special report_ the environment

AMERICANS DON'T LIKE TO LOSE WARS
which makes sense, since they have so little practice with it. Of course, a lot depends on how you define just what a war is. There are shooting wars - the kind that test mettle and patriotism and resourcefulness and courage - and those are the kind at which the U.S. excels. But other struggles test those qualities too. What else was the Great Depression or the space race or the construction of the railroads or the eradication of polio but a massive, often frightening challenge that the U.S. decided as a country it ought to rise up and face ? If Americans indulge in a bit of chest - thumping and flag - waving when the job is done, well , they earned it.
Now there is a similarly momentous challenge ; global warning. The steady deterioration of the very climate of this very planet is becoming a war of the first order, and by any measure, the U.S. is losing. Indeed, if America is fighting at all - and by most accounts, it's not - it's fighting on the wrong side. The U.S. produces nearly a quarter of the world's greenhouse gases each year and has stubbornly made it clear that it doesn't intend to do a whole lot about it. Although 174 nations ratified the admittedly flawed Kyoto accords to reduce carbon levels, the U.S. walked away from them. While even developing China has boosted its efficiency standards to 15 km/L, the U.S. remains the land of the Hummer. Oh, there are vague promises of manufacturing fuel from switchgrass or powering cars with hydrogen - someday. But for a country that rightly cites patriotism as one of its core values, the U.S. is taking a pass on what might be the most patriotic struggle of all. Its hard to imagine a bigger fight than one for the survival of a country's coasts and farms, the health of its people and the stability of its economy - and for those of the world at large as well.
The rub is, if the vast majority of people increasingly agree that climate change is a global emergency, there's far less consensus on how to fix it. Industry offers its plans, which too often would fix little. Environmentalists offer theirs, which too often amount to naive wish lists that could cripple America's growth. But let's assume that those interested parties and others will always be at the table and will always - sensibly - demand that their voices be heard and that their needs be addressed. What would an aggressive, ambitious, effective plan look like - one that would leave the U.S. both environmentally safe and economically sound?
Forget precedents like the Manhattan Project which develop the atom bomb, or the Apollo program that put men on the moon - single focus programs both, however hard they were to pull off. Think instead of the overnight conversion of the World War II - era industrial sector into a vast machine capable of churning out 60,000 tanks and 300,000 planes, an effort that not only didn't bankrupt the U.S. but instead made it rich and powerful beyond its imagining and - oh, yes - won the war in the process.
Halting climate change will be far harder than even that. One of the more conservative plans for addressing the problem, by Robert Socolow and Stephen Pacala of Princeton University, calls for a reduction of 25 billion tons of carbon emissions over the next 50 years - the equivalent of erasing nearly four years of global emissions at today's rates. And yet by devising a coherent strategy that mixes short-term solutions with farsighted goals, combines government activism with private-sector enterprise and blends pragmatism with ambition, the U.S. can, without major damage to the economy, help halt the worst effects of climate change and ensure the survival of its way of life for future generations. Money will do some of the work, but what's needed most is will. "I'm not saying the challenge isn't almost overwhelming,"says Fred Krupp, president of the Environmental Defense Fund and co-author of the new book Earth: The Sequel, "But this is America, and America has risen to these challengers before."
No one yet has a comprehensive plan for how the U.S. could do so again, but everyone agrees on what the biggest parts of the plan would be. Here's our blueprint for how America can flight - and win - the war on global warming.

Be careful with pincers sandal? Danger for health

Washington,
pincers sandal with pincers rope shaped like V or more know with called pincers sandal danger for health. Consumption of pincers sandal can caused quarrel for leg.
The fact founded punctuality from health expert, America. Pincers sandal often called flip-flop in America can caused quarrel if cause a long time. They are loyal to use pincers sandal can to experience sick ill.
Elder team punctual, Justin Shroyer to say that any people to deny a shoes caused easy hurt in him leg so far they are more choose wearing sandal. This fact, so far each other change life style of them with wearing pincers sandal "say Shroyer like in quotation news com. au. thursday (june, 12, 2008).
Shroyer hope the pincers sandal not to appoint first choice in daily. The kind of sandal this find only wear a rare and changed for some months. "Pincers sandal just wearing in enjoyed for a short time his allowance."
In punctual, they are give value a way of people walk and the strongth of them with leg who tread ground with a shoes or pincers sandal.
The result of them who wearing a pincers sandal a little to use power a moment walk to equal they are walk or running with use a shoes.

