Global Warming and Ecological Democracy

Global warming is a complex democracy and equality issue. On a long run the strengthening of the greenhouse effect is a serious threat to everybody. The problem, however, is mostly caused by the rich minority of the world’s population. On a per capita basis some countries are producing a hundred times more climate warming emissions than the world’s poorest countries. And inside each country the more well-off people are always producing more greenhouse gas emissions than the middle- or low-income segments of the population. The rich have more cars and they tend to use them more, they tend to travel more with jet planes that produce several times more greenhouse gases per kilometer per passenger than private cars, they have larger houses that are either heated or cooled down with fossil fuel and they buy more consumer goods the manufacturing of which is causing large greenhouse gas emission.

In reality the industrialized countries – with the significant exception of the USA who produces one third of their greenhouse gas emissions – committed themselves to reducing their real greenhouse gas emission by 1.8 per cent of the 1990 by the year 1012. The next step will be more difficult. In order to achieve the necessary 60-80 per cent reduction in global carbon dioxide emissions much more needs to be done in the North, and the Southern countries must also agree to limit the growth of their emissions.

In the climate conventional negotiations many environmentalists were against the inclusion of carbon sinks (forests absorbing carbon dioxide from the atmosphere) in the treaty. According to many environmental organizations the sequestration of carbon into forests can only be a temporary relief to the problem, because there is a clear limit for how much carbon the forests can absorb. When the trees start to die the carbon is again released into the atmosphere as carbon dioxide. On a long run the only way to half the build-up of carbon dioxide into atmosphere is to limit the use of oil, coal and natural gases. And what if the forests that have been grown to store atmospheric carbon dioxide will burn in giant forest fires? Other environmental organizations, however, emohasized the benefits of including carbon sinks into the convention. They pointed out that the principle would provide the incentive for the governments to protect their remaining natural forest areas.

In Brasil, Colombia Venezuela, Equador and Peru huge tracts of rainforests have been protected from logging by agreements between the government and the federations of indigenous people living in the forest areas. This has been one of the most important success stories in the history of nature protection, because roughly 30 per cent of all the living species of our planet’s land ecosystems exist in the Amazonian rainforests. The most important ally of the Amazonian rainforest peoples have been the trade unions of people who earn their living by collecting natural rubber, brazil nuts or other products from the rainforests without cutting the trees.

The establishment of carbon storage forests doesn’t have to be a temporary measure. It is possible to manage the forests so, that very high amounts of carbon can be stored in the trees biomass for an indefinite period of time. This can simply be done by lengthening the rotation period used in forestry. Also, there is a surprisingly large number of tree species that can live one or several thousands of years and achieve a very big size – if left in peace. Carbon storage forests would most probably be less vulnerable to forest fires than ordinary forest. Young and small trees burn much more easily than older and lager trees which are often surprisingly resistant to forest fires because of their thick bark. Some trees – like baobab – cannot burn in any kind of forest fires, as long as they remain alive, because of their high moisture content.

Global warming will definitely increase the number and severity of forest fires in different parts of the world, but the higher the average age of the trees will be, the less damage the fires are likely to do.

The greenhouse effect refers to the ability of the Earth’s atmosphere to trap the Sun’s infrared radiation. Because of the existence of the present kind off atmosphere, the Earth is currently about 30 centigrades warmer than it should be otherwise be. Without the greenhouse effect the average temperature on our planet would be about –16 degrades Celsius instead of the present +16 degrees Celsius.

Only some gases are efficient in trapping heat into the atmosphere. Ordinary oxygen and nitrogen molecules do not contribute to the greenhouse effect. Most of the natural greenhouse effect is caused by water vapor. Other substances that contribute to the greenhouse effect are carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide and ozone. Besides this humans have invented a number of new greenhouse gases or climate warming substances, that do not exist in the nature. The most important group of such substances are the freons or chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) that also destroy ozone in the upper atmosphere. Climate scientists say that man-made emissions of carbon dioxide, methane and other greenhouse gases might increase the average global temperatures by 1.5 – 6 centigrades during the 21-st century.

According to the International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the authoritative scientific body aiming to coordinate research on global warming, the higher temperatures could lead to a rise of 7 to 13 meters in the sea levels during the next 500 years. If sea levels were to become ten meters higher than now, about ten million square kilometers of land and most of the world’s fertile farmlands would be inundated. About half of the world’s people would lose their homes under the water.

