Time for a Climate Change Plan B The U.S. president is in deep denial. - WSJ

Time for a Climate Change Plan B The U.S. president is in deep denial. - WSJ


By NIGEL LAWSON

The world's political leaders, not least President Barack Obama and Prime Minister Gordon Brown, are in a state of severe, almost clinical, denial. While acknowledging that the outcome of the United Nations climate-change conference in Copenhagen fell short of their demand for a legally binding, enforceable and verifiable global agreement on emissions reductions by developed and developing countries alike, they insist that what has been achieved is a breakthrough and a decisive step forward.

Just one more heave, just one more venue for the great climate-change traveling circus—Mexico City next year—and the job will be done.

Or so we are told. It is, of course, the purest nonsense. The only breakthrough was the political coup for China and India in concluding the anodyne communiqué with the United States behind closed doors, with Brazil and South Africa allowed in the room and Europe left to languish in the cold outside.

Far from achieving a major step forward, Copenhagen—predictably—achieved precisely nothing. The nearest thing to a commitment was the promise by the developed world to pay the developing world $30 billion of "climate aid" over the next three years, rising to $100 billion a year from 2020. Not only is that (perhaps fortunately) not legally binding, but there is no agreement whatsoever about which countries it will go to, in which amounts, and on what conditions.

The reasons for the complete and utter failure of Copenhagen are both fundamental and irresolvable. The first is that the economic cost of decarbonizing the world's economies is massive, and of at least the same order of magnitude as any benefits it may conceivably bring in terms of a cooler world in the next century.

The reason we use carbon-based energy is not the political power of the oil lobby or the coal industry. It is because it is far and away the cheapest source of energy at the present time and is likely to remain so, not forever, but for the foreseeable future.

Switching to much more expensive energy may be acceptable to us in the developed world (although I see no present evidence of this). But in the developing world, including the rapidly developing nations such as China and India, there are still tens if not hundreds of millions of people suffering from acute poverty, and from the consequences of such poverty, in the shape of malnutrition, preventable disease and premature death.

The overriding priority for the developing world has to be the fastest feasible rate of economic development, which means, inter alia, using the cheapest available source of energy: carbon energy.

Moreover, the argument that they should make this economic and human sacrifice to benefit future generations 100 years and more hence is all the less compelling, given that these future generations will, despite any problems caused by warming, be many times better off than the people of the developing world are today.

Or, at least, that is the assumption on which the climate scientists' warming projections are based. It is projected economic growth that determines projected carbon emissions, and projected carbon emissions that (according to the somewhat conjectural computer models on which they rely) determine projected warming (according to the same models).

All this overlaps with the second of the two fundamental reasons why Copenhagen failed, and why Mexico City (if our leaders insist on continuing this futile charade) will fail, too. That is the problem of burden-sharing, and in particular how much of the economic cost of decarbonization should be borne by the developed world, which accounts for the bulk of past emissions, and how much by the faster-growing developing world, which will account for the bulk of future emissions.

The 2006 Stern Review, quite the shoddiest pseudo-scientific and pseudo-economic document any British Government has ever produced, claims the overall burden is very small. If that were so, the problem of how to share the burden would be readily overcome—as indeed occurred with the phasing out of chorofluorocarbons (CFCs) under the 1987 Montreal Protocol. But the true cost of decarbonization is massive, and the distribution of the burden an insoluble problem.

Moreover, any assessment of the impact of any future warming that may occur is inevitably highly conjectural, depending as it does not only on the uncertainties of climate science but also on the uncertainties of future technological development. So what we are talking about is risk.



Not that the risk is all one way. The risk of a 1930s-style outbreak of protectionism—if the developed world were to abjure cheap energy and faced enhanced competition from China and other rapidly industrializing countries that declined to do so—is probably greater than any risk from warming.

But even without that, there is not even a theoretical (let alone a practical) basis for a global agreement on burden-sharing, since, so far as the risk of global warming is concerned (and probably in other areas too) risk aversion is not uniform throughout the world. Not only do different cultures embody very different degrees of risk aversion, but in general the richer countries will tend to be more risk-averse than the poorer countries, if only because we have more to lose.

The time has come to abandon the Kyoto-style folly that reached its apotheosis in Copenhagen last week, and move to plan B.

And the outlines of a credible plan B are clear. First and foremost, we must do what mankind has always done, and adapt to whatever changes in temperature may in the future arise.

This enables us to pocket the benefits of any warming (and there are many) while reducing the costs. None of the projected costs are new phenomena, but the possible exacerbation of problems our climate already throws at us. Addressing these problems directly is many times more cost-effective than anything discussed at Copenhagen. And adaptation does not require a global agreement, although we may well need to help the very poorest countries (not China) to adapt.

