|
|
|
|
New Material Could Lead To Faster Chips: Graphene May Solve Communications Speed LimitNew research findings could lead to microchips that operate at much higher speeds than is possible with today's standard silicon chips, leading to cell phones and other communications systems that can transmit data much faster.Source: ScienceDaily: Latest Science News | 30 Mar 2009 | 3:00 pm Starve A Yeast, Sweeten Its Lifespan: Molecular Mechanisms Link Sugar Production And LongevityResearchers have discovered a new energy-making biochemical twist in determining the lifespan of yeast cells, one so valuable to longevity that it is likely to also functions in humans.Source: ScienceDaily: Latest Science News | 30 Mar 2009 | 3:00 pm Action Video Games Improve Vision, New Research ShowsVideo games that involve high levels of action, such as first-person-shooter games, increase a player's real-world vision, according to new research. The ability to perceive changes in shades of gray improves up to 58 percent.Source: ScienceDaily: Latest Science News | 30 Mar 2009 | 3:00 pm Why Parachutists DieWhat makes parachuting dangerous? Some people think that it is the risk that the parachute won’t open, but new research shows that carelessness or lack of skill in controlling your body or your parachute through the air is considerably more dangerous.Source: ScienceDaily: Latest Science News | 30 Mar 2009 | 3:00 pm Single Embryo Transfer Is Cheapest And Most Effective Strategy For Assisted Reproduction, Studies FindTwo studies are shedding new light on single embryo transfer (SET). The first presents data from one of the longest running consecutive series of patients who chose SET, and shows that several cycles of fresh or frozen single embryo transfer is more effective and cheaper than double or multiple embryo transfers. The second paper shows that, over three consecutive IVF cycles, combining several different transfer stategies (eSET, DET or standard treatment) was not cost-effective.Source: ScienceDaily: Latest Science News | 30 Mar 2009 | 3:00 pm Video Games, Cell Phones And Academic Performance: Some Good NewsUsing cell phones and playing video games may not be as harmful to children's academic performance as previously believed, according to new research.Source: ScienceDaily: Latest Science News | 30 Mar 2009 | 3:00 pm Plastic Protein Protects Bacteria From Stomach Acid's Unfolding PowerA tiny protein helps protect disease-causing bacteria from the ravaging effects of stomach acid, researchers at the University of Michigan and Howard Hughes Medical Institute have discovered.Source: ScienceDaily: Latest Science News | 30 Mar 2009 | 12:00 pm Genetic Changes Outside Nuclear DNA Suspected To Trigger More Than Half Of All CancersA buildup of chemical bonds on certain cancer-promoting genes, a process known as hypermethylation, is widely known to render cells cancerous by disrupting biological brakes on runaway growth. Now, scientists say the reverse process -- demethylation -- which wipes off those chemical bonds may also trigger more than half of all cancers.Source: ScienceDaily: Latest Science News | 30 Mar 2009 | 12:00 pm Fish Oils Reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions From Flatulent CowsOmega 3 fatty acids in fish oils can improve meat quality and reduce methane emissions in cows. Methane given off by farm animals is a major contribution to greenhouse gas levels. Researchers report that by including 2 percent fish oil in the diet of cattle, they achieved a reduction in the amount of methane released by the animals.Source: ScienceDaily: Latest Science News | 30 Mar 2009 | 12:00 pm Family History Associated With Increased Risk Of Blood ClotsChildren and siblings of those with venous thrombosis, or blood clots in the veins, appear to have more than double the risk of developing the condition than those without a family history, according to a new article.Source: ScienceDaily: Latest Science News | 30 Mar 2009 | 12:00 pm Kuwait raises oil output capacity (AFP)
Source: Yahoo! News: Science News | 30 Mar 2009 | 11:22 am N.Dakota fights to protect levees amid record floods (AFP)
Source: Yahoo! News: Science News | 30 Mar 2009 | 11:01 am For the White House, not so easy being greener (AP)
