The Kyoto protocol is showing its age – and has been for years. In 1990, the year used as the basis for its calculations, what became the 15 countries of the European Economic Community accounted for 23% of global greenhouse gases. By the time the protocol was adopted in 1997, it was already clear that one of the underlying assumptions – that central and eastern Europe would be lumbered for a long time with carbon-intensive industries – was largely wrong. By 2005, when Kyoto came into force as a treaty, the balance of global economic power was clearly shifting eastward, a move reflected in ‘emerging’ powers’ higher emissions. By the late 2000s, scientists were arguing that emissions would need to be cut by 80%-90% by mid-century; Kyoto set a global reduction target of 5.2% for 2012. And, by now, the world’s biggest polluter is a country that Kyoto does not require to cut emissions – China – while the 27 members of the EU produce ‘only’ 11% of greenhouse gases. Kyoto’s expiry on 31 December 2012 might, then, seem overdue. But leaving it to expire would come at a symbolic price: it is the only global agreement that binds countries to reduce emissions. And its expiring could pose risks to the set of systems and agreements developed through the Kyoto process. Whether Kyoto should be abandoned or extended – and with what modifications – is likely to dominate discussions at this year’s UN climate summit, being held from 28 November to 9 December in Durban, South Africa. Japan, Russia and Canada have refused to sign up to a second phase. The United States, which has signed but never ratified the protocol, says that it will not approve a second phase unless China accepts similar constraints. All or nothing The EU argues that a Kyoto in which only it and some of the smaller industrialised states face mandatory emission reductions would be meaningless. Meanwhile, four of biggest and most-emerged of the emerging economies – Brazil, South Africa, India and China – stated in August that extending Kyoto would be their “central priority” at Durban, called on the EU to agree to “the second commitment period”, and warned of the “dangers of unilateralism” by developed countries. That leaves countries in the developing world, the smallest emitters but also the most affected by climate change. It is in this group that the EU finds most allies. And it is this group that presents the EU with one of its big dilemmas: would walking away from Kyoto hurt the weakest and those least responsible for changing the climate? The EU’s response is a “Yes, but…” commitment to an extension of Kyoto. It will sign up, but it wants a “roadmap to a legally binding global agreement” in return. The EU has not disclosed what milestones and timelines it would like to see on this roadmap (one suggestion being posited is agreement on a global framework by or in 2015 and its entry into force in 2020). The EU did, though, make clear what it would be prepared to do in the long term ahead of the 2009 summit in Copenhagen, and has repeated this since: to cut emissions by 30% by 2020 and by 80%-95% by 2050. The auguries seem poor – and are made worse by India’s insistence that the meeting in Durban should also discuss “unilateral trade measures”, “intellectual property rights”, and “equitable access to sustainable development”. However, international negotiations acquire a dynamic of their own. At Copenhagen, a multilateral process devolved into bilateral and multilateral agreements. At Cancún, discussions evolved fast, producing unexpected agreements. In Durban, the Mexicans, who are working with the South Africans, may again prove to be important deal-brokers. So a new version of the Kyoto protocol could emerge – perhaps with some promises of future commitments for the EU’s sake. If Kyoto is extended, subsidiary deals could fill in the untidy holes left by Kyoto that undermine its ‘environmental integrity’, including rules on forestry and – more trickily for the EU – emissions allowances for post-communist countries. But if there are no such subsidiary deals, Durban’s main achievement might be to clean up the leftovers from the Cancún summit, with political leaders blessing details added to outline agreements reached at Cancún. So there is a risk that Durban may yield little fruit, which is why the run-up to the summit has been low-key, and why government leaders are expected to keep a low profile, or stay away altogether. For Connie Hedegaard, the European commissioner for climate action, the real test of the summit’s success will be the scale of emissions reductions that it produces. By that measure, a desultory, unfruitful summit might prove less important than decisions that the EU will make over the next year about its long-term budget and reform of some of its major policy areas, such as the Common Agricultural Policy. The Commission’s central climate-related idea is the ‘mainstreaming’ of climate change: it argues that climate considerations should be factored into all policies and that 20% of EU funding should be used in ways related to climate change. Taken together, the battles within the EU and the UN suggest that reducing carbon emissions is not yet embedded in the mainstream of policymaking. Economy versus Environment What is bad for the economy is good for the climate. That used to be the case, because growing economies required more energy, and that energy was derived from fossil fuels. If that simple equation still held