SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Sioux Nation -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: Patricia Trinchero who wrote (99889)2/19/2007 2:42:39 AM
From: Asymmetric  Respond to of 362959
 
Climate change: scientists warn it may be too late to save the ice caps

David Adam, environment correspondent
Monday February 19, 2007
The Guardian

A critical meltdown of ice sheets and severe sea level rise could be inevitable because of global warming, the world's scientists are preparing to warn their governments. New studies of Greenland and Antarctica have forced a UN expert panel to conclude there is a 50% chance that widespread ice sheet loss "may no longer be avoided" because of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.

Such melting would raise sea levels by four to six metres, the scientists say. It would cause "major changes in coastline and inundation of low-lying areas" and require "costly and challenging" efforts to move millions of people and infrastructure from vulnerable areas. The previous official line, issued in 2001, was that the chance of such an event was "not well known, but probably very low".

The melting process could take centuries, but increased warming caused by a failure to cut emissions would accelerate the ice sheets' demise, and give nations less time to adapt to the consequences. Areas such as the Maldives would be swamped and low-lying countries such as the Netherlands and Bangladesh, as well as coastal cities including London, New York and Tokyo, would face critical flooding.

The warning appears in a report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which assesses the likely impacts of global warming and will be published in April. A final draft of the report's summary-for-policymakers chapter, obtained by the Guardian, says: "Very large sea level rises that would result from widespread deglaciation of Greenland and West Antarctic ice sheets imply major changes in coastlines and inundation of low-lying areas, with greatest effects in river deltas.

"Relocating populations, economic activity and infrastructure would be costly and challenging. There is medium confidence that both ice sheets would be committed to partial deglaciation for a global average temperature increase greater than 1-2C, causing sea level rise of 4-6m over centuries to millennia." Medium confidence means about a five in 10 chance.

The revelation comes as a new report points out that greenhouse gas emissions running into hundreds of millions of tonnes have not been disclosed by Britain's biggest businesses, masking the full extent of the UK's contribution to global warming. According to a report by Christian Aid, only 16 of Britain's top 100 listed companies are meeting the government's most elementary reporting guidelines on greenhouse gas emissions. As a result, almost 200m tonnes of damaging CO2 is estimated to be missing from the annual reports of FTSE 100 companies. The figure is more than the annual reported emissions of Pakistan and Greece combined.

This month the IPCC published a separate study on the science of climate change, which concluded that humans are "very likely" to be responsible for most of the recent warming, and that average temperatures would probably increase by 4C this century if emissions continue to rise. Even under its most optimistic scenario, based on a declining world population and a rapid switch to clean technology, temperatures are still likely to rise by 1.8C.

The new report is expected to say this means there is "a significant probability that some large-scale events (eg deglaciation of major ice sheets) may no longer be avoided due to historical greenhouse gas emissions and the inertia of the climate system". Scientists involved with the IPCC process cannot talk publicly about its contents before publication. But a senior author on the report said: "It's not rocket science to realise that with the numbers coming out from the IPCC [science report], the warming by the end of the century is enough to do that." The report's conclusion poses a conundrum for governments of how to address a problem that is inevitable but may not occur for hundreds or thousands of years. "That's for the policy makers to decide but it really is a very difficult question," the source said. "Those are moral questions and the answer you give will depend very much on which part of the world you live in."

Jonathan Overpeck, a climate scientist at the University of Arizona, said the key question was not whether the ice sheets would break up, but how quickly. Some models suggest rapid melting that would bring sea level rises of more than a metre per century. "That would be much harder for us to cope with," he says.

The IPCC science report predicted sea level rises of up to 0.59m by the end of the century. But that does not include the possible contribution from ice sheets, because the experts judged it too unpredictable to forecast over short timescales.

environment.guardian.co.uk



To: Patricia Trinchero who wrote (99889)2/19/2007 3:46:46 AM
From: stockman_scott  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 362959
 
Obama's 'Colorblind' Double Bind
__________________________________________________________

By Clarence Page
Columnist
The Chicago Tribune
February 19, 2007

WASHINGTON- Sen. Barack Obama's presidential quest has launched some revealing conversations, particularly about what makes a black person "black."