Source: Yahoo! News: Science News | 30 Mar 2009 | 8:37 am Brown accused over green spendingPrime Minister Gordon Brown is accused of failing to harness his economic stimulus for the benefit of the environment.Source: BBC News | Science & Environment | UK Edition | 30 Mar 2009 | 1:06 am Evolution study focuses on snailMembers of the public are asked to look for banded snails and report their findings for a major evolutionary study.Source: BBC News | Science & Environment | UK Edition | 30 Mar 2009 | 12:15 am Fish Oil Could Curb Cow Flatulence (LiveScience.com)LiveScience.com - Cows break wind a lot, and their flatulence fills the air with methane, a potent greenhouse gas.Source: Yahoo! News: Science News | 29 Mar 2009 | 11:36 pm Fish Oil Could Curb Cow FlatulenceCows break wind a lot, and their flatulence fills the air with methane, a potent greenhouse gas.Source: Livescience.com | 29 Mar 2009 | 11:31 pm Sceptical thinking makes a comebackIn this week's show, our new columnist Chris French, who edits the Skeptic magazine, discusses what it means to be a sceptic and why he thinks sceptical thinking is making a comeback. We hear from the Nobel prizewinner Harold Varmus, who discovered the cellular origin of retroviral cancer genes and for most of the 1990s ran the US National Institutes of Health, the biggest funders of medical research in the world. He has just been appointed to President Barack Obama's Council of Advisers on Science and Technology and, last week, addressed the Royal Society in London on everything from the White House's views on science policy to stem cell research. We also ask why George Monbiot hates charcoal. Find out how the Guardian's very own green doyen managed to put himself at odds with environmentalists Jim Lovelock and James Hansen over biochar – the latest great hope for combating climate change. Author Chris Goodall tells us why George is wrong, and why biochar ranks as one of his 10 most important ideas that could save the planet. All that plus this week's Newsjam, which features a return for cold fusion after 20 years, and how therapists, psychoanalysts and psychiatrists are still trying to 'cure' homosexuality. Don't forget to ... • Comment below... Source: Evolution, genetics, medicine, physics & astronomy news | guardian.co.uk | 29 Mar 2009 | 11:05 pm Nuclear reactor plans spread fear and fission along the Energy CoastBeauty spot may soon become part of a 'Lake District Nuclear Park' The unmarked white van at an isolated farm on the fringes of the Lake District National Park attracted no attention among locals. And when a metal tripod drill was spotted, it was presumed the farmer wanted to set up a water bore hole. But as a string of vans bearing the names of soil analysis companies and then a host of Portakabins turned up at the tiny hamlet of Kirksanton, questions began to be asked. When those living on the farm said they could not talk about it and overall-wearing site workers announced they had signed the Official Secrets Act, rumours ran riot. Even then few guessed the truth that was finally revealed in letters from RWE: that the German energy group was "investigating the possibility" of building a nuclear power station there. Tomorrow RWE will nominate the site as part of a wider move to kickstart a nuclear revolution aimed at giving Britain more energy security and lower carbon emissions. RWE will also suggest a site at Egremont further up the "Energy Coast" near Sellafield while EDF of France and E.ON of Germany will put forward their favoured sites for building a new generation of reactors. These companies will be scrambling to put in bids by the formal deadline tomorrow for land being auctioned off by the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority (NDA). RWE insists its priority is to hold discussions with local representatives and groups but already villagers have held protest meetings and threatened to abandon their homes rather than accept a reactor there. Leukaemia "We live in a beautiful part of our world and that's all we've got here really," said Sue Abbott, whose smallholding sits alongside the site. "We are going to have major building works, light pollution, all the roads - and that will change the area completely even without the aspect of nuclear danger." Michael Wills, a fireman whose wife's family have owned their home in the village for 54 years, said he was concerned about the future for his five children. "With our young family, growing up next to a nuclear power station would be very worrying for us. I know links to cancers and leukaemia are not proven absolutely but there is lots of evidence that there are links to nuclear power." He said locals had been given less than a month to take part in the consultation. "It's not giving us any time to put together a credible case based on the correct facts as to why this is the wrong place for a nuclear power station." The leader of the Millom Without parish council, Wilson Huck, said he was concerned about road links to the area, an issue that has already been raised at Sellafield. "Access is very limited and, although the council hasn't met to discuss this yet, I think we feel access is even worse than at Sellafield." Some residents would welcome the plant, which - it is rumoured - could provide up to 600 jobs. Rosie Mathisen, energy opportunities director at West