Does having children contribute to climate change?

November 27th, 2009

A new UN report suggests that slowing population growth could help combat climate change. Do you think that having less children could help us save the planet?

telegraph.co.uk

November 2009

The United Nations Population Fund said if women are empowered to take control of their reproductive health they may choose to have fewer children, reducing pressure on resources and the environment.

“Slower population growth would help build social resilience to climate change’s impacts and would contribute to a reduction in greenhouse gas emissions,” it reads.

The 94-page State of the World Population Report 2009 calls for any deal on climate change coming out of the UN summit in Copenhagen this December to include measures to empower women and improve access to family planning services.

“There is still time for the negotiators about to gather in Copenhagen to think creatively about population, reproductive health and gender equality and how these might contribute to a just and environmentally sustainable world,” it reads

full text here

  • Share/Bookmark

Climategate: the scandal spreads, the plot thickens, the shame deepens…

November 27th, 2009

telegraph.co.uk
November 2009

Wow! The scandal just gets juicier and juicier. Now it seems that the Kiwis may have been at it too – tinkering with raw data to make “Global Warming” look scarier than it really is. (Hat tip: Watts Up With That; Ian Wishart)

The alleged villains this time are the climate scientists at the National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research (NiWA) – New Zealand’s answer to Britain’s Climate Research Unit. And to judge by this news alert by the Climate Science Coalition of NZ, both institutions share a similarly laissez-faire attitude to scientific accuracy.

Compare and contrast these two graphs and you’ll see .

Kiwigraph1

This is the graph from NiWA’s website, showing mean annual temperature over New Zealand from 1853. Note the dotted straight line showing the upward trend. Worrying, isn’t it? Almost enough to make you fall in love your flickery, yellowy new eco-light bulbs, recycle your kids and commit yourself to a binding agreement at Copenhagen.

Now have a look at this analysis of the raw data taken from exactly the same temperature stations.

Kiwigraph2

Can you see the difference? I can – and I know as little about science as Al Gore. But lets allow the experts at Climate Science Coalition of NZ to explain:

full text here

  • Share/Bookmark

‘Eat fewer sausages to save the planet from global warming’, Britons warned

November 27th, 2009
Livestock are responsible for 18 per cent of global emissions of carbon dioxide the report pointed out. (Getty Images)

Livestock are responsible for 18 per cent of global emissions of carbon dioxide the report pointed out. (Getty Images)

dailymail.co.uk
November 2009

Cutting a sausage a day from the average British diet is necessary to save the planet, scientists claim.

Their controversial report, which partly blames meat-eaters for climate change, was backed by Environment Secretary Hilary Benn’s department last night.

The scientists called for a 30 per cent reduction in the number of farm animals bred for meat to prevent rising temperatures and rising sea levels.

The average meat intake in men is 970g a week and in women 550g a week. A 30 per cent reduction in men is equivalent to seven 40g sausages, two 130g chicken breasts, four 70g lamb chops or 12 bacon rashers of 25g.

Such a reduction would also bring significant health benefits, the scientists said, by reducing premature deaths from heart disease in Britain by 17 per cent  -  equivalent to 18,000 lives a year.

They claimed food production from animals was a major source of agricultural greenhouse gas emissions, and that by 2030, rising demand for meat was expected to drive up livestock production globally by 85 per cent from 2000 levels, leading to substantial emission increases.

full text here

  • Share/Bookmark

FDA Allows Use of Experimental Antiviral Drug to Treat H1N1

November 27th, 2009

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration is allowing the use of an experimental antiviral drug to treat severe cases of H1N1 or swine flu.

The Wall Street Journal
October 2009

The drug, Peramivir, is currently being developed by BioCryst Pharmaceuticals Inc. and is undergoing testing required for regular FDA approval.

The FDA issued a so-called emergency use authorization late Friday that allows doctors to use Peramivir, which is delivered intravenously, in certain hospitalized adult and pediatric patients with confirmed or suspected H1N1 influenza.

A handful of doctors have already treated patients with severe cases of H1N1 using Peramivir obtained through the agency’s expanded access rules that allow individual patients to obtain experimental drugs if certain conditions are met. The emergency-use authorization allows use of the drug without prior FDA approval.

full text here


  • Share/Bookmark

Rich ‘may evolve into separate species’

November 27th, 2009

The super-rich may evolve into a separate species entirely in the future due to enhancements in biotechnology and robotic engineering, American futurologist Paul Saffo has said.

The rich could all be cyborgs in the future. (telegraph.co.uk)

The rich could all be cyborgs in the future. (telegraph.co.uk)

telegraph.co.uk
October 2009

Mr Saffo, from San Francisco, says in the future people will be able to grow their own replacement organs, take specially tailored drugs, and use genetic research tools to alert them from any possible hereditary health dangers.

He adds that tomorrow’s world will be a fusion of biology and technology, where robots do the chores, cars drive themselves and artificial limbs are better than real ones.

Mr Saffo’s comments reflect claims by American scientist Ray Kurzweil who only a few months ago said immortality was only 20 years away due to the speed of advancements in nanotechnology.

But Mr Saffo says these improvements would only be affordable to the super-rich. And because of this, he says, advancements may lead to a divide between the classes and eventually could lead to the super-rich evolving into a different species entirely, leaving his not-so-rich counterpart behind.

“In the 1980s it was the personal computer – came out of the garage, changed the world. In the 1990s it was the web. The next big device to wander into our lives is robots,” he told the Sunday Times.

full text here

  • Share/Bookmark