Even for those who think as I do that the answer is breathtakingly obvious, the question is not frivolous. For Obama, the son of a white mother from Kansas and a black father from Kenya, the emerging media narrative invites a re-examination of widely-held assumptions. Is race a matter of color? Ancestry? Or experiences?

"There are African-Americans who don't think that you're black enough, who don't think that you have had the required experience," reporter Steve Kroft asked Obama as they cruised Chicago's South Side during a recent "60 Minutes" profile.

"The truth of the matter is," Obama mused, gazing at the neighborhoods outside their vehicle's windows, "when I'm walking down the south side of Chicago and visiting my barbershop and playing basketball in some of these neighborhoods, those aren't questions I get asked."

No, those are the kind of questions some people ask about you when you're the first black presidential candidate to have a viable chance of winning.

"I also notice when I'm catching a cab," he quipped. "Nobody's confused about that, either."

That was a significant line, even if nobody really believes that the superstar freshman senator from Illinois would have much trouble hailing any taxi he wants these days. In our racially complicated society, you're not just the race - or races - that you say you are. You're also the race other people say you are.

Yet, the big question for past black presidential candidates has been whether they could get white votes. For Obama, the emerging question has been whether he can attract black votes, especially compared to frontrunner Hillary Clinton. In Washington Post/ABC News polls in December and January, 60 percent of black voters said they would vote for the New York senator and former first lady compared to 40 percent for Obama. That surprised many people, who apparently expect all black voters to think alike.

The fact is, black voters can be just as discerning and skeptical about political candidates that they do not know well. Polls also have shown that about half of voters overall, including blacks, say they don't know enough about Obama to have an opinion about him.

Obama, like the rest of the Democratic field, knows that he enjoys a lot of goodwill that Sen. Clinton and her ex-president husband have built up among black voters, politicians and Democratic operatives over the years. Some have made early endorsements of Clinton, even if they do not dislike Obama.

One black Clinton supporter, South Carolina state Sen. Robert Ford, went so far as to say that a black candidate at the top of the ticket could bring down the Democratic party and even lose its recently-won congressional majority. When other black Democrats repudiated his remarks, Ford apologized and said he would support whoever wins the nomination. Welcome to the big leagues, senator.

Blacks worried about whether Obama is "black enough" might be reassured by the grumblings of others who think he's too black.

Obama quite-sensibly observed in his "60 Minutes" interview that he did not "decide" to be black. "If you look African-American in this society, you're treated as an African-American," he said, "and when you're a child, in particular, that is how you begin to identify yourself."

That response rankled talk-radio host Rush Limbaugh, who apparently thinks race is something we can put on or take off like a suit. If Obama did not "decide" his race, Limbaugh declared, "Well, renounce it, then. If it's not something you want to be, if you didn't decide it, renounce it, become white!" Ah, if only it was that easy, el Rushbo.

Moving up fast in that silliness derby, syndicated talk-radio host Glenn Beck declared Obama to be "colorless." "As a white guy," Beck said, " ... you don't notice that he is black. So he might as well be white, you know what I mean?" Beck added that he'll probably be called a "racist" by some bloggers for saying that. He hopes. It might help his ratings.

Whether Obama had the "black American experience" before, he certainly appears to be getting it now. Part of that experience is to hear other people argue over what you should call yourself. In fact, if you don't have the right to call yourself what you want, you don't have much freedom at all.

Besides, if you look back far enough, we're all "mixed."

- Clarence Page is a Pulitzer Prize-winning syndicated columnist specializing in urban issues. He is based in Washington, D.C.

(c) By The Chicago Tribune | Distributed by Tribune Media Services, Inc.

realclearpolitics.com