Lakes Renaissance, the urban regeneration company that has been working to attract interest in building nuclear reactors in west Cumbria, said: "We welcome RWE's commitment to nuclear new-build. Their interest in these two sites is testament to the attractiveness of west Cumbria as a place for new-build, given the area's world-renowned skills base and strong support for the nuclear industry." Huck said he feared jobs would largely go to outside experts while existing businesses, which include an organic nursery and several bed and breakfasts, a caravan park and farms, could be blighted by the plant. "This bizarre selection of sites for reactors in west Cumbria by RWE smacks more of sticking a pin in the map and, by a stroke of luck, coming up with something just outside the National Park boundary than any properly considered site selection process," said Martin Forwood, campaign coordinator at Cumbrians Opposed to a Radioactive Environment. "Neither site anywhere near meets the government's criteria of being at an existing nuclear site, being close to where electricity is wanted or having suitable National Grid connections. Deadline "Should RWE's plans go ahead, west Cumbrians can kiss goodbye to any notion of a diversified, clean and safe future for the region. With the possibility of hosting the UK's nuclear waste dump and the prospect of more reactors at Sellafield or on adjoining land owned by the NDA, the region will become the Lake District Nuclear Park - sitting dangerously alongside the much hallowed Lake District National Park." If all goes to plan the government will hold a formal consultation on these sites this year and publish a final policy statement next spring. Energy groups will then spend three years planning and licensing locations so that building could start in 2013 and operations begin in 2018, though few independent analysts believe that deadline will be met. Nuclear power is promising to make a comeback in Britain as well as France, the US and China at a time when some believe low-carbon alternatives such as wind and solar are not going to achieve the scale expected of them. Reactors remain deeply controversial, with concerns over cost, the threat of terrorism and the fact that radioactive waste remains toxic for hundreds of years. guardian.co.uk © Guardian News & Media Limited 2009 | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds
Source: Evolution, genetics, medicine, physics & astronomy news | guardian.co.uk | 29 Mar 2009 | 11:01 pm Interview: Nicholas SternDecca Aitkenhead meets Nicholas Stern If you were casting for a film about a policy academic in Whitehall, and Nicholas Stern auditioned, you would reject him on the grounds that he looked so much like a cliche that he would be a caricature. If you were casting for the rock star of the modern climate change movement, on the other hand, he would be the last man in the world you would choose. Middle-aged, soberly suited, grey and compact, he speaks softly in the fastidious register of academia, comprised of paragraphs constructed almost entirely out of words such as "policy framework", "costs and benefits", "transparency of governance" and so on. Yet, when he speaks, the whole world now listens. Since publishing the Stern Review in 2006, the professor has become the global authority on climate change. Commissioned by Gordon Brown, his study of the economics of climate change shifted the debate away from polar bears and unseasonal summers, and reframed it in the cold hard language of the balance sheet. Unless we invested 1% of global GDP per annum in measures to prevent climate change, the review warned, it would cost us 20% of global GDP. Suddenly, the CBI and the Institute of Directors were paying attention. It was a defining moment for the credibility of a movement once belittled as too counter-culture to be taken seriously. Stern became the grey hero of the greens - powerful precisely because he seemed such an improbable eco warrior. Since then Stern has returned from the Treasury to the London School of Economics, been made a life peer, and is now about to publish a book - A Blueprint For a Safer Planet. Guided by three principles of effectiveness, efficiency and fairness, it calls for an investment of closer to 2% of GDP, with rich countries leading the way in emissions reductions. Proposing green technologies, international emissions trading, and financing to halt deforestation, it lays out the terms by which he believes we can avert catastrophe - and as such is fundamentally hopeful. But Stern navigates a delicate path between optimism and Armageddon, and at a recent climate change conference he was still exhorting world leaders to grasp the magnitude of the crisis. "Do the politicians understand just how difficult it could be?" he appealed. "Just