Yet another thing the govt. shall do is to order setting aside of a space around the plinth of the building that will ensure free seepage of water to the subsurface. This wuill ensure recharging of subsurface rocks.
FRESH WATER EQUITY: KERALA’S DYING DREAM OF THE MILLENIUM?
Thrivikramji.K.P. & Rajan, A.N.
Department of Geology, University of Kerala
Kariavattom campus 695 581
Kerala (Area = 38,863 Km2; Population = 30Million) is endowed with a total of 44 (41 west flowing and 3 east flowing – all tributaries of Cauvery) minor and medium rivers following the scaling of rivers by Rao (1972). Among these only 5 rivers (>2000 Km 2 of basin area) fall under the group of medium sized rivers. Sahyadris (a.k.a. Western Gahts) form the eastern border of the state, where as the Laccadive sea shoreline (length = 560 Km) demarcates the western border. Despite the relatively heavy rain fall (annual av.= 400 cm) received in the state out of the SW and NE monsoons, geomorphology and subsurface geology dictate a very low residence time for the surface and phreatic water. The annual runoff of Kerala’s rivers is estimated at 70,323 Mm3 out of which 42,722 Mm3 is utilizable.
The state (in the highland region; >75.0 m a.m.s.l.; extent = 21777 Km2) is mostly underlain by Pre-Cambrian crystalline rocks like gneisses (Hornblende or garnetiferrous-Biotite-gneisses, Khondalites) and charnockite. Dominant surface envelop in the midland (7.5 m – 75.0 m. a.m.s.l.; extent = 13476 Km2) tract is mostly laterite – a derivative of the crystallines. The coastal land (<7 .5=".5" 4="4" a.m.s.l.="a.m.s.l." a="a" alluvium="alluvium" and="and" at="at" beach="beach" br="br" by="by" cap="cap" certain="certain" coastal="coastal" complex="complex" covered="covered" different="different" extent="3610" generations.="generations." into="into" is="is" km2="km2" laterite="laterite" least="least" m.="m." molded="molded" of="of" regions="regions" ridges="ridges" rocks="rocks" sedimentary="sedimentary" set="set" show="show" tertiary="tertiary" with="with">
Scrutiny of the extent of lithological cover provides an interesting insight on the nature of abundance. The dominant cover rock is undoubtedly of the Precambrian age (area = 27955 Km2), where as the laterite has a spread of only 5116 Km2, followed by recent alluvium (area = 4672 Km2) and lastly by Laterite capped sedimentary sequence of Tertiary age (area = 1120 Km2).
In comparison with the dominant cover of Pre-Cambrian rocks, the cover of laterite and alluvium (though secondary in dominance) possess exceedingly commendable water bearing properties and recharge characteristics. This belt also covers the entire low land and most of the midland tracts. Hence, ground water potential and resource of the state are positively dictated by the hydro-geological properties of the crystalline rocks.
The surface water potential on the other hand is a function of total rain fall on the one hand and the topographic characteristics and structural aspects like discontinuities of lithological types. Surface water, due to the very steep gradient of the land surface, rushes down through most part of the channels in the drainage net, and slows down only after reaching the tracts of lower elevations in the lower part of the midland and low land.
Access to satellite imageries (especially the LANDSAT) provided a synoptic view of the surface lithological cover as well as the gross structural make up of the basement rocks. The data gathered on lineaments traversing the terrain (like multiple generations, attitudes, extents as well as their influence on the geometry of the stream (valley) net or disposition of the ridges), added newer dimensions to knowledge base of the practicing hydrogeologist.
The role of the topographic lows falling along or coinciding with some of the major or minor lineaments (= now mostly stream courses or part of the stream net) in recharging the phreatic reservoir gained acceptance. In fact later, litho-structural analysis of the rock suites led the workers to believe that some of these lineaments truly coincide with certain leading shear zones (e.g. Bavani and Achankovil shear zones).