true, it would be possible to say that the UN’s climate summit in Durban is being held at a good time for the climate. The developed world’s economic growth is sluggish, at best, and even that of the world’s giant pacemaker – China – is slowing down. The abnormally bad economic climate should mean that less climate-changing gas will be pumped into the sky than pre-crisis scenarios predicted. But this is a classic clash between short-term and long-term considerations. Sub-projection emissions lull public opinion, undermine international pressure on individual countries, and buy politicians time to defer the introduction of investment-heavy, longer-term, lower-carbon policies. The economic crisis also risks exacerbating tensions in negotiations in Durban. The global climate process requires a re-distribution of wealth, with developed countries helping the developing world. That means that politicians in the developed world – the least dynamic part of the global economy – will be asked to commit money to abroad when, at home, they are asking voters to accept big budget cuts. The political challenge is amplified by the different tracks followed by the world’s economies. Because, for example, the EU’s economy is less carbon-intensive than China’s, its emissions correlate less strongly to economic activity. How much can – or should – countries with falling emissions and weaker growth, revenues and prospects be expected to transfer to countries with rising emissions and stronger growth, revenues and prospects? The economic climate is certainly not good for climate negotiations. Fact File To Durban and beyond Kyoto protocol 16 February 2005 International climate regime comes into force, seven years after adoption. Copenhagen summit December 2009 Wheels come off bid for legally binding global deal. Cancún summit November-December 2010 UN climate-change process is put back on the road, with parts of the Copenhagen Accord incorporated. Durban summit 28 November-9 December 2011 Will the Kyoto protocol be extended? Kyoto protocol 31 December 2012 Protocol expires – to be followed by what?
Ladies, want a performance-inspired womens-specific saddle with a carbon fiber base and technical bamboo cover? Ã‚Â Look no further than the 300g Rideout.The Rideout Women’s Saddle features a thermoplastic shell with carbon fiber supports to dampen vibration. Ã‚Â It’s molded to fit a woman’s anatomy and uses silicone (gel, we presume) padding underneath a “high tech” fiber made from bamboo. Ã‚Â Bamboo is a naturally wicking and anti-microbial material, and Rideout claims it stays cooler in direct sun, too, so you with neither burn your hoo-ha nor cut off blood flow to it.I’m not sure what OM-RC is, but the seat rails are made out of it.
Share on Facebook Email A team of scientists led by Irene Messina, of the University of Padua, evaluated sex differences in responses to infant’s cries on the timescale of milliseconds by measuring changes in the electric potential in people’s arm muscles. Ten women and ten men, none of whom were parents, took part in the study. Participants were exposed under laboratory conditions to recordings of infants’ cries played at random intervals.They were also exposed to control sounds, which were infant cries that had been altered in pitch so that they were not recognizable. At the same time, laboratory equipment connected to the participants’ arms monitored the electric potential in their muscles. Higher electric potential indicates readiness for activity.Women’s arm muscles showed a spike in electric activity about one tenth of a second after being exposed to a recording of an infant’s cry. Under the same conditions, men’s muscles did not show any sign of change in electric activity. The women’s reactions occurred only in response to a natural-sounding infant’s cry, and not to an altered cry or to a control non-cry sound.The study authors conclude that infant cries elicit an instinctive caregiving response in women that operates at a very basic and automatic level, even in individuals with no parenting experience. However, they caution that their results do not imply that men lack a similar automatic response to infant distress. Men may respond to different cues, or may be primed to react in different ways. Nevertheless, these results provide support for the view that women may have an evolutionarily-driven instinct to move to care for a baby crying in distress. Pinterest Share LinkedIn Share on Twitter Hearing a crying baby appears to cause women’s bodies, but not men’s, to reflexively prepare to take action, according to the results of a study published in Frontiers in Psychology.The sound of an infant’s cry has been found to have unique effects on adults. It is an especially difficult sound to ignore, and appears to act directly on the nervous system to prepare the adult to take steps to comfort and protect the baby.It is generally believed that there are evolutionary reasons for this effect. Because human infants are practically helpless, and because crying is their only means of communication in the earliest and most vulnerable months, it is important for the survival of the species that adults have an instinct to respond to these cries quickly. Because mothers have historically been the primary caregivers of infants, there is some suggestion that this instinct to react to babies’ cries is likely to be stronger in women than in men. However, evidence on this question has been mixed.