how devastating [a rise of] four, five, six degrees centigrade would be? I think not yet." With hindsight, he says he fears that even his own review underestimated the risks we face. "When it came out, people thought I'd over- egged the omelette. But all the things people were looking at turned out to be worse than they thought. Doing nothing looks even more reckless than it did even a few years ago." He pauses, as if uneasy with such an intemperate word, but keeps going. "Recklessness is the only word. I mean, we have to recognise the scale of the risk. If we go on at anything like business as usual, we'll be at concentration levels by the end of this century which will give us around a 50-50 chance of being above five degrees centigrade relative to, say, the 19th century. We humans are only 100,000 years old. We haven't seen that for 30 to 50 million years. We haven't seen three degrees centigrade for three million years. The idea that humans can easily adapt to conditions like these ..." He lets the proposition tail away, too foolish even for words. "What will we do? We'll move. People will move. Why? Because much of southern Europe will be desert. Other places will become underwater. Others will be hit by such severe storms with such frequency that they become almost uninhabitable. So hundreds of millions of people will move. You're already seeing people moving in Darfur, where droughts devastated the grazing land of pastoralist people, and they moved, and come into conflict with people in the places they're moving to. We're seeing that already on just a 0.8 degree rise. We're the first generation that has the power to destroy the planet. You're re-writing the planet. So you can only describe as reckless ignoring risks like that." At the heart of Stern's work is a simple calculation. If the science on climate change is right, the transition costs incurred by switching to a low-carbon economy will - however daunting - be a fraction of what we will save by averting disaster. If the science is wrong, and we incur those costs unnecessarily, they would be "very far from disastrous", and we would still benefit, "because we will have a world that is more energy efficient, with new and cleaner technologies, and is more biodiverse as a result of protecting the forests". The logic of the argument is compelling, but is there any part of Stern that believes the science could be wrong? "It's very, very remote," he says slowly. Less than one in 100? He looks surprised. "Oh, much, much less." The puzzle must therefore be why anyone would still doubt it. Nigel Lawson, for example, dismissed his review as "fraudulent", and published a book last year disputing the entire scientific premise of climate change. "As an undergraduate, I did maths and physics. That doesn't make me a scientist," Stern responds, with exaggerated patience. "So I try to read and understand and talk to scientists. I'm staggered by how many people who are lawyers, or politicians ..." Or former chancellors? "For example," he agrees drily. "Taxi drivers. People behind bars. People cutting hair. They all seem to be knowledgeable and expert on the science. "In public policy we have to understand a little bit about nuclear physics, and biochemistry, and genetics. So what do you do if you want to understand about genetics? You talk to a geneticist. You don't turn to taxi drivers or politicians. Both respectable professions, but you don't go to them for the science of climate change, you go to scientists. And what do you hear? That this is basically simple physics. It's not as if it's something strange or mysterious that people can't explain to you. It's not something outside the experimental. The greenhouse effect is something you can observe experimentally - and most people have observed the greenhouse effect themselves, in greenhouses. Yes?" Does Stern feel angry with sceptics - or, as he calls them, irrational optimists? "Well, they're marginal now," he says with rather withering indifference. When he finds himself sitting next to one at a dinner party, does he even bother to argue? "I still believe in rational argument and communication. It's our duty to try. But it is an area in which people can be deliberately destructive," he says disdainfully. "There's a kind of yah boo argument: 'Don't believe it, don't believe it, don't believe it.' Or using language that's slightly more colourful, like that Paul Whitehouse character who said bollocks to everything. That's the kind of thing. It's yah boo stuff." Stern suspects their perversity is ultimately down to political prejudice. He has no patience with those on the right who assume climate change is just a Trojan horse - an excuse for the left to interfere in the market. "This is about trying to help markets work. This isn't