ஏகாதிபத்தியம் உருவாக்கிய 'இயற்கை' அனர்த்தங்கள்- பேர்மா

பேர்மா:
இலட்சோபம் மக்கள்: இறப்பு, இழப்பு, தவிப்பு.
ஏகாதிபத்தியம் உருவாக்கிய 'இயற்கை' அனர்த்தங்கள்- பேர்மா
* முதலாளித்துவம் பண்ட உற்பத்தியை அடிப்படையாகக் கொண்ட சமுதாய அமைப்பாகும்.
பண்ட உற்பத்தியின் இலாப வேட்கை சமூக நலனுக்கு இழைக்கும் கேடுகள் குறித்து அக்கறையற்ற சமுதாய அமைப்பாகும்.
இதன் அதி உயர் வடிவமான அந்திமக்காலமான ஏகாதிபத்தியம் இந்தக்கேடுகளின் உச்சக் கட்ட வடிவமாகும்.
ஏகாதிபத்தியத்துக்கு முடிவுகட்டாமால் அது உருவாக்கிய இயற்கைப் பேரழிவுகளுக்கு முடிவுகாண முடியாது!



NASA scientist rips Bush on global warming
Renowned expert says data 'screened and controlled'
The Associated Pressupdated 8:10 a.m. ET Oct. 27, 2004IOWA CITY, Iowa - The Bush administration is trying to stifle scientific evidence of the dangers of global warming in an effort to keep the public uninformed, a
NASA scientist said Tuesday night.
“In my more than three decades in government, I have never seen anything approaching the degree to which information flow from scientists to the public has been
screened and controlled as it is now,” James Hansen told a University of Iowa audience.
Hansen is director of the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies in New York and has twice briefed a task force headed by Vice President Dick Cheney on
global warming. He was also one of the first government scientists tasked with briefing congressional committees on the dangers of global warming, testifying as far
back as the 1980s.
'Recipe ... for disaster'Hansen said the administration wants to hear only scientific results that “fit predetermined, inflexible positions.” Evidence that would raise concerns about the dangers
of climate change is often dismissed as not being of sufficient interest to the public.
“This, I believe, is a recipe for environmental disaster.”
Hansen said the scientific community generally agrees that temperatures on Earth are rising because of the greenhouse effect — increased emissions of carbon dioxide
and other materials into the atmosphere that trap heat. Most of that increase comes from burning fossil fuels.
These rising temperatures, scientists believe, could cause sea levels to rise and trigger severe environmental consequences, he said.
Hansen said such warnings are consistently suppressed, while studies that cast doubt on such interpretations receive favorable treatment from the administration.
He also said reports that outline potential dangers of global warming are edited to make the problem appear less serious. “This process is in direct opposition to the
most fundamental precepts of science,” he said.
Bush wants more researchWhite House science adviser John H. Marburger III has denied charges that the administration refuses to accept the reality of climate change, noting that President
Bush pointed out in a 2001 speech that greenhouse gases have increased substantially in the past 200 years.
The president has also said that while he believes warming is a serious problem, he doesn't feel the threat his imminent and has instead ordered more research. He has
also sought voluntary steps by industry and pumped federal dollars into technology projects like capturing and sequestering carbon dioxide emissions.
Hansen said he was speaking as a private citizen, not as a government employee, and paid his own way for the Iowa appearance. He described himself as moderately
conservative, but said he will vote for John Kerry in the presidential election.
“He certainly is not in denial of the existence of climate change problems,” Hansen said.

Bush covers up climate research
White House officials play down its own scientists' evidence of global warmingPaul Harris New York The Observer, Sunday September 21 2003 Article historyAbout this articleClose This article appeared in the Observer on Sunday September
21 2003 . It was last updated at 00:52 on September 21 2003. White House officials have undermined their own government scientists' research into climate change
to play down the impact of global warming, an investigation by The Observer can reveal.
The disclosure will anger environment campaigners who claim that efforts to cut greenhouse gas emissions are being sabotaged because of President George W.
Bush's links to the oil industry.
