Global Warming as White Man’s Burden

Davos considers the options

Guest Column: Climate scientist V. Balaji reminds us that before Davos, there was Bandung. While the captains of the industrialized world claim a monopoly on policy ideas for responding to global warming, they are clearly unable to deal with the crisis. Perhaps they ought to recognize that there are voices outside the citadel with something to say about climate change.

From Bandung to Davos — and Back?

By V. Balaji

Readers of a certain age and inclination might remember a sometimes-incendiary, often-provocative, most-always-interesting television show on the UK’s Channel Four called Bandung File. Channel Four came to prominence in that brief hundred-flowers spring moment in the Britain of the 70s and early 80s, when Ken Livingstone, Mayor of London, was still ‘Red’ Ken, and the Greater London Council had money to spend on any number of beautiful community-driven efforts, from the Southall Black Sisters to water resources planning for the next century. Bandung File, produced by Tariq Ali and Darcus Howe, labelled itself an African-Asian news and current affairs programme. What made it quite unique was that its stated purpose was to canvas opinion from the public and policy-makers in those continents: Its topics were not just what was being done to people of color in the UK, nor even the history of colonial injustice. Instead, it focused on the current concerns of Africans and Asians — its issues ranged from apartheid to street crime in Jamaica and corruption in a Kenyan hospital. With a muckraking exuberance and flair, Bandung File drove the blade in to the hilt. And what made it such refreshing television was it was never dominated by experts from the North; instead it gave free rein to the eloquence of its Southern subjects, whether corrupt politicians or enraged citizens or passionate radicals.

It’s an odd place to begin talking about the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize, as Tony asked me to do for Rootless Cosmopolitan, but bear with me. Bandung File was named for a now rather obscure mountain town in Java: a favoured “hill station” to which British, and later brown, sahibs would retire to escape Indonesian summers. This little resort town once took centre stage in world history, in 1955, when it was the seat of an extraordinary conference, when representatives of one half of humanity met to proclaim an end to the colonial era. Some of the countries respresented were newly independent, others not yet quite so; but it was clear that the end of direct colonial rule was near, and this conference of African and Asian people met to ask, what sort of world would follow. We now call this, in an inaccurate Nothern-Hemisphere-centric worldview, the ‘Global South’… but here was born the ‘third world’ — “l’ensemble des peuples d’Asie et d’Afrique qui n’appart[ien]t ni a la « noblesse » europeenne ni au « clerge » americain” (all the peoples of Africa and Asia who belong neither to the European aristocracy nor to the American clergy) — beautiful! The term was thus a direct extrapolation from the ‘Third Estate’ of the French Revolution, and had not acquired its current distorted meaning of distended bellies, child soldiers, and retired dictators living in splendid majesty in the homes of their former paymasters in Hawaii or on the Riviera.

It is hard to recall, or imagine now, the intense interest worldwide provoked by the Bandung Conference. The Third World, it appeared, would align neither with anti-communist Washington, nor with “really existing socialist” Moscow; new ideas of equity and governance would emerge from Bandung, and reverberate beyond the South. Nehru was there, and Sukarno; independence movements from North Africa came, Algeria’s FLN and Tunisia’s Istiqlal; Pham Van Dong jostled shoulders with Nasser. A brilliant article in the <i>Monde Diplomatique</i> [April 2005: English version not online] evokes the Bandung moment on its 50th anniversary, and the reactions in the Northern press, labour, academic, and mainstream. A world exhausted by war and its aftermath, and living in nuclear dread as the bipolar world took shape, confronted its own intellectual fatigue and looked southward for a fresh start.

