Schimbarea climatica modifica sensul notiunii de Drept (Justitie)

Stiati ca Marea Britanie este una dintre cele mai avangardiste state?

Staiti ca sistemul de juri este perdant?

Dar daca le combinam?

Michael McCarthy, Cleared: Jury decides that threat of global warming justifies breaking the law, The Independent, 11 September 2008.

Din nou despre cincinalul incalzirii globale. O parere din Australia

Un citat:

The world has spent $50 billion on global warming since 1990, and we have not found any actual evidence that carbon emissions cause global warming. Evidence consists of observations made by someone at some time that supports the idea that carbon emissions cause global warming. Computer models and theoretical calculations are not evidence, they are just theory.

Restul cititi in The Australian. Si, totusi, persista intrebarea: what if…?

Bogatii nu dau destui bani pentru incalzirea globala…

De la EUObserver (*).

 

Rich countries criticised for lack of leadership on climate change

Mr Pachauri urged other countries to follow Europe’s initiative and also set ambitious targets for carbon cuts.

China and India, two of the fastest-growing economies and seen as essential signatories for any climate deal if it is to have an impact, „would like to see some level of ambition on the part of the developed countries before they make any voluntary commitments of their own,” he said.

Mr Pachauri also underlined that more money was needed to assist developing countries’ adaptation to the possible impacts of global warming, as well as „some tangible efforts to make technology transfer a reality.”

Papa si „profetii” schimbarilor climatice

Asta de stire! Din „Daily Mail„.

Pope Benedict XVI has launched a surprise attack on climate change prophets of doom, warning them that any solutions to global warming must be based on firm evidence and not on dubious ideology.

The leader of more than a billion Roman Catholics suggested that fears over man-made emissions melting the ice caps and causing a wave of unprecedented disasters were nothing more than scare-mongering.

The German-born Pontiff said that while some concerns may be valid it was vital that the international community based its policies on science rather than the dogma of the environmentalist movement.

His remarks will be made in his annual message for World Peace Day on January 1, but they were released as delegates from all over the world convened on the Indonesian holiday island of Bali for UN climate change talks.

The 80-year-old Pope said the world needed to care for the environment but not to the point where the welfare of animals and plants was given a greater priority than that of mankind.

„Humanity today is rightly concerned about the ecological balance of tomorrow,” he said in the message entitled „The Human Family, A Community of Peace”.

„It is important for assessments in this regard to be carried out prudently, in dialogue with experts and people of wisdom, uninhibited by ideological pressure to draw hasty conclusions, and above all with the aim of reaching agreement on a model of sustainable development capable of ensuring the well-being of all while respecting environmental balances.

„If the protection of the environment involves costs, they should be justly distributed, taking due account of the different levels of development of various countries and the need for solidarity with future generations.

„Prudence does not mean failing to accept responsibilities and postponing decisions; it means being committed to making joint decisions after pondering responsibly the road to be taken.”

Efforts to protect the environment should seek „agreement on a model of sustainable development capable of ensuring the well-being of all while respecting environmental balances”, the Pope said.

He added that to further the cause of world peace it was sensible for nations to „choose the path of dialogue rather than the path of unilateral decisions” in how to cooperate responsibly on conserving the planet.

The Pope’s message is traditionally sent to heads of government and international organisations.

His remarks reveal that while the Pope acknowledges that problems may be associated with unbridled development and climate change, he believes the case against global warming to be over-hyped.

A broad consensus is developing among the world’s scientific community over the evils of climate change.

But there is also an intransigent body of scientific opinion which continues to insist that industrial emissions are not to blame for the phenomenon.

Such scientists point out that fluctuations in the earth’s temperature are normal and can often be caused by waves of heat generated by the sun. Other critics of environmentalism have compared the movement to a burgeoning industry in its own right.

In the spring, the Vatican hosted a conference on climate change that was welcomed by environmentalists.

But senior cardinals close to the Vatican have since expressed doubts about a movement which has been likened by critics to be just as dogmatic in its assumptions as any religion.

In October, the Australian Cardinal George Pell, the Archbishop of Sydney, caused an outcry when he noted that the atmospheric temperature of Mars had risen by 0.5 degrees celsius.

„The industrial-military complex up on Mars can’t be blamed for that,” he said in a criticism of Australian scientists who had claimed that carbon emissions would force temperatures on earth to rise by almost five degrees by 2070 unless drastic solutions were enforced.

O instanta britanica despre un film cu un adevar (ne)convingator despre incalzirea (sau racirea) globala

Am descoperit ceva realmente interesant sesizat de un blogăr strain (*).

Asadar, un parinte a invocat legea engleza invatamantului, care interzice partizanatul politic (adica impune obiectivitatea) in scoli, si a atacat o decizie a departamentului respectiv de distribuire a filmului procesat de fostul vice american pe tema incalzirii globale, recent decorat cu jumatate din premiul Nobel (*).

 si instanta a dat dreptate parintelui respectiv, motivand ca ar fi trebuit fie permisa prezentarea unor (altor) puncte de vedere opuse. Decizia aici (*). Mai ales ca reclamantul a facut trimitere si la problema cu pamantul verde, in speta Groenland.

 Asadar, pluralismul de opinii contra monismului de pareri… consens spre o (posibila) societate multilateral multiculturala…

Schimbarile climatice, sanatatea publica & principiul precautiei

Care este legatura?! EI bine, cititi in articolul de mai jos. Si pana la urma totul se leaga.