The cumulative length of the major lineaments mapped from satellite imageries (the LANDSAT) is placed at 1824 Km. (or let say 1800 Km.). It has been possible to identify two sets based on their orientation in plan view, viz., a minor NE-SW set (498 Km. or say 500 Km.) and a major NW-SE set (1325 or let us say 1300 Km.). One may consider this 1800 Km long lineament, as a slab of very highly fractured and sheared rock (hence more porous and permeable), in comparison with the rock slabs, and as an excellent phreatic aquifer. Assuming an average width of say 100 m., a depth of 100 m. and a porosity of say 30%, then ideally, total volume of water borne in this body of rock, at any point in time, will be of the order of (1800 Km. x 0.1 Km. x0.1Km. x 0.3) 5.4 Km3.or 5400 Mm3
Assuming an average water yield of 10 lps, this phreatic aquifer shall support
The CGWB and SGWD have promptly and adequately recognized the role of the lineaments as major conduits of recharge and/or discharge. The width of the lineaments has been identified to range between a few tens of meters to several tens of meters. The lineaments are important conduits of water flow like the other weak planes like the schistosity and fracture sets.
Some of the deep bore wells constructed as part of a SIDA-CGWB project in the late seventies or early 80’s have tapped sources as deep as 200 to 300 meters. The results also indicate and affirm the poor water bearing properties of charnockite which is mostly massive without any major fractures, joint sets or cleavages. In Kerala, the gneisses are by far more water bearing than charnockites as a consequence of the presence of fractures, joints, foliations etc. In fact, the chemical weathering process dominant in this tropical environment, adequately enlarged these discontinuities in otherwise massive rock, facilitating through passage of recharge.
.
The water demand by a teeming population of 30 million is also on the rise in comparison with the demand in the pre- or immediate post-independence days. Though an equitable water distribution for this large population calls for (30x106 x 40 x 365 = 438000.0x106 lit. or 438.0 Mm3) annually, most of the water supplied by the rains is lost to the ocean either through the surface flow or by the sub-surface flow.7>
Monday, October 19, 2009
THE ARUVIKKARA RESERVOIR SAND MINING: POTENTIAL PUBLIC HEALTH HARMS
Thursday, October 15, 2009
RESERVOIR SILT ANY ANSWER FOR SAND SCARCITY?
SOLUTION FOR CONSTRUCTION SAND:KERALA, INDIA
Monday, October 5, 2009
Environment and Obesity
The Effect of Our Surroundings on Body Weight
Researchers point to external causes of--and fixes for--the obesity pandemic
By Hal Arkowitz and Scott O. Lilienfeld
Courtesy:Scientific American, Sept.2009.
Obesity is a “global epidemic,” according to the World Health Organization. Two thirds of American adults and one third of school-age children are either overweight or obese (defined as extremely overweight). These proportions have been rising steeply, report the latest surveys. From 1960 to 2002 the population of overweight and obese adults increased by roughly 50 percent, and the corresponding increase for children was 300 percent. Compounding the problem, obesity rates in other countries are rapidly approaching those in the U.S.
What is causing this pandemic, and what can we do about it? Researchers have provided some tentative answers that fly in the face of commonly held beliefs. They suggest that the increase in obesity may be a result of environmental changes that tempt us into unhealthy habits and tend to overwhelm our psychological defenses against consuming too much and succumbing to fattening fare. In fact, environmental cues can exacerbate any innate tendency to use food as a balm for jittery nerves or sadness. Thus, many health experts advocate legislation—for instance, a tax on junk food—that promotes healthy eating. Others are trying to help individuals change their immediate eating milieu in ways that discourage overeating.
Obesity Myths
Many people, including health care professionals, believe that obesity can be attributed simply to a lack of self-control or willpower. It is true that obese people are often unable to adequately control their eating. But lack of self-control is merely a description, not an explanation. What remains to be explained is why they cannot exercise self-control.
Nevertheless, doctors routinely tell their obese patients to restrict what they eat. Diet books, articles in health magazines and on Web sites, and commercial weight-loss programs also encourage people to eat less and exercise more. Unfortunately, approaches based on self-control do not seem to work very well. As sales of weight-loss books have climbed recently—from 3.6 million copies in 2005 to 4.8 million in 2007—so has obesity. Further, two thirds of those who slim down in weight-loss programs regain their weight within a year, and almost all have put back the pounds within five years.
Other explanations of the increase in obesity are based on genes and psychological factors. It is true that many people are predisposed to gain weight because of their genetic makeup. But genetic factors cannot account for the sharp increase in the prevalence of obesity in society. The genes within a population relevant to weight do not change appreciably in 50 years. Some psychological factors may also play a role in obesity, including impulsivity, anxiety and a tendency among some people to eat during negative emotional states. But here, too, there is no reason to believe that these characteristics have become more prevalent in recent decades. Therefore, genetic and psychological factors cannot account for the rise in obesity.