Beyond adaptation, plan B should involve a relatively modest, increased government investment in technological research and development—in energy, in adaptation and in geoengineering.

Despite the overwhelming evidence of the Copenhagen debacle, it is not going to be easy to get our leaders to move to plan B. There is no doubt that calling a halt to the high-profile climate-change traveling circus risks causing a severe conference-deprivation trauma among the participants. If there has to be a small public investment in counseling, it would be money well spent.

Lord Lawson was U.K. chancellor of the exchequer in the Thatcher government from 1983 to 1989. He is the author of "An Appeal to Reason: A Cool Look at Global Warming" (Overlook Duckworth, paperback 2009), and is chairman of the recently formed Global Warming Policy Foundation (www.thegwpf.org).

More People Allergic To Fruits, Vegetables - WBZ

More People Allergic To Fruits, Vegetables - WBZ

BOSTON (WBZ) ―

Eat your fruits and vegetables.

That's the message we hear over and over again if we want to stay healthy.

But now some adults are finding they have allergic reactions to produce they have eaten safely all their lives.

All it took was a common plum to send Salmaan Bokhari to the emergency room.

"When you can't breathe, it's like the most horrible feeling the world," he said.

Salmaan had never had an allergic reaction to plums as a child.

Dr. Mary Kay Tobin, an allergy specialist, is seeing more of these cases.

"There's something different in the environment that has caused these changes in the plants, in the fruits and vegetables," she said.

One theory is plants are changing as they cope with climate change and new pesticides.

The American Academy of Allergy, Asthma, and Immunology believes that some patterns may be emerging.

For example:

* Some people who are allergic to ragweed are developing sensitivities to melons and bananas
* Those allergic to grass could exhibit an allergy to tomatoes and oranges
* Some people allergic to birch pollen could have reactions to potatoes, carrots, celery, and apples.


Dr. Tobin says up to half of the people who suffer from a pollen allergy could, at some point, develop some type of allergy to a fruit or vegetable.

She says, "They're stunned because this really just didn't occur to them."

The symptoms for this type of allergy can be an itchy or burning sensation around the lips, mouth, or throat.

Some reactions, like Salmaan's, can be fast and severe.

You shouldn't hesitate to get medical attention if you think you could be having this type of allergic reaction.

Some of Dr. Tobin's patients reported fewer problems if they bought organic produce, or cooked their vegetables before eating them.

Fruits (and veggies) of your labor: Eat right, stay on track and you can reach goals

Fruits (and veggies) of your labor: Eat right, stay on track and you can reach goals


EL PASO -- Promises to eat more sensibly and lose weight will be uttered over and over again through the next week as people begin focusing on their New Year's resolutions.

Often, the promises to live more-healthful lifestyles sputter and fade after only a few weeks or even a few days.

But there are simple strategies to keep on track with the commitment and to make permanent life changes.

"For those people who are contemplating a change at New Year's, their next step isn't doing it. Their next step is preparing to do it, and that's an important step," said Michael Kelly, senior program officer in charge of research, planning and evaluation at the Paso del Norte Health Foundation.

"You don't move from 'I'm doing a New Year's resolution' to 'I'm now exercising or eating better,' " he said. "The trick is to ask 'How do I best prepare so when I take action, my action is successful and it sticks?' "

The first step, he said, is to announce your intentions to family members and friends. This should be done in a frame of the behavior you want to change, not in the frame of an intended outcome, such as losing weight, he said.

"It creates a commitment on your part," Kelly said. "When I tell you I'm going to do something and I don't do it, I feel a little embarrassed, but it also allows for support to happen."

He said it's also a good idea to make sure optimism is balanced with realism.



"Make the small changes over time," he said. "In January, you may change the
Advertisement
way you eat at night. In February, you may start changing your lunch."

The next step is to set a date for the change to begin, and that may not necessarily be Jan. 1. Kelly said it's often helpful to make this date one that has another important meaning for you, such as a child's birthday or an important anniversary.

Next, a person should begin preparing to change the behavior by modifying his or her environment.

"Make a change on your shopping list. Don't buy the cookies because if they're not in your house, you're not going to eat them," Kelly said. "The cookies aren't there, but the grapes are."

He said another way to modify the environment is to start a list of things to do, rather than things that are now prohibited, such as "I am going to start buying more fruits and vegetables."

Finally, he said, it's important to create a plan to maintain the new behavior, such as celebrating certain milestones in the process.

"But don't reward good eating with bad eating," he said.

Other tips to limit the amount of food being consumed include eating at scheduled meal times, cooking at home and using smaller plates, Kelly said.

Monitoring the kinds of food being eaten is extremely important, said Gayla Weaver, an extension home economist with the New Mexico State University Cooperative Extension Service, Doña Ana County Office.