The predicted rise is caused by two factors: heat expansion of the sea water and the partial melting of the Greenland and West Antarctic glaciers. According to the IPCC, the thermal expansion of the water “would continue to raise sea level for many centuries after stabilization of greenhouse gas concentrations”. It will take about a thousand years before the warming will reach the bottom of the sea, but during this time the warming predicted for the next century could raise the ocean by four meters.

Some researchers claim that the West Antarctic ice sheet is also showing signs of becoming unstable. According to the last satellite pictures the largest glacier of the West Antarctic ice sheet, the Pine Island Glacier, is already losing ice faster than snowfall can replenish it. If the glacier continues to melt at the current rate, it will disappear in 600 years, raising global sea level by five more meters. And these five meters would come on top of the rise caused by heat expansion and by the melting of the Greenland ice sheet.

If these scenarios become true, the continuous rise in sea levels could become the most important single factor sustaining and deepening absolute poverty in the world – at least for a thousand of years or so. A major part of the world’s population would be pushed into the coastal areas threatened by the rising sea and by hurricanes, because no one else would like to live in these areas, and because the rich and powerful would appropriate for themselves all the good farmland in safer regions. When the sea level will rise, little by little, the poorest people would have to escape and move, over and over again, losing their homes and a major part of their scarce properties one time after another.

Also the areas that are lying on somewhat higher ground would be likely to suffer. Various extreme weather conditions like floods and droughts would become more common. The incidence of devastating typhoons and hurricans might increase by a factor of ten, if the world becomes five centigrades warmer than now. At the same time the destructive power of the worst storms might increase by 50 or 60 percent because of the higher temperatures – and higher wind speeds caused by them.

Besides of the sea levels, the most serious consequence of the global warming could be the drying of the tropical and sub-tropical areas. Even though rainfall would be likely to increase, it is likely that evaporation would increase even more.

A further threat comes from the melting of the Himalayan glaciers. The quantity of water in the Himalayan glaciers is not large enough to raise the sea level in a significant way, but the water supply of much of Asia will be affected. Major rivers of Asia get a major part of their dry season flows from the Himalayan glaciers. Indian scientists have projected that by 2030 many of the rivers originating from the Himalayas, including the Ganges, Kali, and Indus, will all be dry during the dry season. These are grave predictions, especially because the groundwater resources in South Asia, South-East Asia and China are also being depleted with a frightening speed.

Task 1

Interpret the following words in English:

negotiation, sequestration, melting, fertile farmlands, scenario, inundated, scarce, hurricane, logging, vulnerable, temporary, democracy, equality, fossil fuel, sink.

Task 2

Give synonyms or close words of the following words:

global, complex, to cause, well-off, segment, significant, to limit, to release, to use, to store, huge, indigenous, roughly, species, lengthen, rotation, average, damage, to trap, to increase, to decrease, aim, to predict, rate.

Task 3

Answer the questions and give your own opinion.

1. Do you agree that Global warming is the problem caused mostly by the rich? Why?

2. Why is it really a difficult problem for negotiating?

3. Why were many environmentalists against the inclusion of carbon sinks in the treaty?

4. How to make the establishment of carbon storage a forests long-term measure?

5. Why would carbon storage forests be less vulnerable to forest fires than ordinary forests?

6. How does the greenhouse effect refer to the ability of the Earth’s atmosphere to trap the Sun’s infrared radiation?

7. Where is a lot of extra carbon dioxide come from?

8. What does the increase of the average temperature by 1.5 – 6 centigrades mean for peoples on the Earth?

9. What will contribute to the rise of ocean level?

10. How would the climate change?

Task 4

Render the text into English.

Вырубка лесов

Тысячи лет назад леса покрывали большую часть Земли. Они тянулись через всю Северную Америку и большую часть Западной Европы. Большие территории Африки и Азии были покрыты пышными лесами, и также было во всех теплых частях Южной Америки.

Но затем, возможно 10000 лет назад, начались большие изменения. Люди научились выращивать урожаи и растить животных и начали вырубать деревья, чтобы освободить место для этого. С ростом численности людей леса постоянно сокращались и часто исчезали.

Леса - это больше, чем просто деревья. Это огромная экосистема, большая живая сеть, куда входят деревья, кустарники, травы, грибы, различные микроорганизмы, животные и многочисленные виды растений. Все это взаимодействует друг с другом и влияет на все, начиная с наличия пресной воды до климата в данном регионе.