Russia's Medvedev calls for overhaul of European security

Russian President Dmitry Medvedev on Wednesday made a new demand for a sweeping overhaul of European security, saying NATO alone could not handle the continent's post-Cold War challengers. In a keynote speech at a media forum, he vowed to make Russia more free and open, and said that despite basic differences with the United States he looked forward to constructive dialogue with the next U.S. administration. "Is the Atlantic alliance sufficient to solve all of the problems of security in old Europe? In my opinion the answer is no," Medvedev told journalists at the Russian Media Congress in Moscow. "The solution would be to prepare an all-encompassing European agreement in which all the state of Europe took part ..... All the other institutions are based on divisive principles," he said. The Kremlin has repeatedly complained that NATO is moving to dominate European security, usurping the power of the United Nations and leaving Moscow out in the cold by planning expansion to Russia's borders. In his first major foreign policy speech since succeeding Vladimir Putin, Medvedev last week called for a European conference to discuss a new treaty. But the call, made on a trip to Berlin, has received a muted response. Getting European allies on board to discuss a broad new treaty might be difficult, analysts said. The idea that NATO should disappear as a force in Europe "is not much of a basis for a conference," independent military analyst Pavel Felgenhauer said earlier. The treaty proposal is little more than a reworking of Soviet-era proposals that had a "very weak impact on security in Europe," said Yevgeny Volk, head of the Moscow office of the U.S. Heritage Foundation. To reach an agreement, Russia would have to overcome what Medvedev described as "radically different" U.S. points of view on key security iddues in Europe. In particular, Medvedev named U.S. plans to extend a missile shield into the Czech Republic and Poland, the enlargement of NATO, and the Cold-War era Conventional Forces in Europe Treaty. But the kremlin chief said he had "guarded optimism" about ties with whoever comes to power in the United States in a November presidential election. In an apparent bid to distance himself from the authoritarian trends seen in Russia in recent years Medvedev also vowed to build a freer society. "Our immutable course will be the creation of a free and responsible society, the defense of human rights, freedom of the press and of speech and, of course, supremacy of the law," he said.

Ursula Hyzy

HOW TO LIVE WITH HIGH FUEL PRICES

Any reduction in subsidy is an emotional issue since this will mean people have to pay more for goods affected by such a decision. Therefore, last week's hefty increases in the price of petrol and diesel have not been well received, as consumers have to dig deeper into their pockets to meet rising prices of goods and services. It has to be admitted that the new rates have caught the public by surprise due to their sudden introduction and the reduction in subsidy for these two fuels. It was an unpopular decision and the government was forced to take this bold move because the global price of crude is getting out of control with serious financial and social consequences for everyone. It was becoming increasingly difficult for the subsidies to continue without bankrupting the nation in the long term. It was only prudent for Prime Minister Abdullah Ahmad Badawi to bite the bullet. The public will have to accept this economic reality and make lifestyle changes accordingly, especially when it comes to using their own transport. The main purpose of reducing the subsidy is to curb demand for petrol and diesel. Hopefully, consumption will drop since motorists will come to realize that they cannot keep depending on subsidies. However, it will take a while for the government to determine whether this strategy is working; and if demand should still remain high, then it is not succeeding. With a few hundred thousand vehicles being registered each year, demand for petrol will remain quite constant since any slack-will be made up by the new arrivals. What is likely to change is that motorists may switch to more fuel-efficient models to cut down their petrol bills. They will also need to make fewer trips or use public transport to save money. While motorists may be angry and frustrated with the higher fuel prices, they should realize that this is the only course of action open to government. In any case, the ruling Barisan National leadership had never said it would reduce subsidy during and before the general election. It was the opposition that made such a pledge. Abdullah knew that it was a promise that would be difficult to fulfill since petroleum prices were due to external factors which are out of Malaysia's control. Of course there is nothing to stop state governments to provide special subsidies to their people to ease their financial burden. They are free to do so as a reward for the people's confidence in their leadership. The incentives introduced to offset the new fuel structure may not seem much, but they should be enough to relieve motorists financial burden. It is up to car owners to make the necessary changes in the way they drive since it is no longer possible to do as they pleased like before. They should rid themselves of the dole mentality. The sooner the better or pay the price for refusing to accept that things had changed economically and socially. The good old days are gone. The party is finally over and there will be no longer any free lunch. The days of cheap fuel are unlikely to return.

V K Chin.

FACTS OF LIVE......

Why do we sometimes cry when we laugh?
Weeping with laughter sobbing in sorrow ; our bodies react similarly when emotions run high.
A few scientists have explored the physical pathways of emotional tears, but none have categorically stated why these tears exist. Tom Lutz, author of Crying : The natural and Cultural History of Tears, notes Darwin published snapshots of laughing and crying people to demonstrate that the same expression accompanies both behaviors. " Some tears are squeezed out of the ducts simply because the face is scrunched up, " explains Lutz." But tears also accompany the body's return to homeostasis after extreme excitation. So after a big laughing jag, tears are a sign that the body is returning to normal ".
What tears are made of, however, may offer further clues about why we cry. Unlike tears that well up when you chop onions, emotional tears are unusually rich in protein - based hormones that spike when you're stressed. This fact led one US biochemist to theories that releasing tears - and thus the hormones in them - may be the body's attempt to reduce stress. Regardless of its cause - be it pleasure or pain - people do tend to feel better after a good cry.

RD ; JUNE, 2008