anti-market, this is about making markets work well. My position is pro-markets and pro-growth - not anti-growth. Indeed, it's ignoring the problem that will kill off the growth. High carbon growth kills itself. First on very high hydrocarbon prices, but second and, of course, much more fundamentally, on the very hostile physical environment it would create." But he has even less time for those on the left who think climate change is "an elitist hobby horse"; a distraction from poverty in the developing world. "We will not overcome world poverty unless we manage climate change successfully. I've spent my life as a development economist, and it's crystal clear that we succeed or fail on winning the battle against world poverty and managing climate change together. If we fail on one, we fail on the other." When we meet in his book-lined office at the LSE, Stern has just returned from breakfast with his old friend Mervyn King at the Bank of England, and I get the impression that he suffers any less cerebrally rarefied company with weary forbearance. Oxbridge-educated, 62, he has worked at the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development, the World Bank and the Treasury, but "I am a public policy analyst, that's who I am," he says more than once. He seems intellectually and temperamentally ill-suited to the rough and tumble of political knockabout, for to speak in a language the rest of us can understand seems a challenge - if not a chore - at times. Sometimes, though, I suspect he deliberately obfuscates. It was Brown who commissioned Stern's work on climate change - yet the prime minister subsequently authorised the third runway at Heathrow. When I ask if Stern supported that decision, his reply is somewhat opaque: "I was uncomfortable with the way that decision was structured." I would have thought he'd have been furious about it. "Well, no. I was worried about the framework for the analysis." What does that mean? "I felt that the analysis should have been done in the context of an overall strategy." Surely, I press, given the urgency of the situation, and the authority his voice would carry, he had a responsibility to speak out? "I don't want to get into having to take a running position on each individual project and proposal. You have to keep it in that overall perspective and we shouldn't turn it into a symbolic argument over one particular thing." Politics is symbolic, though, isn't it? "Yes, but I'm not a politician giving a running commentary. I'm a public policy analyst." At other times I wonder if he understands the way less rational or educated minds work. On policy analysis he is quite brilliant - but on the politics of the real world he can seem almost naively high-minded. For example, his book highlights the imperative of halting deforestation, but says relatively little about the problem of corruption in developing countries where the issue applies. Clearly, the west needs to divert some of its wealth to them, to deter deforestation. But taxpayers complain that Africa is corrupt, and that they've already spent decades sending aid that went straight into the pockets of officials. Why should they send more money if it won't stop the forests being destroyed but will fuel corruption - while they're being told they can't fly off on holiday whenever they like? "Yes, but that's based on a misunderstanding," he says, looking irritated. "Progress in Africa over the last two decades has been much, much stronger than the preceding two decades. If you ask those people to tell you how many sub-Saharan Africa countries there are, and what their growth rates were over these last four decades, they wouldn't be able to tell you. They wouldn't have a clue." I'm sure they wouldn't - but that seems beside the point. Similarly, although he talks hopefully of a World Environment Organisation, he puts surprisingly little emphasis on coercion. Won't we need some sort of equivalent to the International Criminal Court to enforce international agreements? "People have to ask themselves, if I transgress as a country what would be the implications for me and for the coalition that's dealing with this problem? You'll have to think about the consequences of your actions. If a big country pulls out of this they can't simply say, 'Well everyone else will do their bit.' They have to ask themselves what will happen. It will be the politics of particular countries. People will demand that their governments behave responsibly." Ultimately, he points out, the choice is quite simple: however difficult the challenge of action may be, the alternative is unthinkable. "If you say I'm not going to do that, what's left? What's left is you just reach for the suntan lotion and the big hat, and you say it's all too difficult, I'm signing off on this, and let's