Chou en-Lai and Nehru chat at Bandung

Bandung now is nothing but a memory of a failed spring, and the very idea that we would ask the global south for ideas on how to tackle our most intractable problems seems quaint. Empires have given way to Empire, and it alone controls the means of production of meaning. A superclass decides what humanity’s most pressing challenges are, and how to meet them. “World opinion,” such as is transmitted in the information sphere owned by that same superclass, rarely emerges from beyond the ramparts. To the extent that they are to be heard, those outside must find a patron on the inside — as in the days when royalty would emerge from the castle gates and walk, heavily guarded, among the people for a day as perspiring masses would throw chits at their feet, and a passing queen would pick up this one or that, read a plea for justice, and with a wave of a gloved hand, make it so. Today’s equivalent is Davos, the high-class Swiss resort town that hosts the annual shindig of the self-styled World Economic Forum — the must-have invitation of the year for members of the global power elite. Proclamations of the rulers emerge from its tea-parties, and the world’s press dutifully pores over the tea-leaves for clues to the next year’s doings. If Sharon Stone pledges $10,000 to buy mosquito nets for Africa and challenges equally wealthy conference goers to do the same, it makes global headlines. If Bandung was the birthplace of the Third World, Davos was where the rock star Bono was anointed as its champion.

Global climate change is an issue that has hovered on the edges of the world’s consciousness for many years now. Island nations have been for a long time now warning of the risk they face from rising sea levels; stark pictures of receding glaciers remind us that large populations depend upon snowpack melt for their fresh water; large chunks of Antarctic and Greenland ice fall into the sea; the Northwest Passage is open for shipping, raising a fine point of international law: is formerly sovereign Canadian land which has now become sea international waters, or do the borders stay the same? These stories have been with us for at least a few decades now: the IPCC reports are issued every six years, and the 2007 report was the fourth. As the science became clearer over time, the press continued to frame it as a controversy. (There were some who stridently rejected the science: but the fact of the matter is that not everyone who opposes a majority scientific opinion is a Galileo. Most people who challenge widely accepted science are either wrong, cranks, or paid to hold a contrary opinion.) Climate scientists were publicly accused of many things, of being apparatchiks, hewers to a party line, stoners of witches, crooks. Channel Four of Bandung File fame showed how completely it had shed its Bandung skin to emerge in fresh Davos scales, by running a scurrilous “expose” called “The Great Global Warming Swindle”, complete with cleverly edited quotes-out-of-context to make some talking heads seem to be saying the opposite of what they really meant.

Taken aback by having science vetted in the mass media, and not by peer review, many scientists waded into the arena of public communication of a kind where they had little experience, and the tools of their trade had little traction. Science is inherently based on uncertainty, qualified assertions, frequent making and unmaking of claims: picture an edifice being built by dozens of masons with their own bricks and mortar, coming at it from all sides, uncoordinated, feverishly slapping on cement, removing bricks already in place to replace them with others with a slightly better fit, until slowly a structure reveals itself. That’s how it works, ‘consensus’ is something that may emerge, but is never explicitly sought. But it’s not how you make the world pay attention. So the IPCC process was born — an explicit attempt to come up with statements that scientists could stand by and policy-makers could live with. Many of my friends and colleagues who have participated in their marathon wordsmithing sessions confess to having lived through something quite unique and previously unknown to them, and have come away with an increased understanding and respect for nuances of language and tone.

What changed in 2007, that now even the NYT fashion pages carry stories on global warming? (Never mind floods, plagues, storms and droughts… what about them cashmere sweaters???) The Oslo Nobel committee says it all. It’s not just the IPCC, but the IPCC and Al Gore. (Very tellingly, most of the mainstream press changed the order from the award, to “Al Gore and the IPCC”.)

Al Gore is the very personification of the Davos man. From the palace a figure has emerged, able to hear the pleas coming from the Maldives barely rising above sea level and from the permafrost villages of the Inuit sinking in the mud. He masters the science and brings it to the multiplex. President-elect for some hours or days, Oscar winner, and now a Nobel laureate. No wonder the “debate is finally over” and global warming is now accepted. Except of course, that’s still not how science works: those subordinate clauses are still there on the results. The facts of human-caused global warming themselves are beyond reasonable (though not unreasonable) dispute, but there is residual uncertainty about local and regional effects and causes, and the consequences of any particular large-scale policy responses.