Emails and internal government documents obtained by The Observer show that officials have sought to edit or remove research warning that the problem is serious.
They have enlisted the help of conservative lobby groups funded by the oil industry to attack US government scientists if they produce work seen as accepting too
readily that pollution is an issue.
Central to the revelations of double dealing is the discovery of an email sent to Phil Cooney, chief of staff at the White House Council on Environmental Quality, by
Myron Ebell, a director of the Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI). The CEI is an ultra-conservative lobby group that has received more than $1 million in
donations since 1998 from the oil giant Exxon, which sells Esso petrol in Britain.
The email, dated 3 June 2002, reveals how White House officials wanted the CEI's help to play down the impact of a report last summer by the government's
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), in which the US admitted for the first time that humans are contributing to global warming. 'Thanks for calling and asking for
our help,' Ebell tells Cooney.
The email discusses possible tactics for playing down the report and getting rid of EPA officials, including its then head, Christine Whitman. 'It seems to me that the
folks at the EPA are the obvious fall guys and we would only hope that the fall guy (or gal) should be as high up as possible,' Ebell wrote in the email. 'Perhaps
tomorrow we will call for Whitman to be fired,' he added.
The CEI is suing another government climate research body that produced evidence for global warming. The revelation of the email's contents has prompted demands
for an investigation to see if the White House and CEI are co-ordinating the legal attack.
'This email indicates a secret initiative by the administration to invite and orchestrate a lawsuit against itself seeking to discredit an official US government report on
global warming dangers,' said Richard Blumenthal, attorney general of Connecticut, who has written to the White House asking for an inquiry.
The allegation was denied by White House officials and the CEI. 'It is absurd. We do not have a sweetheart relationship with the White House,' said Chris Horner, a
lawyer and senior fellow of CEI.
However, environmentalists say the email fits a pattern of collusion between the Bush administration and conservative groups funded by the oil industry, who lobby
against efforts to control carbon dioxide emissions, the main cause of global warming.
When Bush first came to power he withdrew the US - the world's biggest source of greenhouse gases - from the Kyoto treaty, which requires nations to limit their
emissions.
Both Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney are former oil executives; National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice was a director of the oil firm Chevron, and
Commerce Secretary Donald Evans once headed an oil and gas exploration company.
'It all fits together,' said Kert Davies of Greenpeace. 'It shows that there is an effort to undermine good science. It all just smells like the oil industry. They are doing
everything to allow the US to remain the world's biggest polluter.'
Other confidential documents obtained by The Observer detail White House efforts to suppress research that shows the world's climate is warming. A four-page
internal EPA memo reveals that Bush's staff insisted on major amendments to the climate change section of an environmental survey of the US, published last June.
One alteration indicated 'that no further changes may be made'.
The memo discusses ways of dealing with the White House editing, and warns that the section 'no longer accurately represents scientific consensus on climate change'.
Some of the changes include deleting a summary that stated: 'Climate change has global consequences for human health and the environment.' Sections on the
ecological effects of global warming and its impact on human health were removed. So were several sentences calling for further research on climate change.
A temperature record covering 1,000 years was also deleted, prompting the EPA memo to note: 'Emphasis is given to a recent, limited analysis [which] supports the
administration's favoured message.'
White House officials added numerous qualifying words such as 'potentially' and 'may', leading the EPA to complain: 'Uncertainty is inserted where there is essentially
none.'
The paper then analyses what the EPA should do about the amendments and whether they should be published at all. The options range from accepting the alterations
to trying to discuss them with the White House.
When the report was finally published, however, the EPA had removed the entire global warming section to avoid including information that was not scientifically
credible.
Former EPA climate policy adviser Jeremy Symons said morale at the agency had been devastated by the administration's tactics. He painted a picture of scientists
afraid to conduct research for fear of angering their White House paymasters. 'They do good research,' he said. 'But they feel that they have a boss who does not
want them to do it. And if they do it right, then they will get hit or their work will be buried.'
Symons left the EPA in April 2001 and now works for the National Wildlife Federation as head of its climate change programme. The Bush administration's attitude
was clear from the beginning, he said, and a lot of people were working to ensure that the President did nothing to address global warming.