all fry. Why would you want to go there?" It seems more or less unimaginable to Stern that people would be stupid enough to allow a catastrophe to unfold, and his ultimate message is one of optimism. "There are so many ideas out there, the pace of technological progress is so fast. It's a very optimistic thing about human nature; when humans focus on a problem, they're quite ingenious. And we have to recognise that this subject is young. It's only been deep in our understanding for two or three years. The scientists, of course, have been thinking about this for a long time, but in terms of politics and policy it's been big only for two or three years. I think if you look at it in that context, let's recognise what the government has done. We're ahead of the world on climate change legislation. I think the climate change bill is broadly along the right lines. If you ask yourself the question, 'How far have we got?', we've got a long way. It has to be faster, but let's not fail to recognise how far we've come." Not even the world recession has dampened his optimism. "This recession is seen as something that would prevent action on climate change only if we confuse ourselves. If we think clearly, this is an opportunity to bring forward some of those investments, because resources are a bit cheaper at the moment. I've been struck that this climate change story has stayed very much on the agenda, the way that the green stimulus has been seen as part of the expansion package. In the next two or three decades, I think low-carbon technologies are going to be like the railways or IT - big drivers of growth." Stern won't live long enough to know if the world takes his advice. But if he had to go to the bookies now and place a £1,000 bet on whether we'll manage to do what's necessary in time, which way would he put it? "I would bet," he says cautiously, "we'll get there. But as in any bet, there's a risk of being wrong". 'There are many half-baked attempts to naysay the science, but they always unravel on inspection'. guardian.co.uk © Guardian News & Media Limited 2009 | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds
Source: Evolution, genetics, medicine, physics & astronomy news | guardian.co.uk | 29 Mar 2009 | 11:01 pm The point of no returnIn an exclusive extract from his new book, Nicholas Stern argues that the time for debate on climate change is well and truly over How is it that, in the face of overwhelming scientific evidence, there are still some who would deny the dangers of climate change? Not surprisingly, the loudest voices are not scientific, and it is remarkable how many economists, lawyers, journalists and politicians set themselves up as experts on the science. It is absolutely right that those who discuss policy should interrogate the science, because the implications for action are radical. However, they should also take the scientific evidence seriously and recognise the limitations on their own abilities to assess the science. Contrary to the narrative that some have tried to impose on the debate, climate change is not a theory struggling to maintain itself in the face of problematic evidence. The opposite is true: as new information comes in, it reinforces our understanding across a whole spectrum of indicators. The subject is full of uncertainty, but there is no serious doubt that emissions are growing as a result of human activity and that more greenhouse gases will lead to further warming. The last 20 years have seen special and focused attention from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which has now published four assessments, the most recent in 2007. With each new report, the evidence on the strength and source of the effects, and the magnitude of the implications and risks, have become stronger. Some people accuse the IPCC of having institutional and procedural structures which predispose it to alarmism. In fact, the IPCC is structurally conservative and requires very tight consensus among scientists from many backgrounds and nationalities. As a result, statements are muted and it is likely that risks are understated. It mostly confines attention to the period until 2100, when the lags are such that still bigger damages appear later; and it leaves out effects which are likely to be important but on which strong, detailed quantitative evidence has yet to accumulate sufficiently. Some of the marginally more sophisticated attempts at obfuscation focus only on mean expected temperature increases in the short term, rather than looking at a longer horizon or at the very real possibility of much higher increases. Look, they argue, the IPCC does not expect a temperature increase of much more than 2.5-3C by the end of the century; we can cope with that. This is a classic example of the misuse of evidence