Followers

Monday, October 01, 2018

Nations face tough choices after UN climate report

The report found that at current greenhouse emission levels, the Earth will heat up beyond the 1.5C threshold set at the Paris Agreement by 2040

The world’s nations will gather at a UN conference in South Korea on Monday to review and approve a 20-page bombshell – distilled from more than 6,000 scientific studies – laying out narrowing options for staving off climate catastrophe. When the 195 countries who signed off on the Paris Agreement in 2015 requested a report from UNled scientists on the feasibility of capping global warming at1.5 degrees Celsius, the gesture seemed to many unnecessary. The treaty, after all, enjoined the world to block the rise in Earth’s surface temperature at “well below” 2C compared to pre-industrial levels, adding a safety buffer to the two-degree threshold long seen as the guardrail for a climate-safe world. Since then, however, a crescendo of deadly heat waves, floods, wildfires and superstorms engorged by rising seas – with less than 1C warming so far – has convinced scientists that the danger cursor needed to be reset. “There is increasing and very robust evidence of truly severe and catastrophic risks even at the lower bounds of these temperature targets,” said Peter Frumhoff, director of science and policy at the Union of Concerned Scientists, a Washington-based research and advocacy group. The promise of “pursuing efforts” to limit warming to 1.5C – added to the Paris treaty at the last minute, in part to assuage poor nations who felt short-changed on other fronts – caught scientists offguard. “There wasn’t very much literature on 1.5C warming three years ago,” said Jim Skea, a professor of at Imperial College London’s Centre for Environmental Policy, and a co-chair of the Intergovernmental Panel for Climate Change (IPCC), the UN science body charged with writing the “Special Report” on 1.5C. Of hundreds of climate models in 2015 projecting a low-carbon future, only two or three aimed for a 1.5C global warming cap. The 20-page Summary Policy Makers – which will be collectively scrutinised, line-by-line, by hundreds of diplomats through Friday – contains several benchmark findings, according to a draft obtained by AFP. At current levels of greenhouse gas emissions, for example, the Earth’s surface will heat up beyond the 1.5C threshold by 2040, the report concludes with “high confidence”. To have a fighting chance of staying under the 1.5C cap, the global economy must, by 2050, become “carbon neutral”, meaning no additional CO2 can be allowed to leach into the atmosphere.
In addition, the report suggests that carbon dioxide emissions from human activity will need to peak in 2020 and curve sharply downward from there. So far, we are still moving in the wrong direction: after remaining stable for three years – raising hopes the peak had come – emissions rose in 2017 to historic levels. For many scientists, these targets are technically feasible but politically or socially unrealistic, along with the broader 1.5C goal. “The feasibility is probably going to remain an open question, even after the report comes out,” said Michael Oppenheimer, a professor of geosciences and international affairs at Princeton University. A main focus of the underlying, 400-page report – written by a team of 86 authors, supported by another 150 scientists – is the difference a half-degree Celsius can make in terms of impacts. “When we’re talking about 1.5C it’s not just to protect a few dozen small island nations,” said Henri Waisman, a senior researcher at the Institute for Sustainable Development and International Relations, and a coordinating author of the report. “It’s to avoid dramatic impacts that become exponentially more dramatic when we go from 1.5C to 2C.” What used to be once-a-century heatwaves in southern and central Europe, for example, are projected to occur four out of 10 summers in a 1.5C world, and six out of ten in a 2C world. Many tropical fisheries are likely to collapse somewhere between the 1.5C and 2C benchmark, as fish seek cooler waters; staple food crops will decline in yield and nutrition an extra 10 to 15 per cent; coral reefs that may have a chance of surviving if air temperatures remain below 1.5C will very likely perish with an additional halfdegree of warming. Most worrying of all, perhaps, are temperature “tipping points” that could push methane-laden permafrost and the ice sheets of Greenland and West Antarctica – which hold enough frozen water to lift global oceans by nearly 40 feet – beyond the point of no return. Some experts, however, worry that focusing on the contrast between a 1.5C and 2C world obscures the fact we are currently on a trajectory that will crash through both these thresholds. “I don’t think 2C is safe, and I would never want to argue it,” said Frumhoff. “By many measures, 1.5C is not enough.” “But while we might call 2C an upper bound, let’s not pretend that we’re on a 2C path – we are way above that,” he told AFP. Even taking into account voluntary national pledges to cut greenhouse gas emissions, submitted in an annex to the Paris treaty, the Earth is on track to heat up by an unliveable 3.5C or more by century’s end. “If we want to save ourselves from the disasters that are looming, we only have unrealistic options left,” said Kaisa Kosonen, Greenpeace IPPC campaign lead.

