2 degrees to much

http://pakteahouse.net/2015/07/31/nilofers-corner-2-degrees-too-much/

I don’t really understand what the climate change debate is all about. I thought, let me speak to a friend who does and explain it to me simply. There is a United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), which 194 countries have signed. Pakistan is one of them. There have been several summits where scientists and politicians have come together and discussed what climate change is about, what is causing it (human activities) and what countries can do to mitigate it. The UNFCCC was opened for signature at the Earth Summit held in Rio de Janeiro in 1992 and came into force in 1994.
After several years of negotiations it was decided that a treaty would be signed in Copenhagen in 2009; however that did not happen and the world gave itself a new deadline (2015) to come up with some kind of a consensus on what they would agree on to make the world safer by curbing green house emissions (which causes global warming). There had been no consensus in Copenhagen, but what everyone did agree on was that the world will not exceed an increase of 2 degrees Celsius in temperature (since the industrial revolution occurred). The world has already warmed around 1 degree so clearly the clock is ticking as scientists say that if we exceed the 2 degrees limit, we are headed towards “catastrophe”.
Climate change is today a reality; as Arnold Schwarzenegar recently put it, “it is NOT science fiction”. The tricky part is to agree on how to reduce temperature globally. The deadline to reach a consensus has now arrived and this year in November in Paris 2015 all the worlds’ leaders will meet to come up with a legally binding treaty to limit global warming. In recent years, the world has seen population exponentially increase, witnessed massive natural disasters, and at the same time added massive industrial and agricultural pollutants into our atmosphere. Extreme weather events such as violent storms, flooding, droughts and wildfires have all happened with only 1 degree of temperature increase; imagine what would happen at 2 degrees!
What will be the world’s commitments in Paris? And what will be Pakistan’s commitments? Thus far India has already stated it will not accept any cap on coal use. China has accepted coal caps. We will only find out about Pakistan’s commitments in August/September, a few months before the scheduled November Paris meeting.
Some basics about what contributes to the increase in global temperatures which in turn starts the cycle of death on Earth.

There are 4/5 ‘tipping points’ events, which scientists warn that if they occur on a large scale, their damage will be irreversible:
1) Methane emissions from Antarctica melting
2) Greenland ice sheet melting to disappearance levels
3) The gulf stream affected by warming (this keeps UK, Europe temperature moderate)
4) Amazon Forest dying out
5) Disruption to the Indian and west African monsoon
6) Loss of Perma Frost: in Siberia & Tundra (north Canada) a layer of ice that keeps the methane in the soil frozen.

When the Artic ice melts methane gas is emitted, methane is a green house gas, which also contributes to global warming along with carbon dioxide emissions. Ice deflects heat, but when the ice caps melt and expose the darker sea below, the warming is absorbed by the oceans, which then results in even more warming and ice melting.

What contributes to temperature rising

1. All industrialization activity results in some form of greenhouse gas emissions, which have led to an increase in temperatures as the emissions are trapped by the atmosphere and heat up the planet. Coal power plants particularly are the most polluting, cement factories are another and car emissions also add to polluting emissions.
2. Deforestation also contributes towards green house gas emissions; trees are ‘carbon sinks’ they store carbon dioxide and when you cut trees down and burn or process the wood, green house gas emissions increase in our atmosphere.
3. Agricultural process also contributes, to a lesser extent, towards global warming. Livestock and rice paddies produce methane gas.

What is Pakistan doing to reduce global warming and the resultant negative impact on our population and quality of life? We will shortly know when the Government of Pakistan releases their list of commitments for the Paris meeting in November. One hopes that the Government of Pakistan has adequate expertise on this critical matter.

A list of countries, which contribute towards global warming:

See more: These are the worst offending countries when it comes to carbon emissions

Judicial Commissions Findings do not imply that the 2013 Elections were 'Fair'

http://pakteahouse.net/2015/07/23/nilofers-corner-judicial-commissions-findings-do-not-imply-that-2013-elections-were-fair/

mran Khan accused the electoral managers of ‘rigging’ the election of 2013. It has been over two years since these accusations were made; a protest that lasted 4 months and nearly brought the sitting Government to a standstill resulted in little change, attention or review of Pakistan’s electoral system. Many who support PTI have also observed Imran Khan’s statements claiming irrefutable proof of pre-mediated irregularities & fixing that have been shared with the appropriate authorities. Where is all that evidence?
PTI supporters have also seen a campaign of maligning individuals, institutions and processes that raised many questions about the fairness of office bearers and neutrality of institutions overseeing electoral management processes without any results. Many of what Imran Khan claimed to be ‘facts’ have come into question now and some proven to be inaccurate where both he and his party officials have had to recant and apologize. All of this is on the record and better people have discussed and analyzed these details in much more sophisticated minutia.
My disappointment in Imran Khan aside, what the Judicial Commission’s report, yet to be formally released, states seems to be there was no systematic rigging by the care taker government in favour of the current majority party in power, this also problematic. I cannot pass judgement on evidence provided at the JC since I was not privy to the sessions but I was an active participant of elections 2013. What worries me and observing social media’s reactions and other discussion group forums worries me tremendously. Too many are using this Judgement to continue the current ‘do nothing policy’ on electoral reforms.
Pakistan is a very fragile democracy. The election commission is undermined by political interference, its office bearers do not have the capacity to ensure systems to oversee independent monitoring officers during any elections; the equipment to ensure human error is unavailable and excuses after excuses are made to avoid biometrics for elections. The use of government employees beholden to caretaker officials who in turn are appointment by electoral candidates cannot possibly be the appropriate system for a free fair electoral system. There is no trust in our institutions and institutional managers and hence some kind of trustworthy systems needs to be put in place. Cary on business as usual only serves those who benefit from the current dysfunctional system.
Analysts and political opponents now on the war path against the foolishness of many of Imran Khan’s Statements whether on the TTP or Taliban Office or 35 punctures, will focus on these,& use his lack of growing credibility as the basis to undermine the very very important matter of electoral reform. Credit has to be given to Imran Khan, he is the only political leader and party that persistently highlighted the need for a better electoral system in Pakistan.

Imran biggest challenge is himself.

Imran khan critics need to remember before they begin their gloat fest Yes Imran has many flaws. But bringing up fundamental flaw in our democratic process is certainly not one of them. He may not have proven his case in the court of law or in the judicial commission but to suggest that our elections were ‘ok’ and ‘lets move on’ is just as criminal and intellectually dishonest.