For those of you who are overwhelmed by the amount of media attention and debate surrounding the topic of eugenics and Clause 14 of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill, here’s a very errudite summary of the issue: “Should we stamp out ‘designer deafness’?” by Sandy Starr
Thanks to A for bringing this article to our attention.
It’s quite bizarre to think that we’ve got a new Prime Minister in Gordon Brown. Be honest, who looks the more Prime Minister-ly?
Source: BBC News: Cabinet faces: old and new
When I think of Brown jetting off to the USA to meet George Bush at the White House, there’s something wrong with that image. The same is true of Brown jetting off to the Middle East, Africa, even Europe, to meet with other world leaders. It could simply be that Blair was PM for 10 years, and he had a high international profile, which Brown has yet to attain.
For the duration of Brown’s premiership, I have a feeling that he will be a domestic PM, in the sense that his policies will be UK-focused rather than international. To be fair, there is a great deal to do in the UK, and the BBC has provided a useful summary of the issues Brown faces: What’s in Brown’s in-tray?. In short, he has to sort out the NHS, education and security. It’s a well known fact that despite increased spending in the NHS and education, there has been little improvement. Why? I suspect it’s all been swallowed up in red tape, a common issue within British society.
This week, Brown announced his new Cabinet, and the one politician I’ve got my eye on is David Milliband, the new Foreign Secretary. He had a blog when he was in the Department for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, and if he has one as Foreign Secretary, I’ll definitely be subscribing to its feed. He’s also young, Jewish, and most importantly, not afraid to criticise the United States and Israel. There’s been enough pussyfooting around – time for some harsh words and more common sense on the international field.
These are interesting times for British politics.
There has been considerable debate in recent years about the conflicts instigated by the USA and the UK in Afghanistan and Iraq. The aim of this post is to ascertain just exactly what it’s all about.
Afghanistan
Strictly speaking, the war in Afghanistan began with the September 11, 2001 attacks. Attributed to Al-Qaeda, an international alliance of militant terrorist organisations established in 1988 by Osama bin Laden, the attacks prompted the US to declare war on Afghanistan on 7 October 2001. This was the beginning of the war on terrorism.
A curious thing apparently occurred following the attacks. Members of bin Laden’s family, who were in the US at the time of the attacks, were granted extraordinary White House privileges to fly out of U.S. airspace. According to Vanity Fair, at least four flights with about 140 Saudis, including roughly two-dozen members of the bin Laden family, flew to Saudi Arabia that week without even being interviewed or interrogated by the FBI (( Propaganda Matrix, “Bin Laden family allowed 9/11 leave” )). It is almost certain that at the time, bin Laden was a main suspect for the September 11 attacks, so why arrange for his family to be flown out?
An aerial bombing campaign was initiated against Afghanistan by the US and the UK, with the ultimate aim of capturing bin Laden, destroying Al-Qaeda, and removing the Taliban regime which had provided support and safe harbour to Al-Qaeda. The Taliban regime was overthrown, but the invasion has largely failed, with the future of Afghanistan now hanging in the balance. It has a weak government, Taliban forces are re-emerging and the poppy fields are ripe with opium.
So then, what was the point of invading Afghanistan? Osama bin Laden is apparently still at large and Afghanistan is the largest supplier of heroin world-wide – 90% of the world’s opium comes from Afghanistan (( Baldauf, S and Bowers, F, “Afghanistan riddled with drug ties”, The Christian Science Monitor )). The invasion has elevated human rights infringement of women somewhat, but with the resurgence in Taliban forces, these rights are again under threat.
I can’t work it out. The world seems to be on the precipice of a huge catastrophe with global warming, with glaciers around the world melting, such as here and here. It seems that humans are to blame for this – so what’s new? But exactly how and why are humans getting the blame? What are the exact effects? And more importantly perhaps, what are we doing about it?
What is global warming?
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) was set up in 1988 to assess information on climate change and its impact. It’s Fourth Assessment Report is scheduled for release soon, but past assessments have predicted that global temperatures will rise by the end of the 21st century of between 1.4C and 5.8C. This will cause glaciers at the North and South Pole to melt, thereby raising sea levels. After all, the melted water has to go somewhere.
Why are us humans getting the blame?
Global warming is attributed to CO2 emissions, which is mainly caused by pollution from vehicles on the road. The Guardian devised this little chart in 1996 showing examples of countries where the most CO2 emissions come from.
Imagine the millions of cars being used ever day, all sputtering out CO2 emissions, not to mention lorries, vans, motorbikes, and even aircraft. A more detailed chart with all the main culprits can be found here. CO2 emissions are also caused by the burning of fossil fuels, land clearing and agriculture.
All these things are carried out or used by humans. No wonder we’re getting the blame.
What are the likely effects?
If the world does get warmer, then countries throughout the world will suffer from a knock-on effect with precipitation and sea level rises. In effect, some parts of the world will be submerged in water. For example, the small island of Tuvalu in the Pacific is already experiencing severe flooding, damaging homes and affecting drinking water. The rising sea levels could even submerge some of the coastal towns in the UK.
Not only that, rising sea levels are likely to have a devastating effect on many species of life on Earth. Marine life immediately springs to mind, particularly those that survive in colder waters, and the coral reefs.
The world will also see more extreme weather, and this is something that’s already happening. See here and here.
What is the world doing about it?
Not enough. This is probably the latest development, whereby leading world politicians and industrialists have reached a new, non-binding agreement to set up a global market to cap and trade CO2 emissions and that a limit should be set for maximum acceptable CO2 levels in the atmosphere. These talks were informal, and do not represent official government policy.
I think this sums up the current situation – NOT ENOUGH IS BEING DONE. World leaders are either ignorant or choosing to ignore the issue. The reasons that spring to mind for this apparent lack of action are probably:
Or perhaps they’re just too stupid or at a loss to do anything about it?
What can we do about it, as individuals?
It certainly seems to be a sorry state of affairs. What are you going to do about it?