European Union governments moved closer on Monday toward a deal on cutting greenhouse gas emissions from cars, but failed to agree on details ahead of key negotiations with the bloc’s parliament, diplomats said.
The planned legislation must strike the right balance between the needs of the car industry hit hard by a global economic slowdown and the bloc’s commitment to fight global warming caused greenhouse emissions.
The lack of full agreement means the governments and the European Parliament were unlikely to clinch a final deal on car emissions during subsequent negotiations on Monday night. But a keenly awaited accord could still come later this week.
“The Council (EU governments’ envoys) agreed on political principles…, not all details. The meeting with parliament will be exploratory,” one EU diplomat said, adding the governments would probably debate the issue again on Wednesday.
On Monday, ambassadors of the EU’s 27 governments agreed to cut average carbon dioxide emissions from new cars by around 18 percent to 130 grams per kilometer, starting from 2012 for part of automakers’ output and with full compliance by 2015.
“There was agreement on a phased-in approach toward cutting CO2 emissions. But some countries wanted a higher initial level and others a lower initial level,” the diplomat said.
Crucially, however, EU envoys failed to agree on fines for companies exceeding the allowed emissions. Any deal needs to be backed by the parliament before becoming law.
Another diplomat said the majority of countries backed a French proposal on cutting CO2 emissions to 130 g/km in 2012 for 65 percent of each producer’s fleet, then for 75 percent in 2013 and 100 percent in 2015.
The compromise is to accommodate luxury car makers such as Mercedes and BMW, which generally produce big cars with high C02 emissions.
The governments also agreed in principle on an ambitious goal to slash CO2 emissions from cars to 95 grams per kilometer by 2020. This is to placate the European Parliament, where most legislators back stricter emission cuts.
The diplomat said some small car makers might be temporarily exempted from general rules under the deal.
The legislature’s environment committee has supported strict emissions cuts, but it remains unclear if the whole house would back the proposal in a final vote, especially as car makers are announcing production stops and lay-offs due to recession.
The world’s rarest big cat was captured and released unharmed into the wilds by researchers last week. There are only about 40 Far Eastern leopards left in the corner of Siberia they inhabit.
The world’s most endangered big cat was captured in Primorsky Krai along the Russian-Chinese border by scientists from Wildlife Conservation Society and Russia’s Institute of Biology and Soils (IBS).
“We are excited by the capture, and are hopeful that ongoing analysis of biomedical information will confirm that this individual is in good health,” said Alexey Kostyria, senior scientist at IBS and manager for the WCS-IBS project.
“This research is critical for conservation of the Far Eastern leopard, as it will help us to determine the risks posed by inbreeding and what we can do to mitigate them,” added Kostyria.
Their numbers are down to less than 40, inhabiting a strip in the far southeastern corner of the Russian Federation. The team is evaluating the health and potential effects of inbreeding for this tiny population, believed to contain no more than 10-15 females.
The leopardess, nicknamed “Alyona” by the researchers, was in good physical condition, weighing a healthy 39 kg, believed to be between 8-10 years old. The animal has since been released unharmed.
Specialists are continuing to analyse blood samples as well as an electrocardiogram, which will reveal genetic information to assess levels of inbreeding.
Three leopards captured previously (two males and one female) in 2006 and 2007 all exhibited significant heart murmurs, which may reflect genetic disorders, according to a WCS press release.
One of the options scientists are considering is trans-locating leopards from other areas to increase genetic diversity — similar to what happened with Florida panthers when animals from Texas were brought in to supplement the remaining population.
Today, Florida panthers have risen from less than 10 individuals to a population of approximately 100.
Over the last 100 years, Far Eastern leopard numbers have been reduced by poaching combined with habitat loss. However, both camera-trapping and snow-tracking surveys indicate that the population has been stable for the last 30 years, but with a high rate of turnover of individuals.
Australia’s iconic koala may be heading towards extinction, unless there are changes in how populations are managed.
“Previously hunted to near extinction in the 1920s, the species continues to face ongoing threats to its survival today,” Zoologist and author Stephen Jackson told a magazine.
“The loss of habitat and urban development, the increase of disease, the potential harm of climate change and attacks from other animals all impact the survival of the koala,” he added.