Not only is the science now deemed settled, but that set of technical and policy responses is also now fast gaining acceptance. A story about a scientific controversy has now changed into one where the white-coated scientist, against long odds, has finally isolated the serum that will save the remote village from the mysterious disease that has laid it low, and now our heroes are in a desperate race against time to save the dying villagers. That, at least, seems to be the message of this week’s CNN special (which I confess I haven’t seen, but for which I had glossy promotional material delivered in my mailbox). Many of the stories center on remote places dealing with environmental catastrophes of various kinds, which are explained by metropolitan scientists, along with proposed solutions. Sanjay Gupta, part of CNN’s team, makes it very explicit on his blog that noone, including the victims of climate change, are expecting anything less: the lead quote, from a Chadian fisherman on the shores of that disappearing lake, has it that “the white man will brings us water. Only, the white man has power.” Is global warming then the white man’s burden this century? Sure enough, many of the solutions currently being touted, involve exotic new technologies, advanced ‘green’ materials, planetary-scale geo-engineering, and the like, which only the advanced industrial nations could possibly provide.

The world of the Bandung conference is quite remote now, and Bandung itself a victim of climate change. Yet it’s possible to imagine that Davos does not have a monopoly on ideas, and perhaps we should acknowledge that we don’t fully understand what’s happening to the planet, and perhaps there are people outside the fortress walls who might have something to say. After all there are places which have achieved literacy/fertility/longevity statistics comparable to the North on 1/70 the per capita energy consumption; places that have health indices comparable to the North on 1/100 the health spending, places that have a revolution and then offer the ousted oppressors truth and reconciliation, not revenge. Why not look outside the palace walls for answers on climate change?

At first glance, there is not much reason for hope. The leaders of the erstwhile Third World now jostle for seats at the Davos banquet. Stalwarts of the traditional left have delivered embarrassingly ignorant attacks on the science itself, rather than on how the facts and choices are being framed. Even more disturbing, a recent survey shows that climate change is not even on the public radar in much of the global south. In this climate, where is there cause to talk about a new Bandung?

Yet, there are signs, here and there. The Centre for Science and Environment in Delhi has had an admirable history of reasoned and literate public advocacy that has been transformative in India, forcing, or shaming, India’s judiciary into taking action on issues as diverse as pesticides in Pepsi and urban air pollution. (On the last, I can testify that between two visits, Delhi’s distinctive yellow-brown sky turned blue again!) Similar efforts are emerging in Brazil, such as the Social Movements Forum for Environment and Development. What distinguishes groups such as these is that they neither turn their backs on the science, nor do they frame their policy responses only as twiddling a few regulatory knobs, or as new business opportunities. Just browsing the titles of some of their policy documents — ‘Global Warming in an Unequal World’, ‘Global Environmental Governance’ — suggest that there is new thinking going on. Encouraging these voices — maybe even listening! — may be something to consider at a time that seems desperately short of new ideas.

This entry was posted in Guest Columns, Situation Report. Bookmark the permalink.

48 Responses to Global Warming as White Man’s Burden

  1. Pat says:

    First post!

    Kidding; I’m just being a dick.

    Tony, you have some formatting issues in this one. I think you need to paste V.’s text into Notepad, paste that into WordPress, then republish.

  2. Tony says:

    I was doing that when you posted! You have trained me well, Master!

  3. Pat says:

    Now, to the substance.

    Good article, and I agree with the criticism of so much First-World environmentalism / human rights / development as being incredibly self-congratulatory and the substance of self-made hero myths. That’s not to say that focus doesn’t have some beneficial aspects anyway–Sharon Stone’s mosquito nets might make headlines, but this is the world we live in and that’s still $10,000 worth of new and potentially useful mosquito nets.

    I think on environmentalism and several other issues, we’re already starting to see that no matter how much the First World thinks it has the answers, it can’t force emerging powers like China or India to listen based on sheer power dynamics. So no matter the order desired by Westerners, the leadership in powerful Southern nations is going to do what it wants, how it wants.

  4. Pat says:

    Ha, yes, it looks much better now.

  5. Jeremy Rose says:

    A great piece. I would love to hear some more about some of the ideas being promoted in the majority world (another problematic phrase, I know. But as a New Zealander using the South to refer to the non-rich world – seems, well, a bit rich.)

    New Zealand has just launched a carbon trading scheme to widespread acclaim from left and right. Personally, I find it difficult to see a market solution being successful. Like other markets I suspect it will see the richer getting richer – and the accountants and lawyers coming up with ever more ingenious ways to make them richer still.