Toxic Environment
Results of a large number of studies support the conclusion that environmental cues exert a powerful influence on our eating behaviors. And unlike biological factors, our nutritional environment has changed radically in the past 50 years. In various publications, Yale University psychologist Kelly D. Brown ell has used the term “toxic environment” to refer to this new dietary atmosphere, which is characterized by pervasive exposure to food that is energy-dense, heavily marketed, cheap and widely accessible, accompanied by a lack of physical activity.
A 1995 report by the Institute of Medicine set the stage for future work when it concluded that the root of the obesity problem “must lie in the powerful social and cultural forces that promote an energy-rich diet and a sedentary lifestyle.” More recent studies have borne out this statement. These forces, Brownell postulates, include the explosion of fast food outlets, increasingly large restaurant portion sizes, “all you can eat” buffets, the proliferation of mini markets that sell high-calorie snacks and drinks, contracts between schools and fast food and soft drink companies to sell their products in school cafeterias, and widespread powerful food advertising.
Many people, including health care professionals, believe that obesity can be attributed simply to a lack of self-control or willpower. It is true that obese people are often unable to adequately control their eating. But lack of self-control is merely a description, not an explanation. What remains to be explained is why they cannot exercise self-control.
Results of a large number of studies support the conclusion that environmental cues exert a powerful influence on our eating behaviors. And unlike biological factors, our nutritional environment has changed radically in the past 50 years. In various publications,
Environment and Obesity
The Effect of Our Surroundings on Body Weight
Researchers point to external causes of--and fixes for--the obesity pandemic
By Hal Arkowitz and Scott O. Lilienfeld
Courtesy:Scientific American, Sept.2009.
Obesity is a “global epidemic,” according to the World Health Organization. Two thirds of American adults and one third of school-age children are either overweight or obese (defined as extremely overweight). These proportions have been rising steeply, report the latest surveys. From 1960 to 2002 the population of overweight and obese adults increased by roughly 50 percent, and the corresponding increase for children was 300 percent. Compounding the problem, obesity rates in other countries are rapidly approaching those in the
What is causing this pandemic, and what can we do about it? Researchers have provided some tentative answers that fly in the face of commonly held beliefs. They suggest that the increase in obesity may be a result of environmental changes that tempt us into unhealthy habits and tend to overwhelm our psychological defenses against consuming too much and succumbing to fattening fare. In fact, environmental cues can exacerbate any innate tendency to use food as a balm for jittery nerves or sadness. Thus, many health experts advocate legislation—for instance, a tax on junk food—that promotes healthy eating. Others are trying to help individuals change their immediate eating milieu in ways that discourage overeating.
Obesity Myths
Many people, including health care professionals, believe that obesity can be attributed simply to a lack of self-control or willpower. It is true that obese people are often unable to adequately control their eating. But lack of self-control is merely a description, not an explanation. What remains to be explained is why they cannot exercise self-control.
Nevertheless, doctors routinely tell their obese patients to restrict what they eat. Diet books, articles in health magazines and on Web sites, and commercial weight-loss programs also encourage people to eat less and exercise more. Unfortunately, approaches based on self-control do not seem to work very well. As sales of weight-loss books have climbed recently—from 3.6 million copies in 2005 to 4.8 million in 2007—so has obesity. Further, two thirds of those who slim down in weight-loss programs regain their weight within a year, and almost all have put back the pounds within five years.
Other explanations of the increase in obesity are based on genes and psychological factors. It is true that many people are predisposed to gain weight because of their genetic makeup. But genetic factors cannot account for the sharp increase in the prevalence of obesity in society. The genes within a population relevant to weight do not change appreciably in 50 years. Some psychological factors may also play a role in obesity, including impulsivity, anxiety and a tendency among some people to eat during negative emotional states. But here, too, there is no reason to believe that these characteristics have become more prevalent in recent decades. Therefore, genetic and psychological factors cannot account for the rise in obesity.
Toxic Environment
Results of a large number of studies support the conclusion that environmental cues exert a powerful influence on our eating behaviors. And unlike biological factors, our nutritional environment has changed radically in the past 50 years. In various publications,
A 1995 report by the