According to Jackson, Port Stephens, north of Newcastle, was home to one of NSW’s (New South Wales) most important koala populations, but it was also facing a decline in the populations of the animal.
Debate rages over how to manage the endangered animals.
“There is differing opinion on the actual population numbers and whether the species should be considered vulnerable, and whether they face extinction at the national level,” Dr Jackson said.
Abolishing subsidies on fossil fuels could cut world greenhouse gas emissions by up to 6 percent and also nudge up world economic growth, a U.N. report showed on Tuesday.Subsidies on oil, gas or coal are meant to help the poor by lowering the price of energy but the report, issued on the sidelines of a 160-nation U.N. climate meeting in Ghana, said they often backfired by mainly benefiting wealthier people.
The study said fuel subsidies totaled about $300 billion a year, or 0.7 percent of world gross domestic product (GDP).
“Cancelling these subsidies might reduce greenhouse gas emissions by as much as 6 percent a year while contributing 0.1 percent to global GDP,” it said.
People forced to pay higher prices for energy would likely cut back on use of fossil fuels, the main source of greenhouse gases from human activities.
“Governments should urgently review their energy subsidies and begin phasing out the harmful ones,” said Achim Steiner, head of the Nairobi-based U.N. Environment Programme (UNEP).
“In the final analysis many fossil fuel subsidies are introduced for political reasons but are simply propping up and perpetuating inefficiencies in the global economy,” he said in a statement.
Subsidies were biggest in Russia, with about $40 billion a year spent mainly on making natural gas cheaper, ahead of Iran with $37 billion. China, Saudi Arabia, India, Indonesia, Ukraine and Egypt also had big subsidies on fuels.
Subsidies are “diverting national funds from more creative forms of pro-poor policies and initiatives that are likely to have a far greater impact on the lives and livelihoods of the worse-off sectors of society,” the report said.
It said liquefied petroleum gas (LPG) subsidies in India, aimed at getting fuel to poor households, totaled $1.7 billion in the first half of 2008. But the report said: “LPG subsidies are mainly benefiting higher-income households”.
Some smarter subsidies such as tax breaks, financial incentives or other market mechanisms could generate benefits for the economy and environment if properly targeted, it said and pointed to subsidies to promote wind energy in Germany and Spain aimed at helping to shift from fossil fuels.
Well-devised subsidies in Chile had spread rural electrification to 90 percent of the population from 50 percent in 12 years, it said.
Governments in Accra are working on the building blocks of a new climate treaty meant to be agreed at the end of 2009 to help slow warming temperatures that may bring more heatwaves, more powerful storms and disruptions to water and food supplies.
A new study has suggested that replacing much of Australia’s beef and veal with kangaroo meat could significantly cut the continent’s greenhouse gas emissions and save its native terrain.
According to a report in National Geographic News, the study suggests phasing out some 7 million cattle and 36 million sheep from Australian rangelands-semiarid land that doesn’t naturally produce the grass that grazing animals require-and replacing them with kangaroos.
“Because of their unique gut microbes, kangaroos emit much less methane than sheep and cattle,” said lead author George Wilson, of Canberra consultancy Australian Wildlife Services.
Sheep and cattle are responsible for about 11 percent of Australian agricultural emissions, according to a government survey.
Each cow produces 1.84 metric tons of greenhouse gas equivalents a year, and each sheep gives off more than 300 pounds (140 kilograms).
Kangaroos, meanwhile, emit less than seven pounds (three kilograms) of greenhouse gases. Under the study’s proposal, that could translate into savings of 16 million tons of greenhouse gases annually-or 3 percent of Australia’s total emissions.
ilson estimated some 30 million kangaroos (including red kangaroos) already roam Australia’s rangelands, where farmers typically regard them as pests.
His proposal calls for the rangelands to be filled with five or six times that number.
According to Wilson, the animals would become an asset to farmers, if Australia includes agriculture-the sector that emits the most methane and nitrous oxide-in its Emissions Trading Scheme, a system the government is devising to impose charges on greenhouse polluters.
The government hopes to implement the scheme by 2010, but says it will not include agricultural emissions for another five years at least because of the difficulty in measuring them.
Wilson said that the emissions saved by raising kangaroos could be worth about 650 million Australian dollars, based on current European carbon prices.
The impact would be strongest if livestock owners were required to purchase carbon permits to keep raising cattle and sheep, although such a scheme is far from being determined.
“If we let the kangaroo population rise to 175 million by 2020, farmers could be earning the same amount of money as they would be from cattle without that charge,” said Wilson.
Do they get melted down with the paper particles or is there someone that removes the plastic parts? Just curious.
These bits of plastic get caught in the screens that filter the water out after the paper is pulped, since they are no good for making new paper. These filters take out all kinds of contamination that would be bad for the new paper. The sludge left on the screens is usually discarded in the landfill, but in some areas it’s composted.
—–
technically you should remove them before you put them in the recycling but i suppose there must be a load of people who have to sort through it all and remove them all by hand as you can’t recycle paper and plastic together
I wanted to get a Mongoose M200 (http://urbanscooters.com/P/Electric-Scoo… I was wondering if there is an age requirement or if I need a license to ride around my neighborhood. BTW, I’m in the US.
nope, as long as it’s not gas. Just don’t ride it in the street if there are a bunch of cars, and be careful!
—
It depends on the state and the type of scooter. If you’re talking about something like a moped, then in some cases you need a license, but it depends. Check with your local DMV (see link below).
He was an economist back in the early 19th century who warned of problems of finite resources vs. population growth.
For example,he warned of increasing food supply,but even more increasing population. Do U believe he was right in believing the world is headed for disaster during to the said above,especially with petroleum being the most obvious manifestation of the phenomenon going on?
Yes, I am aware of Thomas Malthus (there’s an “L” in his last name).
Ironic that by modern standards he was from a very large family, isn’t it?
I personally don’t see how humans as a whole are generally so myopic and fail to see how our over population of earth is going to come to a head at some point.
Then I think about the people (for the most part) who are having oodles of children. People from third world countries with little, to zero education. People in first world countries who tend to be on the bottom levels socially, employment wise, and education wise.
If people do not have a view of how the ENTIRE world is, then their world is tiny. It may be no bigger than their family, or their village. How can they possibly know that it’s a problem if they have 8-10 children, and 4-5 of them survive to adult hood? In their mind, it’s great! Someone to take care of them when they get old.
I currently live in Idaho, near a little town of ten thousand people. I’m constantly amazed at how little some of them know about the “outside” world….meaning more than 200 miles from town. For them, their entire world is relationships, squabbles, employment, ect right here within about a 50 mile zone. They don’t THINK further afield than that. To them it doesn’t matter that they produce seven children….there’s always food at WalMart.
I have done polls and such on the internet before. One would assume internet users to be a much more “worldly” crowd.
I’ve asked before what people would do if there was a famine (people actually starving to death) here in the United States. Over and over again, I am simply flabbergasted by the number of people who state something like, “It wouldn’t affect me, I get my food at the grocery store.” Or (this is priceless) “I’d just eat out if the stores didn’t have any food.”
So people in third world countries have a serrious disconect over the fact that there are simply too many humans, and we are running out of resources. People in first world countries have a SERRIOUS disconect over where their resources come from.
Yes, without question I believe the world is headed for a global meltdown. The earth will still be here…and the earth has proven wonderfully able to recover. However at some point humans themselves are going to be pitted against a true peril, which will kill millions.
Unfortunatly, there are so many humans now, and we breed so well, AND are able to stand on the shoulders of humans before us, that I don’t believe the earth will ever be rid of all humans. What I mean by “stand on the shoulders of humans before us,” is that we have the abbility to pass knowledge on. A baby born today does not have to “discover” fire. It can grab a book, and know how to mine coal, or built an oil drilling platform. As we build our knowledge each generation, we also build the damage we do to the earth.
I believe the begining of the end (for current human civilization) will happen with both a famine, and a pandemic.
Famine first, to weaken the population, pandemic next as a disease gains a foothold in a weakend population.
It’s possible, it could happen as soon as 2013, when Ug99 hits China, and all of India and Africa. What will the U.S. do when over 1/2 of the worlds population is facing starvation? What will the 1/2 of the world that is starving do to the U.S.? Remember “stand on the shoulders of humans before us”….we are not the only country who learns…..we are not the only country which is Nuclear capable.
So what exactly would the Chineese Government do if their people were dying of famine and disease? Hint: The Chineese military still teaches their soldiers that “war with the United States is inevitable.” http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;…
———
The earth is finite. We live on a bounded sphere.
How can we possibly increase population, use resources and dispose of waste indefinitely in a finite world?
Doesn’t matter how efficient we get. Eventually resources will get used up, the biosphere will collapse under our waste and our population will crash.
There are countless examples of this in the natural world and examples of man himself outstripping his local environment.
Now we are doing it on a global scale.
It’s just simple logic that the Malthus prediction hasn’t come true - because we haven’t reached the limit - yet.
E.O. Wilson calculated the theoretical absolute limit - and it’s 14 billion.
The strain is showing at 6 billion.
At 9 or 10, I believe we will wish we had listened.
How to make compost ? wat things we can put in compost? How long? How to use?
if you are in a apartment ,if you have a balcony get a big plastic bin drill some holes in the side and lid ,or buy one of the pre-made ones ,
there are special compost bins you can get for apartments ,best to keep on the balcony where there is airflow.
and add a bit of sand now and again,or leaves or sawdust, to put over the trash ,you should really stir or move the stuff at times to aerate it and ensure that the decomposition is overall ,keep moist
——————————…
a general note on compost
as long as you seal it with a covering of leaves .or put a piece of plastic on top ,
keep it moist and in the shade ,it will then get hot enough to kill all parasites
the worms will develop,and take care of everything ,the moisture helps decomposition
the plastic keeps in the moisture and protects the worms from predators .like chickens ,birds armadillos,and even dogs .i have seen going in to eat my worm culture
you could add a bit of lime now and again
to make the process more potent
HOW
make the compost in a shallow hole ,so that it retains more humidity,
about 2 square meters is good ,and have it under a tree or put a little roof over it,which does not have to be water proof ,so a palm thatch is enough,
and make sure the garden sprinkler gets there or spray some water on it ,at least once a week,don`t have it water logged or the worms will drown or leave
or http://byderule.multiply.com/photos/hi-r…
NOTE
food scraps are better if kept apart to feed to a pig or chickens or dogs depending on the food scraps
if one puts these things in the compost these animals ,(if allowed )will go into your compost .
also the rate of decomposition depending on temperature and moisture ,stipulates what can all go in your compost heap .
In Mexico where it is very warm ,with lots of bugs of all descriptions ,we can put a tree trunk in the compost and in 6 months it is gone completely ,there is also a much longer vigorous decomposition ,there is no winter to slow things down.and we continues add huge amounts of green matter such as banana stems
and leaves (each banana plant dies after making bunch)coconut palms (they drop all the time)
and cuttings ,the heap goes up and down ,and in 7 years has never grown ,it is like a hungry all consuming hole that has no limit to its appetite.
Our national animal tiger is in a great threat of being extinct & is now in endangered list.
Its due to ruthless killing of tigers that had really marginalized their population now.
There are many reasons of their extinctions like decrease of forest cover;killing of tigers for their bones,skin.nails.etc…,killing by the local population due to their attack on local population,lack of food in jungle due to hunting of other animals also & decrease in forest cover.
So now as a national priority govt had set up an task force to protect the depreciating population of tigers.Its headed by the PM. Its worthy to note that more than 60% of the tiger population is destroyed by human interference after independence& now their nos is around 1500.
In this process govt is needed to establish tiger reserves where their population is still quiet considerable.
Govt needs to relocate the local tribal population from these reserves to out side these reserves & make them a part of the protect tiger campaign & make them the importance & significance of tiger population in the nature & than increase their income from sources like tourism rather than tiger hunting which will be a rather a sustainable model.
There needs to be consciousness effort from the the govt & citizens to educate that there is no relevance of tiger body parts in any form of medicine & in turn going to affect the ecology largely.
The govt can also set up tiger breeding centers so that he population should be raised & made considerable.