  6. Pingback: Kaser&#8217;s STAR PULSAR

  7. Matthew says:

    Jeremy: Has the carbon trading scheme been tried anywhere else? Is there any evidence from practice that it leads to less polution?


  8. Pingback: University Update - Al Gore - Global Warming as White Man’s Burden

  9. Pingback: hakdora &#187; Blog Archive &#187; Global Warming as White Man’s Burden

  10. Bernard Chazelle says:

    Three quick comments about this excellent article.

    1. I am with Al Gore on global warming, and I believe in its human cause, but I find his causal and prescriptive certitude tactically misguided. There are plenty of good reasons to reduce our gas consumption, but to put all of one’s prosecutorial eggs into the one basket of human-caused global warming is unnecessarily risky. This tight coupling might be good PR but it’s playing Russian roulette. Any serious setback in the science would gravely hurt the cause.
    As V Balaji rightly says, modern science is full of conditional clauses.And full of cycles: one day ulcers are caused by stress; the next day they’re caused by bacteria.

    I am no expert on climate change –by a long shot– but I doubt that the current consensus about a human cause has reached the watertight level of certainty of, say, evolution or relativity theory. Let’s say human causality is 80% likely to be a correct interpretation. That’s enough for me to believe it. But it’s too low to form the exclusive aspect of the argumentation. Arguments based on pollution, depletion of resources, geopolitics, etc, should not be given short shrift.
    Just a minor tactical gripe.

    2. Davos? Remember the old farts deciding World War I in “The Remains of the Day.”? Now they go to Davos. The only good thing about global warming is that one day it’ll create a giant avalanche on the mountains of Davos that will put an end to that Swiss version of “Skull and Bones.”

    3. V Balaji wants us to listen to the voices from the Global South (or whatever people down under wish to call it). Listen ?? He can’t be serious! The only voices we must listen to are our own, whether created by ourselves or parroted by Sanjay Gupta’s favorite Chadian fisherman or Tom Friedman’s favorite taxi driver in Bangalore. We shall only listen to the ancient African chant that goes “Bono will brings us water!”

  11. Balaji says:

    Bernard, many thanks for your comments.

    Comparing human-caused global warming with evolution or relativity isn’t quite fair. The latter are frameworks for understanding without which “nothing makes sense”, as Dobzhansky said. Human-caused global warming could be false, but isn’t: we know that because the underlying methods of “detection and attribution” as they’re called — picking out the anthropogenic signal from the noise of natural climate variability — are just as sound and well-founded as are relativity and evolution.

    Agree entirely with the rest of your remarks: global warming isn’t the only thing going on. Next week’s water is as much a cause for concern for many of the world’s people as is the next decade’s.

  12. Pat says:

    Bernard, excellent point about the eggs in the basket. We certainly see this going on right now in the United States, in which conservatives constantly harp on “the science isn’t in”, that being the science related to specific human causes. This has the effect of making global warming–for which there is ample evidence–into another non-issue. Whether human-caused or not, islands are sinking and glaciers are receding, and knocking down one potential cause does nothing to change the reality.

  13. Bernard Chazelle says:

    VB: I see your point. Yes, you’re right, my comparison was unfair.

    Re. the level of certainty, you seem to imply that it’s higher than 80%. Maybe closer to “OJ did it” level?

  14. Shlomo says:

    I think Mr. Balaji is conflating two issues here. There is the issue of stopping global warming, and there is the issue of ending poverty.

    Global warming can only be stopped by the “big powers”, namely the U.S. and China, because they’re the ones that pollute the most! It does not really matter what Botwana’s energy policies are if these two countries emit more and more CO2. So yes, this is the “white man’s burden”, but not in the sense of a civilizing mission. It is a rich countries’ problem that the rich must take on.

    Then there’s economic development. This is Sharon Stone buying mosquito nets, Bono giving a concert, Sachs cooking up a scheme. The Chadian guy didn’t say “Only the white man can maintain our water supply” (in a sustainable manner), he said “only the white man can bring us water”. So Chadians NEED water, and need outside help. This could turn into a civilizing mission if it is not done right, but it is NOT the same as fighting global warming.

