Congressional negotiators on Friday reached a tentative agreement on the farm bill, potentially ending months of deadlock over US agricultural policy amid record profits by farmers and mounting concerns over rising food prices.

The proposed legislation, whose final details will be unveiled next week and still face the possibility of a White House veto, will cost $280bn over five years and largely preserves an extensive programme of subsidies to US farmers.

Under the terms of the deal reached by House and Senate negotiators, a key ethanol tax credit is expected to be reduced from 51 cents per gallon to 45 and the tariff on ethanol imports from outside the US is also expected to be scaled back.

In addition, negotiators broadly agreed on an additional $10bn in funding for national food aid programmes, designed to tackle the threat posed by rising food prices in the US and address fears that millions of poor Americans risk going hungry.

Today the principal farm bill negotiators came together on a bipartisan level to reach a tentative agreement on the agriculture policy that will make the final farm bill a strong one,” said Tom Harkin, the Iowa Democrat who chairs the Senate committee on agriculture, nutrition and forestry.

The House and the Senate had been trying to reconcile their differences for months, but growing concerns about food prices gave added urgency to their efforts. US food inflation rose 4.7 per cent last year and is expected to record a similar jump in 2008.

The Bush administration has threatened on several occasions to block passage of the bill on the grounds that some of the measures amount to tax increases. Its position on the agreement reached on Friday is unlikely to be known until final details are unveiled next week.

A new farm bill is negotiated every five years in Washington, amid massive lobbying efforts by crop growers, environmentalists and food stamp campaigners. In addition, the terms of this year’s bill are being closely tracked by international trade negotiators concerned that they may undercut multilateral efforts in the struggling Doha round to slash agricultural subsidies around the world.

The negotiations in Congress have coincided with a fight between the White House and Democratic lawmakers over the fate of a controversial free trade agreement between the US and Colombia. This week, Hank Paulson, Treasury secretary, appeared relatively optimistic however that a deal might be struck with Nancy Pelosi, House speaker, unlocking the agreement.

“I look forward to...talking to her,” Mr Paulson said in a Reuters interview. “She said she was going to call me back with some ideas. I’m always willing to listen and I would very much like to see Colombia get done.’’

The research fills a gap in our understanding of what was happening in Africa before humans first left the continent.

"The assumption has always been that the original population [in sub-Saharan Africa] was very small but probably a single population," said Spencer Wells, head of the Genographic Project, which oversaw the study.

"Turns out, that is not the case."

(The National Geographic Society owns National Geographic News and funds the Genographic Project.)

The study appears in the current issue of the American Journal of Human Genetics.

Separate Ways

Around 200,000 years ago, modern humans emerged as a distinct species. All people alive today can trace their ancestry back to these humans, according to previous studies.

By the time the first great migrations out of Africa began, around 60,000 years ago, humanity had split into distinct populations with unique genetic lineages.

So what happened between 200,000 years ago and 60,000 years ago?

To find out, Wells and his colleagues analyzed 624 complete genomes of mitochondrial DNA—which is passed down from mothers—from various indigenous populations across sub-Saharan Africa. A genome is a person's complete set of DNA (quick overview of human genetics).

How much is your shopping basket going to cost in 10 years?

Canada's polar bears are at risk from hunting and melting ice in the Arctic

Polar bears in Canada are at risk from climate change but not threatened with extinction, a panel of experts has advised the Canadian government.

The government should develop a plan to protect the country's estimated 15,000 polar bears, the panel said.

The plight of the polar bear has long concerned environmentalists.

The animals face loss of habitat on two fronts, the panel said - hunting, and melting ice in the Arctic, which is widely blamed on climate change.

While recognising both problems, the panel found that Canada's polar bear population was not declining enough to place it in the most serious category as an endangered species.

Instead, it has been classified as a species of special concern.

'At risk'

"Based on the best available information at hand, there was insufficient reason to think that the polar bear was at imminent risk of extinction," said Jeff Hutchings, the panel's chairman.

"That's not to say that it's not in trouble. A special concern species is a species at risk in Canada and requires legislative action."

Canada's environment minister, John Baird, is obliged to accept the government-commissioned report's findings and address threats to the animal's survival, including climate change.

He announced Thursday former Syncrude president Jim Carter will head an industry-dominated panel that will sketch a roadmap for carbon capture, a cornerstone of the provincial climate-change plan.

Some energy officials, like Carter's fellow panelist Epcor CEO Don Lowry, have said the Harper government's recent 2012 target seems severe, although some major oilsands firms have already been designing carbon-capture systems as part of their new plants.

The council includes six other current energy-sector leaders including EnCana CEO Randy Eresman, as well as two senior federal bureaucrats, three provincial officials and only one outsider -- Mike Percy, dean of University of Alberta's business school.

After two major panels told the province and Ottawa in recent months how it can forge ahead with taking the technology mainstream, this new one will be more of an implementation team, devising rules, timelines and government incentives to create the capture and underground storage systems. It will also determine where in Alberta the gas should be piped.

The oilpatch and electricity sectors are hoping for massive government investment into the technology, since the capture, pipeline and storage networks will carry multibillion-dollar price tags that companies are loath to shoulder themselves. A recent federal-provincial panel said both levels of government should pay a combined $2 billion.