Леса дают многое – тень в жару для путешественников, еду для голодных, медицинские препараты для больных и материалы для строительства жилья. Ну и конечно, они поглощают углекислый газ из атмосферы, уменьшая тем самым тенденцию к глобальному потеплению, и вырабатывают взамен необходимый для нас кислород.

Леса считаются возобновляемым ресурсом, потому что новые деревья могут самостоятельно замещать вырубленные. По подсчетам ученых, леса могут расширяться на 5 и более процентов в год. Но люди, которые используют деревья для своих повседневных нужд, вырубают их в таком темпе, что деревья просто не успевают вырасти снова.

Потеря лесов no всему миру является серьезной проблемой, потому что приводят к изменению количества осадков, резкому перепаду температур, изменению скорости ветров. Это также может вызвать нарушения в жизни и людей, и животных. Сжигание леса загрязняет атмосферу окисью углерода.

Многие тропические леса выросли почти на бесплодной почве и их вырубка/сжигание приводит к смыванию дождями тонкого слоя гумуса, поэтому многие территории бывшею леса превращаются в пустыню.

Леса являются источником существования для миллионов беднейших в мире людей. Многие из них теряют доступ к лесам из-за опустынивания, которое захватывает 16,8 миллионов гектаров земли в год. Обезлесивание приводит к увеличению экологических беженцев -миллионы людей были вынуждены оставить свои дома в Северной Америке, Карибах,. Африке и Азии, включая миллион людей только с одного острова Ява.

Леса обеспечивают нас древесиной для производства бумаги, смолой, резиной, маслами, лечебными растениями, а также другими менее необходимыми материалами.

Леса являются домом для миллионов живых существ. И если исчезают леса, исчезают и их жители. Леса предохраняют почву от эрозии. Когда деревья вырубаются, потоки воды не задерживаются и приводят к наводнениям.

Когда подножия Гималаев были покрыты деревьями, Бангладеш страдал от больших наводнении два раза в сто лет, а теперь в среднем каждые четыре года!

Существуют множество угроз лесам планеты, большинство из них связаны с деятельностью человека. Леса вырубаются для получения древесины либо сжигаются для дальнейшего развития в этих районах земледелия.

Вырубая деревья, люди сажают новые. Казалось бы, что ситуация не должна быть такой серьезной, какая она есть на самом деле. Но, чтобы компенсировать глобальный урон, наносимый вырубкой лесов, нужно засаживать деревьями около 375 миллионов акров земли ежегодно. Кроме того, рост лесов наблюдается только в малонаселенных районах Аляски, Канады и Сибири. В Юго-Восточной Азии и Латинской Америке этою не происходит. Африка тоже в этом списке – тропические леса здесь вырубаются гораздо быстрее, чем высаживаются. На каждые 29 срубленных в коммерческих целях деревьев высаживается только одно. С другой стороны, восстановление лесов не всегда возможно в тех местах, где это необходимо, из-за экономических или естественных причин. Повторная посадка деревьев не всегда покрывает вред, нанесенный окружающей среде.

Helpful vocabulary

Renewable fuel source, felling (вырубка), loss, precipitation (осадки), barren soil (бесплодная почва), wash away, humus (гумус), refugee (беженец), resin (смола), rubber, flood (наводнение), bottom (подножие).

Глобальное потепление ускорило эволюцию

Группа американских биологов из Орегонского университета обнаружила у местных москитов генетические изменения, связанные с глобальным потеплением. Их личинки впадают в спячку на 9 дней позже, чем делали это в 1972 году.

Изменения в поведении животных и растений замечались и ранее – с тех пор, как весна стала приходить раньше, лето начало удлиняться, а зимние морозы – смягчаться. Например, в Британии перелетные птицы улетают на юг на неделю позже, чем они это делали 30 лет назад, лягушки мечут икру на неделю раньше. Но то, что такие изменения связаны с генной мутацией, обнаружено впервые.

Исследование длится с 1972 года. Начиная с этого времени и по 1996 год, ученые собирали москитов, помещали их в специальные камеры с искусст­венными «днем» и «ночью» и изучали различия между ними. Например, уче­ным удалось уловить различия в поведении даже между москитами-88 и мос-китами-93. Выяснилось также, что за 24 года величина светового дня, при ко­торой москиты впадают в спячку, уменьшилась на полчаса. Если бы сегод­няшние москиты были перенесены машиной времени в 1972 год, то они все вымерзли бы, не успев впасть в спячку.