She said people should follow the food pyramid recommendations, placing particular emphasis on eating lots of colorful fruits and vegetables, whole grains, lean meats, and plenty of fat-free or low-fat dairy products. People should also take care to eat a diet low in saturated fat, trans fat, cholesterol, salt and added sugars, she said.

"I think it's just being creative," she said. "If you have on hand, particularly for snacks, fresh vegetables or fruits, I think we'll eat them."

Weaver said it's also important to eat a healthful breakfast when possible, such as whole-grain cereal, yogurt with granola or oatmeal. Even a bit of last night's dinner isn't a bad idea because it will help keep a person from overeating later in the day.

"Even a piece of pizza is better than no breakfast," she said.

Restaurants can create an unexpected hazard to dietary changes, she said, and she recommends opting for the grilled or baked items, for more-healthful side items, and to have items such as salad dressing and cheese on the side.

Kelly said it's important to remember that people inevitably suffer setback when trying to make life changes such as these.

"Realizing we all fail and backslide is important," he said. "You're going to backslide, probably. Just set a new date and get back on the path as soon as you can."

People need to have patience when embarking on such a change, he said, because the results won't happen overnight.

"A cookie on the weekend or a drink sometimes that has a lot of calories in it is not what put the 25 pounds on you," Kelly said. "It's what you did every day this year that built up over time.

"When you make a slight change and you make the slight change every day, such as eating on a smaller plate or moving from ice cream to grapes every night, it will make a difference."

Erica Molina Johnson may be reached at emolina@elpasotimes.com; 546-6132.



Tips for eating healthfully in 2010
The U.S. Department of Agriculture has the following tips for people who want to eat more healthfully.
# Eat more whole grains by substituting a product made from whole grains for a refined product, such as brown rice instead of white rice or wheat bread instead of white bread.
# Mix whole grains into dishes, such as adding barley to vegetable soup or stews.
# Use rolled oats or crushed, unsweetened whole-grain cereal when breading baked chicken or other proteins.
# When snacking, choose a whole-grain cereal, a whole-grain snack chip or popcorn with little salt and butter.
# Buy fresh, colorful vegetables when they're in season and stock up on frozen vegetables for easy preparation at home.
# Consider buying convenient vegetables, such as pre-washed bags of salad greens and packages of baby carrots or celery sticks.
# When buying canned vegetables, choose those labeled as having "no salt added."
# Keep a bowl of fruit in a very visible place, such as on your table, counter or inside the refrigerator.
# Buy fresh fruits when they're in season and stock up on dried, frozen and canned fruits.
# Consider buying pre-cut packages of fruit for healthful snacking.
# When buying canned fruits, choose those canned in 100 percent fruit juice or water.
# Eat fruit throughout the day, such as on top of your cereal, with your lunch and dinner, in salad and with meat dishes.
# Keep a package of dried fruit easily accessible, such as in your desk or bag.
# Consider drinking fat-free or low-fat milk with meals.
# Switch to fat-free milk or low-fat milk if you usually drink whole milk; use it in your cereals as well.
# Order coffee drinks with fat-free milk.
# Have a snack of fat-free or low-fat yogurt.
# Use yogurt to make dips for fruits or vegetables, or to make fruit-yogurt smoothies.
# Choose the leanest cuts when eating beef, including round steaks and roasts, top loin, top sirloin, chuck shoulder and arm roasts.
# The leanest pork cuts include the pork loin, tenderloin, centerloin and ham.
# When eating ground beef, choose the leanest available variety -- at least 90 percent lean.
# When eating poultry, boneless and skinless chicken breasts and turkey cutlets are the leanest cuts.
# Remove skin from chicken before cooking.
# When choosing luncheon meats, choose lean turkey, roast beef or ham instead of meats with more fat, such as regular bologna or salami.
# Trim all visible fat before cooking meats and poultry.
# When cooking meat, poultry or fish, choose to broil, grill, roast, poach or boil instead of frying. Drain away any fat that appears when cooking.
# Avoid or limit breading meat, poultry or fish.
# Avoid sauces and gravies with lots of fat.
Source:"www.mypyramid.gov

Call to extend pupil weight scheme - UKPA

Call to extend pupil weight scheme - UKPA


Children should be measured throughout their school life to combat obesity, a campaigner has said.

Tam Fry, honorary chairman of the Child Growth Foundation, said the majority of excess weight was put on in children's final three years at primary school.

He said the National Child Measurement Programme should be extended to include younger children, including those at pre-school age.

The recent Health Survey for England (HSE) showed primary school leavers had put on 20% more weight in a generation since 1990.