The government hasn't committed anything, although the budget this week announced $574 million over three years for climate-change measures, mostly from industry emission fines or federal grants. It's widely expected that most of the money will go toward carbon capture, a technique that some other countries use and that many environmental groups embrace.

Carter argued that the governments which reap taxes and economic benefits from energy firms should help.

"Everybody benefits from this -- government and industry -- and we have to see this as a joint effort going forward," he said.

A provincial press release today boasts that carbon sequestration will be "Canada's largest contribution to reducing greenhouse gas emissions." That's based on the notion that oilsands expansions would lift Alberta's overall emissions much more dramatically if it wasn't capturing the carbon dioxide and piping 139 megatonnes of it underground to substantially cut the sector's emissions levels by 139 megatonnes by 2050.

By that year, the province expects its greenhouse-gas output will be 14 per cent below where it was in 2005, a target Premier Ed Stelmach bills as reasonable but environmental groups and other critics say is woefully inadequate to combat global warming.

The Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada (COSEWIC) "has reassessed the polar bear as a species of special concern ... a species at risk in Canada ... (and) in trouble," said panel chairman Jeffrey Hutchings.

"This is a species that is highly sensitive to human activities," he told reporters.

"In some respects, the polar bear is close to meeting some of the criteria (for designation as "threatened") ... in terms of the magnitude of population decline in parts of the bear's range."

But, he added, "Based on the best available information at hand, there was insufficient reason to believe that it is at imminent danger of extinction."

The category for a species "of special concern" is among the lowest in COSEWIC's catalogue of risk assessments with "endangered" topping the list for animals facing imminent extinction.

At its April 20-25 meeting this week in Yellowknife, COSEWIC assessed the status of 31 species, including the polar bear, spotted owl, Western chorus frog and Vancouver Island marmot.

In its assessment, COSEWIC noted that polar bear populations are declining in some areas, are stable in others, but are increasing in some parts. The total population in Canada, where two-thirds of the world's polar bears live, is estimated at 15,500.

The primary threats to the polar bear, said Hutchings, "are over-harvesting in the waters between Baffin Island and Greenland, a decline of summer sea ice in southern parts of its range, and oil and gas development."

But he said the current modeling is unable to determine exactly how much of an impact retreating Arctic ice is having on the bear.

Canada's Environment Minister John Baird now has until November to accept COSEWIC's recommendation for the designation, reject it or ask for a further review.

In a statement, he said he would outline in August how the government will proceed, after receiving COSEWIC's final report.

If he accepts COSEWIC's recommendation, the government must prepare a conservation plan addressing threats to the bear and its habitat.

Canadian environment ministers rejected previous COSEWIC assessments in 1991, 1999 and 2002, citing concerns about insufficient or outdated data, and asked for more research.

Baird said on Friday the government "believes that the polar bear is an iconic symbol of Canada. As such, we also believe we have a responsibility to ensure its population is strong and its future is certain."

"This government cares about the future of the polar bear and as minister of the environment, I am committed to action," he said.

Wednesday, the World Wildlife Fund (WWF) warned in a new study that Arctic sea ice is melting "significantly faster" than predicted and is approaching a point of no return, with dire consequences for the polar bear.

"Previous models had predicted that melting sea ice would mean some polar bear populations could become extinct by 2050. The new evidence points to even earlier regional extinctions," said Peter Ewins, director of species conservation at WWF-Canada.

In total, COSEWIC assessed 16 animal, bird and plant species on Friday as endangered, four as threatened and four, including the polar bear, as a special concern.

Three species, including the polar bear, a plant and lichen were deemed threatened due to climate change.

The beach pinweed, a plant found in coastal dunes in eastern New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island, was said to be at risk from high storm surges.

And the seaside bone, lichen which grows on pines on the southern tip of Vancouver Island in westernmost British Columbia, is threatened by the loss of host trees during winter storms, COSEWIC said.

A higher frequency of storms on both coasts has been linked to global warming.

Rivers Running Dry

A water crisis is impending. In a new book, Jeffrey Sachs outlines easy, low-cost ways to avoid disaster.

GALLERY

The World's Endangered Lakes

Climate change, increased demand, pollution and other hazards are threatening bodies of water around the globe. A look at lakes that are most at risk.

The chemistry of the atmosphere is changing, and there is a high-enough risk that "true believers" like Al Gore are right that world economies need to wean themselves off fossil fuels to reduce greenhouse gases, he said.

"It's like buying fire insurance," Moore said. "We all own fire insurance even though there is a low risk we are going to get into an accident."

The only viable solution is to build hundreds of nuclear power plants over the next century, Moore told the Boise Metro Chamber of Commerce on Wednesday. There isn't enough potential for wind, solar, hydroelectric, and geothermal or other renewable energy sources, he said.

With development of coal-fired electric generation stopped cold over greenhouse gases, the only alternative to nuclear power for producing continuous energy at the levels needed is natural gas. But climate change isn't the only reason to move away from fossil fuels.

Fossil fuels also are a major health threat. "Coal causes the worst health impacts of anything we are doing today," Moore said.