Earlier this year, the company started an initiative to plant a tree seedling for every load closed in June. The result saw 2064 seedlings planted last weekend, by participants young and old, as can be seen in the photos below. DC Logistics Brasil has almost 20 years experience in the Brazilian marketplace offering logistics solutions for export and import operations by air, maritime and overland transportation. Headquartered in Itajai, the company has branches in São Paulo, Curitiba, Porto Alegre and Manaus.The company has developed a niche specialisation in the transport of heavy and complex projects for companies in the Petroleum and Gas, Mining, Energy, Engineering, Metallurgy and Industrial Plant sectors.
Related Topics Matt Medley A total of 13 home games, including two at Quicken Loans Arena, the 18 game Horizon League schedule and road contests at preseason nationally-ranked Kentucky and Purdue highlight the 2016-17 Cleveland State men’s basketball schedule that was announced on Wednesday.“I feel that this year’s schedule is very competitive with a good degree of difficulty,” head coach Gary Waters said. “It’s a balanced schedule that allows us to play tough games at home and on the road to prepare us for the Horizon League schedule.”CSU will host Tiffin for its lone exhibition game of the preseason on Nov. 8 before opening the regular season on Nov. 12 against Kent State in Youngstown as part of the Northeast Ohio Doubleheader Benefiting Coaches vs. Cancer. YSU will host Akron in the second game of the doubleheader.The regular season home opener is on Nov. 15 against Canisius, the first of four games as part of the Bluegrass Classic, which concludes with road contests at Tennessee-Martin (Nov. 19), Kentucky (Nov. 23) and Duquesne (Nov. 27).The month of November concludes with a game at Arkansas State (Nov. 30).December opens with back-to-back games at Quicken Loans Arena with the Vikings hosting Bethune-Cookman (Dec. 3), coached by former CSU standout Gravelle Craig, and Western Michigan (Dec. 7).Trips to Purdue (Dec. 10), Ohio (Dec. 17) and Belmont (Dec. 22) are sandwiched around a home game against Lake Erie (Dec. 19) to conclude the nonconference slate.The 18-game Horizon League schedule begins at home against defending League champion Green Bay on Dec. 29 followed by a contest versus Milwaukee on New Year’s Eve.The game against Milwaukee will be the first of six doubleheaders with the CSU women’s team.The other Horizon League home games are against UIC (Jan. 12), Valparaiso (Jan. 14), Detroit (Feb. 2), Oakland (Feb. 4), Northern Kentucky (Feb. 16) and Wright State (Feb. 18).CSU closes the regular season against Youngstown State on Feb. 25 in the Wolstein Center, leading into the Horizon League Championship which runs from March 3-7 at Joe Louis Arena in Detroit. Matt Medley is co-editor at NEO Sports Insiders, covers the Cleveland Cavaliers, Cleveland Indians and high school sports in Northeast Ohio.Follow @MedleyHoops on Twitter for live updates from games.