Additional reporting by Jason Rodrigues=============United StatesThe United States, which with 4 percent of the global population is responsible for 20 to 25 percent of global emissions, proposed that it would stabilize emissions of
greenhouse gases at 1990 levels by 2008-2012 and reduce emissions sometime after that. The plan, which falls short of other plans to cut emissions well below 1990
levels by 2010, or even 2005, has disappointed many environmentalists. Reductions beyond the 2008-2012 period are not defined, and will be left for negotiation
farther down the line. Clinton's insistence that poorer nations such as China, which have been exempted thus far from the cutback plans, "meaningfully participate"
promises to be a key point of contention at Kyoto.

Bush: Kyoto treaty would hurt economy
President condemns climate change treaty, dependence on Middle East oil
The Associated Pressupdated 4:50 p.m. ET June 30, 2005COPENHAGEN, Denmark -
U.S. President George W. Bush said in a Danish TV interview aired Thursday that adhering to the Kyoto treaty on climate change
would have "wrecked" the U.S. economy, and called U.S. dependence on Middle East oil a national security problem.
"We're hooked on oil from the Middle East, which is a national security problem and an economic security problem," Bush said in the interview with the Danish
Broadcasting Corp. recorded Wednesday at the White House. Bush is to visit Denmark next week before going to a G-8 summit in Scotland.
He said the United States is looking for ways to "diversify away from fossil fuels," but defended his decision not to adhere to the Kyoto Protocol, which commits
industrial nations to cut emissions of greenhouse gases.
"Kyoto would have wrecked our economy. I couldn't in good faith have signed Kyoto," Bush said, noting that the treaty didn't require other "big polluters" such as
India and China to cut emissions.
The landmark agreement, negotiated in Japan's ancient capital of Kyoto in 1997 and ratified by 140 nations, targets carbon dioxide and five other gases that can trap
heat in the atmosphere, and are believed to be behind rising global temperatures that many scientists say are disrupting weather patterns.
The United States, the world's largest emitter of such gases, has refused to ratify the agreement, saying it would harm the economy and is flawed by the lack of
restrictions on emissions by China and India.
Britain concerned with pollutantsBritish Prime Minister Tony Blair plans to make cutting greenhouse gas emissions a key theme at the G-8 meeting.
Turning to the subject of Iraq, Bush defended his decision to go to war, even though no proof has been found that former dictator Saddam Hussein had weapons of
mass destruction as intelligence reports had indicated.
"I'm obviously disappointed. I thought we would find weapons of mass destruction, as did the world," Bush said. "It wasn't just our intelligence, nor was it my
administration. My predecessor President Clinton felt the same way based upon what everybody thought was solid intelligence."
Bush insisted the decision to invade Iraq was right.
"Because Saddam Hussein was not only a tyrant, he was a threat to world peace. ... Even though we have haven't found the weapons themselves, we certainly know
he had the capacity" to make them.
Foreshadowing topics for the G-8 summitThe president also said he was proud of U.S. efforts to fight HIV/AIDS and poverty in Africa — another major topic at the G-8 summit.
"I am going to Denmark and then the G-8 and I'm proud to talk about the record we've got when it comes to HIV/AIDS on the continent of Africa, or feeding the hungry."
On Thursday, Bush announced plans to spend $1.2 billion to cut malaria deaths in Africa. He also proposed doubling U.S. spending to $400 million to promote the
education of girls in Africa and said he wanted Congress to approve $55 million over three years to improve legal protections for women in Africa against violence
and sexual abuse.
In the Danish interview, Bush reiterated his stance against abortion and said his faith gives him the "peace of mind" to sleep well at night.
He also said his job requires him to listen to the right people.
"I think that people who look at my government they'll say that old George W. has surrounded himself with some great people. And I have."
Bush is to arrive in Denmark on Tuesday, a day ahead of his 59th birthday.