Plus, uranium can be found within the United States and also comes in large quantities from Canada and Australia. Nuclear Power reduces the reliance on supplies in dangerous places including the Middle East, he said.

Moore spoke at the chamber breakfast after an appearance in Idaho Falls Tuesday night that attracted 300 people. He also spoke to the Idaho Environmental Forum in Boise, all sponsored by the Partnership for Science and Technology.

He represents the Clean Air and Safe Energy Coalition, a nuclear energy-backed group promoting reactors for electric energy generation. He began his career as a leader of Greenpeace fighting nuclear testing and working to save whales.

In recent years, he has taken on causes unpopular with his former group, like old-growth logging, keeping polyvinyl chlorides and now nuclear energy.

He says his change of heart comes from his background in science and a different approach to sustainability.

He sees a need for maintaining technologies that are not harmful while fixing or replacing those that are harmful.

"We don't believe we have been making too much electricity," he said. "We believe we've been making energy with the wrong technologies."

His critics, like Andrea Shipley, executive director of the Snake River Alliance, say he has simply sold out.

"The only reason Patrick Moore is backing something as unsafe and risky as nuclear power is he is being paid by the nuclear industry to do so," Shipley said.

Important native grasslands are threatened by climate change. (ABC News: David Hudspeth)

Tasmanian scientists have discovered a possible benefit to global warming.

In 50 years, it is expected our climate will be two degrees warmer with elevated levels of carbon dioxide.

The School of Plant Science at the University of Tasmania has simulated those conditions so they can see how global warming will affect important biosystems.

The seven-year study by the University of Tasmania has found climate change can slow the invasion of some types of weeds threatening native grasslands.

Dr Mark Hovenden from the School of Plant Science says it has been predicted that increasing levels of carbon dioxide will promote the growth of weeds.

But he says higher temperatures could change that.

"When you add warming to an experiment as well, the warming actually knocks the weeds out very strongly," he said.

"The type of weeds that we're talking about are the big problem weeds for grasslands across the country and these are the introduced flat weeds like dandelions and plantagos."

But it is not all good news.

A carbon dioxide-rich environment increases productivity, but only if there is substantial summer rain, and predictions point towards worsening summer droughts.

"It's highly unlikely that carbon dioxide's goinf to be the panacea that people see it," says Dr Hovenden.

Some of the findings are being applied to dairy pastures in Tasmania's north.

Mark Smith from DairyTas says adapting to climate change is a high priority for the industry.

"The scientific evidence is fairly clear, there are going to be some impacts through temperature and rainfall changes in the next 20 to 30 years," he said.

But Mr Smith says the industry is remaining optomistic.

"There's no panic in this, from a dairy industry point of view, but it's making sure that we're at the forefront with the scientists, knowing what the likely impacts are going to be," he said.

The research team is seeking funding to continue its studies for another five years.

Earth Day has come and gone again. And again, people are reflecting on the tremendous pressures we put on the earth and the environment and what they can do to live a greener more sustainable life.

Perhaps this year, we should also reflect on Canada's stubborn insistence on being a part of the climate change problem rather than part of the solution.

Earth Day was created nearly 40 years ago to inspire awareness of the earth and appreciation for our environment.

Millions of Canadians took part last year, joining an estimated half a billion people worldwide.

Much of the Canadian interest focused on calling for action on climate change.

Public opinion in Canada has consistently favoured taking action on climate change. Support has grown even stronger since the federal government signed the Kyoto Protocol in 2002 and committed the country to reducing our greenhouse gas emissions to six per cent below 1990 levels by 2012.

Canadians were rightly proud when the federal government signed and then ratified the Kyoto treaty.

But somehow that public pride and concern about climate change has not convinced successive governments to make progress on reducing our greenhouse gas emissions.

By 2005, Canada's emissions had risen to 30 per cent above 1990 levels.

In response to the public's desire for action on global warming and Canada's rapidly escalating greenhouse gas emissions, the current government produced "Turning the Corner" that falls drastically short of what is urgently needed.

Not only does this half-measure of weasel words and soft targets not meet our legally binding commitments to cut GHG emissions, it will certainly not achieve the deep reductions scientists say are needed to prevent truly catastrophic climate change impacts.

It is a case of government actively planning to fail the most critical challenge facing our planet today.

Provincially, only Manitoba and Quebec have agreed to meet their share of Canada's Kyoto commitment. No jurisdiction in Canada, federal or provincial, has agreed to reduce its emissions 25 per cent from 1990 levels by 2020 - the minimum reduction the United Nations' Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has said is necessary to avoid disastrous impacts.

What does this lack of progress mean for Canadians who support Earth Day and who want to be part of the climate change solution?

It means making a pledge to change your personal habits and reduce your carbon footprint.

Turn out the lights when you leave the room and caulk those drafty windows. Walk to the store and buy locally grown produce - we must do everything we can to lower our personal emissions and every bit counts.

But these are voluntary measures and the future of the planet can't be left to individual goodwill. The biggest lifestyle change you can make following this Earth Day is to turn up the heat on your elected politicians. Climate change is a global problem that requires a united global response and requires government action on a major scale.

It requires bold leadership and government regulation that will make significant reductions in greenhouse gas emissions.