Helpful vocabulary

Mosquito, grub (личинки), bird of passage (перелетная птица), to spawn (метать икру), to fall into hibernation (впадать в спячку), to be destroyed by frost (вымерзнуть).

Text 3

Pre-reading task

Most citizens have the greatest contact with toxic pollutants not outside but inside their homes, offices and cars. These places are usually considered to be unpolluted but the levels of many contaminants proved much higher indoors than out.

Do you feel yourself safe at home and University? If not, what do you know about the pollution inside?

Reading

Read the text and look up new words in the dictionary.

Indoor Pollution

Daily routine exposes people to many harmful substances – chemicals known to cause cancer. Among them are toxic volatile organic compounds, including benzene (which comes from cigarette smoke); tetrachloroethylene (which is used to dry-clean clothes); chloroform (which forms from the chlorine used to treat water supplies) The main sources of other toxic volatile compounds are ordinary consumer products, such as air fresheners, cleaning compounds and various building materials.

Other indoor contaminants are: carbon monoxide, a product of incomplete com­bustion, that robs the blood of oxigen; fine particles - particles smaller than 2.5 microns in size - the product of combustion, such as smoking, cooking, burning candles or firewood; pesticides and heavy metals; dust mites, mold and animal dander, which are asthma-inducing allergens.

The main sources of indoor pollutants are right under people’s noses - most re­pellents, pesticides, solvents, deodorazers, cleansers, dry-cleaned clothes, dusty carpets, paint, adhesives, fumes from cooking and heating and cigarette smoke, to name a few.

Scientists in America came to the conclusion that everyday items, with which people happily share their homes, could be more dangerous to their help than industrial pollution. For example, benzene is known to cause leukemia in workers continually exposed to its high concentrations. It is present in gasoline, some household products and in tobacco smoke. The average concentration of benzene people inhale in their houses is three times higher than typical outdoor levels. Some 45 per cent of the total exposure to benzene comes from smoking (or breathing smoke exhaled by others), 36 percent from inhaling gasoline fumes or from using glues, 16 percent from paints and gasoline, stored in basements or attached garages. And only 3 percent comes from the industrial pollution. So living with the smoker is dangerous for one’s health.

Cutting all industrial releases of benzene would reduce health risks only to a tiny fraction. Yet even a modest reduction in cigarette smoking would significantly reduce the rate of benzene causing diseases.

Other volatile organic compounds that are quite toxic at high concentrations are also more prevalent indoors than out. The greatest exposure to tetrachloroethylene occurs when people live in buildings with dry cleaning facilities, wear recently dry-cleaned clothes or store such chemically laden garments in their closets. Moth-repellent cakes or crystals, toilet disinfectants and deodorizers are the major source of another cancer causing compound paradichlorobenzene.

It is clear that less contact with volatile organic compounds is better than more. People can reduce their harmful effect to the people’s health by avoiding products containing such pollutants.

But there are other worrisome vapours that are difficult to avoid. When people take hot shower, boil water or use clothes washers they inhale chloroform – a gas forming from the chlorine, used to treat water supplies. The only way to minimize household exposure to chloroform is to drink bottled water or to run it through a good-quality filter and to improve ventilation in the bathroom and laundry.

Better airflow can also help to reduce the level of carbon monoxide which can be very high indoors. This gas is particularly harmful to people with heart ailments. Poorly operated gas stoves, grills and furnaces can cause extremely unhealthful conditions – even death.

Another environmental concern that appears more severe indoors than out is the danger from fine particles. Exposures to these particles during the day are very high. Partly it can be explained by the fact that people do not simply float through the air. Theу usually stir up “personal clouds” of particle laden dust from their surrounding as they move about.

Indoor air contains ten or more times higher concentrations of pesticides than outside air. Such poisons can be trackled in on people’s shoes. Pesticides that break down within days outdoors may last for years in carpets where they are protected from the degradation caused by sunlight and bacteria. For example, the pesticide DOT, banned from using in 1972, was found in the carpet of the Americans twenty years later!