  15. Balaji says:

    Bernard: The IPCC rated it as “very unlikely” (which is defined as a 1-10% likelihood) that the current rate of warming could be anything but human-caused.

    So it’s below “OJ did it” but it’s certainly above “picky eating is in your genes”, which is the kind of science that gets gape-mouthed credulity in the science pages these days.

  16. Balaji says:

    Shlomo: I’m all in favour of freezing Exxon-Mobil’s assets to pay for climate change mitigation, and sequestering Bush and Cheney’s and everyone else’s personal fortunes to pay reparations to the Iraqi people.

    That isn’t the problem with the white-mans-burden aspect: as long as the same people who brought you global warming get to make policy today, what you will get is massive capital-intensive profit-based projects, “ethical” (but not less) consumption, and so on. “They paid us once to put CO2 in the atmosphere, and they’ll pay us again to take it out” as some oil exec said.

  17. TS says:

    “Bandung File was named for a now rather obscure mountain town in Java: a favoured “hill station” to which British, and later brown, sahibs would retire to escape Indonesian summers.”

    Actually, it is a city of 2.5 million, hardly an obscure mountain town. And those “British” were actually Dutch, I assume? Otherwise interesting article, though.

  18. Neil says:

    Nice rave Balaji, thanks for reminding me of the exciting opportunity coming up to sail through the Northwest passage, and the economic oppportunities that will be generated by climate chang for the aboriginal population in Canada’s year-round icy north. The earth’s evolution process will be reinvigorated with climate change – getting rid of those CO2 emitting white men and women (via skin cancer). Unfortunately, polar bears will also dissapear.

  19. delia ruhe says:

    Here is Gwynne Dyer’s latest column on the politics of global warming:

  20. Pingback: OPINION: From Bandung to Davos &#8212; and back?

  21. GW_realist says:

    Has anyone thought what would happen to the Earth if there was no human-made GW?

    A plunge into a new Ice Age in a few thousand years!

    See for yourself in a chart of global temperatures for the last 400,000 years. There are quite a few in Wikipedia. Warm, ice-free periods like the one we have been enjoying for the last 8,000 years are just brief spikes within much-longer cold periods (and that’s 6+ Celsius colder than today).

    The only way for mankind to get out of this cycle was to introduce a new forcing (greenhouse gases) strong enough to overpower the astronomical forcings (Milankovitch cycle) that would have the Earth plunging again into a new ice age if left alone.

    So, it’s either some degrees more with higher sea level and an ice-free Arctic, or some degrees less with lower sea level and an ice-covered North America.

    Keeping business as usual does not seem to be an available option.

  22. Pangean says:

    Both sides in the climate change debate have exaggerated both the likely negative scenarios and the costs of avoidance.

    The fact is that the scientists and engineers who are actually inventing solutions to the problem A) are from not only the high income countries, but also the low income countries, and B) have made such enormous progress that the continuing exponential deployment of solar and wind generation technologies as well as energy saving technologies such as LED lights and advanced information and telecommunications technologies will completely eliminate the threat of the CONG (Coal, Oil, Nukes, and Gas).

    Solar has been doubling the installed capacity every 2 years for 16 years running now, and is poised to accelerated to an annual doubling.
    Wind has been doubling installed capacity every 3.5 years for a decade now.
    Both have been doing so even with high relative prices, yet their prices have now fallen to competitiveness for many applications – wind is now cheaper than coal and nukes – and within a few more years solar will not only be the cheapest off-grid solution and not only be competitive with many residential and commercial installations, but will by 2012 (according to DOE) will be competitive as a grid solution.
    Lighting, which comprises 22% of energy consumption will have its energy cost cut by more than 95% within the next decade via LEDs, which already are 10X more efficient than incandescents and 2X compared to CFLs.
    Computing and telecommunications will continue to substitute for physical transportation of people and the energy efficiency of computing will continue its massive improvements. Just last week a new long term memory substrate was announced that cuts energy usage by 20,000X compared to hard drives.

    My point is NOT ONLY that the solutions are imminent and that their exponential improvements will almost eliminate CO2 production in the course of power generation within 15 years, but also that all of these improvements are the product of the collective mental efforts of millions of scientists and engineers from all over the world including the Global South.