Unamuno ;) , daca ati auzit de el, era faimos pentru asocierile pe care le facea… marturie opera lui scrisa.

Climate Change, Human Health, and the Post-Cautionary Principle
Lisa Heinzerling, Georgetown University Law Center

ABSTRACT:
In this Article, I suggest two different but related ways of reframing the public discourse on climate change. First, I propose that we move further in the direction of characterizing climate change as a public health threat and not only as an environmental threat. Second, I argue that we should stop thinking of responses to climate change in terms of the precautionary principle, which counsels action even in the absence of scientific consensus about a threat. We should speak instead in terms of a ?post-cautionary? principle for a post-cautionary world, in which some very bad effects of climate change are unavoidable and others are avoidable only if we take dramatic steps, and soon. These points are related insofar as they together create a moral imperative both to adapt to the changes we cannot prevent and to mitigate those we can. Without these efforts, people will fall ill and many will die, and we know now that this will occur. No fancy moral theory is required to condemn, and to make every attempt to avert, this large-scale knowing killing.

Aici.

Si o constatare metodologica… „ The recognition that climate change is upon us, and harming us, now, leads me to suggest one other way to reframe public discourse on this issue. We should cease discussing responses to climate change in terms of the „precautionary principle” and should begin to think instead in terms of a „post-cautionary” approach”.

Vaclav Havel & incalzirea globala – „Nu planeta este in pericol. Ci noi”…

Articol din 25 septembrie in „International Herald Tribune”. Merita citit.

The planet is not at risk. We are

By Vaclav Havel

Tuesday, September 25, 2007

„Over the past few years questions have been asked ever more forcefully whether global climate changes occur in natural cycles or not, to what degree we human beings contribute to them, what threats stem from them and what can be done to prevent them.

Scientific studies demonstrate that any changes in temperature and energy cycles on a planetary scale could mean a generalized danger to all people on all continents.

It is also obvious from published research that human activity is a cause of change; we just don’t know how big its specific contribution is.

Is it really necessary to know that to the last percentage point, though? By waiting for incontrovertible precision, aren’t we simply wasting time when we could be taking measures that are relatively painless compared to those we would have to adopt after further delays?

Maybe we should start considering our sojourn on Earth as a loan. There can be no doubt that for past hundred years at least, the Euro-American world has been running up a debt, and now other parts of the world are following its example.

Nature is now issuing warnings and demanding that we not only stop the debt growing but start to pay it back. There is little point in asking whether we have borrowed too much or what would happen if we postponed the repayments. Anyone with a mortgage or a bank loan can easily imagine the answer.

The effects of possible climate changes are hard to estimate. Our planet has never been in a state of balance from which it could deviate through human or other influence and then, in time, return to its original state.

The climate is not like some kind of pendulum that will return to its original position after a certain period. It has evolved turbulently over billions of years into a gigantic complex of networks, and of networks within networks, where everything is interlinked in diverse ways.

Its structures will never return to precisely the same state they were 50 or 5,000 years ago. They will only change into a new state, which, so long as the change is slight, need not mean any threat to life.

Larger changes, however, could have unforeseeable effects within the global ecosystem. In that case, we would have to ask ourselves whether human life would be possible. Because so much uncertainty still reigns, a great deal of humility and circumspection is called for.

We can’t go on endlessly fooling ourselves that nothing is wrong and that we can go on cheerfully pursuing our consumer lifestyles, ignoring the climate threats and postponing a solution. Maybe there is no danger of any major catastrophe in the coming years or decades. Who knows? But that doesn’t relieve us of responsibility toward future generations.

I don’t agree with those whose reaction to the possible threats is to warn against the restrictions on civil freedoms. Were the forecasts of certain climatologists to be fulfilled, our freedoms would be tantamount to the freedom of someone hanging from a 20th-story parapet.

We live in a world ringed by a single global civilization comprising various areas of civilization. Most of them these days share one thing in common: technocracy. Priority is given to everything that is calculable, quantifiable or ratable. That is a very materialistic concept, however, and one that is drawing us toward an important crossroads for our civilization.

Whenever I reflect on the problems of today’s world, whether they concern the economy, society, culture, security, ecology or civilization in general, I always end up confronting the moral question: what action is responsible or acceptable? The moral order, our conscience and human rights – these are the most important issues at the beginning of the third millennium.

We must return again and again to the roots of human existence and consider our prospects in centuries to come. We must analyze everything open-mindedly, soberly, unideologically and unobsessively, and project our knowledge into practical policies.

Maybe it is no longer a matter of simply promoting energy-saving technologies, but chiefly of introducing ecologically clean technologies, of diversifying resources and of not relying on just one invention as a panacea.

I’m also skeptical that a problem as complex as climate change can be solved by any single branch of science. Technological measures and regulations are important, but equally important is support for education, ecological training and ethics – a consciousness of the commonality of all living beings and an emphasis on shared responsibility.

We will either achieve an awareness of our place in the living and life-giving organism of our planet, or we will face the threat that our evolutionary journey may be set back thousands or even millions of years. That is why we must take this issue very seriously and see it as a challenge to behave responsibly and not as a harbinger of the end of the world.

The end of the world has been anticipated many times in the course of history and has never come, of course. And it won’t come this time either. We need not fear for our planet. It was here before us and most likely will be here after us. But that doesn’t mean that the human race is not at serious risk.

As a result of our endeavors and our irresponsibility our climate system might leave no place for us. If we drag our feet, the scope for decision-making – and hence for our individual freedom – could be considerably reduced”.