It is about limiting the output of Canada's largest emitters and using every carrot and stick available to make these cuts in short order.

If no jurisdiction in Canada has committed itself to make the cuts necessary to avoid catastrophic climate change impacts then how do we get our elected representatives to move? It is time to exercise our responsibilities as citizens and engage in democracy in order to achieve those things we want for ourselves, our children and our communities.

Democracy is not a spectator sport. It goes without saying that the tar sands oil companies, the automobile industry and all the large emitters of GHGs are exercising their democratic rights with governments - it's time for individuals to do the same.

Because of this Earth Day, commit to a lifestyle change that will speak volumes: Call your member of Parliament, let him or her know you want effective action on climate change and that you support politicians who take action.

Then let them know you will be paying close attention to their position on climate change.

Bruce Cox is the executive director of Greenpeace Canada.

Dear Mr. McCain

It seems that some leading Republicans such as yourself, Newt Gingrich, and even President Bush, have accepted the premise of Anthropogenic Global Warming – that man is spewing millions of tons of Carbon Dioxide (CO2) into the atmosphere each year, and that this is causing an unprecedented rise in earth's temperature that threatens us all. And, if we spend enough money to reduce CO2 emissions, we can change it.

I urge you to reconsider. More than 19,000 scientists have signed the Global Warming Petition to protest the Kyoto accord, and declare their opposition to the theory that man's CO2 emissions are causing Global Warming (the Global Warming Petition at http://www.oism.org/pproject/). Written and sponsored by Dr. Frederick Seitz, past president of the National Academy of Sciences, the Petition reads:

Global Warming Petition

"We urge the United States government to reject the global warming agreement that was written in Kyoto, Japan, in December, 1997, and any other similar proposals. The proposed limits on greenhouse gases would harm the environment, hinder the advance of science and technology, and damage the health and welfare of mankind.

There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases, is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of Earth's climate. Morever, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide [willl] produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth."

There is certainly no "consensus." The IPCC Report on Global Warming (2007) from the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change states that it was "reviewed" by 600 authors from 40 countries, and over 620 experts and governments. The 19,000 scientists who have signed the Global Warming Petition outnumber those who have "reviewed" the IPCC report by more than 15 to 1.

The illustrations below are from www.GlobalWarmingArt.com, a website created to graphically illustrate the evidence for Global Warming Theory, and since they were created by proponents of Global Warming Theory, I will adopt them, and stipulate to their accuracy, and explain very simply why this evidence produced by the Global Warming proponents proves them wrong.

The Global Warming theorists always point to rises in temperature (by fractions of a degree) within the last 200 years, or the last 1,000 years, but such a small sample of climate history is not historically representative, and is not a large enough data set to be scientifically meaningful. It's cherry-picking the evidence. To be intellectually honest, we must look at all the evidence we have, not just a small fraction of it. To be scientifically meaningful, we must look to the long history of climate changes, as shown in the six illustrations below.

Exhibit 1. Holocene Temperature Variations: The IPCC Is Wrong

Here we see that the present Warm Era (the Holocene) began almost 12,000 years ago. It peaked circa 8,000 years ago at 1.5 degrees above the baseline, a full 1 degree warmer than now, at the beginning of what climatologists call the Holocene Optimum.

According to the IPCC Report on Global Warming, rising CO2 causes Global Warming, and CO2 now is higher than at any time in the last 650,000 years. If this were true, then it would be warmer now than at any time in the last 650,000 years. But it is not. 8,000 years ago, CO2 was 120 parts per million lower than now, and the climate was warmer than now. Now, CO2 is higher, but the climate is cooler. Thus we know that the IPCC's global warming theory is false. The United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change is wrong. Openly and obviously wrong. Clearly and conspicuously wrong. Irrefutably wrong.

We also know that prior to 12,000 years ago, sea level was 400 feet lower than now. Most of that water was bound up in vast glaciers on the northern continents, in some places as much as three miles deep. From 12,000 to 6,000 years ago, there was so much glacial melting that sea levels rose 400 feet to their present level. That is, before the present era of Global Warming began, 12,000 years ago, sea level was 400 feet lower than now.

Before Global Warming began, twelve thousand years ago, you could walk from Alaska to Siberia on the Bering Land Bridge, or Beringia, a thousand miles of dry land, north to south, as large as Australia, now under the cold ocean of the north Pacific, the Bering Sea. You could walk from England to France on dry land under what is now the English Channel.

Exhibit 2. The Surface Temperature Record

Here we see the recent trend line rising 1/2 degree (0.5 degrees) from 1980 to present, with temperature spiking circa 1998 to 0.7 degrees above the 1980 benchmark, and cooler since then. One half a degree. In San Francisco, the temperature can rise or fall by half a degree in a minute. And, for most of us, a half degree change in temperature is too small to notice.