to divert attention from the main point - how to control the risk of bigger increases. By focusing on the limited time period and suppressing the uncertainty, the deniers deliberately miss the point: temperature increases of 4-5C and above are likely to be catastrophic. If we act strongly and effectively in the next decade, we can radically reduce the probability of those temperature increases at modest cost. More recently, others have tried to argue that the warming has stopped because 1998 (a so-called El Niño year, with warmer surface temperature of oceans) was a little warmer on average than 2007 (a La Niña year, with cooler surface temperature of oceans). This confuses cycles with trends, peaks with troughs and sea temperatures with land temperatures. Further, it ignores that the last decade was the hottest since records began and that the trend is clearly upwards. But this is the kind of nonsense that some would try to peddle. There are many more half-baked attempts to try to naysay the science, but they always unravel on careful inspection. And the same has been true of more sophisticated attempts, such as those involving changing structures of humidity in the atmosphere. The basic scientific conclusions on climate change are very robust and for good reason. The greenhouse effect is simple science: greenhouse gases trap heat, and humans are emitting ever more greenhouse gases. There will be oscillations, there will be uncertainties. But the logic of the greenhouse effect is rock-solid and the long-term trends associated with the effects of human emissions are clear in the data. The arguments from those who would deny the science look more and more like those who denied the association between HIV and Aids or smoking and cancer. Science and policy-making thrive on challenge and questioning; they are vital to the health of inquiry and democracy. But at some point it makes sense to move on to the challenge of policymaking, having accepted that the evidence is overwhelming. We are way past that point. The arguments offered by those who would deny the case for strong and timely action are a tissue of confusions about both the science and the economics. Also, most of them back away from, suppress or trivialise the basic ethical issues. However, the noise made by deniers continues to be loud, in relation both to their modest numbers and the poverty of their thinking. Why do they make their case at such volume, and why do they have an audience, given that their case is so weak? The answers are largely political. Some on the right, such as those attached to free-market think-tanks like the American Enterprise Institute, see environmental causes as a trojan horse used by those who would like to regulate and control the economy. Others on the left - in some developing countries such as India, for example - see the issue as an elitist hobby-horse of the middle and upper classes who are diverting attention from more pressing issues such as poverty and redistribution. There are also vested interests, particularly in coal and oil extraction industries, that see a move away from hydrocarbon-based energy as a threat. These industries will of course experience some dislocation, just as the introduction of roads and trains caused dislocation in the market for horses and carts. But the potential for dislocation is not an argument against change; while the adjustment costs from cutting emissions must be managed, the dislocation for society as a whole will be far higher if we continue with business as usual. Enlightened self-interest from those involved in hydrocarbons should lead to the support of technologies enabling the clean use of hydrocarbons, such as carbon capture and storage, and not to the defence of deniers and cranks. In the medium term, this is the only real option for maintaining demand for hydrocarbon energy sources. (In the long term, of course, if their use continues they will be depleted.) Alternatives to a hydrocarbon-powered internal combustion engine are already available and many more will be created; similarly for power generation. Further public and informal discussion can create much greater awareness and understanding. All of these require both leadership from politicians, and political action from the public. There are economic, technological, social and political answers to all of these issues, but there is no doubt that moving to a low-carbon growth path will involve real economic and political costs. These costs must be acknowledged and managed, not dismissed. Their existence implies that there is potentially a large audience for someone who tries to argue that the change is unnecessary, not worth the cost, or capable of being postponed. Many "leaders" in countries such as the UK, the US and Australia have been tempted