Source: Mumbai Mirror, 1/10/2018

Let Me Hug All of You


Having flung aside the sword, there is nothing except the cup of love I can offer to those who oppose me. It is by offering that cup that I expect to draw them close to me. I cannot think of permanent enmity between man and man, and believing as I do in the theory of rebirth, I live in the hope that if not in this birth, in some other birth, I shall be able to hug all humanity in friendly embrace. Love is the strongest force the world possesses and, yet, it is the humblest imaginable. Love has the special quality of attracting abundance of love in return. Ahimsa means the largest love, the greatest charity. As a follower of ahimsa, I must love my enemy. I must apply the same rules to the wrongdoer who is my enemy or a stranger to me, as I would to my wrongdoing father or son. This active necessarily includes truth and fearlessness. As man cannot deceive loved ones, he does not fear or frighten them. Gift of life is the greatest of all gifts; a man who gives it disarms all hostility. He has paved the way for an honourable understanding. And none who is fearful can bestow that gift, He must, therefore, be himself fearless. A man cannot practise ahimsa and be a coward at the same time. The practice of ahimsa calls for the greatest courage. My creed of non-violence is an extremely active force. It has no room for cowardice or even weakness. There is hope for a violent man to be some day non-violent, but there is none for a coward.

Source: 1/10/2018

Friday, September 28, 2018

‘Biggest bird’ dispute put to rest


One species of elephant bird weighed about 860 kg: Study

Scientists said on Wednesday that they have finally solved the riddle of the world’s largest bird.
A study released on Wednesday by British scientists suggested that one species of elephant bird was even larger than previously thought, with a specimen weighing an estimated 860 kg — about the same as a fully grown giraffe. “They would have towered over people,” said James Hansford, lead author at the Zoological Society of London. “They definitely couldn’t fly as they couldn’t have supported anywhere near their weight.”

Bones examined

In the study, published in the journal Royal Society Open Science, Mr. Hansford examined elephant bird bones found around the world, feeding their dimensions into a machine-learned algorithm to create a spread of expected animal sizes.
Named Vorombe titan — Malagasy for “big bird” — the creature would have stood at least three metres (10 feet) tall, and had an average weight of 650 kg.
“At the extreme extent we found one bone that really pushed the limits of what we now understand about bird size,” he said, referring to the 860-kg specimen.

Source: The Hindu, 26/09/2018

Winners of Shanti Swarup Bhatnagar Prize for Science and Technology 2018 announced


Dr Aditi Sen De is the only female winner this year

On the occasion of its foundation day, the Council of Scientific and Industrial Research (CSIR) has put out the list of recipients of the Shanti Swarup Bhatnagar Prize for Science and Technology for 2018.
Every year, several scientists below the age of 45 are selected from various institutions across the country and awarded for their outstanding scientific work in the last five years.
Here is the full list of winners this year in various categories
Category
Winner
Affiliation
Biological Sciences
Dr Ganesh NagarajuIISc Bengaluru
 Dr Thomas PucadyilIISER Pune
Chemical Sciences
Dr Rahul BanerjeeIISER Kolkata
 Dr Swadhin Kumar MandalIISER Kolkata
Earth, Atmosphere, Ocean and Planetary Sciences
Dr Madineni Venkat RatnamNational Atmospheric Research Laboratory, Tirupati
 Dr Parthasarathi ChakrabortyCSIR-NIO, Goa
Engineering Sciences
Dr Amit AgrawalIIT Bombay
 Dr Ashwin Anil GumasteIIT Bombay
Mathematical Sciences
Dr Amit KumarIIT Delhi
 Dr Nitin SaxenaIIT Kanpur
Medical Sciences
Dr Ganesan VenkatasubramanianNIMHANS, Bengaluru
Physical Sciences
Dr Aditi Sen DeHarish-Chandra Research Institute, Allahabad
 Dr Ambarish GhoshIISc Bengaluru


Truth about the last person

Gandhi reminded us and continues to do so that India is united in its poverty and deprivation, its structures of humiliation and violence. His legacy is this awareness.


I wish to begin this reflection with two images. One of a pair of sandals, now somewhat withered with age, and use, which lies in a glass cage in the Constitution Hill Museum in Johannesburg. These sandals reflect the attraction that its maker had for the minimalism of the Trappist aesthetics as also fondness for the material, leather. M K Gandhi, as a prisoner, made these in South Africa and gifted them to General Jan Christian Smuts. It tells many stories, but the story I wish to bring to attention is Gandhi the sandal-maker.

The other image is of Gandhi sitting cross-legged, peering with his left eye into a microscope raised with a fat volume. If the image is not cropped we see an open (note) book and a somewhat amused Pyarelal Nayyar by his side. Gandhi was examining leprosy germs.
These two images are reminders of what we have chosen to forget about Gandhi, of the various silences that surround the man. Among the many things we have chosen to forget about Gandhi is his lifelong work with leather and his desire to shod every feet with leather chappals. We would prefer Gandhi the spinner of fine, “pure” yarn. Leprosy, one of the oldest infectious diseases in human history has created for all cultures its “untouchables”. The leper and the leather worker are subject to the most enduring — albeit from different grounds — forms of exclusion and humiliation. They are Gandhi’s “last person”.
Silence was dear to Gandhi. He liked debate, even acrimony, but in that he wanted his silence. Each Monday he observed silence, and at times weary and unable to see his way in the darkness that surrounded him and us, he retreated into long periods of silence. Silence for him was not withdrawal from engagement. It was a mode of communion and of communication. His silence was both going inwards and reaching out.
Our silence, our amnesia about various aspects of Gandhi is a well-crafted manoeuvre. And in this the Indian State, since its inception, and Gandhi’s institutions after Gandhi, have been collaborators. The first of this has been to render Gandhi’s institutions into “anti-thought” establishments. Serious intellectual challenges posed to Gandhi’s thought and life practices are met either by a petrified silence or disdain arising out of certainty of the perfectness of the Master. This has created a deep and lasting inability to be morally innovative or ethically responsive. This is most deeply felt in the realm of political economy. In a world where the ethical in the economic, the normative in the market have been rendered illegitimate, Gandhi’s concern with the last person finds place only in a regime of subsidy, instead of in the creation of enabling institutional structures. The move away from Trusteeship to Philanthropy captures this predicament.
Gandhi’s lifelong quest was to create a possibility of collective non-violence, Ahimsa, not only as personal ethic but as political imperative, and as political economy that recognises the violence of poverty and deprivation. Gandhi like no other after him recognised the transformative potential of seva. Seva is derived from saha and eva meaning “together with”. Understood thus, seva is the epitome of fellowship, of a state of communion with self, other beings and the divine. It is an act of being with others, being that is non-acquisitive, being that seeks only to serve so that pain is alleviated, suffering made bearable, joy experienced and divine made immanent. In this sense, seva is the complete opposite of servitude and slavery, where both self and self-volition are denied. Violence is the perfect opposite of seva. Seva as service, as care, as non-acquisitive selflessness is a necessary condition for Ahimsa. Violence unto the others occurs when they are pushed outside the realm of care and of seva. Seva is no longer part of lokniti and much less of rajniti. And memorials by their very nature cannot perform seva. Bereft of seva our capacity to deal with violence that surrounds us is enfeebled.
Disobedience of what is repugnant to one’s conscience is imperative for any form of lokniti, rajniti and hence of citizenship. This right of disobedience is predicated upon it being “civil”, that is, non-violent and upon its relationship to conscience. This right requires fundamental obedience — for Gandhi, not to the state, not to the nation, and certainly not to law or courts — to truth and non-violence and a recognition of the right of others to be equally adherent to their conscience. (Let us recall Gandhi’s seven days of fasting in 1934 for an assault by his followers on Pandit Lalnath who opposed Gandhi’s work on eradication of untouchability.) That the state and its apparatus, the courts, will be unable and unwilling to recognise this, is writ in the very nature of conscience. The modern state and law do not recognise conscience as a category and hence to seek amelioration of conscientious objection from them is to constrict the realm of the conscience. Our reliance upon law to expand the realm of autonomous moral action is for this reason deeply flawed. So long as we are willing to undergo the punishment for our conscientious disobedience, we retain the right to disregard the injunctions of law. But this right is not absolute, it accrues to those who engage with fellow beings through seva, that is, constructive work.
Gandhi reminded us and continues to do so that India is united in its poverty and deprivation, its structures of humiliation and violence. His legacy is this awareness. To the extent we remain conscious of this, we become tuned to his silence and would have less need to create silences around him.
The writer has recently published an annotated critical edition of M K Gandhi’s autobiography
Source: Indian Express, 28/09/2018