    Thus, all of you have failed to acknowledge how crucial Indian, Pakistani, Chinese, Korean, Iranian, Malaysia, etc. scientists and engineers have been and will continue to be in the development of these technologies, which are in fact, going to save the world in relatively short order from the worst and middle cases of the IPCC scenarios.

    Science and engineering are no longer just the province of “the White Man.” The dialectic of globalization has ensured that brilliant minds worldwide have already been brought together in service of capital.

    The real question is how will global political and social relations have to be adjusted to ensure that finance capital is allocated so that these solutions are made available equitably.

    The principal slogan should be Global Energy Equality!

  23. Shlomo says:

    GW_realist writes:

    “So, it’s either some degrees more with higher sea level and an ice-free Arctic, or some degrees less with lower sea level and an ice-covered North America.”

    But actually, it’s both. First, the earth will warm up a little and the ice caps will melt..but then, the influx of fresh, cold water into the North Atlantic will disturb a fragile equillibrium, and cause major ocean currents to shut down. Warm water will no longer be able to travel north with the new equillibrium, so the entire northern hemisphere will cool down…way down. North America will become an icy desert.
    In a few thousand years, hopefully we’ll be advanced enough to regulate the earth’s temperature. If we don’t stop global warming NOW, we won’t get that far.

    You may be right about innovations in the global south, I honestly have no idea. But it’s not relevant.

    China is building many many coal-powered plants, and the average lifetime of these plants is 50 years. Irreversible climate change is at most twenty years away. The rich nations need to provide poor nations with environmentally friendly technology, so that they don’t have to build coal-fired plants. Otherwise, the Global South will have rapid growth for about twenty years, and then will descend into chaos and civil war when the weather patterns go berserk.

    I welcome any contributions from anywhere in the world in terms of innovation. But only the rich nations can implement this stuff in time. There’s no other way.

  24. Pangean says:

    Actually my point is that all of the innovations appearing to manifest mainly in the rich countries are products of minds from everywhere. All you have to do is visit the engineers at any of the companies (large of startup) or university laboratories involved and see how many folks are from the low income countries, and even when not physically present, all of science builds on top of itself regardless of where the innovation occurs.

    Regarding the build out of CONG and the 50 year lifespan:
    when new technologies are out that are cheaper than the operating costs of a coal plant, i can guarantee you that it will be shut down. All of the CONG technologies require fuel every day. Wind and solar do not. So their primary cost is the cost of installation, and with minimal maintenance cost.

    I certainly agree with you that the rich nations have the capital for implementation… least for now……watching the USD collapse and the collapse of the banking system raises interesting questions.

    nonetheless, my final point was identical to yours:
    “The real question is how will global political and social relations have to be adjusted to ensure that finance capital is allocated so that these solutions are made available equitably.

    The principal slogan should be Global Energy Equality! ”

    In the name of National Energy Security, I expect much progress on shifting to renewables by the imperial nations, but they are unlikely to assist low income nations which are their enemies or unreliable allies in the rapidly developing world war. Ie. Middle East, China, Latin America.

    Many of those low income nations who are enemies of the G7 and who don’t have substantial mainstream energy supplies will move onto the same footing of National Energy Security too.

    Now that Pakistan – one of the 8 nuclear powers – is in full collapse mode, and is likely to be overthrown by forces unfriendly to India, we can expect our entire frame of reference of global concerns to be radically shifted away from climate change as the principal risk to humanity’s survival, to instead the question of surviving global nuclear war.

  25. Pangean says:

    BTW: in addition to the mainstream approaches that involve international teams, there are some inspiring grassroots efforts in the Global South.

    When he was just 14 years old, Malawian inventor William Kamkwamba built his family an electricity-generating windmill from spare parts, working from rough plans he found in a library book. In conversation with TED Curator Chris Anderson, Kamkwamba, now 19, tells a moving story of ingenuity and adaptation, and shares his dreams for the future.