Exhibit 3. Reconstructed Temperatures: Last 1,000 Years

While this looks fairly "dramatic," this is only because the scale of the graph is so narrow. It is only 1.6 degrees from the bottom to the top of the chart, barely enough climate change for most of us to feel. From the benchmark of 0 at 1,000 CE (for Common Era, or AD, as we used to say, one thousand years ago), the chart only shows a range of 0.6 degrees up, and 1 degree down. Since 1,000 years ago, global temperature fell 0.9 degrees to the bottom of the Little Ice Age, four hundred years ago, and then it began rising, and has risen about 1.3 degrees to reach 0.4 degrees above the benchmark of 0 from 1,000 years ago. Thus, we see that our climate today is a trivial 0.4 degrees warmer than it was 1,000 years ago, before the Little Ice Age. Less than one-half of one degree. And a full degree cooler than at the peak of the Holocene Optimum, eight thousand years ago (Exhibit 2).

Exhibit 4. Ice Age Temperature Changes

Let’s look at some more history. Over the last 450,000 years we see five episodes of "Global Warming" above the 0 baseline. The previous four eras of Global Warming, approximately 120,000 years, 240,000 years, 330,000 years, and 400,000 years before now, were warmer than now, with very long intervening ice ages much cooler than now. The next ice age will be disastrous for agriculture in the northern half of the northern hemisphere. And, unless the long natural cycle of global warming and ice ages is somehow broken, the coming of the next ice age is a matter of when, not if. Perhaps we should be grateful for Global Warming while we have it.

It won't last forever.

In order to be credible science, Global Warming Theory must explain (a) what caused the last 5 eras of Global Warming, and (b) what caused the last 5 eras of Global Cooling. If it does not do so it is not good science, but merely opinion, merely speculation, an unproven hypothesis, that would not be admissible as evidence in any court under the Federal Rules of Evidence. To my knowledge, it does not do so.

To be admissible evidence in court, scientific evidence must be "generally accepted in the scientific community," as the U.S. Supreme Court held in Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, 509 US 570 (1993). Otherwise it is deemed too speculative and unproven to be reliable, and therefore inadmissible. Since there are many thousands of scientists who reject Global Warming Theory, it cannot be seen as "generally accepted science." It is highly disputed science, a highly disputed, unproven theory. It is my opinion that this theory, and the crystal-ball computer models that purport to predict the future, the future of global climate changes, are not admissible as evidence to prove that they are true, unless they can first be proven to be "generally accepted science."

Are we to base national climate and energy policy on a theory that is not even sufficiently proven and accepted to be admissible as evidence at trial, in a judicial proceeding, in a court of law?

If we were to do a computer model of future climate changes based on extrapolations and inductions from historic patterns and cycles of climate change, it would very likely tell us that the earth will soon enter another long era of Global Cooling, another periodic Ice Age.

Exhibit 5. Five Million Years of Climate Change

Looking back five million years, we see that (a) there have been dozens of cycles of global warming and global cooling over the past five million years, (b) the swings between the extremes of global warming and global cooling in each cycle have been growing more dramatic, and (c) there has been a steady long-term cooling trend over the last five million years. Earth's climate, in the long trend, is growing colder, not warmer.

Exhibit 6. Sixty Five Million Years of Climate Change

Here we see (below) that over 65 million years global temperature has risen and then fallen dramatically from the Eocene Optimum, some 50 million years ago, not in a straight line, but in a general, long term cooling trend. Unless this long trend is somehow reversed, the earth is slowly cooling, not warming.

Thus it becomes clear that:

(a) The present era of Global Warming (the Holocene Era) began some 12,000 years ago, long before human civilization or modern technology. It was warmest circa 8,000 years ago, and has been slowly getting cooler every since, with some short term warming cycles, but a long term cooling trend.

(b) The present era of Global Warming is right on schedule in the long cycle of Global Warming and Global Cooling approximately every 120,000 years.

(c) The present Global Warming is cooler than each of the four previous warm eras, and the climate has been on a long-term cooling trend since the Eocene Optimum, some 50 million years ago.

(d) We see per the IPCC report that CO2 is higher now than in the last 650,000 years, yet during that time there have been at least four (4) eras of Global Warming with temperatures higher than now.

This fact conclusively disproves the hypothesis that rising CO2 causes global warming. If the premise that CO2 causes global warming were true, then the climate now would be warmer than at any other time in the last 650,000 years.

But it is not.

Let us also note that the CO2 rise from 280 ppm (parts per million) to 380 ppm at stated in the IPCC Report is a rise from a mere 0.028% of the atmosphere to a mere 0.038% of the atmosphere. Our atmosphere is more than 99.9% nitrogen, oxygen, and argon, and less than 0.1% everything else. At 380 ppm, or 0.038%, CO2 is less than 4% of 1% of the atmosphere.

Over the last 100 years, the increase in CO2 has been a trivial 0.01% of the atmosphere, or 1% of 1% of atmospheric composition, one part in ten thousand. To visualize this, imagine that you have a swimming pool that holds 10,000 gallons of water. Then you add one gallon. That is how much atmospheric CO2 has increased in the last 100 years, according to the IPCC. Not much.

The earth's climate has been changing continuously for millions of years, as far back as we can reconstruct it, and doubtless long before that, for as long as the earth has had a climate to change. Nature changes continuously everywhere we look. Nothing in nature stays the same. Our contribution of CO2 to the atmosphere is truly trivial, less than one part in ten thousand, less than 1% of 1% – even if we assume that all of the CO2 increase in the last 100 years has been due to us, which may not be true. Has it been proven?

Children from across Jakarta attended an Earth Day festival held Saturday by Bina Nusantara (Binus) School in Simprug, South Jakarta.

James, a first grader at an elementary school, was one of many students involved in a series of competitions held on the Binus campus.

He sat among dozens of children designing pictures to promote awareness of environmentalism. On his paper was the blue-and-green sphere of planet Earth floating in space.

"The theme is 'Going Green', that's why I'm drawing our planet."

The one-day event featured six contests, including singing, drawing, dancing and music, involving more than 100 kindergartners and elementary school students.

The school's public relations chief, Adilah, said the school wanted to raise awareness of global warming, especially among younger generations.

"We are trying to stimulate awareness on this issue among young children, in the hope they will embrace green lifestyles and become involved in efforts to preserve the environment," she said.

Another drawing contestant, Gerdan, of Global Mandiri School in Cibubur, Bogor, said he had never heard of Earth Day, but knew ways to help save the Earth.

"Bottles. Recycling used bottles can save the earth."

Gerdan's teacher, Forina, who accompanied her students to the event, said her school taught a number of ways for students to live greener lives.

"They learn that recycling is important, but also easy. In our school, we invite our students to bring used plastic bottles from their homes each week to be recycled," she said.

Voracious human activities are thought by many to be the cause of rising temperatures, changing weather patterns and rises in sea-levels.

Last December in Bali, the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change outlined a roadmap for nations to overcome the problem.

In response to the meeting, many companies and residents have planted trees in their premises and neighborhoods, and two weeks ago, thousands attended a three-day convention called Green Festival held in the city, which provided information and tips for residents on how to conserve energy and promote a greener Jakarta. (dre)

As the Earth's temperatures continue to rise, we can expect a significant change in infectious disease patterns around the globe. Just exactly what those changes will be remains unclear, but scientists agree they will not be for the good."Environmental changes have always been associated with the appearance of new diseases or the arrival of old diseases in new places. With more changes, we can expect more surprises," says Stephen Morse of Columbia University, speaking May 22, 2007, at the 107th General Meeting of the American Society for Microbiology in Toronto.

In its April 2007 report on the impacts of climate change, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) warned that rising temperatures may result in "the altered spatial distribution of some infectious disease vectors," and will have "mixed effects, such as the decrease or increase of the range and transmission potential of malaria in Africa."

"Diseases carried by insects and ticks are likely to be affected by environmental changes because these creatures are themselves very sensitive to vegetation type, temperature, humidity etc. However, the direction of change -- whether the diseases will increase or decrease -- is much more difficult to predict, because disease transmission involves many factors, some of which will increase and some decrease with environmental change. A combination of historical disease records and present-day ground-based surveillance, remotely sensed (satellite) and other data, and good predictive models is needed to describe the past, explain the present and predict the future of vector-borne infectious diseases," says David Rogers of Oxford University, also speaking at the meeting.

One impact of rising global temperatures, though, can be fairly accurately predicted, says Morse. In the mountains of endemic areas, malaria is not transmitted above a certain altitude because temperatures are too cold to support mosquitoes. As temperatures rise, this malaria line will rise as well.

"One of the first indicators of rising global temperatures could be malaria climbing mountains," says Morse.

Another change could be the flu season. Influenza is a year-round event in the tropics. If the tropical airmass around the Earth's equator expands, as new areas lose their seasons they may also begin to see influenza year-round.

And extreme weather events will also lead to more disease, unless we are prepared. As the frequency, intensity, and duration of extreme weather events change, water supplies become more at risk, according Joan Rose of Michigan State University.

"Hurricanes, typhoons, tornadoes and just high intensity storms have exacerbated an aging drinking and wastewater infrastructure, enhanced the mixing of untreated sewage and water supplies, re-suspended pathogens from sediments and displaced large populations to temporary shelters. We are at greater risk than ever before of infectious disease associated with increasing extreme weather events," says Rose.

There will also be indirect effects of climate change on infectious disease as well. For instance, says Morse, the effect of global warming on agriculture could lead to significant changes in disease transmission and distribution.

"If agriculture in a particular area begins to fail due drought, more people will move into cities," says Morse. High population densities, especially in developing countries, are associated with an increased transmission of a variety of diseases including HIV, tuberculosis, respiratory diseases (such as influenza) and sexually transmitted diseases.

"I'm worried about climate change and agree that something needs to be done," says Morse. "Otherwise, we can hope our luck will hold out."

One of the most current and widely discussed factor which could lead to the ultimate end of existence of Earth and man is global warming and its devastating effects. Scientists have asked how fast the Earth is heating up, and how the warming effects on Earth may effect crops and climatic conditions. Several current trends clearly demonstrate that global warming is directly impacting on; rising sea levels, the melting of icecaps, and significant worldwide climatic changes. This paper will discuss the degree of destruction caused by global warming, contributing factors to warming, and finally, discuss what we can do to decrease the current rate of global warming. I would also like to present opposing viewpoints to the effects of the warming process. In my understanding, global warming represents a fundamental threat to all living things on earth.

WHAT IS THE "GREENHOUSE EFFECT" ALL ABOUT?

It is important to understand and discuss the significance of global warming. Global warming is also known as the "Greenhouse effect". The "Greenhouse Earth" is surrounded by a shield of atmospheric gases, rather than a glass or a plastic cover. The air that makes up our atmosphere consists primarily of nitrogen and oxygen molecules (N2 at 78% and O2 at 21%). A large number of "trace gases" make up the remainder of air's composition. Many of these, including carbon dioxide (CO2) and methane (CH4) are the so called "greenhouse" gases. If you have ever felt the piercing cold of the clear winter night sky and wondered why you feel warmer on a cloudy winter night, you have experienced the atmospheric greenhouse effect firsthand. Physics tell us that any object warmer than absolute zero will radiate energy. Cooler objects emit longer waves (in the infrared region) while hotter ones radiate shorter wavelengths. Our sun, powered by its hot, nuclear fusion reaction, produces radiant energy in the visible and ultraviolet regions with relatively short wavelengths. Of the sunlight that strikes the earth, about 70% is absorbed by the planet and its atmosphere, while the other 30% is immediately reflected. If the earth did not re-radiate most of this newly absorbed energy back into space the world would continue to get warmer. Instead, an energy balance is maintained.

The earth is about 60 degrees Fahrenheit (33 degrees Celsius) warmer than it would be if it did not have the atmospheric blanket of greenhouse gases and clouds around it. Clouds and greenhouse gases keep the earth warm. Once warmed, their molecules then radiate a portion of this heat energy back to earth, creating more warming on the surface of our planet. It is this radiation which causes atmospheric gases to move back to earth that scientists call the "greenhouse effect".

Carbon dioxide (CO2) gas generated by man's burning of fossil fuels and the forests is responsible for about half the greenhouse gas warming. Other gases (CFCs, methane, nitrous oxide, tropospheric ozone) are responsible for the rest. Increases in all these gases are due to mankind's explosive population growth over the last century, and increased industrial expansion. Approximately 80% of atmospheric CO2 increases are due to man's use of fossil fuels: oil, coal, and gas. These petroleum-based energy sources first came into use with the burning of coal during Since 1945 petroleum consumption has increased dramatically, due in large part to increased usage of automobiles worldwide, and the substitution of mechanized farm machinery for animal power. "Mankind is in the process of conducting a major, unintentional experiment, that of feeding back into the atmosphere in a short space of geological time the fossils fuels that have slowly accumulated over the past 500 million years." (Refer to graph #1)

Graph 1

In 1958, scientists began to measure carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere. The site selected for these measurements was on top of the volcanic mountain of Mauna Loa, in Hawaii. CO2 measurements at the Hawaiian site have continued. The instruments show the level of CO2 has been steadily increasing (about 0.4% per year) from a level of 315 parts per million (ppm) in 1958 to 353 ppm in 1990. Clearly, Earth's natural mechanisms for absorbing CO2 from the atmosphere cannot handle the large quantities of CO2 being added by modern man. Scientists believe nearly 1/2 of the CO2 being emitted each year remains in the atmosphere, while the rest is being absorbed by trees and the oceans. As a result, CO2 measurements show a continuing build-up of CO2 greenhouse gases in the air, gases that will eventually lead to more global warming. (Refer to graph #2)

Graph 2

HOW FAST IS THE EARTH HEATING UP?

Much debate in the last five years about the greenhouse effect has centered on interpreting temperature numbers generated at weather stations all over the world. The data from these thermometers are averaged and plotted in attempts to determine just how fast the earth has heated up since the measurements began. There is now no doubt the world is getting warmer. The thermometers show that the world is warmer now than at any time since the measurements started. The year 1990 was the hottest year in the last century. Together with 1991, the years of 1983, 1987, 1988, and 1989, have been measured to be the warmest 6 years in the last hundred years. 1991 was the second warmest year of the past century, perhaps due to the eruption of Mt. Pinatubo during that year. The ash from the volcano in the upper atmosphere blocks some sunlight to earth, and is expected to generate a temporary two or three year cooling effect. After that time, most ash particles will have settled back to earth, and most scientists expect to see the global warming trend continue.

According to scientists, we can with "99% confidence conclude that current temperatures represent a real warming trend rather than a chance fluctuation over the 30-year period." Most scientists agree that the planet's temperature has risen 0.5 degrees Celsius since 1900, and will continue to increase at an increasing rate. The environment is responding to this warming. For instance, a study of mountain plants in the Alps (Europe), shows that some cold-loving plants are starting to move to higher and cooler altitudes. That is a possible response to increasing temperatures.

CURRENT TRENDS.

The global effects of the greenhouse effect cannot be directly predicted simply because we do not have enough knowledge in the subject. However, we have been able to draw direct connections between certain natural phenomenon that supports the idea that something is changing.