Why a diverse workplace makes economic sense

Diversity is also critical for a better understanding of customers, better team performance, greater innovation and creativity and building their brand image.


Earlier this week, the Prime Minister’s Office held its first-ever meeting to discuss affirmative action in the private sector. According to a report in the Indian Express, questions were raised at the meeting over the sector’s commitment to providing jobs to scheduled castes and scheduled tribes. The timing of the meeting was crucial since it came on the heels of protests for job reservation and in opposition to what some saw as the dilution of the SC/ST Act.
This newspaper has long held the view that there should not be a quota raj in the private sector because the fuel that runs this engine is eligibility and merit. Having said that, there is another aspect to the argument that the private sector should also consider: It is in their enlightened self-interest to ensure diversity in workplaces, especially in a country that is so inherently unequal. Diversity is also critical for a better understanding of customers, better team performance, greater innovation and creativity, and better brand image.
And why only the diversity of workplaces? It also makes immense sense for companies to invest in communities around their office/project sites. According to a World Economic Forum report, for businesses to work efficiently and profitably, they must understand the complexities and dynamics surrounding them. Mitigating fragility and building resilience are not just a humanitarian imperative — instability and violence are bad for business as well. In India, we have seen several situations where local communities have protested against businesses because they have been not benefited in any way from them.
In fact, the corporate social responsibility (CSR) movement began as a response to advocacy for corporations to play a role in solving social problems due to their economic power and overarching presence in daily life. The Sustainable Development Goals, which replaced the Millennium Development Goals, puts a lot of onus on the private sector to play a more proactive role in improving the lives of people and benefit from such engagements.
Source: Hindustan Times, 27/09/2018

Relationship That Sails


We have problems in relationship between man and woman, or between man and man, woman and woman. Look at it very closely, observe it, not try to change it, try to direct it, say, it must not be this way, or it must be that way, or help me to get over it, but just to observe. You can’t change the line of that mountain, or the flight of the bird, or the flow of the water, swift, you just observe it, and see the beauty of it. But if you observe and say, that is not so beautiful as the mountain I saw yesterday, you are not observing, you are merely comparing. So, let’s observe very closely this question of relationship. Relationship is life. One cannot exist without relationship. So let’s look very closely: observe, not learn. Then you discover for yourself the beauty of relationship. So, if you observe, are we related to anybody at all? Or we are related to another through thought, through the image that thought has built about your husband and your wife, the image that you have about her or him. Obviously. So, our relationship is between the image you have about her and she has about you. And each one carries this image, and each one goes in his own direction: ambition, greed, envy, competition, seeking power, position. You know what is happening in relationship, each one moving in opposite directions, or perhaps parallel, and never meeting. Because this is the modern civilisation, this is what you are offering to the world. And, so, there is constant struggle, conflict, divorce, changing of so-called mates. You know what is happening

Source: Economic Times, 28/09/2018