House dust is the major source of exposure to cadmium, lead and other heavy metals, as well as to many persistent organic pollutants. Carpets are most troublesome, because they act as deep reservoirs for these toxic compounds (as well as for dangerous bacteria and asthma-inducing allergens) even if the rugs are vacuumed regularly. Plush and shag carpets are more of a problem than flat ones; floors covered with wood, tile or linoleum are better for health, because they can be easily cleaned. Wiping one s feet on a doormat reduces the amount of lead in a carpet by a factor of six. Removing one’s shoes before entering is even more effective than just wiping the shoes. These preventive acts are very simple but they help to reduce the levels of contaminants considerably.

Sadly most people and officials as well are rather complacent about indoor pollution. The Environmental Laws are focused mainly on outdoor pollution ignoring the fact that people spend 95 percent of their time inside.

Few people know that the pesticides and volatile organic compounds found indoors cause perhaps 3000 cases of cancer a year. So these substances are just as threatening to people’s health as radon and tobacco smoke for nonsmokers. Toxic house dust can be a particular menace to small children, who play on floors, crawl on carpets and regularly place their hands in their mouths. Infants are particularly susceptible: their rapidly developing organs are more prone to damage, they have a small fraction of the body weight of an adult and may ingest five times more dust - 100 milligrams a day on average. Each day an average urban child ingests 110 nanograms of benzopyrene - it is equivalent to smoking three cigarettes.

People do not have to wait for their government to make changes in the environmental regulations. Reducing exposure normally demands only modest alterations in one’s daily routine. Giving up smoking, taking out carpets, improving ventilation, using water and air filters, avoiding household products, containing toxic compounds, will make our houses and offices healthier places to live and work.

Task 1

Give synonyms to the following words:

Pollutant, to treat, chief, fine, average, inhale, reduce, ailment, fraction, to release.

Task 2

Comment on the following words and word combinations from the text:

Daily routine, volatile organic compounds, dry-clean clothes, repellent, pesticides, solvent, deodorazer, adhasive, leukemia.

Task 3

Answer the questions and give your opinion.

1. How are we exposed to danger at home and University?

2. What are those substances that make our life dangerous?

3. Could we do without them? Could we reduce their harmful effect?

4. What recommendations could be done to those who worry about their health?

Task 4

Render the text into English.

Житель Бухареста скопил дома тонну мусора

Жители одного из домов румынской столицы уже давно заподозрили что-то неладное в одной из квартир здания. Дело в том, что въехавшего в нее пять лет назад жильца ни разу не видели выносящим мусор. В то же время из стран­ной квартирки стало потихоньку подванивать, причем с ка­ждым днем все сильнее. Со временем в доме появилось много тараканов и крыс, которых безуспешно пытались вытравить. Обитатель этого жилища по слухам был худож­ником, но он не общался со своими соседями, поэтому точной информации у них не было. Во время очередного отъезда загадочного жителя вонючей квартиры соседи вызвали полицию и взломали дверь. Их изумленным взо­рам предстала картина классической помойки, которая источала неповторимый и очень устойчивый аромат. Есте­ственно, было принято решение вывозить мусор, но его количество оказалось настолько велико, что пришлось ис­пользовать грузовик.

В результате из квартиры неизвестного румынского ху­дожника было вывезено более тонны мусора. После в здании провели капитальную дезинфекцию, чтобы навсегда избавиться от тараканов и крыс, так полю­бивших этот дом.

Helpful vocabulary

Stink (вонять), unsuccessfully (безуспешно), to exterminate/destroy rats (извести крыс), rumours (слухи), rubbish dump (мусорная свалка), to get rid of (освободиться).

Final task

Organize your knowledge on the topic and present a report on one of the following points.

1. Green-house effect as a great ecological problem.

2. Nuclear energy and the environment.

3. Is progress a reason of bad ecology? Why?

4. Problems of environmental protection. What should you do to survive?

5. Ecology and health.

6. Ecologization of scientific inventions.

UNIT 5

EDUCATION

As reforms in Russia began to slow down new approaches to the development of our market became apparent. They consist in the transfer from direct investment to large-scale, mass programs of training personnel capable of doing business in Russia. The best investment that Russia can make today is in education.

Text 1

Pre-reading task

Does tuition on a fee-paying basis ensure a better quality of higher education?

Are parents ready to spend a considerable portion of their family budget to provide a good education to their children?

Will the new generation see a new education system?

Reading

Read the text quickly and match the sections of the text labeled A, B and C to the following headings:

State plus society.

Is school getting better?

To pay or not to pay?