  26. excellent poste, complet et bien détaillé, ça me plaît !merci bien

  27. stuart goldhawk says:

    Is there anyone out there who is interested in gabion stone/ walls? guess this passion of mine is unique.
    Maybe i should start my own blog on this subject
    i am trying to find companies that have a variety gabion stone supplies
    to get some wider srpead oppinions on this matter,
    hope this site gets more pictures and viewers its a great site.
    I am looking for different densitiy’s of stone 100 – 200mm 153kn, there are very few stone supplies in my area Surrey,
    so would be very interested to hear from anyone who is

  28. Bodydetoxguy says:

    the effect of Global Warming these days is even worst. i think every government should pass stricter laws on Carbon Emissions. we should also concentrate more on renewable energy sources and avoid fossil fuels.

  29. Tacnet says:

    – We should be more concerned about Global Warming and Climate Change because Typhoons are getting much stronger and there are greater incidence of Flooding. take for example the recent Typhoon Ketsana which devastated some countries in South East Asia.

  30. Global warming is becoming such an obvious problem that someone somewhere other than the US President needs to step up to help drive a massive campaign which aims to reduce Global Warming.

  31. Alicia Meyer says:

    Global Warming and Climate Change is the biggest environmental issue that we face these days. the long term effects of these environmental changes to a nations economy is quite damaging. there would be a shortage in food supply as well as on water supply too.

  32. Alicia Meyer says:

    Global Warming and Climate Change is the biggest environmental issue that we face these days. the long term effects of these environmental changes to a nations economy is quite damaging. there would be a shortage in food supply as well as on water supply too.

  33. je trouve cet article tres interresant. je reviendrai suremenent sur ce site. bon courage

  34. The effects of Global Warming is getting much stronger these days. We should concentrate more on alternative energy to reduce carbon emissions.

  35. Judi Zombro says:

    Remember what I tweeted back in August? “I’m picking the Packers and Steelers for Super Bowl XLV.” Too bad there’s no way to prove it.

  36. I’m often to blogging and i actually appreciate your content. The article has really peaks my interest. I’m going to bookmark your site and keep checking for new information.

  37. Savage capitalism is not the cause of global warming is something else.

  38. Aldis says:

    Hey all, I discovered your website by way of Bing whilst trying to find a related subject, your blog showed up, seems like great. I’ve got book marked it inside my google bookmark

  39. Skip Hire says:

    Climate change is becoming a real problem, all over the world. We have just started to use carbon filters to catch as much carbon discharge as we can, but it’s expensive.
    Building Materials

  40. Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Saudi Arabia’s Ambassador in Washington claim that the assassination plan, Iran and Saudi Arabia between the break and the attention generated by Washington to divert attention from economic problems in the United States is a lie, he said.

    Ahmadinejad told Al Jazeera television, said they could not get anything meant to denounce Iran.

    Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Iran and the United States is an inevitable “collision route” to a question regarding whether or not in, “I do not think” has no value.

    Ahmadinejad, the ark of the American administration there are people who want this to happen, but smart people who should not do it at the same time, said.

    Planning to assassinate the U.S. Ambassador to Saudi Arabia last week iki?ranl?’n?n emerged that the U.S. government responsible for Iran had made plans.

  41. controlarma says:

    Yüksek güvenlik gerektiren yerler için, 50 km. h?zla gelen bir arac? içeriye b?rakmayacak ve sürekli çal??abilecek ?ekilde hidrolik ve pnömatik sistem olarak dizayn edilmi?tir

  42. Eugenio Spaw says:

    I have observed that over the course of building a relationship with real estate entrepreneurs, you’ll be able to get them to understand that, in most real estate transaction, a commission rate is paid. Finally, FSBO sellers tend not to “save” the commission. Rather, they try to earn the commission through doing a strong agent’s task. In completing this task, they shell out their money plus time to complete, as best they might, the assignments of an broker. Those obligations include uncovering the home through marketing, showing the home to all buyers, building a sense of buyer urgency in order to induce an offer, scheduling home inspections, taking on qualification checks with the mortgage lender, supervising maintenance, and facilitating the closing.

  43. As the major polluters, wealthy nations have a responsibility to help developing countries survive extreme events. They carry the burden because poor people don’t really care about ‘global warming’ and associated nebulous concepts.

  44. Iona says:

    If you are going for most excellent contents like I
    do, simply go to see this web page everyday for the reason that it provides quality contents,

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *