Cottage Ham String Beans Recipe

scenario that will open the conference in Copenhagen


I try to sum up the situation ahead of the opening of the Conference in Copenhagen next December.
was created in 1997 the international treaty known as the "Kyoto Protocol" on global warming. The objective of this treaty is asking is to reduce global greenhouse gas production by 5% in 2008-2012.
In 2002, EU countries agree to reduce their output of greenhouse gases by 8% by 2012.
In 2005 enters into force the Kyoto Protocol, ratified by Russia, meanwhile.
In 2007 the U.S. announced it will not sign the Kyoto commitment.
In a study entitled "Climate: true emergency "(Brioschi Editore) economist Nicholas Stern, the London School of Economics, former chief World Bank economist, says that the impact of carbon on the atmosphere seems worse than that estimated up to only two or three years ago. Today, the probability that average temperatures on Earth will increase by 5 degrees by 2050 is 50%. The last time the Earth was so hot was the Eocene. If this were to occur would be almost inevitable destruction of a large proportion of arable land in the world and the consequent beginning of migration by hundreds of millions of people.
According to the British scientist meeting Copenhagen in December it can become the most important international meeting since the Second World War.
Developed countries, where he lives about an inhabitant of the Earth in six (one in ten will be in 2050) alone currently accounts for 70% of emissions accumulated since 1950. In the future, but the majority of emissions will come from the so-called developing countries, however, argue that those responsible for the greenhouse effect to date are the industrialized countries and therefore it is right that these are having to bear the costs under the old principle the "polluter pays" and added that needing to get out of poverty when they find it impossible to give up on burning fossil fuels or cutting forests except to get economic aid from its major industrialized countries.
Currently the two countries most responsible for the production of CO2 emissions are China and the U.S. (alone will produce almost half of the total), and even then much will depend on the strategies that they adopt and which, however, in a recession like we face do not hide their big concerns about possible reductions in CO2 emissions.
In particular, the U.S. fears that adapting to the choices of other industrialized countries at the end can offer large economic benefits to India and China.
Meanwhile, the European Union, which had already given the following objectives by 2020:
- 20% renewable energy
- 30% reduction in greenhouse gas emissions (if the U.S. will do the same otherwise it will stop at 20% )
- 20% increased energy efficiency
last October reached a new agreement for 2050 a further reduction of their emissions equal to 80-95% compared to those produced in 1990.
In this context, Italy, having spent the roof upon it by the Kyoto Protocol, to open new power plants would have to pay one billion euro. "This money - said our Minister for the Environment Prestigiacomo - paradoxically would go to countries like Poland that are less virtuous than us. "
In short, the scenario that will open the meeting in Copenhagen, it is extremely complex.
The main problem is that the Earth's atmosphere does not respect the time and the usual rules of political compromise and a further postponement of certain choices could be really dangerous.
Already a rise of one degree of temperature and resulting in further melting of the polar ice caps would cause serious damage to the arable land of Bangladesh and other countries located at sea level.

Michele Salvadori

Comment article on "comments"

Implantation Bleeding Pick Brown Tinge

Gaia or Medea, what future for the Earth?


In view of the climate conference to be held next December in Copenhagen, from which we can expect some important decisions concerning protection of the planet, I decided to create a sort of path towards all 'event staged approach to addressing the key issues related to it. With this in mind I decided to start the conversation by focusing on two main theories that predict what future awaits the Earth and its inhabitants, and which also appear to differ significantly from each other. The
Gaia theory, which takes its name from the ancient Greek goddess of Earth, mother and protector of all life forms, claims that our planet, for all damages caused by man, is nevertheless capable of regulating itself and evolve to ensure the welfare of its inhabitants. The theory of
Medea, which instead takes its name from the mythological character of Medea, in fact, the wife of Jason and famous for murdering their children, argues instead that the evolutionary system of the planet is inevitably destined to end in the extinction of life of its inhabitants. In essence
Gaia sees the earth as "benign mater" Medea and instead framed as a merciless stepmother and inhospitable.
The two theories are actually much more complex and groped to explain in detail would involve a much longer speech.
The Gaia theory is not new. It dates back to 1979 and was made by British scientist James Lovelock, according to which life itself is to regulate the atmosphere and Earth's climate in order to make a living through self-regulation mechanisms of its main variables: temperature, oxygen, acidity, etc..
In this theory, all things considered, fairly comfortable, he chose to oppose the American scientist Peter Ward, who sought to show that, for the earth's temperature in hand, in reality that proposed by Lovelock is a beautiful fairy tale and instead the latch temperatures recorded on the planet over the millennia can be attributed to the evolution of new species of life.
Over the past 565 million years, or the beginning of the evolution of animals on Earth, there were as many as 15 mass extinctions and 10 extinctions minor all caused not by external events (such as the collapse of a large meteorite on the planet), but on the emergence and subsequent evolution of new species that, digging their own space in the ecosystem of the planet, however small, have come inevitably to delete the existing species and in fact incompatible with the new arrivals.
You know the new American settlers who actually phased tribes Indian in America? Here, something like that. In summary
Ward, with his theory of Medea, says that life seems to actively pursue its own end, leading to the Earth faster and faster when the inevitable day return to its original state: sterile. According to Ward
the process of self-destruction has already begun: the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere gradually decreases until it disappears, thus preventing photosynthesis and in fact the whole life cycle connected with it.
There is however some good news: the process, although started should be completed within 500 million years ... So there is still a bit 'of time for a movie and a good book!

Michele Salvadori

Comment article on "comments"

Asics Gel Sensei 3 Mt

L 'eco-diamond Pratolino


inaugurated, Saturday, Oct. 17, in Villa Park in Pratolino Demidoff, the "Diamond". It is a structure that weighs 30 tons, is 12 meters high and has a diameter of 8, all in glass and steel, capable of producing energy for the first time combining solar and hydrogen technology. The project is experimental in nature, was carried out by Enel in collaboration with the University of Pisa. The goal is to produce clean electricity through photovoltaic panels 38 and then store form of hydrogen within three balls that act as storage tanks and placed inside the panels.

The plant will have a power of 11 kilowatts and will provide energy to the Park Pratolino. Among other things, the energy accumulated from the Diamond should provide power to electric bikes that will be made available to park visitors.
For the first time you can then use the electricity produced by the panels during the day even at night, when they must return to the use of the network as photovoltaic panels, the absence of solar radiation are not able to produce energy . The
experimental technology applied in this project is today without doubt extremely expensive.
However laudable attempt that with time and thanks to the ongoing experiments could lead to less expensive facilities. ( to learn more about functional details, click with the mouse on the box "day" and "night").

The plant will be owned by Enel for free but will sell the energy created by it for use of Park Pratolino.

Michele Salvadori

Comment article on "comments"