to pander to these audiences. Whether or not they are succumbing to political temptation, no doubt many or most of them believe what they are saying (some appear to think they are saving the world from costly and unnecessary action). It is very important that their arguments are seen to be wrong: they are indeed profoundly misguided. The risks are clearly enormous, and the argument must move on to how to respond. • A Blueprint For a Safer Planet: How to Manage Climate Change and Create a New Era of Progress and Prosperity, by Nicholas Stern, published on Thursday by The Bodley Head (£16.99). To order a copy for £15.99 with free UK p&p, go to guardian.co.uk/bookshop or call 0330 333 6846. guardian.co.uk © Guardian News & Media Limited 2009 | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds
Source: Evolution, genetics, medicine, physics & astronomy news | guardian.co.uk | 29 Mar 2009 | 11:01 pm Starwatch: Stellar retreatWe can still catch Orion and Sirius in the SW at nightfall, but their hasty retreat into our western evening twilight means we lose them by the end of April. The two iconic spring constellations of Leo and Virgo dominate the S sky at our map times, while the Plough or Big Dipper looms overhead. Saturn is now our sole bright planet for much of the night. Our chart shows it below Leo's hindquarters in the middle of the S sky from where it sinks to set in the W during morning twilight. Shining with a creamy hue at mag 0.6, it lies near the Moon next Monday when its disc appears 19 arcsec wide if viewed through a telescope and the rings, tipped at 2° to our view, measure 44 by 3 arcsec. Mercury becomes well placed in our evening twilight later in April. Its altitude in the WNW 40 minutes after sunset improves from 5° on the 12th to a peak of more than 11° by the 26th when it spectacularly meets the young Moon. Don't miss this chance to spot Mercury only 2° below the very slender Moon, with the Pleiades just above the Moon and the entire grouping well within the same binocular field. Mercury dims from mag -1.2 on the 12th, to 0.3 on the 26th and 1.0 on the 30th by which time it lies only a degree S of the Pleiades. Venus now rises more than one hour before the Sun but its altitude in the E at sunrise improves only from 8° to 10° this month as it brightens to mag -4.5. Look for it to the left of the slender earthlit waning Moon on the 22nd. Mars is only 4° below Venus by then but remains too dim at mag 1.2 to be glimpsed in the twilight. Jupiter hugs our SE horizon before dawn and is conspicuous at mag -2.2 when it lies to the left of the Moon on the 19th. • As part of the International Year of Astronomy, and to coincide with the current evening visibility of the Moon, there are special astronomy events all around the UK this week. See astronomy2009.co.uk guardian.co.uk © Guardian News & Media Limited 2009 | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds
Source: Evolution, genetics, medicine, physics & astronomy news | guardian.co.uk | 29 Mar 2009 | 11:01 pm Tesla targets broader audience with electric sedanHAWTHORNE, California (Reuters) - Electric car start-up Tesla Motors Inc unveiled its newest, lowest-cost vehicle on Thursday, a family sedan the company says will be the first highway-ready electric vehicle accessible to most car buyers.Source: Reuters: Science News | 29 Mar 2009 | 10:06 pm Obama envoy: Time to act on climate change (AP)
Source: Yahoo! News: Science News | 29 Mar 2009 | 6:42 pm Environmentalists hail Earth Hour as a big success (AP)
Source: Yahoo! News: Science News | 29 Mar 2009 | 5:36 pm Action Video Games Improve VisionVideo games with lots of action, such as the shoot-'em-up variety, can improve your vision.Source: Livescience.com | 29 Mar 2009 | 5:00 pm SLIDE SHOW: Lights Out for Earth Hour 2009From the Egyptian pyramids to the Arctic Circle, millions took part in Earth Hour 2009.Source: Discovery News Top Stories : Discovery Channel | 29 Mar 2009 | 3:11 pm Seoul warns N. Korea over rocket launch (AFP)
Source: Yahoo! News: Science News | 29 Mar 2009 | 2:48 pm Perfect Running Pace RevealedEach person has an optimal running pace that uses the least amount of oxygen to cover a given distance.Source: Livescience.com | 29 Mar 2009 | 1:56 pm 'War' on poisonous Australia toadAustralians take part in a mass capture of poisonous cane toads, as part of a collective effort at pest control.Source: BBC News | Science & Environment | UK Edition | 29 Mar 2009 | 11:55 am Russian spaceship docks despite engine failureMOSCOW (Reuters) - Astronauts on Russia's Soyuz spacecraft were forced to manually dock with the International Space Station (ISS) on Saturday after an engine failure knocked out the automatic docking system, Russian space officials said.Source: Reuters: Science News | 29 Mar 2009 | 10:52 am
|