Global warming has great effect on crops and weather conditions around the world. The northern hemisphere contains more land area than the southern hemisphere, and conversely, a lower percentage of the world's oceans. Since oceans absorb more heat than land areas, it is not surprising that most climate models predict faster heating over the northern hemisphere than the global average. In addition, models predict faster temperature increases at higher latitudes. If global warming trends continue, high temperatures everywhere in the US may reduce US agricultural productivity. Northern continental areas are projected to have drier summer soils, due in part to earlier snow melts in the spring, and hotter, more cloudless summers, causing extensive evaporation of ground moisture. In addition, if the inland areas of the northern hemisphere are expected to receive less moisture, then, lake and river levels will be lower. Some reports predict the level of the Great Lakes will drop between 2 and 8 feet. River flows in the western US may be very vulnerable to increase temperatures expected as result of the greenhouse effect.

When many people think of global warming, their first concern is the possible rise of sea levels. With a large number of the world's cities in coastal areas, this is a significant problem. There are two major causes of rising sea levels. First, extra water is produced when ice melts. Secondly, the natural expansion of sea water as it becomes warmer. The range of sea ice around both poles continues to shrink, as it melts. Even with the level of greenhouse gases present today, the earth may warm enough in the next 50 years or so to completely melt the sea ice located on the poles.

Damage from rising seas is very diverse. Buildings and roads close to the water could be flooded and they could suffer damage from hurricanes and tropical storms. "There are good physical reasons to suggest that more intense storms (hurricanes) could result from global warming." Warmer oceans cause more intense storms. Experts believe that global warming could increase the intensity of hurricanes by over 50 percent. Hurricane Andrew's devastation in 1992 set new records. According to the National Hurricane Center in Miami, the 1990 season was the most active year on their records for combined Atlantic and Pacific hurricanes. Damage caused by future hurricanes to populated areas will be more severe since higher sea levels are predicted for the next century. In addition, as the sea rises, beach erosion takes place, particularly on steep banks. Wetlands are lost as sea levels rise. Another serious problem is the threat of salt water intruding into underground fresh water reserves in coastal areas.

In 1992, a report was published by the United Nations, which proposes that if CO2 and other greenhouse gas emissions continue with present trends (which is the case), the coastal plains of Bangladesh and the Netherlands will flood by the year 2100. Furthermore, the islands of the Maldives would completely disappear. This would happen if only a two foot increase in sea level occured.

FOREST DESTRUCTION CREATES MORE HEAT:

Trees play a unique role in the global carbon cycle. They are the largest land-based natural mechanism for removing CO2 from the air. (CO2 is also removed by the oceans and ocean organisms.)

Trees are able to store a large amount of CO2 in their structures. An acre of forest will absorb about 10 times the CO2 amount absorbed by an acre of crop land or grassland. One tree absorbs about 13 pounds of CO2 per year, and each one acre of forest absorbs about 2.8 tons of CO2. However, when trees are burned, the carbon locked in the structure is released into the air in the form of CO2. Today, the shrinking world forests are not able to absorb all the CO2 created by human beings while burning fossil fuels. Everyday over 5500 acres of rain forest are destroyed, and over 50 million acres are destroyed every year. Global CO2 levels rise approximately 0.4 percent each year, to levels not experienced on this planet for millions of years. Planting more trees and reducing timber cuts world-wide will help restore the imbalance, and perhaps buy time as ways are found to reduce world greenhouse gas emissions.

POPULATION GROWTH CONTRIBUTES TO GLOBAL WARMING.

The intellectual powers that we enjoy has enabled us to make effective use of technology and thereby changed the environment. Technology is partly responsible for explosive population growth and responsible for the resulting damage to Earth's resources. The industrial revolution caused a rapid increase in the Population growth, as oil and gas fuels were exploited for our use. There is a clear link between the problems of global warming and overpopulation, as increases in CO2 levels follows growth in population. Presently, we have too many people on Earth, who are using technologies that are destructive for the Earth. We cannot continue to grow, and make use of limited natural resources. (Refer to graph #3)

Graph 3

ECONOMIC ASPECTS:

Global warming is big business. Some economists argue that a warmer climate could benefit certain crops and the farming communities. However, property insurers are predicting that worsening storms caused by global warming could eventually bankrupt the insurance industry. Insurance companies are now trying to form strategic alliances, and pool resources which could cover severe economic loss from climatic changes.

In addition, the costs to implement a worldwide plan to cut the production of CO2 and other gases which contribute to global warming would cost approximately 3 percent of the World's total GDP. However, there is a dispute whether the industrialized world should be responsible for the main economic contributions to clean up this planet. It is important to realize that many less industrialized nations are unable to afford actions to prevent an increase in CO2, and the fact that they have no incentive to reduce the carbon emissions that cause the "greenhouse" effect. Several less industrialized nations argue that the developed world was allowed to use of the nature in creating welfare, and that it is now morally right for them to do the same. I believe that funds dedicated to the former Cold war should be used for world ecology.

OPPOSING VIEW POINTS IS GLOBAL WARMING A THREAT?

Certain scientists believe that global warming is not a threat and the planet is essentially cooling off. They argue that the factors causing the phenomenon and the measurements are not fully understood, and that it is impossible to draw any conclusions whether the warming of the earth is a purely natural occurrence. These people, believe that the trend is a false alarm and that it is not a sign of a fore coming global disaster. In addition, Industrial forces argue that human beings can adapt to the changes caused by global warming, but they refuse to mention anything about the environmental impact of climatic changes.

Othe