We need to create comprehensive systems to optimize early child development in the first 1,000 days of life, which we know is dramatically important for child and population health. Even in the best states, only about half of children are receiving screening and surveillance. We still have a long way to go.”Professor Christina Bethell Source: https://www.jhsph.edu/news/news-releases/2018/developmental-screening-and-surveillance-rates-remain-low-new-study-suggests.html Jul 11 2018Only about one-third of young children in the U.S. receive recommended screenings or surveillance designed to catch developmental delays. The findings reveal wide variations in rates across states, with as few as 17 percent of children under three years old receiving developmental screening in the lowest performing state. The study was led by researchers at the federal Health Resources and Services Administration, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health and Oregon Health & Science University.The findings, which were published on July 9, 2018 in JAMA Pediatrics, highlight an area ripe for improvements, despite more than a decade of initiatives designed to promote these important programs.Approximately 12 percent to 15 percent of American children experience developmental delays or disabilities. These include conditions that affect small motor skills, such as holding a crayon; large motor skills, such as walking; or social and behavioral skills, such as talking.Identifying these issues early is critical to getting children and their families the help they need in order to advance developmental skills—particularly before school age, when problems can affect academic performance and have lifelong consequences, explains Christina Bethell, PhD, professor in the Department of Population, Family and Reproductive Health at the Bloomberg School and director of the School’s Child and Adolescent Health Measurement Initiative.Since the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) first recommended developmental screening in 2001, a variety of initiatives at the state and federal levels have been implemented to promote screening, which often involves parents completing a standardized questionnaire at their child’s well visits, and developmental surveillance, which involves health care providers asking specific questions about concerns in learning, development or behavior.However, until now, it has been unclear how many providers are actually following these recommendations.To answer this question, she and her colleagues used data from the 2016 National Survey of Children’s Health (NSCH), a nationally representative, parent-completed survey of U.S. children that has been administered periodically to thousands of families since 2003.The researchers focused on children ages 9 to 35 months, the target age for AAP guidelines for developmental screening and the focus for a variety of state and federal “birth-to-three” initiatives.A child was considered to have received developmental screening if a parent or other caregiver responded affirmatively to validated questions in the survey about whether a doctor or other health care provider had them complete a questionnaire about developmental observations or concerns.A child was considered to have received developmental surveillance if a doctor or other health care provider had asked them about developmental concerns.Related StoriesRevolutionary gene replacement surgery restores vision in patients with retinal degenerationWhy Mattresses Could be a Health Threat to Sleeping ChildrenDaily intake for phosphates in infants, children can exceed health guidance valuesAn analysis of this data showed that in 2016, nationally, only 30.4 percent of children in this age bracket had received a developmental screening in the past year.A slightly higher number, 37.1 percent, had received developmental surveillance. Less than 1 in 5 children had received both screening and surveillance, while just over half had received neither.When the researchers broke down the numbers by state, Bethell says, they made a startling finding: the gap between the lowest and highest performing states stretched 40 percentage points for both screening and surveillance.While 17.2 percent of children in Mississippi received screening, 58.8 percent received it in Oregon. Similarly, 19.1 percent of children received surveillance in Mississippi, and 60.8 percent received it in Oregon.Demographic characteristics, including primary household language, family structure, household education and income, had a slight effect on whether children received screening and surveillance.However, an important factor that significantly predicted both screening and surveillance was whether a child had health care that met the criteria for being a medical home—for example, having a usual source of care, having a personal physician or nurse, and receiving family-centered care.Bethell notes that it’s difficult to determine why there is such a broad divide between states in administering developmental screening and surveillance. However, she adds, the research shows that it is possible to dramatically improve.Oregon had one of the lowest rates of developmental screening in 2007, Bethell explains, and is now the top performer in the country with a rate that is more than double the national rate.She and her colleagues suggest in their study that this success may be attributable to tracking and incentivizing quality improvement through pay-for-performance metrics in coordinated care organizations, established as part of a Medicaid demonstration waiver.Performance incentives, new technology and other factors could help improve success rates in other states as well, Bethell says. The authors note that changes to the methods for the 2016 NSCH prevent direct comparison to prior years of the NSCH, making this study critical to establish a basis for further tracking improvements in screening and surveillance over time.