Tuesday, Jul. 24, 2001
When it Comes to Kyoto, the U.S. is the "Rogue Nation"
By Tony KaronRemember the "indispensable nation"? That was Madeleine Albright's catchphrase for the U.S. role in international affairs. Yet Monday's decision by the nations of the industrialized and developing world to adopt the Kyoto Accord — despite its rejection by Washington — may be a sign that the Home of the Brave is in danger of growing dispensable.
Of course, the revised Kyoto Accord hammered out in three days of intense negotiations in Bonn is but a shadow of its former self. It has reduced the average cut in greenhouse gas emissions required by the year 2012 from 5.2 percent below 1990 levels to 1.8 percent below 1990 levels, and has incorporated a number of the negotiating positions previously advanced by the Clinton administration, such as crediting nations for maintaining large forests to serve as "carbon sinks" to soak up the offending gas. (And all this in response not to pressure from Washington, which had removed itself from the debate by rejecting Kyoto out of hand, but to the demands of other industrialized countries such as Japan and Canada.)
A new era?
Still, the Bonn agreement has been celebrated as a historic breakthrough both by the governments of Western Europe and environmentalist activist groups such as Greenpeace, which believes even the watered-down Kyoto creates the foundations of a vigorous international system to regulate human behaviors harmful to the planet. And even though the world's largest polluter has stayed out, the treaty's signatories collectively produce more than twice as much greenhouse gas as the U.S.
But the real significance of the revised Kyoto Accord lies less in its impact on the planet's climate than in the fact that it survived Washington's withdrawal. The determination of the nations of the industrialized world to hang in and negotiate a binding treaty even after it had been nixed by the "indispensable nation" suggests that we may have entered a new era in international affairs. And that it will be an era in which the U.S. will no longer be automatically granted the leadership role among Western nations it established during the Cold War.
Indeed, the spectacle of the most far-reaching environmental treaty in history being negotiated without the United States would have been almost unthinkable a few years ago. The delegates at Bonn appeared to be well aware of the political significance of their decision to respond to the Bush administration's attempt to scrap the agreement by simply going ahead without America. EU negotiator Olivier Deleuze told the delegates at Bonn, "Almost every single country stayed in the protocol. There was one that said the protocol was flawed. Do you see the Kyoto Protocol flawed?"
Indispensable rogue?
Of course, the Europeans ultimately conceded to many of the points raised by Clinton administration negotiators in previous talks over the terms of Kyoto, and critics will charge that had they showed the degree of flexibility on view at Bonn during talks last November, President Bush might not have found it as easy to trash the treaty on taking office. The Clinton administration was never happy with the terms of Kyoto, but it kept its negotiators at the table to grind away at the original treaty. President Bush gambled that withdrawing from the negotiations — that is, removing the indispensable polluter — would force the international community back to the drawing board to seek an agreement more favorable to the U.S.'s gas-guzzling economy. But summary withdrawal from a decade-old process and failure at the same time to advance any alternative was read by the Europeans as a lack of seriousness. Indeed, there was spontaneous booing in the conference hall at Bonn when U.S. delegate Paula Dobriansky told the meeting, "The Bush administration takes the issue of climate change very seriously and we will not abdicate our responsibility." On global warming, the "indispensable nation" is looking rather more like a "rogue nation."
The real significance of Bonn was that the Europeans decided to stand up to what many view as a dangerous U.S. unilateralism on an issue in which American domestic decisions are deemed to have a global impact. And the need to send Washington a message would certainly have added incentive for the Europeans, Japanese, Canadians and others to sort out their own differences on Kyoto. Whatever the treaty's imperfections, there was a collective sense of achievement among the overwhelming majority of the world's industrialized and developing nations at the fact that they'd fashioned an epic international consensus on global warming despite the objections of the one nation that still aspires to global leadership.
President Bush may have spoken loftily about American leadership on global warming, but the reality is that he has missed the boat — instead, the international community will now be focusing its efforts on bringing Washington on board, as unlikely as that may look right now. And the Kyoto decision will have given the Europeans and other industrialized nations a sense of collective power and confidence to act independently of the U.S. that is likely to grow rather than ebb.
குறிப்பு: புகைப்படங்கள் பேர்மாவின் பேரழிவைப் பிரதிபலிப்பன