"The Government was advised as long ago as 2004 to implement this but refused to do it," said Mr Fry. "We have to know when the early signs of unhealthy weight set in so that prevention measures can be put in place before weight becomes a problem."

Experts predicted children would consume 6,000 calories over Christmas Day.

Figures released earlier this month showed almost one in four boys and more than one in five girls were overweight or obese at the start of their school life.

A further 35% of boys and 31% of girls in their final year of primary school - aged 10 and 11 - also have weight problems, the Government survey showed. It showed the figures had changed little in recent years - suggesting measures to tackle child obesity had failed.

Around 90% of all eligible children were weighed and measured in the 2008-09 school year as part of the nationwide programme. This equates to more than a million children in reception year - aged four and five - and Year 6 - aged 10 and 11.

Of those, 115,319 in reception year were found to be overweight or obese along with 162,408 in Year 6. In reception year, 14% of boys were overweight and 10% obese, while 13% of girls were overweight and 9% obese.

Seal the health care deal- Honolulu Star Bulletin

Seal the health care deal- Honolulu Star Bulletin



Senate approval on Christmas Eve of health care reform legislation brings Congress a step closer to enactment of universal care, approaching that provided in all other industrial democracies. Both House and Senate bills would mandate employer-based health insurance similar to a successful Hawaii system that was put into place more than 30 years ago and should be left intact.

Bills in both chambers would achieve President Barack Obama's goal of extending coverage to nearly all Americans. The differences between the two bills are controversial but can and should be resolved to make way for universal care that includes more than 30 million presently uninsured people and prevent denial of insurance because of preexisting conditions.

Both bills include provisions that would exempt Hawaii law that assures health care coverage at least as broad as that provided in the federal plan. However, Hawaii's law includes a provision that it would "terminate ... upon the effective date of federal legislation" providing for mandatory prepaid health care for Hawaii residents. That raises questions about whether the state's system will survive, let alone be exempt from some federal requirements.

Provisions of the Senate and House bills differ over coverage of abortions and whether a federally operated plan be included to compete with private insurance companies. Those issues should be resolved in time for enactment by the time of President Obama's state-of-the-union address in late January.

The so-called government option included in the House bill is likely to be set aside. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., has said she would accept the Senate bill's creation of two or more insurance plans operated by private companies and overseen by the U.S. Office of Personnel Management, which handles health insurance for federal employees, including members of Congress.

Time will tell whether the federally overseen plans inject enough competition into the market to reduce the price of insurance premiums. If not, Congress should amend the law to require health insurance to be nonprofit, an approach that has been effective in Germany and other countries in keeping prices down. Republicans have called such a system socialistic, which it is not.

"Premiums are out of hand," says Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif. "Chief executive salaries are out of hand. Administrative costs are out of hand. My bottom-line belief is that the health insurance industry should be nonprofit."

That must wait for another day. The priority now is to put into place a federal health care system sought since the administration of Theodore Roosevelt.



Senate approval on Christmas Eve of health care reform legislation brings Congress a step closer to enactment of universal care, approaching that provided in all other industrial democracies. Both House and Senate bills would mandate employer-based health insurance similar to a successful Hawaii system that was put into place more than 30 years ago and should be left intact.


Bills in both chambers would achieve President Barack Obama's goal of extending coverage to nearly all Americans. The differences between the two bills are controversial but can and should be resolved to make way for universal care that includes more than 30 million presently uninsured people and prevent denial of insurance because of preexisting conditions.

Both bills include provisions that would exempt Hawaii law that assures health care coverage at least as broad as that provided in the federal plan. However, Hawaii's law includes a provision that it would "terminate ... upon the effective date of federal legislation" providing for mandatory prepaid health care for Hawaii residents. That raises questions about whether the state's system will survive, let alone be exempt from some federal requirements.

Provisions of the Senate and House bills differ over coverage of abortions and whether a federally operated plan be included to compete with private insurance companies. Those issues should be resolved in time for enactment by the time of President Obama's state-of-the-union address in late January.

The so-called government option included in the House bill is likely to be set aside. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., has said she would accept the Senate bill's creation of two or more insurance plans operated by private companies and overseen by the U.S. Office of Personnel Management, which handles health insurance for federal employees, including members of Congress.

Time will tell whether the federally overseen plans inject enough competition into the market to reduce the price of insurance premiums. If not, Congress should amend the law to require health insurance to be nonprofit, an approach that has been effective in Germany and other countries in keeping prices down. Republicans have called such a system socialistic, which it is not.

"Premiums are out of hand," says Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif. "Chief executive salaries are out of hand. Administrative costs are out of hand. My bottom-line belief is that the health insurance industry should be nonprofit."

That must wait for another day. The priority now is to put into place a federal health care system sought since the administration of Theodore Roosevelt.